Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 20

< December 19	December 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VirusBurst

A prior AfD closure as "Keep" was overturned at deletion review and is now back here for reconsideration. Please consider the prior discussions, especially the lack of tangible evidence in the first AfD cited as reason to overturn the closure. This is a procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the article fails to establish notability of this particular threat. The link to Symantec gives the risk as "medium". I don't believe Wikipedia should become a repository of every possible piece of malware. I would like articles in this genre to meet the WP:SOFTWARE criteria and to have the very highest risk level designation of one of the major anti-virus vendors. JonHarder ^talk 03:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability in the world of malware and viruses isn't really set as such, but unless third parties are writing about it (other than say Norton and McAfee...) it doesn't really have much notability in my opinion. A quick scan of the definitions list for your antivirus software shows well over 50,000 known virus profiles, if each of those is worthy of an article... ouch. If, however, it's been written about in news sources or such, and the sourcing can be provided, then I'd say keep. As it is, delete with no prejudice. Wintermut3 06:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As JonHarder states, it is only a low level threat [1]. However, it does get 190000 ghits [2], mainly on ways to get rid of it. As per WP:CORP it would pass as there are many more than 3 reviews (albeit the reviews are all negative). However, as WP:SOFTWARE it's really only a minor player, alexa =8974, and how many of those are people looking to get rid of the maliscious adware. [3]. I agree with Wintermut3 that only the most notable of these would be worthy of an article. SkierRMH 06:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, no sources at all - no article. See WP:V and WP:RS. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete seems spammish. Just H 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not spam; the first sentence clearly states it is a fake application and a rogue software. If it is spam, they're doing a terrible job of promoting themselves. Wavy G 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that it's not spam, but do you think it's notable enough for its own article? -- Satori Son 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I had my own run in with this a while back, and when I was looking up the fix for it, I discovered that it seemed to be a pretty big to do at the time. Then again, the consensus here seems to be that it is not that notable, so what do I know? (That's a rhetorical question; don't answer it.) Wavy G 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wavy G. Big top 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE notability guidlines. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article makes absolutely no claim to notability - and in a quick search, I was unable to find any support for such a claim anyway. --Krich (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or Merge this into a larger article. Perhaps Malware. Charlie 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

İTÜ Sözlük

Apparently non-notable website, no indication of how it satisfies WP:WEB, internal information about the site's membership is WP:OR, no external sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - alexa = 24,951: [4]. MER-C 12:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn --incog 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per incog. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains original research, not a notable website so far. No reliable sources given either. --SunStar Net^talk 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sawtooth Grin

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 09:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. yandman 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't even list the last names of the band members. NawlinWiki 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to weak keep. The page has since been improved by authors - good call. Google research (see the article's talk page) pulls up just about 10k ghits that aren't here or on Myspace, so there's something of notability. Little on Wikipedia links to the article, but that may be irrelevant. I can't say better than weak keep for the grounds that it's notable within its genre (case in point: much of the furry related deletions that have happened here on WP), but I can no longer in good conscience at all say delete knowing that there's just about 10k ghits and therefore some notability. --Dennisthe2 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 00:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notability. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dennisthe2 --Mhking 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and the article hasn't been overly improved ("jazzy" guitarwork is not encyclopedic) dr.alf 03:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yandman, NawlinWiki and Selmo. TalwinHawkins (talk • contribs) 05:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately they don't meet WP:MUSIC standards. Atlantis Hawk 09:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. 10k ghits strongly suggests notability, the article just needs to assert that notability. JMalky 11:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dennisthe2. -Toptomcat 18:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it acutally releases (on a label, and not self-published) something of note. until then, all else aside, passes the just a glorified garage band test. SkierRMH,21:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per SkierRMH. Charlie 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel script

A page essentially based around advertising competing pixel advertising scripts. Prod tag removed so brought it here. Mallocks 13:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, adcruft. Makgraf 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 00:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cruft. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. Naconkantari 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John McBon

Hoax biography for an actor/researcher who doesn't exist. Google search only references pages from and linking to Wikipedia, and no entry under his name exists on IMDb nor the show pages for his alleged roles. Nate 00:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7. --Sable232 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 03:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mhking 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 15:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don V. Plantz

Google-search for "Don V. Plantz" gets 22 hits, most of them seem to concern an economist. The article in question is the biography of a geologist and a teacher (with a Ph.D.) at Mohave Community College, Mohave Valley Campus, Bullhead, Arizona (Google-search for "Don Plantz"). Notability? Oden 01:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:PROF, WP:BIO. Tevildo 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 00:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, fails WP:V too. MER-C 03:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've done some searching and can find nothing to make Dr. Plantz notable. Be sure to remove Don from the Mohave Community College article as well. He qualifies as speedy CSD A7 --jaydj 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:BIO -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 05:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. Naconkantari 04:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maid Marian Entertainment

Non-notable web-based software company. Fails WP:WEB: no more than trivial coverage, no awards, no other notable achievements. Almost all Google hits are press releases, advertisements, and Wikipedia mirrors. Article reads like an advertisement from start to finish; I don't see any neutral and notable content worth keeping. Kafziel ^Talk 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merely an advert -- delete -- Simon Cursitor 12:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advert. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-spam. Danny Lilithborne 03:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - second person spam. So tagged. MER-C 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW and WP:HOAX - Smerdis of Tlön 05:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sceabhar na dheasa

Looks suspiciously like a hoax to me, and there's nothing on google which indicates verifiability there. Anyone with the Gael who can translate the title, at least, to give some indication of what we're dealing with? Grutness...wha? 00:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious hoax. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This sure looks like a hoax. Unless someone can show that it isn't, it should be deleted. Heimstern Läufer 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definite hoax. Sr13 06:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax, and I'm hedging a bet on nonsense. --Dennisthe2 06:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tried http://www.englishirishdictionary.com/ and I just can't get the phrase to translate at all. There also seems to be a lack of accents and such on the various words which suggest it could be made up or less than notable. If it makes sense to the good folks over at Gaelic Wikipedia then they can have it. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely hoax. It wouldn't really be notable enough even if it was genuine. Bob talk 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely hoax. The spelling seems modern, or at least modernized; the bh and dh conventions are from Modern Irish, and relate to the adoption of the modern Latin alphabet as opposed to the Irish alphabet. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either hoax or so obscure its not mentioned anywhere, tried some standard works (books) and drew a blank Alf photoman 15:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense and non-notable - so tagged. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. 7 ghits[5], all from Wikipedia or mirrors. Hut 8.5 18:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being a patent nonsense hoax with no verifiability whatsoever.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G1 - Nonsense. JRHorse 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - g1.Baka man 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoaxy nonsense.-- danntm ^T _C 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, hoaxaliscious. SkierRMH,21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for what it's worth, I've already tried a G1 speedy on the article. It was rejected. It might go per WP:SNOW, but it seems that they who do the speedy deletes don't want this one. --Dennisthe2 22:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Google doesn't even recognize "Ian Pender" of Connemara as existing outside this article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as hoax. Big top 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has the aroma of a hoax.--John Lake 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete close
Delete, especially as no one has voiced an opinion to the contrary. Charlie 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it were real it would not be notable.Glendoremus 03:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zetawoof.Akanksha 17:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 15:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Teen Idol

Notability-tagged since June. "french teen idol" "andrea di carlo" -wikipedia -myspace gets 19 unique ghits. De-prodded without comment. Pan Dan 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 16:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 05:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:MUSIC's criteria for musicians and ensembles. feydey 08:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. Naconkantari 03:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Wallace

Note: orphaned AFD. I have no idea what's going on, but am simply adding it here. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article. Brad Wallace is a musician who has appeared on literally dozens of contemporary DIY hardcore punk recordings. This article simply needs more work and I have just gotten in touch with people who will improve it. --Driscoll 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - {{db-bio}}. So tagged. MER-C 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Driscoll... move it to User:Driscoll/Brad_Wallace and paste it back when it's a proper and verifiable article. --jaydj 03:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overwhelming consensus that the band is both notable and the article can be verified. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin Cock

Has released only one record on minor label, has gone on one sub-national tour, and gets insufficient press coverage so that it does not meet WP:BAND; previously speedied twice, but this time at least asserts notability . JChap2007 01:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source or delete. MER-C 03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no feelings on this either way, but anyone who wishes to keep this can start here and rewrite this article. --jaydj 04:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've changed my mind because of these news archive hits, but someone needs to cite these. --jaydj 04:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added one item of note, with source. One member is in notable band. --Savant45 08:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that somehow I have this on my iTunes and I have no idea how, since I don't even like this kind of music. So that can't be all that obscure. Ford MF 09:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'd like to say Keep this article but much of the sources I've looked at are only passing mentions, there's no full, proper reviews in any of the papers. There are an awful lot of passing mentions though, and one member is in a notable band (as defined by WP:NMG) so I'm unable to be swayed either way at this time. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poor article, but a quick google search throws up more than enough info to assert notability. And the name made me laugh :p JMalky 13:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rob Crow is in it. Verifiable, notable. Recury 14:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable guy, verifiability established. Ter e nc e Ong 14:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting band name, to say the least, but nevertheless a Google search establishes notability and verifiability. JRHorse 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per jrhorse.Baka man 19:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep needs to be sourced and re-written, but does pass the notability. SkierRMH 21:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Skier. Just H 01:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please this band is notable and has many sources available too Yuckfoo 02:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable band. I'll help out on the rewrite, as I was thinking of creating this article myself. Good band to check out if you're into Black Sabbath style metal. --Joelmills 02:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A1).--Hús ö nd 04:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mana (musician) gallery

A gallery of copyrighted images with no text -Nv8200p talk 04:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per no context--M8v2 04:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1. So tagged. Also going after images of questionable source. --Dennisthe2 04:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pydance

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a DDR clone like the others listed on Dance Dance Revolution, nothing really demonstrates that this needs its own article. Ashibaka tock 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 03:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable software. SkierRMH,21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- completely functional DDR simulator written in Python isn't quite 'non-notable' sendmoreinfo 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a DDR clone written in Python may be an interesting curiosity, and a testatement to the creativity and doggedness of programmers, but I don't see this as passing WP:SOFTWARE. -- Whpq 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notablity made in article - and I was unable to establish such via a quick search. No sourcing, only references the software project's own page. --Krich (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stepmania and Flash Flash Revolution are the only two DDR clones anyone cares about these days. - Chardish 09:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No offense, but I think FFR is much more notable for its forums than the game itself, which is more of a sort of community activity than an earnest DDR simulator. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. At any moment in the day there are about 1500 people on the site. vBulliten says there are "79,874 active members." Not too sure how vBulliten judges that, but I'd say about only 1,000 of those "active members" use the forums at all; maybe about 150 of them are long-time users. Just a rough guess. --68.192.68.55 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No offense taken, and the FFR game gets played 100,000+ times per day. That's far, far more than the number of daily forum posts. - Chardish 08:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into something, maybe Dance Dance Revolution or perhaps Stepmania. I doubt it deserves its own article, but I think it's worth a mention somewhere. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Popcon by-install rank of #11186 out of 61725 for package pydance. Not really all that impressive but far from abysmal. Might be merge material... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we really have to have 15,000 articles for the top 15,000 Debian packages? Ashibaka tock 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Popcon is not exactly that straightforward to interpret, while it is simple in principle; think of it as a glorified Google test. You can set a rather vague limits and interpret accordingly. WP:SOFTWARE suggests as much about its use, only that it can and should be used to gauge software's notability. My interpretation is that software above 10,000 line is notable and anything below 15,000-20,000 is probably chaff, and there's a buffer zone that fluctuates depending on what time of the day it is and how much coffee I've had. (See also below for time of the day.) You can probably find some other AfD where I'm pulling different figures out of my sleeves - it's all based on a gut feeling. My current idea, solidly on this gut feeling, is that if we include 15%-20% of what Debian thinks is their most remarkable software, we're sailing smooth and not including utter garbage. Also note that this thing tracks packages, not software; Debian compiles one source tarball into one or more packages. (There (at least used to be, if not still) packages celestia, celestia-common and celestia-gtk, and it's not uncommon to see -common and -data packages, not to even mention -doc packages!) Different versions of software can get into separate packages, should the maintainers keep them around to ensure compatibility. (There's mediawiki1.6 and mediawiki1.7.) There's pseudopackages that just depend on other packages. In the upper end, there's Software You Can't Remove Lest Stuff Would Break. And libraries and -dev packages, well, it's better not get into them, or we'd be still talking about them tomorrow. My point is, popcon by_inst <10,000 is much less of work that it sounds. And remember that MediaWiki is pretty darn remarkable and popular and it's still in the 7000s, last I checked. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (The following is 60%-serious tomfoolery, not a point or anything.) I see the nom's "No reliable sources" and raise "Press mentions to save an article no one will likely ever care about" (I'm sorry it's past 01:30 here and I've never had any clue about this smooth poker lingo ever, and I've never even read the article on this fascinating card game. I'm just a poor geek kid that was raised with Mario instead of Proper Manly Games.) I was pretty sure my chiss-sweesed brains had actually remembered that there was a mention of Pydance in some Linux magazine. Looks like they have a list of press mentions, but this one lists somewhat trivial mentions from print side (I have no idea if Linux Format covered it aside of just shoveling it to CD) though some online mentions are nontrivial. However, the article I'm remembering isn't here. (I'm thinking of Linux Journal, probably Marcel Gagné's column, but my memory is probably completely messed up in this regard, and it is, as mentioned above, past 01:45). Therefore, I see no other resolution but change my recommendation above from solid ~~Weak Keep~~ to extremely firm Weak Keep. (You know, because that's still based on notability rather than verifiability.) It's not the most remarkable DDR simulator or even influential, even when it's pretty impressive someone pulls this off with just Python - and like other people said, Stepmania kind of stole the show on this genre of software on OSS side. I'm just saying ~~Carthago must be deleted.~~ I mean, "lack of sources" argument is a bit funny argument if I waltz to the home page and find press rave. Now go forth and do the right thing anyway. Oops, I shouldn't use logic. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC) ('round 02:40 here, unless this clock is lying)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable DDR-clone. Like Chardish said, the only two DDR clones avaliable on the computer anyone cares for are Stepmania and FFR. --68.192.68.55 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not voting for obvious reasons, but I will mention this existed long before Stepmania went GPLd, and even longer before it worked on anything not Windows (you can verify that with the release dates of the programs; not sure what "no reliable source" means in reference to free software...). Certainly not a popular clone, but does Wikipedia want to have articles on popular software, or historically notable software? That being said, Wikipedia has too many stupid free software articles, including this one. piman 04:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text Text Revolution

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just another unimportant DDR clone which deserves mention only in the context of DDR clones in general. Ashibaka tock 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 03:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Revolution - as per MER-C. --tgheretford (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. non-notable. SkierRMH 21:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable; see WP:NN. Big top 23:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete close. Just H 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article makes no claim to notability. Fails WP:RS --Krich (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's non-notable. - Chardish 09:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though Delete Delete Revolution gave me a hearty laugh. Perhaps it should be an article... Charlie 22:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete n-n DaveApter 15:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance With Intensity

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. Sr13 07:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Intensity - as per MER-C. --tgheretford (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have this game on my computer and as far as I know it used to be pretty popular and is possibly notable enough for an article. However, if reliable sources can't be found that is a problem. Abstain, if deleted we should allow recreation with relaible sources however. VegaDark 11:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - still can't find any sources, thus fails WP:SOFTWARE - but willing to reverse if someone can supply documentation. SkierRMH,21:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete close. Just H 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no claim to notability in the article; fails WP:RS --Krich (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stepmania - the original developer of this project has moved on to develop Stepmania, and most former DWI players use Stepmania instead. It's an interesting historical note. - Chardish 09:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge material. DWI is, as far as I've understood, an influential program in development of dance sims, and other programs use its song file format too. A lot of music is distributed in DWI format. But, I really don't know if it's used anywhere and to what extent... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, delete, delete! - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VeggieTales: Dance, Dance, Dance

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Heh, I'd play it. But that doesn't make it notable. Heimstern Läufer 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. VeggieTales is cool! But the game isn't notable. Sr13 02:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Veggie Tales Just H 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, talking vegetable are cool, but delete, as it is non-notable and possible original resarch. –The Gr e at Llama^{sign here} 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting. Merge into Veggie Tales. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Sr13 and MER-C. --tgheretford (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Veggie Tales per above. SkierRMH,21:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sr13, MER-C and nom. Big top 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 15:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent (Y&R)

STRONG Delete : This is a very minor fictional character who appears rarely and is DEFINITELY not notable. Kogsquinge 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. feydey 08:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bob talk 13:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Santa

Very small, non-notable part of Invader Zim American Patriot 1776 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable song. Heimstern Läufer 02:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was actually tempted to speedy it as an attack page- it refers to the song and/or individuals as "evil" and "stupid." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notability. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and not worthy to redirect to The Most Horrible X-mas Ever, although it's a funny episode, the lyrics to this song aren't noteworthy. Piggies, I need piggies!! SkierRMH 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per unnotable song Natl1 22:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Square Ranch

This article was speedily deleted as advertising and later restored in a less spam-y version. I'm listing this on behalf of the deleting admin since notability still has not been established. ~ trialsanderrors 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail WP:CORP. Nothing on Google. MER-C 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with my page i will fix anything that you want. You have already deleted it once. I don't want you to delete my work again. I dont work for this company, i used to volunteer for them. I just want an entry for the ranch on wikipedia. -isoar4jc

isoar4jc, if you want a wikipedia article that's kept, I'd suggest you look up the relevant policies at what wikipedia is not, verifiability requirements Notability guidelines, and Notability criteria for organizations and Notability requirements for corporations. I can appreciate your desire to have someplace important to you on wikipedia, and I think you could write a great article, but sometimes it's tough to sort the wheat from the chaff in Articles for Deletion. If you have any news articles, published material from a third party, or other references, it would be great to see them, otherwise the organization might not meet our requiremts as per wikipedia:notability of organizations. Remember that notability is not the same as importance, there are many things important to many people that, sadly, are not verifiable enough for wikipedia standards. If you need any help, just drop me a line. As it stands, I'd say weak keep contingent on the providing of sources. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, if no sources exist, then delete. Wintermut3 06:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As of now, the article does not show that the topic is notable. Unless notability is established, this should go. And Isoar, I too understand the desire to have an article on something you've been involved in, but not all things are important enough for articles. The problem in this case is not the writing and such, but rather the topic of the article itself doesn't seem important enough. If you can provide links from third party sources that show that the topic of this article is notable then it is more likely to be kept than if it remains as is. --The Way 06:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Isoar4jc you should sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been to a Circle Square Ranch myself, when I was little. However, I agree it is not notable. Even if it was notable, its parent company, Crossroads Ministries doesn't have a WP article yet. Entertheinferno 10:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author First of all what do you call this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossroads_Christian_Communications and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Huntley_Street second CSR has been in the News, they are the SPCAs #1 coice for adoption of mistreated horses, they have a children's cancer recovery program(http://www.cancerrecovery.ca/project.php//), and many more for individual camps. Isoar4jc 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isoar, you'll need to supply links to the relevant news articles and those news articles must do more than merely mention the topic of this article; they'll need to discuss the topic enough so as to establish notability. These sources will also need to be cited in the article. If you can do this then I'm sure many of us who are voting for deletion would reconsider. --The Way 22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fine delete it your minds are made up. It is covered extensively on 100 Huntley Street, but since that is owned by crossroads, then you wont accept that. and most other news articles arent online they'd just be on local cannels or newspapers. I know alot of campers and volunteer staff who are visiting this page and would be very unhappy if it got deleted. isoar4jc 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) And stop call in me Isoar it's isoar4jc no capital and complete UID brainiacs.[reply]

comment isoar4JC: please don't get frustrated, and abbreviations of usernames are common, though they can be annoying no harm was meant I assure you. This debate is far from over, please don't give up and just leave. There appear to be some sources, if you can supply links OR MLA-format citations (for things that do not exist online) to third-party materials I'd be more than happy to include them. Despite the implication, online sources are not the only valid ones. I'd love to help you keep this, but I need your help in doing so. the SPCA materials appear to provide notability in my mind as well. Also: wikipedia sources are not considered viable, but if you can track down the sources on those other articles they may provide notability for the ranches as well. Wintermut3 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

isoar4jc My UID is already an abbreveation, an i'm just sick of peaple calling me isoar, sorry that you all caught the reaction to the same thing somewhere else. As to articles and news stuff, I am working on that, but its not as easy as you make it sound. I need to find stories aout specific camps which leads you on many wild goose chases. I'm currently on the trail of a huge news story about the rance in British Columbia being evacuated beacuse a forrest fire a couple years ago. (i was there when it happened, and the news crews were there to film the horses being evacuated) And have you ever heard of Shane Doan? He is the captain of the Phoenix Cyotes he was also the Captain of Team Canada in the last winter oylmpics. He is the son of Bernie and Bernise Doan who just happen to be the regional directors for the western camps, he was a camp kid. The stories exist but getting the specific articles is alot of work. Isoar4jc 03:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC) PS: Why are none of the other camps listed here under deletion review? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_summer_camps[reply]

Isoar4jc, please don't be mad at people for further abbreviating your name for the sake of brevity; editors often will refer to people by only the first few letters of their name and mean no disrespect. That aside, regarding your above comment: often times if its really hard to track down sources on a topic like this, that is a good indication that the topic itself isn't notable enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Stories about a camp having to be evacuated because of a forest fire, for example, tell us nothing about the importance of the camp itself. If there aren't sources that can explicitly tell us why this particular camp is notable (ie., why it is especially important, as 'average' camps, whether religious or secular, are typically not notable enough to warrant articles) then we will probably remove the article on the camp because we have to have third party sources. Also, having the son of someone important being involved in something in no way makes that thing particularly notable. Finally, in regards to other articles on camps, any of them which don't establish notability should be nominated for AfDs. --The Way 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Circle Square - There was a TV show back in the 70's/80's called Circle Square [6] and the locale for the show is the Circle Square Ranch. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comprimise with correct effort any organization could establish notability, thr only thing is that personaly don't have the resourses or contacts to to so on my own. merging the articles combines the notability of both, i think i could live with that. Isoar4jc 18:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Circle Square. Bearcat 10:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Straniak

I think this fails WP:BIO. There are references included, but the only claim to notability seems to be an association with the Nazis. Although important details that would establish notability are left out. For example, how often did the Nazis employ him? When did they employ him? I think without those details, we cannot establish a context for determining his notability. Delete unless cleaned up to address the above. I did prod this, but the prod was contested.TheRingess 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suggest people contribute to articles with important information rather than nominate them for deletion. Class it as a stub maybe? I have added references for further reseach on the person and he is known for far much more than the Nazi's as the references show. I will dig out decent biographical information and hope others do also. FK0071a 08:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless someone can prove this passes WP:BIO, as I am getting under 100 ghits: [7]. Ghits might not prove notability, but under 100 is pretty bad. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Patstuart^talk|edits 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know that the article is way below par, but you are ignoring the man himself and his wok on pendulum mumbo-jumbo like: STRANIAK, LUDWIG Die achte Gross-Kraft der Natur und ihre physikalischen Gesetze,

Delete - I concur with Patstuart, but the ghit count is 55. Verifiability concerns. MER-C 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ghits that low does not augur well, but I think the article's got legs. It's unreasonable to expect foursquare articles right out of the gate, particularly when the subject is as obscure as this one. It may take a while, but I see room to grow. Ford MF 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 09:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, I agree that the article is a mess and bizarre but there is room for development.--Dmz5 10:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is worse than a mess but it's well referenced which appears to establish notability. Someone who died 50 years ago but who was once notable is still notable per WP:N and even though there's little or no evidence on the 'net there does appear to be evidence in books and such, so it really has to stay. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough Nazi mumbo-jumbo witchdoctor, deleting them will just make them pop up again. The net is not the place to ascertain notability for something that happened 50 years before it ... this is a typical GO TO THE LIBRARY case Alf photoman 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can understand all your points, but all I've heard so far is "he's notable and you can't pay attention to google". No explanation of how he's notable, or why he passes WP:BIO. Could you elaborate? -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that there seems to be a lot of room for research and expansion. It seems to me that the article asserts its subject's notability, and beyond that this is a cleanup/expand job and doesn't warrant deletion.--Dmz5 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that this guy actually was reading cards, runes and whatever mumbo-jumbo for the notables of the Third Reich, who at the same time based some of their decisions on whatever he augured. Serves well to explain some of the inexplicable decision that can of loons took Alf photoman 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-referenced, asserts notability. --- RockMFR 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Google test is completely inaccurate for persons who lived before the internet age.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to keep an article Bwithh 03:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but some editors here use the Google test even if clearly inappropriate (Patstuart, MER-C, Split_Infinity).--Ioannes Pragensis 09:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I changed my mind after reading your well-researched vote. Delete.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete due to question marks over sources Just because there are books listed as references, does not make them reliable - or appropriate - sources. There are 5 books mentioned in the references section of the article. 3 of these have indexes which are searchable online. The indexes of two books by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke are available on Google Books[[8][9]. "Ludwig Straniak" or "Straniak" does not appear in their indexes or from the internal google search of their text. (There is only 1 passing, very brief hit for "Ludwig Straniak" in Google Books[10] and none for a mixed search term for Straniak and Nazi[11]. Also nothing on Google Scholar[12]) . As for the third book (by Peter Levenda), the index to is available on Amazon.com through the "Look Inside" function [13]. This does have a mention of Straniak in its index (p230-232). However, Peter Levenda appears to be a professional occult conspiracy theorist[14]. Yes, the latest version of his book has a foreword by Norman Mailer, but Mailer is a something of a fan of Levenda's conspiracy theories. For instance, see Mailer's review (front page of Levenda's site) about Levenda's first volume in his "Sinister Forces" trilogy about the "Satanic undercurrent" of American history (which Mailer still admits has little in the way of "hard evidence"). While there are two other books (one by a self-proclaimed mystic) on the list unavailable through google/amazon, what I've seen from the other three as well as other searches does not make me confident about this article. Bwithh 04:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup I found a text copy of the fourth book (the one by Baker) on this admittedly apparently unreliable website[15]. However, the pdf downloads as a full 168 pages of text with full bibliographical notes at the end and seems to be coherent and in good order. The pdf text search function works fine. There are zero hits for "Straniak". So that's 3 out of five books references coming up blank and a fourth one by a professional conspiracy theorist and the last (which I have not been able to check) by a "mysticist"/"magician" Karl_Spiesberger who was a proponent of runic magic[16]. Failure of WP:V/WP:RS. Oh, and there's the amateur "ghost research" website linked in the article as well[17] (written by a "ghost hunter"[18]) which is totally inadmissible as a reference. Bwithh 04:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are basing your opinion to much on a defective article and too little on the bloke himself. He was on of the leading figures in trying to bring about a pseudo-scientific acceptance of the pendulum mumbo-jumbo, see : STRANIAK, LUDWIG Die achte Gross-Kraft der Natur und ihre physikalischen Gesetze (Diessen vor München, J. C. Hubers Verlag. 1936) which is quoted by almost every pendulum augur Alf photoman 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bwithh's WP:V concerns. Kusma (討論) 08:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh, plus the supposed "Institute for Occult Warfare" would be "Institut für okkulte Kriegsführung" (and hence IOK and not IOW) in German and I can find no evidence for its existence. This is fringe occultism with fringe sources. ~ trialsanderrors 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

I want to clear this up. The references that are now in the article and listed below mention Straniak. I will scan the pages of all of these if it help you. Also, I will make youtude entries for the documentary references ot him if you like? Again I state that I suggest people contribute to articles with important information rather than nominate them for deletion. Class it as a stub maybe? I have added references for further reseach on the person and he is known for far much more than the Nazi's as the references show. I will dig out decent biographical information and hope others do also. Wiki is about supplying information for further research! FK0071a 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Books

Reveal the Power of the Pendulum: Secrets of the Sidereal Pendulum, A Complete Survey of Pendulum Dowsing, by Karl Spiesberger - ISBN 0-572-01419--8 {{Please check ISBN|0-572-01419--8}} (Der erfolgreiche Pendel-Praktiker) - 1962 [19],English translation, pp. 13, 15, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78-82, 82, 83.

Unholy Alliance: History of the Nazi Involvement With the Occult by Peter Levenda, (May 1, 2002, ISBN 0-8264-1409-5). pp. 230-232.

Occult Reich by J.H. Brennen, pp. 111 and 112.

Documentaries

Nazis: The Occult Conspiracy (1998), directed by Tracy Atkinson and Joan Baran, narrated by Malcolm McDowell.

"Decoding the Past" Episode: The Nazi Prophecies" by the History Channel [20] [21]

Hitler and the Occult by the History Channel [22]
Keep In view of the evidence just listed above. DGG 01:52, 25 December 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 no consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:56Z

Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto

Nothing here asserts notability above any other law firm; reads like an advert. Akihabara 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable "whistleblower" D.C. law firm. Even repped Linda Tripp. --Oakshade 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not convinced that this firm passes WP:CORP. Nothing but trivial mentions on Google. MER-C 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CORP. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely notable. RTFA. --- RockMFR 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't feel that the article makes it clear that this law firm played an important role in the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal (which would certainly make it notable), so for now I support deletion. Heimstern Läufer 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. The article itself doesn't clarify the notariety of this firm. SkierRMH 07:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article asserts numerous claims of notability - involvement in the Linda Tripp and related Clinton scandals, involvement in a major case against the IRS, media coverage... --- RockMFR 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Tripp case and IRS issue. JamesMLane t c 14:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Fang Aili, although for A1 and A7, not A3. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zahran Mall

The article is not notable Meno25 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good God, can't this be speedy deleted? Article says nothing except that it exists. Wavy G 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete the article is empty. --Mhking 03:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence provided to meet WP:MALL. MER-C 03:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A3. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 04:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:55Z

Aaron Marrs

Article does not make clear the "notability" of this person. This appears to be a tribute launched after the person's death, and I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place for that. Moreover, other website tributes have already been established: here and here. Radar1 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I did some searching and can find nothing on the news wires that says this is anything besides a sad story. --jaydj 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. also. feydey 08:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a memorial site per WP:NOT --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article appears to make a claim of notability due to subject's image on a music album cover - while the cover exists, I can't find anything that supports it as especially notable. It's nice to have friends that remember you fondly - a better memorial than a Wikipedia article. --Krich (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad, but non-notable. SkierRMH 07:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:55Z

Meinhard E. Mayer

Found tagged db-bio, but he's more than that - he's done some solid if very specialized work in theoretical physics, and has authored a textbook that I, at least, would consider notable. Opabinia regalis 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory for every University professor who published something minorly significant. My professor from college published four popular books in historical subjects, but then again so did nearly every other professor in the department! Wikipedia loses its legitimacy if we let this go on. The article creation also smells a little of vanity, especially since the user who created it is named User:Memayer. LeszekB 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book which he co-wrote seems well regarded and has had classes designed around it. I think more citations could be added to increase verifiability. --jaydj 04:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a researcher and as co-author of a significant and notable textbook. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
k- fairly notable as textbook author and researcher; however, the article itself needs work. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of references proving notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. The references provided are works that he has written, not "multiple third-party reliable sources" about the man himself or his works, thus there is no evidence showing that anything he has done is more significant than any other post-doctoral researcher. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as author of significant academic work. Ford MF 09:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, text books still used after emeritus status of the author are notable in themselves and therefore the authors Alf photoman 14:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - developer of a quite notable textbook.Baka man 19:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from a cursory search, the subject appears to be notable within his field. Not much sourcing in the article itself, but there appears to be sources available that support a suitable level of notability. --Krich (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it does need a bit of a cleanup. SkierRMH 07:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than enough to prove notability. But there is surely more to be added, although we do not need the complete list of publications. DGG 01:59, 25 December 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 per WP:SNOW and nominator's change to keep. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axino

We can't have an article which is two lines long in Wikipedia. I nominate this article to be merged and redirected with other articles or be expanded or else, we will have to delete it. There is no references, citations nor external links. Also, we can transwiki this article to Wiktionary Meno25 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful stub. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Dennisthe2 04:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. While theoretically (no pun intended) a useful stub, this is an unobserved particle that is related to another unobserved particle through an unobserved relationship, despite all of that being predicted by supersymmetry theory. I'm uncertain how much we can expand this stub; I do not know that many (any?) of the significant properties of an axino are defined by the extant mathematics ... and the current content of this article is duplicated within the longer superpartner. However, if I'm wrong, and there's more to say, please read my comment as keep, instead. Serpent's Choice 05:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Did my own homework, changed my mind. There have been entire papers discussing the potential properties of the axino based on differing supersymmetry model postulates. Serpent's Choice 11:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that, while still very much a stub, I've made this somewhat better than a 2-line substub, and added some refs. Serpent's Choice 13:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why can't we have an article that is two lines long? Size isn't a factor for an article or subjects inclusion and there are no policies that say they have to be so long, that's why they get labelled stubs. If we couldn't have anything that short then most articles would never appear and grow. Ben W Bell talk 08:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A short article can be very useful. If I am looking for information on the subject in question, it is better that it is all available in a single article. Dr bab, 14:04, 20 December 2006 (CET).
Keep Small light article for small light particle. Has references. Edison 15:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Stub is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the nominator. I must say that the article is very good now as can be seen here. Therefore I change my vote to Keep. The article now is a good stub.--Meno25 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TIBCO Software. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:51Z

Smartsockets

Non-notable software. Somewhat spammish, but doesn't fit my criteria for being blatant spam. Contested prod. MER-C 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to TIBCO#Products. --jaydj 04:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per jaydj. Josh Parris#: 23:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:50Z

Axel Scherer

Looks like a CV, has no content, no references, no citations, nothing! We can't have an article about some one only because he works in a university. I can't see a reason for notability here Meno25 02:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone who holds a named professorship is very likely to be notable. In this case, Axel Scherer is doing some particularly significant research. I added some references. -TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; meets WP:V fairly well. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, the only verifiable claim to notability is that he is a founding member of a manufacturing company. The page can add verifiability by citing sources for the other claims. Sancho McCann 07:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy A7. No notability is actually asserted in the article at all. He is a researcher at a university who presented some technology at a conference, and heads up a manufacturing company? Nothing in the article indicates why any of these three things is notable. MOST professors present papers or technological innovations (and nothing in the article indicates that it is an innovation), and there are LOTS of professors who are involved in private companies on the side to make extra income. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 07:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As with most every article that appears on the AfD pages, this one needs serious work, but with that in mind, Keep, so the work can be done. Ford MF 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough but horrible article... if it does not improve we will be back here next month Alf photoman 14:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does seem to be notable.Baka man 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see where it's asserting his notability. —ShadowHalo 05:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named chair at major research university (CalTech) is more than sufficient for notability. The article could use a lot of work, in particular explaining his past contributions better rather than mentioning one recent result, but that's not the same as deserving deletion. —David Eppstein 22:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He seems to be notable enough. The article needs work and some more cites though. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:48Z

Adventure Gamers

Non-notable fansite -- does not meet WP:WEB (which is not a proposal but an official guideline). Andre (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt The Earth, nn fansite; there have been plenty of those showing up lately. --Mhking 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass criteria #3, if the following is correct:

The site's reviews have been quoted on many adventure game box covers

Very few websites can make this claim. Throw on an {{unreferenced}} tag and give the editors some time to get some shots of the game boxes. --- RockMFR 06:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Criteria #3 is truly satisfied in this sense, "distributed via a medium" is specifically described as being via an online magazine or newspaper. I don't think that reviews on game boxes cut the mustard. Reading the footnote, it notes that sites satisfying Criteria 3 will invariably satisfy Criteria 1, however this does not seem to be the case. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 12:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem with WP:WEB. If you take it at face value, we could reasonably delete an article about a web subject which has content published in Time or Newsweek or something like that. WP:WEB is shitty in regard to offline publications. --- RockMFR 18:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Print and other offline media are hardly likely to republish web content. The Time and Newsweek examples are a misnomer; more likely they would publish an article about the website, thus satisfying Criterion 1. Even so, republishing in an offline magazine would meet the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:WEB so would be accepted by any reasonable editor. Mentions on game boxes does not meet the spirit of #3. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 07:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The metacritic and gamerankings distribution of their reviews surely makes them meet "3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." from WP:WEB --Amaccormack 06:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Metacritic and Game Rankings accept reviews from any website or magazine that is professional, regardless of notability. However, it does seem to be a well organized site with well written reviews, so Keep. TJ Spyke 06:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does professional mean in this case? Anyway, that they're used by third parties shows that they're notable, regardless if "notability" were a criteria for Metacritic and Game Rankings to include their rankings. Delta Tango • Talk 07:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Professional" as in not looking like user-submitted reviews. Also, yes it would have to be used by a notable website. I could start a crappy site and mention other crappy sites reviews, would that mean those sites deserve articles because they were mentioned? Besides, listing the score from this site is not distributing its content. TJ Spyke 07:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I of course agree with you about the third-party site having to be notable in itself, as per WP:WEB, I was just not as specific as I could be in my comment. Thanks for your informative comments and your prompt reply. Delta Tango • Talk 07:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, that is not entirely correct. Game Rankings say "Only Sites in Bold are used to calculate the Average Score used in the Rankings." and Emboldened sites are ones that have been assessed as notable by CNet. AdventureGamers are a site that appears in bold (see the referenced link for gamerankings). Game rankings criteria for emboldening can be seen at http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/help.asp --Amaccormack 09:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep per above. Delta Tango • Talk 07:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)~~ Neutral for now. Delta Tango • Talk 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article fails to cite "multiple third-party reliable sources" for its info, the only reference provided being the website itself. If the website itself is demonstrated to be the subject of multiple non-trivial citations, ~~or indeed can demonstrate that its reviews are in fact listed in game box covers,~~ then ignore my !vote. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 08:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Zunaid, mobygames have this box picture with an adventuregamers quote and another one another and another yet another one more for luck --Amaccormack 11:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not entirely sure if I did it correctly, but I added the box-art links to the page as notes - AGA 11:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've carefully re-read WP:WEB again (and I apologise for simply accepting RockMFR's statement at face value the first time), and as I've mentioned above, I don't think that Criterion #3 is satisfied by "reviews on game-boxes", except perhaps on a technicality. #3 specifically mentions online newspapers and magazines when describing what it means by "distributed via a medium", thus I still feel the article fails WP:WEB per the #1 criterion. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 12:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some more notability. Ragnar Tornquist says about AG (amongst others) "the reviews from established adventure gaming sites like Adventure Gamers, Just Adventure, and Quandary - to mention a couple - were very important to me"[23] (my bold). --Amaccormack 11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on Ragnar Tornquist seems to be AfD material itself for not asserting notability (unless being a game designer is inherently notable?), and the source you cite is his personal blog. I would hesitate to count it towards asserting the notability of this website. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 12:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blogs are allowed as references if they are made by an established expert. Since Ragnar has made a number of very popular (The Longest Journey had sold 450,000 copies at full price in July 2002[24], couldn't find info on sales since then) adventure games, he is perhaps an expert on adventure game sites. If Peter Jackson said that a particular Film Review website was important in his blog, would that count? --Amaccormack 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More notability: --Amaccormack 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Article on adventuregamers in PC Master, a Greek gaming magazine. (August 2002)
2. Featured in the TV program GameQuest on the Dutch channel Veronica. (December 2000)
3. Featured in "Webtips: De 1019 Beste Websites Verzameld" (2000, Issue #1) among large commercial sites such as GameCenter and PC Gameworld.
4. Screenshot of Adventure Gamer featured in "English Quest 2", an Australian secondary school textbook. The site is used as an example to encourage students to think about the construction of effective web pages. (September 2000, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd., tentative print run 20000 copies)
5. Listed in the bibliography of "Ecrire Pour Le Jeu: Techniques Scenaristiques Du Jeu Informatique Et Vidéo" by Emmanuel Gardiola, (June 2000, Editions DIXIT)

Comment: More notability: -- Technitai 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cited in academic article, "Virtual Recentering: Computer Games and Possible Worlds Theory" by Jan Van Looy http://www.imageandnarrative.be/tulseluper/vanlooy.htm
Article reprinted on the website of Ernest Adams, a recognized game design consultant, teacher and author http://www.designersnotebook.com/Scrapbook/AdventureGamers/adventuregamers.htm

- I've checked out the two links provided and am making a best guess at the content of the non-links. The first link (citation in the academic article) is for the definition of an adventure game and does not exactly contribute to the meat of the article as it were, i.e. the coverage of AdventureGamers in the context of the article is trivial. People cite Wikipedia all the time for definitions and such-like; it doesn't make Wikipedia content any more reliable or notable. The second link is an interview with Ernest Adams conducted by Adventure Gamers. Of course it's going to be published on AdventureGamers and of course Ernest Adams would see fit to republish an interview with himself on his own website. This doesn't lend any more notability to AdventureGamers per se. The magazines and TV programs cited don't seem notable in and of themselves. In summary, what we have is some notable coverage in non-notable media, as well as non-notable coverage in notable media, none of which satisfy WP:WEB. Does the collective power of so many references establish notability? IMHO, no. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 07:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where does it say in WP:WEB that the "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" ought to be notable in themselves? Wouldn't such an additional constraint lead to a circulus vitiosus when trying to establish anything's notability? I believe that if you agree the coverage itself is notable, it should suffice. 87.206.136.183 10:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notability now appears firmly established. -Toptomcat 18:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the site may have started as a fan page, in the years since its inception it has become the defacto news and editorial source for a sizable pocket of the game community, not just for fans of adventure games and storytelling in games, but for developers of those games, and even other members of the press who cover such games. This has been covered pretty well by the increasing pile of links about the site being posted above. The site's notability and credibility have been well established by others in this thread. Ja2ke 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's worth noting that this AfD proposal seems to at least partially be a result of an only tangentially-related spat between a member of Adventure Gamers' staff and a Wikipedia mod over whether or not certain Wikipedia articles covering small independently developed freeware adventure games should or shouldn't be deleted. Ja2ke 19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be a little more specific? I was not aware of such a spat. Andre (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amaccormack, especially his comment on the WP:WEB talk page: who reviews review sites? The current rules effectively ban a review site from ever being mentioned in Wikipedia. This is clearly counterproductive. Furthermore, WP:WEB is explicitly descriptive, not perscriptive, and I'm amazed that it's used as a demand. --Kizor 12:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:47Z

Christmas Down Under

Minor Australian children's book. Doesn't appear on Google, and it's apparently only in two Australian libraries. Nothing from Amazon either. I found no information using our Booksource either (except the two libraries it was in). Doesn't meet verifiability. Wafulz 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does show up on google with a tweak to the search terms[25], but only as a book and CD available[26] through the selfpublishing site Lulu.com Bwithh 06:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BK Chovain 06:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:BK criteria. feydey 08:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree.--Hu12 13:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; sounds like "Christmas Down Under" is also a more generic term to describe Christmas in Australia. JRHorse 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find anything on Google News Archive. Doesn't seem to be notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- self-published books via lulu.com don't qualify for inclusion IMHO. -- Longhair\^talk 11:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- useless article about an obscure kid's book. -- Dasnedius 17:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remain civil.--Wafulz 19:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:47Z

New Destiny Church

Contested prod, prod read "Unverifiable, fails WP:V (no Google hits for "New Destiny Church" plus Proost, 3 weak hits (own website plus two uninformative ones) for "destiny church" plus proost) If it is notable but has another name, then please create an article with the correct name." There are a few "new destiny churches"[27], but they seem unrelated (and pretty unremarkable as well). New destiny chruch plus proost gives nothing[28]. None of the three links given in the article seems to work (one "not found", one "under construction", and one "domainname not used". Fram 06:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable. (Also, just a comment: the creator of the article is Newdestinychurch). Sancho McCann 06:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and prod reasoning. Unverifiable. Delta Tango • Talk 07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. feydey 08:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI, WP:V failure, and above all, religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CHURCH. Lacks independent sources to show notability. One would think a genuine Apostle would get some newspaper coverage. Edison 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated above--SUIT 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as verifiability violation; see WP:V. Big top 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:46Z

Curious George 2

This is a complete hoax. It is, according to the article, being released in 2009, and of course all the values in the infobox are set as TBA. Hoax. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Sancho McCann 06:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that a google search for "Curious George 2" gets a Malware warning from Google. Not sure it's related, but interesting to note. Chovain 06:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, by the way, I checked the cache, and the flash movie was titled "Curious George Discovers Alcohol". Just proves that it is a definite hoax. Sr13 06:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced crystal balling. MER-C 06:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is this? WP:CRYSTAL! Sr13 06:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB doesn't have anything on a sequel. See search results from IMDB. Delta Tango • Talk 07:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, WP:CRYSTAL applies. feydey 08:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it is unsourced and crystal balling and should be deleted but I think we're being a little to quick to throw around the word "hoax." It could have been created by someone who read about it or heard about it somewhere and decided to create a stub.--Dmz5 08:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmz5. Danny Lilithborne 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal balling, when it's got some sources to hammer an article from then please reinstate it. Create Curious George 3: George Goes to Hartlepool instead. QuagmireDog 14:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Sr13. -Toptomcat 18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Hut 8.5 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-ball ruling; see WP:NOT. Big top 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Curious George (film). Unreferenced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 22:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:46Z

Monkey Alan

This article is about a non existent character in a TV show. Thus the subject cannot be notable because the subject does not exist, except in occasional scripted references to it. Prodded and author removed prod. Fiddle Faddle 07:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently unverifiable, non-notable and painfully trivial. "This is yet to be confirmed and, from the actual shows alone, is impossible to confirm." - which renders one half of this stub as pure speculation. QuagmireDog 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:46Z

Color or Country

Article was nominated once, and the discussion focused almost entirely on one group of editors trying to convince another incredulous group of editors that the game actually exists. Nominated again, attracted almost no attention. I would like to renominate the article on the grounds that it is unverifiable. There are no third party sources that discuss this in any non-trivial way. Only a few hundred google hits, most irrelevant, many mirroring wikipedia. I do not doubt this game exists but if the only sources we can find are mentions in posts to a math camp message board, it does not warrant an article. Dmz5 07:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that the unverifiable nature of the article is the root of all its other problems, namely a lot of original research, complete lack of sources that might confirm notability (which I am for the moment not going to challenge), and a general air of WP:NFT which may or may not be the case.--Dmz5 07:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reliable secondary sources dealing with this game. --Metropolitan90 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reading the 2 previous Afd's - it could be a game. Still after all that to have 0 sources says something (unverifiable). feydey 08:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmz5's well-reasoned nomination. Danny Lilithborne 10:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Smells of WP:NFT. MER-C 11:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mornington Crescent (game). CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Are you advocating it be merged into the "similar games" part at the bottom? That section seems to be getting long enough to split into a list article, but I am still concerned about notability. --Dmz5 19:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its unverifiable and, even if it could be verified it doesn't seem notable. Also, as a side note and not as a reason for deletion; if this game is, in fact, real, it has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of. --The Way 22:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ -- ah heck, Delete. AfD has come a long way in a year. On this article's first nomination for deletion, there were large numbers of people around who thought "delete because it's stupid" was a valid reason, and I voted keep largely to counter that. (I also cared because I had edited the article.) AfD now is much more focused on well-defined standards of verifiability, which I must admit that Color or Country doesn't meet. I'll be sad to see it go, but it makes sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Echo Rspeer, basically - while I oppose a "delete because I don't know what it is," which was a large part of the previous AfD, I agree with and support a "delete because it can't be verified to Wikipedia standards." Sho Uemura 05:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:42Z

Saga Communications Tower Alleman

As cleanup following successful batch deletions of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating another 21 radio and TV towers on mainland USA which are below 460 meters tall (there are still 21% of all the masts listed which are 460m tall or more). None of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most of these have been stubs for over a year, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 07:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless there is demonstrable proof of some sort of notability besides their mere existence. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Absolutely devoid of notability and all articles repeat information included in List of masts except that they're used for TV (which could so easily be added to that article if anybody was interested). I'm sorry that someone put all that work into creating all of these articles, and that someone else has to put all the work into deleting them. Neil916 (Talk) 08:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect Why the campaign to remove information from Wikipedia? What harm is this doing? And can we stop these nominations until we see what the consensus is with the previous ones (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wand TV Tower)? --Sandy Scott 09:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please refer to links above piped in "successful batch deletions of unremarkable masts" for history of consensus deletions. Barring any last minute rush, KDEN TV Tower is headed for a near unanimous 'delete'; There are 2 merges and you're the only vote for 'Keep' in Wand TV Tower and KSAX. There are apparently no issues with the principle of deleting these stubs. The only misgivings are the size of AfD nominations. Ohconfucius 10:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing... please refer to the first mass mast-deletion debate, and note that nobody wanted to do the work to create redirects to another article. As action speaks louder than words, surely that speaks volumes? Ohconfucius 11:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above unless the articles have some source of notability.--Meno25 09:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt every single non-notable tower/mast article on Wikipedia. (as I have said in all previous mast/tower AfD nominations) I think it is the only way that this problem of non-notable masts will be resolved. I would also request a review of these mast articles with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio. Wikipedia is not the MB21 transmission gallery of TV/Radio towers/masts. Any UK based mast information that isn't there should be given to the aforementioned website, and removed from Wikipedia. They won't grow beyond a stub and fail WP:NN miserably as well as WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. --tgheretford (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no non-US masts are being proposed for deletion here. Ohconfucius 10:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am aware of that, but there are a good number of non-notable masts outside of the US which need to be reviewed as with the US masts up for AfD as I stated above. --tgheretford (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. MER-C 11:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These articles do great harm by filling Wikipedia with stale copies of non-notable info from a database. The huge number of articles were createdd in April 2005, and add nothing to the database from which they were copied. As that database changes over time, there is no automatic process to move changes into this one. TV stations buy taller masts, or the old one blows down and gets replaced, and we take up server space with stale data. Instead, just include a link to the external database in the master article on masts. Edison 15:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Big top 23:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notable —EdGl 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-20 09:22Z

R Unot

There is no way Adolf Hitler could have had a son in 1978; that is pure poppycock. Definite hoax. Only 72 ghits for "R Unot". He sounds really really dreamy...I'd love to get laid by this Jamie fellow.Sr13 07:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax or not, it's an A7 bio with no assertion of notability (unless having "a certain knack for wrestling" counts). Would be a regular delete anyway, per WP:BALLS. Borderline vandalism and/or patent nonsense. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. feydey 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I don't even understand what this is supposed to be about. --Metropolitan90 07:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 even with the outrageous claims. Pure baloney otherwise. Neil916 (Talk) 08:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, db-web. Life would be so much easier if MER-C had been given the mop... Deizio talk 13:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvote

non notable website.[29][30]. --In the london 08:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7, unremarkable web content. No assertions of meeting the criteria of WP:WEB. Neil916 (Talk) 08:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Neil916. Danny Lilithborne 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 11:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:41Z

Serenity (spirituality)

Dictionary definition not likely to expand beyond a stub. Wiktionary already has an entry for serenity, so it's not a candidate for transwiki. – Anþony talk 08:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 11:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There isn't any reason that we couldn't have an article on this topic. Surely, there's been enough philosophical, religious, and spiritual writings on the topic to allow an encyclopedic article. That said, deleting this stubby dicdef (per WP:WINAD) won't make that article harder to write in any way. Serpent's Choice 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added there a link to the Niebuhr's prayer and an external link for it; but serenity is a theme not only in the Christian mystics. Amazon.com has e.g. "The Path to Serenity: The Book of Spiritual Growth and Personal Change Through Twelve-Step Recovery" (Minirth-Meier Clinic Series) by Robert Hemfelt, Frank Minirth, Richard Fowler, Paul Meier - so it is a generally important theme. - The sad fact that something is a short stub does not mean that it should be deleted.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The prayer already has its own article. Even if there is an article to be written about the concept of serenity, deleting this article won't make writing that article any harder. – Anþony talk 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if we delete it now, it will be very hard to re-create it, because it will be speedy deleted as re-creation of deleted material. It is extremely hard to revert the AfD decisions here. Regarding the prayer's article, it should link just here, because the prayer is only one instance of the concept's presence in the history of spirituality.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, authors are going to link that word when they want that term, and disambiguating will be a nightmare without it. Josh Parris#: 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a lot to be written about serenity: the extent to which it is emphasized or ignored in various religions/spiritualities, recommended paths to serenity by various spiritualities/religions, debate about the extent to which serenity is an attainable goal, etc. Agree w/ Ioannes: "The sad fact that something is a short stub does not mean that it should be deleted." Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 12:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Conscious 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacHeist

Nominated for deletion by 72.240.153.72. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have nominated for afd, a related article My Dream App. Bwithh 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many people seem to not know what it is, and an article like this explaining it is essential. --Biiaru 12:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, assuming nobody finds reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I refer you the extensive news coverage including:

the homepage of Wired News: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/software/0,72333-0.html?tw=wn_index_1
Slashdot: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/17/2022219
theappleblog: http://theappleblog.com/2006/12/14/macheist-hits-50k-mark/
macslash: http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/15/154251
macrumors: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/12/20061215115832.shtml
oreillynet: http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2006/12/oh_what_a_world.html
lifehacker: http://www.lifehacker.com/software/downloads/download-of-the-day-macheist-bundle-mac-221833.php

Was top of the "most popular" lists on del.icio.us and digg, returns 1,140,000 google articals, and not only that it was included in the weekly News Summaries for sendittopress.com: http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2006-12-1216-001.shtml

All in all this site in such a short period of time became on of the most significant events in the Apple Mac indie software movement. --86.15.162.159 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Um... what? Wired, maybe. But you included Slashdot as "news coverage"? Under what definition is mention on Slashdot "news coverage"? The others are no better. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to encyclopedic notability. A contest like this needs publicity otherwise it can't operate. So it gets computer press coverage. But wikipedia is not a magazine/news archive Bwithh 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I disagree, I have removed the "mac-fanboy" section that was un-encyclopedic, and have spoken to the guy who wrote it. However, it did raise some interesting points, the major being that as a new style of marketing an otherwise niche software market it succeeded. Moreover, this was an unprecedented event within the macintosh community which has, (by initial estimates), boosted the mac shareware economy considerably and is already considered a landmark event in the history of the macintosh community's close relationship between software makers and users. Personally I question the necessity to have articles on Wikipedia about individual episodes of south park, and yet they remain unchallenged. This event actually meant something to the mac community, and is worthy of inclusion in Wikipeida. 86.15.162.159 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nice that it meant something to the Mac community. Meaning something does not override WP:V. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a participant in this site, as well as being an admin at Wikipedia, I don't like the position I'm in. However, since this was a big event for the Apple rumors community I would say that this would be a keep because of the scale of the event. (However, I would not say the same for My Dream App). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event has turned out to be important to the Mac community. And I don't know if this counts as a reliable resource, but here's one more article:

Macworld: http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/11/20/macheist/index.php

Sorry if I did this wrong, first time using Wikipedia as a voice instead of a viewer. --adamdash

Weak Delete. I'm not sure about WP:V (although if it passes, it is by a very, very thing margin), but considering the debate that the event caused, I think the article also needs to be considered with WP:NPOV in mind. --67.37.110.70 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely doesn't have WP:V. --69.23.80.84 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a fairly well-known project, has some reasonably big names, and was quite conterversial to some people. —JeremyBanks Talk 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course this is going to be in all the computer media, that's natural. Still not worthy for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. — Wackymacs 13:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shouldn;t be in an encyclopedia
Keep. People around the net have been hearing about this and don't know what Macheist is about, this page clearly explains its content, purpose and mechanics. --R031E5 21:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tens of thousands of members, hundreds of thousands of dollars raised in charity, and contributions from many major developers should definitely signify some notability. --YesIAmAnIdiot 00:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I visited this page for the very reason of finding out more about Macheist!
- The MacHesit website and official wiki take care of that for people. --69.23.80.84 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a rather prominent event in the Mac community. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great, but as discussed above, this does make it WP:V --69.23.80.84 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does someone have a reference which is not wired.com or slashdot? -Amarkov

^blah_edits 17:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been one of the most important (IMO) sites in the Mac community this year. It has helped unknown developers become famous, and should be here so people of future generations can look back on it. Maxinater 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well I have found two references in the computer magazine macworld: http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/11/20/macheist/index.php http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/mwpodcast/2006/11/mwpodcast58/index.php plus it can be found http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36418 and on the O'Reilly Media website, http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2006/12/taking_the_heist.html I have to say this event is worth of being here, for the sheer scale of interest it caused both inside and outside of the mac community. --Adamwilcox 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No print references? — Wackymacs 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe macworld are including it in their next issue, but you know the delay between online and print. always amazes me how tech magazines stay in print, they can never compete with the online counterparts.

Macworld don't always put everything in their magazine (since there are too many news stories), so we can't count on that happening. I haven't seen much mention of MacHeist outside of Mac/Tech sites. I still don't think this even meets the Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria (since there hasn't been mention in any print publications, it hasn't won any awards, etc). The web notability criteria does not allow Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. - so Slashdot, Macworld, Wired don't exactly count. — Wackymacs 21:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promoting garbage
Keep This artlice accuratley describes a website for a business organization, if you will, that offers games to its consumers, no different than say Yahoo or Google —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.132.24.116 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Except that Google and Yahoo are global brands and multi-billion dollar businesses, both listed on the stock exchange? — Wackymacs 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a reason we got rid of Phill's page, and there's a reason we should get rid of this one. MacHeist is way overblown, handled on controversial terms by a boy known for his underhanded ways. He doesn't deserve a fraction of the attention he's getting, and there's no reason he should be on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.140.223.210 (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Monarch

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-20 09:24Z

Delete Concerns about WP:RS. A load of allegations, nothing solid. Tinfoilhatcruft. --Folantin 09:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Folantin. If its existence is open to doubt, then you can almost guarantee that Wikipedia should not have an article on it - here WP:V, WP:RS. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Project Monarch or Operation Monarch is reputedly a subsection of the Central Intelligence Agency's mind control research" (emphasis mine). Well, we can't write an article about rumours, can we? MER-C 11:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, and watch. Moreschi's reasoning is understandable, but it's actually incorrect. Wikipedia has, and should have, articles on many things whose existence is open to doubt, or has even been completely disproven: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the Hitler Diaries; the Cottingley Fairies... This article should not be kept because any of the bizarre and outlandish claims made about Project Monarch are believable; far from it. It should be kept because those bizarre and outlandish claims have received a measure of attention in and of themselves. In fact, since probably the most exposure the Project Monarch 'theories' got was with the publication of Brice Taylor's "Thanks For The Memories ... The Truth Has Set Me Free! The Memoirs of Bob Hope's and Henry Kissinger's Mind-Controlled Slave" and the ensuing media attention, the article really needs to be revised to include information about Taylor's book. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fine. But look. At the moment this article contains no reliable sources and notability is not asserted, much less backed up by more reliable sources. Under those circumstances, it should go. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Pretty major conspiracy theory. A need for improvement is not an argument for deletion. Ford MF 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tinfoilhatcruft - I like that. How do we measure the significance of a conspiracy theory? Obviously Kennedy conspiracy theorys need articles in the context of the main article but this? .... I think not. Spartaz 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA is good, The CIA is great, I say DELETE as of this date. Oh, where was I. Anyway, there really is not significant material about this conspiracy theory presented to write a decent NPOV article on it, and I would like to see that the conspiracy theory was notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danntm (talk • contribs)
Do Not Delete There is ample evidence out there that this is no conspiracy theory. It is Conspiracy Fact. Read The Franklin Coverup, Trance-Formation of America, The Montauk Project books. It should not be deleted and/or censored from this site. Why are the Wikipedia pages dealing with Government Conspiracy's being negatively modified and /or deleted from this site. Someone is going to great lengths to conceal this information. LEAVE IT ALONE!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.177.202 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm sorry, but your claims are incorrect. You'll notice that there has never been any attempt to delete the article on Project MKULTRA from Wikipedia. This is because there is actual evidence indicating the existence of Project MKULTRA. Contrary to your claim that there is "ample evidence" on there really being a Project Monarch, all we have ever gotten on the subject are ample claims. Merely repeating and amplifying the same claims over and over does not make them "evidence" instead of claims. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This afd is about the rumors of the project rather than the project it seems. The project probably wouldn't be able to meet WP:V due to its nature. Just H 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deizio talk 13:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiven

Non-notable business. Fails WP:CORP. SWAdair | Talk 09:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 03:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Stalinist left

Neologism. An arbitrary collection of diverse political tendencies, with no encyclopediatic value of its own. Soman 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[31]

--Inbloom2 10:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many terms give google hits, but without deserving separate articles. I'll go through the article on New York, and present my views on it later today. --Soman 10:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn neologism, 813 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 11:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Neologism? I have seen the term used in books and magazines decades old. For example, A Margin of Hope by Irving Howe was reviewed in the Winter 1982/83 issue of Foreign Affairs as "A compelling account of the author's youth, education, and decades of warfare in the anti-Stalinist Left." So the term was clearly well-understood by then. The term is also used in the May 24, 1982 issue of the New York Times, on a separate subject from Howe and Wald's books: "Nowhere were these issues more vigorously debated than in the offices of Partisan Review - the leading magazine of the anti-Stalinist left and for many years a kind of highly tuned seismograph of the intellectual climate." This was a major intellectual current within the Left in its time. Andrew Levine 11:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And in another context (still relevant to the article, though), here's Time Magazine way back in 1946 talking about "Anti-Stalinist leftists": [32] And Hanna Rosin in Slate freely talking about the "anti-Stalinist leftists of the 1930s and '40s": [33]" Andrew Levine 11:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I created this page, so I've got a vested interest. I'm not sure what you mean by "neologism" - yes, it was coined at some point in the 1930s as a neologism, but has become part of the vocabulary of the left. The collections of political tendencies are diverse, but they are not arbitrary: as the article says, "The term anti-Stalinist left tends to be used in relation to those currents of the left that define themselves centrally in opposition to Stalinism, rather than anyone on the left who is critical of Stalinism." BobFromBrockley 11:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the problem is exactly in the formulation "tends to be used". The term is a POV usage by certain groups for their own self-identification, rather than an encyclopediatic criteria. There are many other contextual identifications, like 'Revolutionary Left', 'Progressive Left', which have no encyclopediatic article value of their own. --Soman 12:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: What you're essentially saying here, Soman, is that only proper nouns deserve encyclopedia pages, as pretty much everything else falls into the "tends to be used" category, from revisionism to progressivism to, for that matter, socialist, which are all context-bound, but surely deserve pages? BobFromBrockley 13:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: No, that's not what I'm saying. Ideologies like Socialism, Conservatism, Trotskyism are ideologies that can be quite clearly defined, an should thus have separate articles. 'Anti-Stalinist left' concernes various ideological tendencies, grouped together. This is where the contextuality becomes problematic. Who defines that it is these tendencies comprise one single movement, in spite that their formulations of policy and political action are separate? --Soman 13:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: "'Anti-Stalinist left' concernes various ideological tendencies, grouped together." The exact same can be said of Liberalism and Conservatism. Why not delete those, as well? Andrew Levine 19:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment': ? Liberalism and Conservatism are rather clearly demarcated ideologies. There is for example, a Liberal International. This doesn't mean that they are homogenous ideologies. Is there any Anti-Stalinist left movement? No. However there are left movements which oppose Stalinism. But these various tendencies have no other common denominator than their opposition to Stalin. We cannot have categorizing article on every issue that 2 or more groupings take a common standpoint. --Soman 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JSTORE gives 339 hits, Google Scholar gives 985, one substntial academic book uses it in the title: The New York intellectuals : the rise and decline of the anti-Stalinist left from the 1930s to the 1980s / by Alan M. Wald ISBN 0807841692 - I think thats enough to rebut neologism (which I understand as not making terms up to use on WP, rather than them having small currency IRL). Not a brilliant article, but this request for deletion doesn't stand up, IMNSHO.--Red Deathy 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, 195 hits on Google scholar for the exact phrase...my bad), still, enough for me...--Red Deathy 13:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Revolutionary left" gives 147 000 hits, but that by itself doesn't motivate an article that simply states "The term revolutionary left tends to be used in relation to those currents of the left that define themselves centrally in opposition to reformism". Likewise with "democratic left", etc. Just cause a wording is used in a book title doesn't mean it should have an article of its own. (For example, "Revolutionary Idealism and Parliamentary Politics: A Study of Trotskyism in Sri Lanka" by M. Somasundram alone does not motivate a separate article for Revolutionary idealism). --Soman 13:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The reason for AfD given is neologism, if you want to renominate under notability then we can investigate that.--Red Deathy 14:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well known term, and one that's also useful as many leftist grops defined themselves by their opposition to Stalinism, as pointed out above. 'Neologism' as a reason to tag for deletion is clearly ridiculous-the term has been around for years and is widely used, to refer to this specific movement. Why wasn't this raised on the discussion page before it got to this extreme stage?Felix-felix 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Felix-felix's question should be addressed: Why is this on AfD before other discussion on the page itself? Wikipedia is institutionally a tertiary source reflecting existing peer reviewed secondary sources. The fact that the term is specifically referenced in a Univ. of NC Press book title is ON ITS OWN evidence that this article reflects scholarly work, and the numerous citations of the term given in this discussion only reinforce that. Whether the original nom or anyone else has issues with the term is irrelevant from wikipedia standards as the term passes WP:V. I'd like to see more direct footnoting in the article to ensure there's no OR taking place, but as there are references, any OR issues (as is standard) can be addressed by article editors, not AfD. -Markeer 15:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and suggest speedy keep per WP:SNOW if nothing else. This is historically quite important. Given the twentieth century equation of the Left with various Marxist tendencies, it became quite important for non-Stalinist leftists to distance themselves from Stalinism. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Essential part of 20th century political history. Vast literature, so the article can be expanded and improved through editing, but it is already referenced and encyclopedic. Edison 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Neologism != "Something I never heard of".Baka man 18:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, a retaliatory move for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 20. To clarify, I used the term neologism in the sense that the definitions set here constitute an invented usage of a term for POV purposes. Perhaps the word 'neologism' is not the best way to describe the phenomenon, but that's more of splitting hairs. --Soman 19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Levine. Just H 23:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember this term too. It's an important concept in American history. I would look up the sources for this, but I can see that others already have. JChap2007 03:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andrew Levine certainly makes a strong case for multiple, non-trivial mentions in independent, reliable sources. If there are POV problems, they can be addressed without deletion. delldot | talk 05:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the definition of a neologism is not "a word that I personally haven't heard before" DGG 02:03, 25 December 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:39Z

Brewerfan.net

Non-notable fancruft, fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Alexa rank of 1,985,328, media mentions are either trivial or unverifiable. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 09:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at the page's log, it seems like this article was twice subject to speedy deletion.--RWR8189 09:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-web. Danny Lilithborne 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Hu12 13:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll resist the temptation to label this "sausagecruft", but a few passing mentions from reputable sources isn't enough to satisfy WP:WEB. Caknuck 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as web and verifiability violations. Big top 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:WEB. Daniel5127 <Talk> 08:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article lists references below and we have many other articles where BF.net was mentioned if we can only look for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adamb10 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A trivial mention on an ESPN show does not equal notability. One Night In Hackney 23:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily redirected to the existing article with correct naming. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 13:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pippard, Brian

Someone is creating a string of stubs on Clare Hall, Camebridge scientists. I've pulled this from speedy because I suspect being a Fellow of the Royal Society is at least marginally notable and if he supervised a Nobel prize winner, he's probably done something notable himself. This deserves a closer look. Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Brian Pippard. This guy is moving a lot of articles to malformed locations. Danny Lilithborne 10:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per above. MER-C 11:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pippard, Brian. Keep Brian Pippard. The latter is notable, the former is unnecessary duplication. DrKiernan 12:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:39Z

Anti-Mac

Notable author, but the paper seems to be NN, as it hasn't really had an impact on UI design. Twinxor t 10:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a 1996 Communications of the ACM essay based upon a CHI'95 panel discussion. While some of the points may appear very new and controversial, it has had no impact in ui design or thought (not that any of the points were original). --Ronz 16:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above comments, plus the fact that the subject is not really developped in the article, since it is 6 lines long. Dravick 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN proposal per above. At best smerge a line into History of the graphical user interface. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable as written above. – Mipadi 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; mention it in the Jakob Nielsen article as part of his ongoing work, if anything. -/- Warren 10:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 11:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chino Hills High School

Fails WP:SCHOOL. The most notable thing in this article is that the school's softball team recently won the CIF championship. (whatever this means) Anyway, WP:SCHOOL states that the school must have won at least 2 regional titles. There are no other things to credit the school for, so I say delete. Diez2 06:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction After re-reading the article, this school does meet WP:SCHOOL. Diez2 06:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep author seems to be withdrawing nomination, no one has argued delete. WilyD 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD was never listed in the logs. I am listing today. --ais523 10:46, 20 December 2006 (U T C)

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:38Z

Karni Singh Rathore

It is not a famous person, that I know of. AxG (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced. Found zero sources to back up assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. MER-C 11:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per {{db-bio}}--RWR8189 11:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 13:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The article is sourced with a Indian medal citation from the 1980s, though I don't personally know how to verify that! Taking its content in good faith, this subject was involved in a newsworthy event (as WP:BIO) when the leader of an insurgent group was killed in combat. Maybe the original editor can help identify verifiable sources. --Mereda 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources seem to attest notability. Also "not a famous peron that I know of" != "nonnotable".Baka man 19:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Big top 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definately notable .Recepient of highest peacetime militray award of India .Citation by Indian army is RS . Also "not a famous peron that I know of" is not a ground to delete .Shyamsunder 16:04 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be notable. Lots of English-language bias in this nom... --- RockMFR 04:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I strongly support to keep the article. He has done meritorious service to the Indian Army and is winner of Kirti Chakra. burdak 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above.--D-Boy 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep' . Comment: the definition of natable is not the absurd "not a famous person, that I know of" DGG

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:36Z

Guffmanesque

Transwikied dicdef. Condemned to perpetual stub-hood? contested prod; prod removed with statement about ghits. Hornplease 11:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF.--RWR8189 11:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary violation, per nom. Big top 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete protologism. Danny Lilithborne 04:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. —ShadowHalo 03:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:36Z

N-Philes

Sppedy deletion contested. No assertion of notability is made, fails WP:RS WP:V and WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Article should be deleted RWR8189 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, no sources at all, reads like an advert. WP:V and WP:RS apply and this should go. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 13:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (I removed the "speedy" tag, as the article has existed since october, and has been editied by a number of people; I don't think that speedying is the correct route in such case.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a comprehensive and well-written article, but I see no evidence of notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:35Z

Virginia Gilbert

AfD nominated by 86.140.211.86 with reason - "Creating deletion discussion page for Virginia Gilbert because of no interest to the public." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 12:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to be notable under WP:BIO. Her IMDb credits are not extensive — producer of a single TV documentary in 2005. She won the "2006 Galway Film Centre Short Script Award" but that isn't a particularly notable award, and on closer inspection she was only one of three winners. I did find this but it appears to be an online curriculum vitae of some sort. Demiurge 12:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete note all Her IMDb credits were written or directed by her dad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.211.86 (talk • contribs)
Delete, maybe mention it/merge parts of it in the article of Brian Gilbert. --V. Szabolcs 22:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:35Z

Kallarakal

Contested prod. Prod reason was "WP:NOT for genealogy, and not for unverified original research either (historical evidence that proves the existence of Saint Thomas and that he was in India? I doubt it..." 21 distinct Google hits for Kallarakal plus Saint Thomas minus Wikipedia[34]. Everything that needs to be said is in the Saint Thomas Christians article. Fram 13:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AFD discussion has prompted the creator to rant on the article's talk page, employing a great many exclamation marks, including the observation that "The history of Christianity should be rewritten!!!!!!!!!!!" Erm, no thanks. Serpent's Choice 13:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopaedic drivel. --Folantin 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 13:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is legitimacy to the claims that Thomas the Apostle founded the Christian church in India, an article devoted to a family of early converts lacking in formatting & citation surpasses the threshold of non-notability. Caknuck 20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caknuck. Big top 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 11:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:34Z

Violator (band)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Completely unsourced. Contested prod. MER-C 13:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and to expand the article. Yao Ziyuan 13:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V. Sorry Yao, weak keep on what grounds?? Deizio talk 13:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deiz.Edison 15:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:33Z

Evangelical Protestant political parties

It is an invented political classification and thus in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. It also is rife with point of view concerns. The phrase is not corroborated by its claimed sources. cj | talk 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this term sounds like pure OR, and the article reads like a neologism and OR as well. 51 ghits for the article title, most of which are WP and the usual mirrors. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inherently POV. Tevildo 13:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and OR. C mon 16:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Splitting the sources into primary and secondary smacks of OR. Hut 8.5 18:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - religiocruft.Baka man 19:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:33Z

Serie B 2006-07 Calendar

WP:NOT a results service, Serie B 2006-07 covers what is needed. There is no equivalent article for the more senior Serie A ChrisTheDude 13:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 13:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a calendar. Punkmorten 15:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague unsourced cut and paste from non-English source is not encyclopedic.Edison 15:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Additionally, IANAL and all that, but if the Italian League does the same kind of licensing as the English one, including the full future fixture schedule is a copyvio. Oldelpaso 19:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as copyright violation. Big top 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain From reading the comments above I can tell that you guys don't know what you are talking about and you have not taken five minutes to look at the Italian Soccer Pages or the other European soccer pages for that matter. First of all, the more senior league (Serie A)has even more detailed results pages showing scores, goal scorers, time of goals, yellow and red flags etc etc etc. The same applies to the senior english league and spanish league to name 2 others. All this page does is show the results for the year. Once the season is over, it will be an historic record of the 2006/2007 game results. To me that 'is encyclopedic'. And who came up with the idea that re-producing a league schedule is a copyright violation? I bet I will find the same schedule in different forms in hundreds of places throughout the internet.AlexDelPiero 04:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't speak for any other country, but in England the Premier League certainly retain copyright on their fixture lists, and anyone who reproduces them without paying a fee is violating their copyright ChrisTheDude 14:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Can you corroborate this? That doesn't sound feasible. Just H 17:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [35]. Oldelpaso 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course this can be corroborated. For instance, (again referring to England, don't know the score elsewhere), a Watford fanzine had to take down fixtures after receiving this Legal Letter It's an issue all web sites and printed matter have to be aware of. - fchd 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you are saying that if I write that Bologna will play Juventus on December 19 I can can sued? That's the most rediculous thing I've heard so far. Team and League schedules of any sport are reproduced everywhere and anywhere. Teams want their fans to know when they will be playing so as to improve attendance and television viewing. I can't believe we are actually arguing this point. Juveboy 23:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the pertinent section from the article linked above. I can't speak for Italy, but in England the situation re: copyright seems pretty clear.....

“

That was reckoning without the keen commercial enforcers at DataCo. This is a company owned by the Premier and Football Leagues, whose job is to charge for publication of the fixture lists, as well as the increasing volume of other data, including match statistics, to which the clubs claim copyright. The operation makes £7m-£8m for English and Scottish professional clubs, paid by 22,000 newspapers, bookmakers, websites and broadcasters here and worldwide. The fee is standard: £266 plus VAT to print the fixtures of one English club. Newspapers printing the fixtures of all clubs, plus a delivery fee, pay around £6,000 plus VAT to DataCo. BSaD, oblivious, printing their own club's forthcoming fixtures, were asked for £266 plus VAT or told they must take them down.

”

Retain Every other major football/soccer league (i.e. England) has a page or many pages dedicated to the season calendar. If this page is a copyright violation also FA Premier League results August 2006 is. Moreover the statement "Vague unsourced cut and paste from non-English source is not encyclopedic" is unconsistent: only articles with English sources are encyclopedic? CapPixel 08:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can't copyright results, they are a matter of historical record. Fixture lists of matches yet to be played are a different matter, however.... ChrisTheDude 15:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentNow you're picking at straws. Eventually the whole page will be an historical record. In fact, I would argue that the league's decision to schedule certain games on certain dates is a historical fact in itself. Juveboy 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not RSSSF --Angelo 15:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would argue that 95% of the sports pages here qualify as RSSSF. Juveboy 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I agree with CapPixel. I would invite some constructive critism, as in including an opening paragraph at the top the page or reducing the amount of data (kilobytes) on the page by making in plainer. Juveboy 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep that part which relates to games already played. Remove the future fixtures if copyright situation applies to Italian fixtures. - fchd 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the serie B article. This is very useful. Just H 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain This problem of copyright on fixtures list is a UK law problem Niall123 10:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Very useful page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.130.241 (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:NOT and possible copyright violation. (Nice to see good ole BSaD popping up here!) HornetMike 15:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Nice to see all the english lads picking on the italian soccer page. AlexDelPiero 16:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:32Z

Global Orgasm

Sounds like a hoax. Even if it isn't, I don't think it's notable either. – Gurch 14:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks real to me. And saying the anti-war movement isn't notable these days is like saying any mention of opposition to the war in Iraq is superfluous.Maybe this particular kind of protest doesn't appeal to you, but who cares? It's still relevant given the current political climate, both in the US and around the globe.Wandering Star 22:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep That website looks like too much work to be a hoax, and I found a couple of press reports via Google: [36][37][38] (all the same agency story) plus [39][40]. It looks like a gimmick all right, but the external sources do exist. Demiurge 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess. Though at the moment the article doesn't contain any of those sources (which actually makes it borderline speedyable, but I brought it here for that reason). I'm still not convinced of importance/significance, but if it is going to stay, it needs improvement (i.e. those sources) – Gurch 14:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The event seems genuine - is USA Today a sufficiently reputable source for verification? It probably needs to be expanded, and quickly, though. Tevildo 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a link to a San Francisco Chronicle story (though my ES misidentified it as an AP story). The Chronicle is the leading newspaper in the area where the originators of this idea live, so that's enough confirmation for me. My Yahoo! search for "Global Orgasm" -wikipedia got more than 200,000 hits, most of which seem to be about this. JamesMLane t c 14:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, looks real but it either gets expanded or we will be back here in a month Alf photoman 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sorry, real or not, I don't buy the notability of a couple of thousand people blowing their collective loads simultaneously. Danny Lilithborne 04:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very fishy that this is being nominated right before the event. CLEARLY ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT SEMEN CENSORSHIP BY THE CABAL!!!! But seriously, keep per media coverage. --- RockMFR 04:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (media coverage). — Pladask 12:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The prospective event was picked up by a fair handful of newspapers around the world. Mereda 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It is certainly verifiable. I have seen a press report in an Australian newspaper, but I forget where. The question is whether it is notable. How many people took part and so on? --Bduke 06:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stupid, but verifiable. `'mikkanarxi 23:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I doubt this notable at all in a year, but it is weakly notable now. Neitherday 18:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:30Z

Bill C-261

Article about a not-notable piece of failed legislation. At best should be merged into Canadian_electoral_system or another article dealing with voting in Canada and the voting age. Geoffrey Spear 14:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for two reasons. Firstly, private members' bills rarely make it past committee, as they typically have limited support and are often quixotic in nature. Secondly, the bill names are recycled for each session of Parliament (much like the "HR" bill names used in the US Congress). In a few years, a more-notable C-261 may be introduced. Caknuck 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caknuck. Josh Parris#: 23:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naconkantari 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction South Africa

I was considering Prodding this one, but I'm not certain about it. Although "The oldest science fiction society in South Africa" is a claim of notability, it's very short, doesn't have any sources, and links only to its own website. If someone can find more material, then I don't have any problem with it, but I don't think it should be kept as it is now. – Gurch 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - Added a bit more data from the Web, to verify that the organization is legit. In fact, it's about the only contact with SF fandom in Africa that the rest of the world has. It's obscure, but within the world of science fiction fandom outside the U.S. it has a certain notability. --Orange Mike 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a tough one as realistically none of the citations (even with Orangemike's additions) really provide much in the way of justifiable notability beyond it being the oldest. That said -- the oldest science fiction society in any nation realistically has SOME notability assuming there is any community in that nation at all. I'm voting Keep largely on the theory that (in general) topics under science fiction by country are encyclopedic as subjects of genre literature research. Although let's be honest: there are no other articles about South African Science Fiction anywhere on Wikipedia currently. If and when there is an article on Science Fiction in South Africa I would say merge this article there, but until then, no strong reason to delete it. -Markeer 16:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, SFSA pretty much is the SF scene in South Africa; the publishing industry there is pretty colonial, and the local publishers aren't into SF as a genre.--Orange Mike 16:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Markeer. -Toptomcat 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per markeer, and the fact that it seems to be the only SF related org in SA.Baka man 19:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does not seems to be any notable coverage of this organisation at all in third-party reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP/WP:ORG by a megaparsec. That it may be the only organisation of its kind in the country is notable IF AND ONLY IF this fact is true, which in Wikipedia requires that it be reported in a verifiable source somewhere, which it isn't. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 12:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Markeer. Ford MF 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:30Z

Alfonso Chartier

Reason Arrashju 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the article makes some vague claims of notability ("a professional gamer") I can't find a lot of reliable sources through either Google or Google News, so this person appears to fail WP:BIO. Jayden54 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 15:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jayden54. Josh Parris#: 23:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom.--Bryson 21:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:29Z

Brian Gelber

Being mentioned in a book, is this enough to make this bio's notable? Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F. --Hu12 12:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem notable. Delete unless expanded making a case for notability during AfD. Pleclech 22:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep not mentioned, but profiled.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete boring. Josh Parris#: 23:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above comment it definately WP:ILIKEIT#I_don.27t_like_it

Keep , after a minor rewrite with reliable sources. The Lead section shows notability and the References section should be read by the editors. Just needs even further expansion ASAP. Reason for deletion is no longer valid. There appear to be many separate industry media reference links, that shows there is reasonable industry interest. The Wall Street Journal and Futures (magazine).
Meets this criterion from WP:BIO - "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."

Trade2tradewell 22:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet criteria for sufficient notability listed in the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline.--Hu12 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs to have the puffery removed. JamesMLane t c 16:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:27Z

Joe Ritchie

Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F. --Hu12 12:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedaic, much of the information is irrelevant, does not seem notable. Delete unless cleaned up and expanded making a case for notability during AfD. Pleclech 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet criteria for sufficient notability listed in the Wikipedia:Notability (people)--Hu12 00:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per world record attempt. Just H 00:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In the world of Money management, ever since there was such a job title created only a few have become notable. If there is a "Money Management Hall of Fame" this person would be in it. Read the lead paragraph its all in there and referenced. There is proven verifiability from reliable sources [41]. Here is the references for when he tried to buy Eastern Airlines[42]

Tried to singlehandlely overthow the Taliban, feature story at the International Herald Tribune & CNN

All referenced. Read the Lead paragraph!!

Trade2tradewell 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs to have the puffery removed. JamesMLane t c 16:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:26Z

Larry Hite

Being mentioned in a book, is this enough to make this bio's notable? Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F.--Hu12 13:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability referenced.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet criteria for sufficient notability listed in the Wikipedia:Notability (people)--Hu12 00:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close , after a minor rewrite with reliable sources. The Lead section shows notability and the References section should be read by the editors. Just needs even further expansion ASAP. Reason for deletion is no longer valid. There appear to be many separate industry media reference links, that shows there is reasonable industry interest.
Meets this criterion from WP:BIO - "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."

I am constantly baffled by the degree to which we tolerate deletion abuse. This is factual, and verifiable. Well-referenced, encyclopaedic. I'm having trouble seriously believing it's possible to nominate this article in good faith. I'm not sure what the agenda is here but the subject is clearly notable. This person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of this person. I found plenty of sources in a Lexis-Nexis search. This article can be cleaned up and set on track.

All of the links provided are from independent reliable third-party, reputable, non-trivial published sources.

It should be realized that Money management is a highly specialized, yet suitable topic.

Editors please look at the multiple independent reliable sources under References.
I found multiple non-trivial reliable external sources about " Larry Hite", this then establishes notability. It meets notability criteria and sources are reliable.

Clearly notable, and widely reported. Perhaps a better article needs to be written, but this is not the form for doing that. He has been featured in mainstream newsprint publications, including BusinessWeek, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and the Crains Cleveland.
Comment It should be noted that due to a large overhaul of the page, all votes before the overhaul of the Wikipedia article should be reconsidered.
The result should be Speedily closed, as the article has been heavily revised.
The article was not properly sourced when it was nominated, and has now been much improved.

Other references:

Quote about mint in The Economist:[43]

Larry’s concept of a guaranteed futures fund ( an industry first) was featured in a piece by the Financial Times (Financial Times, April 4 1987) [44]

Securities Week talk about the fact that the fund was so popular that it was oversubscribed: [45]

Mint Management, was in 1987, the world's second largest commodity fund with $ 225 million under management. Journal of Commerce 1987: [46]

Mr Larry Hite, founder of Mint Investment Management Co (one of the world's largest managers of commodity funds and one of the most consistently successful, trading everything from dollars to copper to grains) Financial Times [47]

Quote from Crains Cleveland. Larry Hite, who is considered by his peers as one of America's shrewdest commodity traders [48]

1987 Press Release:[49]

This article is also part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics.

Trade2tradewell 15:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of us, not being involved in finance, seem to have a tendency to try to delete those who are. DGG 02:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The AfD's in this string have common characteristics: The subject is notable within the specialized field of money management; the article has stylistic problems and includes puffery but has enough substance to establish notability. AfD should not be used as Cleanup. JamesMLane t c 16:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:20Z

Linda Bradford Raschke

Being mentioned in a book, is this enough to make this bio's notable? Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F.--Hu12 12:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem notable. Delete unless expanded making a case for notability during AfD. Pleclech 22:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, seems at least marginally notable.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet criteria for sufficient notability listed in the Wikipedia:Notability (people)--Hu12 00:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , after a minor rewrite with reliable sources. The Lead section shows notability and the References section should be read by the editors. Just needs even further expansion. Reason for deletion is no longer valid. There appear to be many separate industry media reference links, that shows there is reasonable industry interest. Meets this criterion from WP:BIO - "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."

Featured and profiled in 2 major industry publications (books).

41,000 google hits [50] and there is no 2 with this same name.

More references here:[51] and here [52]

This article is also part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics.

Trade2tradewell 01:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The AfD's in this string have common characteristics: The subject is notable within a specialized business-related field; the article has stylistic problems and includes puffery but has enough substance to establish notability. AfD should not be used as Cleanup. JamesMLane t c 16:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:16Z

Louis Lukac

Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F.--Hu12 12:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 15:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear notable. Delete unless expanded during AfD Pleclech 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet criteria for sufficient notability listed in the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline.--Hu12 19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation with more content. An article could be valuable to someone who's encountered his book and wants to know more about him but this article wouldn't help that hypothetical reader. JamesMLane t c 16:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:10Z

Mark Ritchie (trader)

Being mentioned in a book, is this enough to make this bio's notable? Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F.--Hu12 12:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable enough.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet criteria for sufficient notability listed in the Wikipedia:Notability (people)--Hu12 00:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , after a minor rewrite with reliable sources. The Lead section shows notability and the References section should be read by the editors. Just needs even further expansion. Reason for deletion is no longer valid. There appear to be many separate industry media reference links, that shows there is reasonable industry interest. Meets this criterion from WP:BIO - "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."

I am constantly baffled by the degree to which we tolerate deletion abuse. This is factual, and verifiable. Well-referenced, encyclopaedic. I'm having trouble seriously believing it's possible to nominate this article in good faith. I'm not sure what the agenda is here but the subject is clearly notable. This person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of this person. I found plenty of sources in a Lexis-Nexis search. This article can be cleaned up and set on track.

All of the links provided are from independent reliable third-party, reputable, non-trivial published sources.

Editors please look at the multiple independent reliable sources under References.
I found multiple non-trivial reliable external sources about "Mark A. Ritchie", the Money Manager and acomplished author of 2 books, this then establishes notability. It meets notability criteria and sources are reliable.

Clearly notable, and widely reported. Perhaps a better article needs to be written, but this is not the form for doing that. He has been featured in mainstream newsprint publications, including BusinessWeek, The Wall Street Journal. It should be noted that due to a large overhaul of the page, all votes before the overhaul of the Wikipedia article should be reconsidered. The result should be Speedily closed, as the article has been revised. The article was not properly sourced when it was nominated, and has now been much improved.
Here is a very short list of references: [53] and [54] & [55]

Trade2tradewell 00:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep once again, I thank Trade2tradewell for his meticulous documentation. DGG 02:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The AfD's in this string have common characteristics: The subject is notable within a specialized business-related field; the article has stylistic problems and includes puffery but has enough substance to establish notability. AfD should not be used as Cleanup. JamesMLane t c 16:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:01Z

Mark Weinstein

Being mentioned in a book, is this enough to make this bio's notable? Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F.--Hu12 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem notable. Delete unless expanded making a case for notability during AfD. Pleclech 22:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet criteria for sufficient notability listed in the Wikipedia:Notability (people)--Hu12 00:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC
Delete This one on the other hand seems not to have notability documented, at least so far. i will change my vote if it is. DGG 02:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This person is probably not just another trader, because there must have been some reason he was included in the book, but this cursory article doesn't show his notability. JamesMLane t c 16:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:00Z

Monroe Trout

Being mentioned in a book, is this enough to make this bio's notable? Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F. --Hu12 12:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Hedge fund legend" [56]. "...among the best money managers in the world."[57]. Some non-trivial mentions: "Trout Fund clients angered by loss topping $6 million" (Wall Street Journal), CPO Trout buys FCM (Futures magazine). I think thier is a solid case for passing WP:BIO. ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, evidently notable(per above) and a typical example of the NET DOES NOT KNOW ALL. In this case notability with 7 ghits Alf photoman 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable--Ioannes Pragensis 23:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep , after a minor rewrite with reliable sources. The Lead section shows notability and the References section should be read by the editors. Just needs even further expansion ASAP. Reason for deletion is no longer valid. There appear to be many separate industry media reference links, that shows there is reasonable industry interest.
Meets this criterion from WP:BIO - "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."

Trade2tradewell 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is beginning to look like deletion by profession. Not all stock traders are equal.DGG 02:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
Keep. I agree with DGG. JamesMLane t c 16:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:00Z

Otimen Recording Hell (A.K.A. Bran's Freestyle)

Unreleased / self-released compilation from Brandon DiCamillo. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call Me Crazy California Style. Deizio talk 16:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable album by a (possibly) non-notable artist. No claims in the article to show notability. Jayden54 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability of Brandon DiCamillo is secure, star of several notable projects including Jackass, Viva La Bam, Haggard: The Movie and the CKY Videos. Deizio talk 17:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 15:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person is absolutely notable, but not at all as a musician. No importance asserted. -- Kicking222 02:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:57Z

Sex Party (British Columbia)

extreme finge, nonnotabilty, simply provides free advertising for party TotallyTempo 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC) cat=O[reply]

Weak Keep - It has a few press mentions (as shown in the sources list) so it passes WP:V and seems slightly notable. Jayden54 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - a properly sourced article about a registered political party in British Columbia. This is a curiosity of the political world that merits an article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia will not be improved by deleting this information. Ground Zero | t 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ground Zero. - Jord 02:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a registered party, and it received a fair bit of media attention in 2005 (for the obvious reasons ...). CJCurrie 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above - yet another example of Canada's west coast wackiness... --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Article doesn't read like an ad. Kla'quot 04:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ground Zero. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, again as per Ground Zero's rationale. -- The Anome 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wow! 0.37% of the votes! Edison 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or do we only keep Nazi parties that never made it into a parliament? Alf photoman 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Given that the party has notability (notability is not subjective) we can reasonably assess that in addition to the article being sourced and encyclopaedic, no rational has been advanced for deletion. A no-brainer. WilyD 18:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a registered political party, and the article itself is sourced meeting WP:V and WP:RS. -- Whpq 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ground Zero. Please close. Just H 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Registered political parties which field candidates in democratic elections should always have articles, regardless of whether they're "fringe" or not; it's impossible for Wikipedia to cover the elections in proper depth if they don't. Keep. Bearcat 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per what I have stated earlier, extreme nonnotability, simply gives free press to fringe movement, something like 0.00015% of total votes cast TotallyTempo 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how "fringe" a political party is. If it's registered with the proper electoral authorities and has fielded actual candidates in a provincial, state or federal election, then it's notable enough for Wikipedia, period. Their individual candidates might not merit separate articles, but the party itself most certainly does. Bearcat 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Met provincial eligibility standards and ran candidates. Plenty of press coverage. I'd argue the uniqueness of its platform further contributes to its notability. The Tom 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this party is sourced and notable erasing this makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 02:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, unless anyone has any further objections it seems I have lost this debate. Is it appropriate for me to remove the "Nomination for deletion" tag on the article or is there a proper procedure?. TotallyTempo 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:54Z

Toby Crabel

Being a millionaire, is this enough to make this bio's notable? Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F.--Hu12 13:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by far not only an anonymour millionaire. The article is sourced.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Hu12 19:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It is a WP:N subject matter. The nomination is preposterous as this person meets WP:BIO, something which is easily verifiable.

Also read: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed

900 ghits strongly suggests notability[58] shows up about 900 unique hits.

This article is also part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics

In every decade we have a top 10 of Money Management, this person was ranked in the 90's as a top 10.

Crabel notable in his profession Money Management. He has ranked high in the Money management league tables.

Read the lead paragraph its all in there and referenced. There is proven verifiability from reliable sources

He manages 2.8 billion dollars.

There is a rating of the Top Hedge Funds every year and this guy is on the list ranked "number 101 out of 196 funds"

All referenced. Read the Lead paragraph!!

The editor who nominated this article is over-reacting. This user (the creator of the articles has been around for 9 months now and seems to have a number of perfectly decent, constructive, NPOV edits. And even a few anti-spam edits! Ok, so maybe he likes that particular book a bit too much, and likes to write about Money Managers only. Just engage in dialog with him. This is a case where presumption of good-faith seems natural.

Trade2tradewell 00:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is beginning to look like deletion by profession. Not all stock traders are equal.DGG 02:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
Keep. The AfD's in this string have common characteristics: The subject is notable within a specialized business-related field; the article has stylistic problems and includes puffery but has enough substance to establish notability. AfD should not be used as Cleanup. JamesMLane t c 17:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:53Z

Tom Basso

Being mentioned in a book, is this enough to make this bio notable? Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu12 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 20 December 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem notable. Delete unless expanded making a case for notability during AfD. Pleclech 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If somebody publishes a book in the Wiley publishing house, it is a clear sign of notability. They really do not publish everything. Plus he has other merits.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)::I do not share your faith about the notability of anyone one particular publisher's books. Better to decide by book than by publishing house. DGG 02:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet criteria for sufficient notability listed in the Wikipedia:Notability (people)--Hu12 00:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep after a minor rewrite with reliable sources. The Lead section shows notability and the References section should be read by the editors. Just needs even further expansion. Reason for deletion is no longer valid. There appear to be many separate industry media reference links, that shows there is reasonable industry interest. Meets this criterion from WP:BIO - "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." This person is factual, and verifiable. Well-referenced, and encyclopaedic. I'm having trouble seriously believing it's possible to nominate this article in good faith. I'm not sure what the agenda is here but the subject is clearly notable. This person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of this person. This article can be cleaned up and set on track. All of the links provided are from independent reliable third-party, reputable, non-trivial published sources. Be aware that Money management is a highly specialized, yet suitable topic for WP. Editors please look at the multiple independent reliable sources under References. Found multiple non-trivial reliable external sources about this person, this then establishes notability. It meets notability criteria and sources are reliable.

Clearly notable, and widely reported. Perhaps a better article needs to be written, but this is not the form for doing that. He has been featured in mainstream newsprint publications. It should be noted that due to a large overhaul of the page, all votes before the overhaul of the Wikipedia article should be reconsidered.

The article was not properly sourced when it was nominated, and has now been much improved.

Comments on References

Featured in numerous articles [59] and here [60]

including U.S. News & World Report [61]

12,000 ghits [62]

Found various articles at ProQuest and Lexis-Nexis at (Talk:Tom Basso). Here is the 2 found at The Wall Street Journal [63]

The article needs to be updated to include all these references.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch featured 3 times.

Instructions: Go to the advanced search page here:[64] and type in the article Title and the Year:

Tips on Preparing For Recession and date (1990)

What is Actually Happening When Your Stock Splits and date (1992)

Money Manager's System Helps Avoid Frustration and date (1993)

Trade2tradewell 00:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is now really beginning to look like deletion by profession. Not all stock traders are equal.DGG 02:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
Keep. The AfD's in this string have common characteristics: The subject is notable within a specialized business-related field; the article has stylistic problems and includes puffery but has enough substance to establish notability. AfD should not be used as Cleanup. JamesMLane t c 17:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Chichester. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:50Z

University of Chichester F.C.

Aside from the fact that the article is very poorly written and formatted, this team plays in a level 12 league in the English pyramid, below the bar of notability. Creating editor appears to be the team's manager ChrisTheDude 15:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info into University of Chichester. Geoffrey Spear 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 16:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. With the exception of Cambridge (historical contribution), Oxford and Bath (both have competed in the FA Cup) I don't think any English university teams are notable enough for inclusion. Qwghlm 16:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Team Northumbria scrape in on the grounds they play in a level 10 league..... ChrisTheDude 16:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge relevant info. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 empty/nonsense. -- The Anome 15:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzlement

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Llykstw 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a Speedy tag on it as it is basically a nonsensical article anyway. SmartGuy 15:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DatabaseSports.com

no external Google hits for "DatabaseSports" or "DatabaseSports.com", references are all to materials created by the site itself (except an assertion that Sports Illustrated commented on it, cited by a link back to databasesports.com itself. Prod is contested on the talk page, so I removed the tag and an moving it to AfD. Geoffrey Spear 16:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more but go to the article's talk page for discussion. Quadzilla99 16:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is how we do deletion discussions, not "go to the article's talk page". Especially since you refuse to discuss there until an admin comes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is what is on the talk page:

"::Let me just state my case then and we'll leave it for actual admins as opposed to imaginary ones and end the bickering. If I acquire any further information I'll post it later:

1) databaseSports.com is referred to in more than 10 thousand Wikipedia pages. Pretty much every single athlete has a link in their template or Wikipedia page to a branch site of databaseSports.com as a source to provide their career statistics, such as databaseFootball.com[65], databaseBasketball.com[66], basketball-reference.com[67], databaseHockey.com[68], and baseball-reference.com[69]. It seems incongruos to refer to the site in almost every single page about an athlete then not have a page giving the history of the site.

2)The site Alexa does not list unique users or page views per month and databaseSports.com includes about 10 branch sites which are listed individually on Alexa.

3)Sports Illustrated did rave about them, however I didn't save the issue so I have no way to site the actual issue. Also the wording in the article says "according to their website" so pointing that out is pointless.

"DatabaseSports" and "DatabaseSports.com" searches don't return a single Google hit from sites not owned by this company. Assertion that you saw something in a credible source you're not able to cite doesn't meet WP:V by a longshot. Geoffrey Spear 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get some actual admins in on this, when they arrive as I stated I'll continue the dicussion further. Quadzilla99 16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will make one further note: any site listed in point 1 above is in reality databaseSports.com. So referring to databaseSports.com alone is false and misleading it includes all the sites as a visit to the site will explain also baseball-Reference.com is being converted to databasebaseball.com. As I also mentioned almost every single athlete in Wikipedia is linked to a databaseSports.com site in the athlete's template. Also I don't use bold lettering, cap letters or extra exclamation points or question marks in my arguments so if you wish to imagine any portion of my statements in that way please do so. Quadzilla99 16:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)"Quadzilla99 16:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm satisfied that notability is established, but it still needs reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is referred to throughout Wikipedia I didn't add the links to all of it's branch sites in the athletes pages myself, so apparently a great many Wikipedians are aware of it and it's branch sites. Quadzilla99 16:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...which doesn't even establish notability. Notice the lack of Willy on wheels. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's strange to refer to a page ten thousand or so times in Wiki then act like it doesn't exist or explain what it is.Quadzilla99 16:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition if it's non-notable does that mean all those sources should be removed? Not being sarcastic just asking. Quadzilla99 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it isn't, not if we're building an encyclopedia. WP:V trumps any concern of strangeness, and WP:V requires reliable sources. And being non-notable doesn't mean we can't use it as a source, we just can't have an article on it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, a reference on a Wikipedia page can be to a website not deemed notable enough for an article of its own. For instance, my website, www.fchd.info is linked to on hundreds of pages about English & Welsh football clubs - it even has its own template for making links to it. Yet, I fully acknowledge my site is some way from meeting WP:WEB. While I'm here, unfortunately I don't see how this site meets WP:WEB either. so Delete. - fchd 18:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need verifiable sources to classify it as notable. Harvey100 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Sports Illustrated article in question is in the March 27, 2006 issue. It's titled "Welcome Sites in the Vast Wasteland of the Net," and it is written by Adam Duerson. (You can find it on Factiva.) However, the only thing the article says about these particular sites is that each one "is a comprehensive source with Britannica-like accuracy." That's it -- just a blurb in a list, basically. A handful of other newspaper and magazine articles use the Database sites as sources, but I'm not sure there's enough here to pass WP:WEB. (And I'm an inclusionist who actually uses these sites on a regular basis.) Zagalejo 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I use these sites (databasebasketball, etc.) constantly- apparently, I'm the only one. -- Kicking222 02:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kicking 22.DGG 02:50, 25 December 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:49Z

Oscarwatch

Appears to fail WP:WEB. No non-bloggy results in first several pages of a google search, from what I could tell. Delete.-- Syrthiss 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, no assertion of notability, no article. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no solid assertion of notability (and as the nom suggests, the google hits aren't promising). Heimstern Läufer 19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--RWR8189 07:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naconkantari 20:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personality Crisis (band)

No assertion of notability, previously speedied twice before, only 48 Ghits for article title, no reliable sources, no sources at all, no sources to support notability, POV, sounds like an advert, nothing that would lead me to believe that this lot pass WP:MUSIC. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Assertion of notability=yes, sufficient assertion of notability=no. Heimstern Läufer 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the contrary, the band indeed passes WP:MUSIC! Criterion 6: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." This is not your average "I'm in a garage band so let's make an article about it" kind of article. —EdGl 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Requires editing for a keep - doesn't mention who went on to form what subsequently notable bands, nor do those notable band's articles link to Personality Crisis (band). Without these edits, I vote delete. Josh Parris#: 00:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Read fourth sentence in. Does this satisfy your condition to keep? —EdGl 00:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on marginal notability. Needs editing. Doczilla 07:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (do I get a vote as I'm the page originator?) There's a lot of info (unfortunately not that I can produce verifiable) that argues for notability, I've done a bit more work to clarify where verifiable info exists. Ketchumk 01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:48Z

SECONS

Company lacks notability per WP:CORP Calltech 16:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion page for SECONS because company lacks notability per WP:CORP. Company is a Czech organization listing an English website. However, all the pages on this site are broken links with no information other than a nominal HOME page. Searching on Google results in nothing outside the Czech site and single US website page. Calltech 16:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate vanity, spam (well it woudl be if the websuite worked) etc. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:46Z

Bernard beanie

Re-creation of an already-deleted article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Beanie) under a new title. A non-notable puppet character. Indefatigable 16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are even less notable aspects of the same puppet troupe:

Indefatigable 16:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Bernard bear as recreated content. Delete the others, nn. Otto4711 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom as not being notable; upgrade to speedy delete for Bernard beanie per Otto4711. Big top 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Delete per Otto4711. Danny Lilithborne 03:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naconkantari 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchers (band from Limerick)

Delete. Not noteworthy- records released on unknown label, and later by the band themselves (violates WP:N). Sources unverifiable (violates WP:V). Cpmartin 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. "It's All Fun & Games 'Till Someone Loses An Eye" was certainly played a lot on BBC Radio 1 - in fact, now I know who it's by, I'm going to see if I can track down a copy - but I don't think it was ever in the charts, and I agree that the article needs proper sources. Tevildo 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way of verifying the airplay? Cpmartin 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's their John Peel entry, already referenced in the article, but I don't think there are any other archived playlists on the BBC site. Quite a few mentions in web postings of one sort or another (Google "hitchers BBC strachan"), but those, as we know, aren't admissible evidence. Tevildo 17:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchers recorded a session for John Peel in 1997 and featured in John's 'Festive 50' with their single 'Strachan'. 'Strachan' also featured on Steve Lamacq's show on BBC Radio 1 during the recent FIFA World Cup. BBC - Keeping it Peel Airwave 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Peel was known for his eclectic selections. However, that doesn't come under any section of the list "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" in Wikipedia:Notability (music). Cpmartin 17:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchers respect (at the least) section six of "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" Wikipedia:Notability (music). The Hitchers drummer and main songwriter, Niall Quinn, was a founding member of The Cranberries The Cranberries Official Biography - See paragraph seven Airwave 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Does seem like he was in "The Cranberry Saw Us", the predecessor to "The Cranberries". At that time, "they were known to just a fraction of music fans in Limerick city". The band re-named to "The Cranberries" after he left, and they got the new singer, Dolores O'Riordan and became very successful. Therefore I argue that he was never actually in the notable band "The Cranberries", but in an unsuccessful previous band. Hence section 6 doesn't apply, and the band is not notable. Cpmartin 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per, Wikietiquette I feel that Airwave should disclose his interest as creator of, and nearly sole contributor to the original page. He worked with the band as a sound engineer, as he disclosed in the talk page. Also, I should declare my interest as the one who nominated the article for deletion. Cpmartin 18:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget to disclose that Cpmartin's own (and sole) creation has been threatened with deletion. See Talk:The Hitchers (band from Teesside) Airwave 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC) — Airwave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Indeed, that's how I came to realise that neither page is worthy of Wikipedia; you will notice that I am not contesting the deletion of that page. As we both seem to have an agenda perhaps we should both stay out of the rest of this discussion and see what others think. I think we've made our respective views clear. Cpmartin 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC) — Cpmartin (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, but to come back to The Cranberries for a second, Niall, as a favour to the band he was leaving (amicably it must be said) contacted Dolores to come try out for the band as his replacement. See here. Therefore, no Niall, no Cranberries, as we now know them. A fairly notable involvement I'd say. Airwave 10:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that The Hitchers also respect section One of "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" Wikipedia:Notability (music), see these archived Hotpress articles. Hot Press (magazine) is Ireland's number one music magazine. Please understand that I am a novice as regards Wikipedia and was ignorant when it came to referencing sources... I will see to it that everything is properly sourced asap. Airwave 19:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Tev. -Toptomcat 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Claims of notability: tours, records, awards, favorable reviews in magazines, need to be substantiated by citations to the issue of the magazine, to the date, author, title of newspaper articles. Meets WP"MUSIC if claims are proven by reference to the sources independent of the band. Edison 22:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to another press review for The Hitchers, this time from the NME. Airwave 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to section Ten of "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" Wikipedia:Notability (music), The Hitchers song, "You can only love someone so much but you can hate them all the way to hell", featured in the soundtrack to the Steve Barron film Rat. Airwave 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very good stuff. Remember that it needs to go in the article as well as the AfD debate. Tevildo 01:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might I suggest a redirect to The Hitchers (Limerick band)? This isn't really a vote on my part, just a thought. Danny Lilithborne 03:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Teeside band is up for prod; if that goes through and this AfD results in a "Keep", I think that the Limerick band has a reasonable claim to The Hitchers itself. Tevildo 04:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on making a list of references. I will have something ready soon. Airwave 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a 'Press' section to the article that links to various press clippings. Still a couple of sources missing but I have requested the info directly from the band and am waiting for them to get back to me. Airwave 12:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you carry on like that, the article might just get to hang around. I still think a large fraction of the timeline will have to go, as it's uncited or untraceable. Especially the "Limerick event guide". Put the links on the article, take out everything from the timeline that doesn't conform to WP:V, and I might reconsider my opinion, as it's Christmas. Cpmartin 17:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:45Z

AKA (band)

Does not appear to be a notable band, failing WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC. Not verifiable other than the band's own website. JRHorse 17:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<band is ligetmate. what more proof do you need? Kevlar69er 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indications of meeting any criteria in WP:MUSIC, and unable to Google up any. Note that there is also a UK band by the name of AKA that can confuse the search results. -- Whpq 18:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Kevlar29er: A band being legitimate is not enough to qualify it for a Wikipedia article. It must also be notable per WP:MUSIC. If you can demonstrate that it is, the article will probably not be deleted. Heimstern Läufer 19:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Please see the aforementioned guidelines for musical groups and for notability. We are not saying the band doesn't exist, just that there is no demonstration it is notable enough to have an article at this time. Edison 22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is needed to keep, and it's not notable enough at this time, so the page should be deleted. I know Ayumi Hamasaki (one of my favorite singers) is notable, but not this band. Big top 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, possible conflict of interest. —ShadowHalo 04:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just some local band. Definitely not notable. User:The Metro

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:44Z

Blowies

This appears to refer to a slang term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, per WP:WINAD. JRHorse 17:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef/neologism/unverifiable. Demiurge 17:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fiddle Faddle 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Whpq 18:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "like STDs on a bad hooker." WP:DUMB. Wavy G 23:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleties dumb. Danny Lilithborne 03:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oral sex. Unreference non-notable neologism. —ShadowHalo 10:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7 Tonywalton | Talk 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Gentile

"He's da coolest." is not a reason to have an article. The creator has already removed a speedy delete warning for the reason of "This should be kept cuz i like the page" (check talk history because the creator blanked the talk page.) Epolk 17:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and so flagged. I have also reverted the blanking of the talk page so it may be seen in all its triviality. Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus seems to show that after revamp of article, notability is now asserted. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whip Jones

Relisting from long and unusually confusing previous nomination for deletion. Participants in the previous one are welcome to participate here, but please, be more brief. Procedural renomination, no opinion from me. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BIO. -- Whpq 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, there are assertions of notability, sources, etc. Kudos to the editor who cleaned it up. --Dmz5 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason is given for wanting to delete it. Its verifiable and a very notable subject. A Supreme Court case; two skiing Halls of Fame; and an endowed chair at Harvard. Whats the reason given for deletion? Bad faith nomination or the nominator never bothered to do a Google search. If the article needed improvement, this is not the venue for that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No real comment on your reasoning, Richard, but please remember to assume good faith. I don't see any evidence (i.e. edit warring or the like) to make me believe that this was a bad faith nomination, or that it was listed on AfD for an improper purpose. A Google search of "'Whip Jones' Highland" gets only 98 hits. I'm neutral, but there is definitely an argument that the article fails WP:Bio. --TheOther Bob 00:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list of google hit counts and alternate source BIOs can be found at: Talk:Whip Jones -BMcCJ

Comment Its never my intention to be rude or impolite, but I am sometimes critical. And people should be critical of me. I have made many spelling errors before Firefox 2.0, and many, many typos that have been caught. Editing is fun, I enjoy it immensely, but has consequences if you make an error or typo. Just look at his Hall of Fame biography. His death is listed for the wrong year. Very sloppy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - A procedural nomination (which this was) cannot be bad faith. Don't throw that around where it isn't warranted. We have enough incivility as it is.--Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment three high quality sources should be sufficient. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They may well be, don't panic, most of the other people here seem to agree with you so far. The first nomination was when the article was in much worse shape than now. The fact that it was improved part way was just one of the reasons for relisting the nomination afresh. (If you really want to see the others, follow the link above to the previous discussion, but keep a tight grip on your sanity, as it may try to escape.) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - With no offense to the contributer (he's a newbie, and admitted that he was confused and made a mistake), several editions along the line of [70] made the AFD horribly convoluded. Patstuart^talk|edits 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Supreme Court case makes him notable, if the founding of the ski area or its donation to Harvard doesn't. --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Ditto, above. BMcCJ
Comment. If the article was then as it is now, I wouldn't have nominated it. Under the circumstances, I need to make it clear that I am not !voting delete at this time. But, as a renomination, it is not suitable for a speedy keep unless all the delete voters there agree.Arthur Rubin | (talk)
Speedy Keep What nonsense to bother authors with having to defend meaningful articles. There should be a stiff penalty for unsupportable deletion nominations. Why don't the critics spend time improving articles rather than nominating for deletion. If they are not familiar enough with the topic to propose improvements, then how can they be qualified to judge the merits of notability. Kevin Murray 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Four things, I guess (sorry, I'm going to be long-winded):
  1. It's generally bad form to solicit votes, as BMcCJ did on Mr. Murray's talk page[71]. Some people refer to it as "canvassing" or vote stacking. Please don't do it - it harms this process (though I know BMcCJ is a new editor, and I'm sure he had no idea about that).
  2. Please try to assume more good faith. AfD isn't nonsense just because an article you like shows up here. Those who participate here generally spend time improving articles as well. But they also improve Wikipedia when they eliminate the junk that shouldn't be here. There should emphatically not be a "stiff penalty" for being bold and trying to protect and improve Wikipedia, even if the person gets it wrong. You disagree about the notability of this article and want to keep it - great. Vote to keep. But the idea that we should "penalize" people because they disagree with you - I disagree with that strongly.
  3. If people had to be previously familiar with the subject in order to vote to delete an article, nothing would ever be deleted. Those things notable enough for people to become familiar with them are...probably notable enough for Wikipedia. Stuff no one is familiar with (some 13 year old's Pokemon collection, somebody's friend's band) is probably non-notable. Would you really suggest that we couldn't delete that stuff because there aren't any experts who can comment on it?
  4. And, finally - did you have any reason why you think this person was notable? Please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't see anything about the article in your comment - only a call for "stiff penalties" for the nominator. So why, in your mind, is this person notable? --TheOther Bob 03:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This one seems close to me, and I initially voted delete when the article was in worse shape. I don't think the Supreme Court case matters. Remember that there's a difference between "notable" and "impressive." It's impressive that he pushed a case to the Supreme Court. But "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." The case received multiple non-trivial mentions in published works - but only because of what the Supreme Court did. (And, I might add, we haven't actually written an article about the case yet. When I have a little more time I may start that, but anyone else should feel free to as well.) I haven't seen anyone point out any similar media mentions of Whip Jones in relation to the case. I draw a distinction between someone like Brown, Roe, or Lochner (who became notable just by having their name in the title of a famous case), and those who were just involved in a notable case without themselves receiving any press. So I would discount the court case. However, he seems to have received multiple non-trivial mentions in published works in regards to his skiing business and his Harvard endowment - and that's enough for me. --TheOther Bob 03:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please keep this discussion to the merits of this article. I propose taking discussions of the process to whatever forums Wikipedia has for those discussions (feel free to add the links to those forums BELOW) so that this conversation can stay on track.
- I think the positive case for this article (above), and the facts that have been in it, for quite a long time, have been listed and mentioned enough.
- Thanks, Warm Wishes All, and Happy Holidays! -BMcCJ
Keep per nom - the rewrites have brought this 'up to par' quite well. SkierRMH 06:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom Johnbod 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would merge but again, there are no sources (other than a forum post) so there is nothing for me to merge. If you think you can provide the sources that makes this a policy-abiding inclusion in List of secondary characters in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends the edit histories here and there are preserved. Just dig it out. ~ trialsanderrors 02:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese (Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends)

Despite his decent number of appearances, Cheese is a fairly minor character. Since even the MAIN characters of the show don’t have their own articles, I recommend it be merged and redirected to List of secondary characters in Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends -- WikidSmaht (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom.Josh Parris#: 00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Danny Lilithborne 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep do not Merge...this character is clearly an icon for the network. He's appearing in advertisements on other networks (none of the other series characters are) and merchandising items related to him are selling out. Clearly, an imaginary friend who's rapidly becoming very well known. Merits a separate entry. JohnJFlynn 19:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, he is now one of the main icon representatives for Cartoon Network. Not only does he have at last count about 5 of his own commercials, he also has billboards dedicated to him. Everyone loves him, suprisingly more-so than the standard characters, thus his reappearance in episodes and commercial endevors. Thank you, Scrufdog 09:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above WereWolf 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, first off AfD is not the place to propose mergers, but I think that there is an argument for having a seperate article with the use in promotional material. FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and suggest Wikipedia:Cleanup. Tonytypoon 20:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the user who created the article didn't have a reason for creating it, the List of secondary characters in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends was about 50 kilobytes before it was created. Since Cheese had his own article, his entry in that article was removed and replaced with the main article template. The article size dropped to 47 kilobytes (currently it's 57 kilobytes). There has also been discussion about having characters have articles at Talk:List of main characters in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Squirepants101 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep This article concerns an important literary character and narrative device. A strange choice to mention Moby Dick, as Ishmael, the narrator of that novel, also has his own article here. Their respective novels are important in the literary Canon for the English language on numerous levels - construction, morality, philosophy, a reflection of the times in which they were authored, etc. To say that Scheherazade is merely a passive voice is to misunderstand her function, both in terms of the novel and the evolution of literary expression - Tom Jones and Tristram Shandy to name but two later novels that experimented with the narrative voice. The article can be expanded with a little research. WP:SNOW refers to this closure. The two remaining articles can be independently nominated. (aeropagitica) 23:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scheherazade

I know that the well read people are going to throw their hands up in the air and say "if characters like Harry Potter and Captain Kirk can have pages of their own why not a literary giant like Scheherazade", well please don't do an automatic keep, read my arguments before voting.

The page is very small in comparison to other heroines like Medea and this is for a very good reason; Scheherazade is a part of the frame story and so doesn't have an active part in the stories so there is very little to say about her, other than she gets married, tells stories for 1001 nights and then lives happily ever after, the end. Unlike Harry Potter and Captain Kirk and Medea, Scheherazade's character is not flushed out, she's only there to allow movment from one story to the next, which she does with very few words. The page itself is unreferenced and all the information on it is already or could be easily put on The Thousand and One Nights. Captain Ahab, from Moby Dick, is far more influential on his story than Scheherazade is on her's, but he doesn't have a page of his own, only a subheading on the book's page and I think the same should be done with Scheherazade. I have also nominated Shahryar and Dunyazad for the same reasons. Hera1187 18:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related as the same argument applies to them only to a greater extent:

Keep Scheherazade - I appreciate your reasoning, but this character is a cultural icon no matter the relative size of her actual role in the literature she is known for. Editors should be encouraged to improve the article. --Dmz5 18:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the other two into The Book of One Thousand and One Nights.--Dmz5 18:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor quality or stubbiness of the article is not a reason to delete. One of the most famous characters in the history of literature. The idea that we would include Sinbad or Ali Baba but not their narrator is unreasonable. Fan-1967 18:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scheherazade still occupies a central place in this literature, even if it is not extensive. The other two might be merged, although frankly, don't think they need to be, either. Heimstern Läufer 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To continue with the Moby Dick example, neither Tashtego nor Dagoo have articles; I don't know if one can argue that Shahryar and Dunyazad are significant enough to warrant their own articles, but merging them into the book's might be a way to improve the latter by expanding its coverage. I might also argue that Ahab does deserve his own article, but I'm not gonna do it.--Dmz5 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Room for improvement, but that alone is no argument for deletion, particularly when the subject is such a major literary icon. Keep also on the other two articles, although I am less convinced with those. Ford MF 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She's far too important a character to world culture to not have an article in this encyclopedia, being depicted and studied in many art forms, from Rimsky-Korsakov's Symphonic Suite to [Marc Chagall's portrait]. Character articles (as opposed to literary works) are justified by the effect of the character beyond the scope of the original work, and this character is a prime example of that. This is a valuable subject that should be expanded upon, not deleted -Markeer 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - she is one of the most recognizable figures in literature. Nominator, plz do take a look at WP:SNOW, it may apply here.Baka man 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point re: WP:SNOW - it does seem rather unlikely that many users will agree with this nomination. Can we unbundle the other two minor characters and have a new thread about them? That seems likely to generate discussion.--Dmz5 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- nomination admits her notability. Problems in the article can be fixed by editing. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep. She has a page on Encyclopedia Britannica, if she is good enough for that why not Wikipedia? Philip Stevens 19:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep One of the most famous characters in world fiction. --Folantin 20:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep. Frankly, this nomination seems to have a bit of WP:POINT about it, though I am not privy to any controversies that might have prompted it. Scheherazade, like Hammurabi or Semiramis, is an important cultural figure even if we don't know much about their biographies. It may well be that the sister and the sultan ought to be merged into this article, but there are ways to do that short of AfD as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article is definitely notable enough to be kept. Hello32020 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep her article, merge the other 2 into the article on the book. Famous character, subject of everything from classical music to Disney cartoons. Edison 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:41Z

2006-07 NHL transactions

Wikipedia is not a collector of indiscriminate information. This level of detail is well beyond the scope of what's appropriate for Wikipedia. I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

Dsreyn 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I think the die-hard hockey fans out there will be interested looking back on the previous seasons and find out what their favourite team did to become a powerhouse team or what they did to acquire all those young players. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. This kind of topic is a prime example of what should be in a sports encyclopedia. If we have topics for the 2006-07 NHL season, why not expand it further and have this topic which seperate but related to that one? I see no reason for it to be deleted. Thricecube 19:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From WP:AFD: Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article. Dsreyn 19:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the relevant season articles. Whatever the outcome of this nomination, those decorative logos need to be removed as they are in breach of the fair use policy. Oldelpaso 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This has already unanimously passed a previous AfD just three months ago, and nothing has changed since then. Merging is unrealistic given the size of both the transaction and the season articles. It is still not indiscriminate information as it remains a list built around a specific topic: team-to-team transactions that occurred during x season. An opinion on what "the scope of what is appropriate for Wikipedia" is not a valid reason for deletion. Resolute 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like hockey at all, but I imagine if I did I would be highly grateful for such an article. Ford MF 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of hockey deletions. Resolute 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fail to see how it is indiscriminate. There was overwhelming consensus the last time this was debated. -- JamesTeterenko 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger than Samson Keep, how can this not be part of Wikipedia's scope? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and thus does not have to fit within a publisher's guidlines. Notability is definitely not an issue here, and I strongly disagree that merging with the 2006-07 NHL season will serve any benefit, as the 2006-07 season alone has already been broken down into many sub-articles. I do agree the logos do not have to be there, they are against fair use and are only there because they look cool. If your worried about indiscriminate information, why don't you check probably a third of the 1.5 million articles on English Wikipedia and see just how many topics are milked to death and repeated over and over again on this encyclopedia. This isn't even close to being one of them, Wikipedia doesn't have even close to as much information as it should about the NHL. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plainly a large list such as this one would be dramatically unsuitable for a main season article; that's the entire reason large articles are broken into smaller ones. Ravenswing 04:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering that yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this is highly encyclopediac material. There's much worse articles that you can go about deleting. Kaiser matias 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:39Z

Sigrid D. Peyerimhoff

This article has been tagged to be cleaned up since August 2005, but hasn't been done so. Since it hasn't been cleaned by the editor I suggest the article to be deleted. --Pinkkeith 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be notable in her field. 26k+ ghits.Baka man 19:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This article may need some cleanup, but it is in reasonable shape. The idea of deleting it is quite unacceptable. She is a member of the select International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science which makes her extremely notable in her field. I am trying to add articles for all members of that academy. I will try to improve it. --Bduke 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the article, removed some direct copy from her biography and added several references particularly to her publications. I removed two external links that were just to single papers (out of around 500) and added more general external links. --Bduke 21:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per User:Bakasuprman. Ford MF 21:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an old cleanup tag should never be reason for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cleanup means cleanup, and does not mean delete. -- Whpq 23:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable and verifiable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:35Z

Revolutionary socialism

Unsourced and arbitrary, with unclear encyclopediatic value. The socialist movement was divided in the 1910s into a revolutionary and reformist wing, the revolutionary being the communist movement and the reformist being the social democratic. There are other ideologically tendencies that are both socialist and revolutionary, but there is no common denominator. --Soman 19:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unsourced can easily be fixed, and it's a thoroughly valid concept, whether or not you like it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are you arguing for delete or keep? --Soman 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sorry. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, the issue if hardly whether i like or dislike this concept. rather I question whether there is any real substance to this article other than [revolutionary socialism = communism + anarchism]. If not, then it should not have a separate article. --Soman 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What about the Revolutionary Socialists in Russia during the Revolution? And the parties in many countries (e.g., the Netherlands) which used this did not want to call themselves "communist" since this term was connected with the Soviet Union? --Bever
      - Yes, what about them? Do they constitute a separate political tendency? --Soman 10:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.10.149.151 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - You could make the same argument for Anarcho-capitalism, [anarcho-capitalism = anarchism + capitalism]. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: no, i think there is a difference. the relation is the opposite. anarcho-communism is a separate tendency from the mainstream anarchism. revolutionary socialism is not a separate communist or anarchist tendency, rather its a category that encompasses both communists and anarchists. However, except for being a) revolutionary and b) socialists, communist and anarchists have little in common. --Soman 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources. Noteworthy topic, but it needs better coverage than this. Heimstern Läufer 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. A political group can be called pretty much what its members want to call it.--Anthony.bradbury 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: which political group? --Soman 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - do explain why Britannica has an article on this exact title.Baka man 19:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, doesn't the Britannica seem to give little additional definition than revolutionary socialism = socialism that is revolutionary ? --Soman 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Britannica. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep through personal experience -- many members of an organization with which I am involved describe themselves as revolutionary socialists, and are neither anarchists or Communists (i.e., Marxist-Leninists). The article as it currently stands is unsatisfactory and I've wanted to try to clean it up and expand it, but haven't had the time or sources on hand to do so. I'm reasonably confident there are such sources, but since I won't have an opportunity to look into them myself for several weeks, my keep will have to be weak. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Brittanica. Ford MF 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N notable termRaveenS 20:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a lot happened in the socialist movement after 1910, and we shouldn't oversimplify. The sects may sometimes be hard to distinguish, but that's what an encyclopedia is for. DGG 02:54, 25 December 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 Naconkantari 20:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luminoth Temple

Speedy deletion contested. Dead forum that was never notable to start with. Utterly fails WP:WEB. Delete RWR8189 19:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending a reason other than {{{text}}}. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not really sure how that happened, must have been some error when I submitted it.--RWR8189 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources given, I can't find any, and there isn't even a concievable way in which reliable sources could be created later. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party sources. -- Satori Son 19:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, it was an official Nintendo Forum, similar to its bigger counter part the NSider. --ShadowJester07 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short-lived promotional blog; lacks independent sources. Edison 22:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nintendo NSider Forums.Redirect to Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. It was essentially a long-lived promotional spinoff of the Nintendo forums (or so I think). --- RockMFR 04:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Gvisp 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable dead elitist message board with no claims as to why it's any different from another message board. The Kinslayer 11:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. It is already mentioned and explained in that article, so a simple redirect will do instead of deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem any more notable than any other forum. Just H 18:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, if not keep as is. I don't know about you, but I don't know of any other private, invite-only forums run by Nintendo. It was open for over a year with over two thousand members (although not all were active), and it had exclusive information, pictures, videos, and more. I do not think it deserves to be deleted, but if you insist on getting rid of it, we should merge it into the MP2 page. Also, if you go to the Chozo Sanctuary found in the External Links, you will find a section containing many screenshots and transcripts of conversions and such. If you contact the administrators, they'd be many than happy than to provide you wish these materials. Lupus Gemini 22:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the above mentioned merge target. Do not keep as is. It's a major violation of WP:NOT, even if it's notable. Currently, the article does nothing more than "exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers" which is a major no-no under WP:NOT. Do we have any evidence that it meets any of the criteria in Web content guidelines? The article doesn't provide any. --Kunzite 01:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. Most of this article is non notable (ranks, forums, ...), and the subject is already covered in the other article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendorks

Speedy deletion contested. No assertion of notability. Site utterly fails WP:WEB, should be deleted RWR8189 19:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cute name, but still not notable. Heimstern Läufer 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - game-cruft.Baka man 19:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just H 21:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I searched for any mention of nintendorks outside of their own website, and only found forum postings. No coverage anywhere so probably not notable. Mango juice^talk 23:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the WP:WEB notability guidelines. No non-trivial third-party coverage, never won any independent notable awards, not distributed through more notable means. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-web. Danny Lilithborne 03:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not speedy material. It asserts notability. --- RockMFR 04:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They may well be the most notable group on their message board, but in the bigger world, there a tiddler, not a lunker. Main claim to fame seems to be that they discovered the fabled Hylian Loach in Ocarina of Time. That fish is notable in itself, but they have no proof to back up hteir claim. The Kinslayer 11:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it - Despite Mangojuice's lackluster Google search, in which he or she ignored the vast, non-forum references to the website, Nintendorks was a notable IGN affiliate in the past. Kinslayer's proof of the Hylian Loach can be found on YouTube in the form of a video, as well as references on independent websites. Nintendorks has a podcast, which can be subscribed to via itunes [?]. The website has historical significance if for nothing else than inventing the word "Nintendorks," which has since entered the popular lexicon as a way to describe Nintendo fans. It's a humor site, not a news site, so NeoChaosX's yearning for notable third party coverage is irrelevant. VerusMaya II 19:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is needed is not references on independent websites, but non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. "Yearning for notable third party coverage" is in fact one of the only things that is relevant in this debate, its passage of WP:WEB WP:V and WP:RS are the only relevant criteria to judge the website. --RWR8189 22:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Here's a small sampling of outside, independent third party coverage:

Although mere speculation, perhaps RWR8189's conservative views are influencing his objectivity, because one of Nintendorks' writers occasionally publishes liberal editorials. VerusMaya II 20:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment nearly all of the links you supplied are from unreliable sources, and even there the mentions of the website are trivial. And before I nominated this article for deletion (along with a host of other non-notable forums around the same time) I have never visited or heard of the website. Many times people don't like it that a website they may have a large emotional investment in does not satisfy WP:RS WP:V or WP:WEB, but Wikipedia is not a web directory.--RWR8189 21:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it- It should also be noted that Nintendorks has a large presense in several different MMORPG's, including World of Warcraft, Urban Dead, and Cybernations. Momtartin 14:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is User:Momtartin first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 21:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it- Metacritic frequently quotes Nintendorks (example: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/n64/legendofzeldamajorasmask) Bogartotron 17:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:31Z

Garfield The Third

The storyline is not concrete, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sr13 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only google results are Wikipedia and mirrors. Seems to be 100% speculation at this stage. Demiurge 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garfield, where there's at least a line discussing this. This article, though, isn't speculation, it's a prank (see the insane supposed cast list). Besides, in Garfield The Third, isn't Garfield butler to the Prince Regent? ... oops, that's Blackadder, not Garfield... Tubezone 21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garfield per Tubezone. As the nominator said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but I think I've heard elsewhere (I can't seem to find where) that there is a 3rd movie so at the very least, we should probably have a redirect. If no word comes up about a 3rd movie, we can delete the redirect after a few months. -WarthogDemon 01:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garfield per WP:HOAX. —ShadowHalo 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Google currently produces no real hits for this apart from Wikipedia, I'm going to assume it's a hoax. I also don't think it should be redirected, because if it is all untrue, then we'll have a useless/nonsense ridirect.Hondasaregood 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:30Z

FM Scene

Unsourced original research, cannot possibly be properly sourced (WP:V) Recury 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT a web directory. Demiurge 19:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NEO. I've never heard of this. PullToOpen 20:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Hello32020 21:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism and linkfarm. Edison 21:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article appears to be primarily a link farm. -- Whpq 23:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there is a large community built around the series, it should be mentioned in the main article - there is no need for this list of links. --Dreaded Walrus 18:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:27Z

The Mile After

Yet another vanity band page. Only Google hits are for their page, their MySpace page, and some MP3 download service. No listing in AMG. One self-released EP. Chowbok ☠ 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails everything on WP:BAND. I'm also not seeing any evidence other than the article that they were signed by Rushmore Records, as the article claims. Also, one can tell that this group isn't notable when their "website" redirects to their myspace page. PullToOpen 20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I have edited the page, they do fail WP:BAND, but they were signed to Rushmore Records and that can be found easily with a google search. Acidskater 08:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and PullToOpen. Edison 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently only one self-released EP. Fails WP:BAND. -- Whpq 23:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:19Z

Counter Terrorist Team

Note. I have added the articles for the two characters to this AFD. Fan-1967 20:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Element from a work of fiction with no assertion of notability (appears to be fanfiction). (Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)) Marasmusine 20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with the character profiles linked from the article. Wikipedia is not the place to publish amateur fiction. Fan-1967 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable fanfic. Although I must admit I'm almost swayed by seeing "please do not delete" in the article's text. Geoffrey Spear 20:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not intended for the promotion of non-notable fan fiction. --Folantin 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author, who claims in notes on my talk page to be a "Federal Agent" of unspecified agency, is now vandalizing User pages. Folks, I think we're being trolled. Fan-1967 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, this guy is exactly wrong. Claytheway2 or Fed. Clay Dial —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Claytheway2 (talk • contribs).

Delete Clearly non-notable fanfiction Gwernol 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Then delete the damn page! Guys I dont exactly agree with you but dont talk about it forever just delete it. Oh you probably already knew this but Im not a federal agent even though that would be awesome and you all know it. Sorry if I caused too much trouble. User:Claytheway2

Delete per nom -- Whpq 23:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- MikeMorley}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 03:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Thompson (general)

Delete doesn't seem notable. Just H 20:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no specific criterion what rank an army officer has to hold to be automatically notable, but I think that a brigadier-general from the Revolutionary War is probably automatically notable. He was the first officer to be commissioned as a Colonel in the United States Army. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability does not come with rank, only the amount that switches to turkey Alf photoman 21:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First Colonel in the army of the United States is pretty notable. Brigidier General in the American Revolution is pretty notable. The article has 3 references. Edison 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to "William Thompson (General)", if only to distinguish between the rank and the antonym of "specific". --Dennisthe2 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, absolutely notable by virtue of high rank. See also here, which includes correspondence to and from General Washington. —Chowbok ☠ 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, even a street in New York City is named after him. Ipeirotis 16:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:12Z

NES Zapper Project Help

There is some interesting information here but it isn't encyclopedic. Fragglet 20:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a how to guide for things. Suggest author check out Wikia. Recury 20:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an electronics or a hardware manual.--Anthony.bradbury 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is explicitly stated to be a how-to guide -- Whpq 23:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (Wikipedia is not a how-to guide), as well as per some possible copyright issues (see bottom of the article). Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not a how-to guide. Big top 23:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and double Recury's suggestion. Danny Lilithborne 03:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Gvisp 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to Wikibooks per OR, NOT guide, etc.. as discussed above. --Kunzite 01:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. —ShadowHalo 09:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People from Plymouth

Delete At best, this should be merged into the parent article, but there isn't alot there to merge. I mean, Napoleon? I know whenever I think of Napoleon, the first thing I think of is Plymouth, England... Just H 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tentative. There are articles and categories like 'People connected to Plymouth' and this article could be tidied up by reviewing all of those items together. Napoleon would be a connected person, rather than someone from Plymouth. I can't confess to knowing on what basis someone is 'from' a place - I'll have to read up on policy and then maybe I can make a more meaningful contribution here.Stevebritgimp 21:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, Reexplain I would suggest keeping the page but, a) renaming it to People from Plymouth, England and explaing what from means and clean up the list: born there, lived there, left and went somewhere else from there??? Can a person be "from" more than one place? All the from pages remind me of that joke: "such and such" is a great place to be from" but I like the from pages. Cool list, just thought Napolean was from an Italian island. 69.19.14.27 23:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC) sorry for the IP, I'm firewalled.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list should be renamed List of people connected to Plymouth, England, since the only non-list entry states that the list entries don't have to be from Plymouth, England. However, there are already two categories for people, respectively, from and connected to, Plymouth, England. Since the only difference between the list and the categories are that the list has three word long bios, I don't think Wikipedia needs both. I favour categories. Secateur 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial. I guess Napoleon is here because he sailed as a prisoner from Plymouth to St Helena. But I shouldn't have to guess.--Anthony.bradbury 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title does not correspond to contents. Too broad and arbitrary- Napolean? That's like listing Fidel Castro, Nikita Kruschev and Yassir Arafat as "People from New York" because they were at the U.N. Edison 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and cleanup. Cbrown1023 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Camargo

Bump from speedy. Possibly notable; does need major cleanup. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-13 23:22Z

Keep and cleanup "Pedro Camargo" in quotes, gets over 40,000 ghits, (with maternal surname, still 11,000) his CD's and DVD's still in print. Tubezone 10:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pedro Camargo Mariano, which is just a stub, but is at least done in Wikipedia style. Anything that would be merged from this article would have to be rewritten anyway. Recury 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 09:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Katholos

Not notable. While he was a member of a representative team, the team did not do anything particularly newsworthy. The only significant independent coverage of Peter is in local papers on local soccer teams, and confirmation that he was on the Sydney Olympic FC. No coverage of his impact or performance on the team. Chovain 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Does not provide any proof of notability. Edison 21:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he played for a team at the top level of his sport in his country. Precedent seems clear for sportspeople. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm led to believe he was a member of the Socceroos - the Australian national football (soccer) team which represents Australia in international football competitions. Article needs more than a week to grow from more than a stub. Josh Parris#: 00:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News Archive search shows he played for Marconi. [72]. He also played for the Socceroos in friendlies against England and New Zealand in 1983. [73]. In fact this SBS cache shows that he played between 1981 and 1984 for Australia as well as for several NSL sides. Meets WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 05:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played for a notable NSL team (Sydney Olympic, and if they're not newsworthy I think that says more about soccer coverage in Australia in the 80s) and the Socceroos! There's some more information at Technik Football which he founded [74]: he played for Canterbury, St George, Sydney Olympic, Larissa (Greece) Apia, Marconi, and Melita from 1976 – 1996. --Canley 06:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think I see a consensus forming here. I'm happy to let it go. (Or do we need to wait longer?) Chovain 07:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:09Z

Controlling of Projects

Non-notable. I've previously deleted it as CSD nn web, but I've agreed to relist it on AFD. Delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable.--Anthony.bradbury 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent and reliable sources to prove notability. Edison 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like an advertisment. The only link is to the company page. Secateur 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Hello32020 21:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New facts! Please see external links list on User:Kaster/Controlling of Projects and German wikipedia entry. Is that enough for notability? And please - you can't make decision about quality of article because the entry is not finished yet ! --Kaster 09:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete due to lack of notability, or assertion thereof. - Tiswas^(t/c) 12:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 back to Wookie. Just revert messed-about-with redirects instead of AFDing them, please. Proto::► 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wookie

None notable person. All google hits points to the the race Wookiee. No sources M8v2 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be proven through the use of reliable third party sources (WP:V, WP:RS) that said person meets and surpasses the notability guidelines for people, in particular those still living (WP:BIO, WP:LIVING). Would support a slight merge to WOCQ, the radio station in question. Following deletion or merge, a redirect should be created or reaimed to point at the furry Star Wars variety. -- saberwyn 21:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of people who are non-notable have had radio shows. Needs independent reliable sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles, to help meet WP:BIO requirements. Mention him in an article on the radio station, until he hits the big-time. Edison 21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect stop AfDing vandalized and hijacked redirects CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect and protect article. --Dennisthe2 22:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:06Z

Animal Attacks Seagulls

Apparently an amateur film by some high school students. No indication it has been released. Not verifiable, not notable. Fan-1967 21:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think it should be deleted, it's a great film and a great siteSimonburns 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hate to say it, but you're going to have to come up with some notability assertion other than random reviews from a webpage. See WP:NOTABILITY for a good guide to what you're up against. --Dennisthe2 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above statement as I have edited myself with an added screenshot of the film and logo as well as release dates. Skates3000 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Released where? Distributed by whom? In what theatres? Most importantly, where are the Reliable Sources that will Verify any of the material in this article. Fan-1967 21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NN. The comment above from User:Simonburns is an opinion.--Anthony.bradbury 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the article is sourced to prove notability. --JudahBlaze 21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, can those claiming the facts about the film prove the content of the article, using material sourced from reliable, third party sources like newspapers or magazines? If this can be done, then the article will stand a chance of inclusion. Saying "I like it" isn't enough. -- saberwyn 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent reliable sources to show it is a notable film. Has it been shown in theaters or at film festivals? Has it been reviewed in newspapers or magazines? Has it won awards? Edison 21:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article, it was filmed with a Nokia 6280. -- Fan-1967 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, now that's some high tech equipment. I think that's going to set a precedent in Hollyweird! -- Dennisthe2 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, lots of famous directors started back when with 8 mm. Edison 15:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It lacks sources. To answer other editors, according to the revised article, it has been released on CD. Total sales of about 35 units, 40 pence a piece, 13+ pounds total.Secateur 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, isn't that about the price of a blank CD? Fan-1967 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the profit margins are razor thin now, then wait until they get Carrot Top in a lead role... --Kinu ^t/_c 07:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FILM and WP:NOTABILITY spectacularly, with a small dash of WP:CRYSTALballery. --Dennisthe2 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:RS and WP:V. Searching for "Animal Attacks Seagulls" in Google scores exactly zero hits. -- Whpq 23:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete, violates WP:V, patently non-notable and the definition of WP:NFT. I'd love to see if anyone can give a reason to keep other than WP:ILIKEIT. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete this one please it cannot be reliably verified under film guidelines Yuckfoo 02:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Editor attacks nonsense. Robertissimo 03:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Robertissimo stole my idea. :P Danny Lilithborne 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7. NawlinWiki 22:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyze

Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Likely a hoax, as searching for either the nickname or real name gets no relevant results; no records, no tours. Hence, this 15-year-old rapper is so "prominent" that this article violates WP:V. Probably a CSD A7 candidate, but I didn't want to get into an edit war with the author in restoring the tag over and over, so brought here for the record. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:01Z

Groupboard

This article has no notable sources. No media coverage. It fails WP:WEB. Alexa Trend/Rank: 231,721 (1 Month) 408,476 (3 Month). Anomo 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JamesMLane t c 17:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--RWR8189 06:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Irshad Manji —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 11:24Z

Project ijtihad

not notable, taken directly from website Nlsanand 22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article takes most of its material directly (verbatim) from its own website. It appears to read like Irshad Manji's my space page. Most of the differences were corrections I made myself before realizing that there were no real sources. Nlsanand 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TruthSpreader^reply 02:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect rather than delete. This page should simply redirect to the Irshad Manji article. "Project Itjihad" might be a valid section in that article, as long as the section doesn't carry undue weight. And of course, any plagiarized or POV text from this article should not be used at all. Peter G Werner 21:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to keep. Naconkantari 20:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Tank

The Mammoth Tank is a tank in the Command & Conquer video games. The article is written very much in an 'in universe' tone, and I do not believe it is possible to rewrite the article to avoid this, as the only information about this fictional tank is within the game. Additionally, none of the fictional facts about this tank are verified, or verifiable, and it is very much original research. Much of the content of the article also fails WP:NOT a game guide. There is much precedent for deleting such articles, for example, see other C&C unit / building AFDs, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ion Storm (Command & Conquer), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mobile_Construction_Vehicle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG) and so on. Delete. Proto::► 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The data there collected is easily verifiable by game cutscenes, manuals, EA podcasts, screenshots, trailers, game data values and Mike Verdu's tech blog. Second, it's an iconic tank of the game and is featured quite prominently in Command & Conquer 3 promotional materials such as trailers, screenshots or wallpapers. Inclusion of this article in Wikipedia makes it look thorough, as it allows an user curious about the tank featured on these materials to quikly learn of it's past and present. Not to mention that it's not a game guide but rather a presentation fo the Mammoth Tank, not the strategies associated with it or (God forbid) direct transfer of game stats to Wikipedia. Keep. Mikael GRizzly 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article provides verifiable information on a signifccant game unit, and is not a mere listing nor game guide. --Eldarone 13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I want to know why the game list has six games, when, according to the article, the fictional tank is only present in four of them. I also want to know how the tank can be considered iconic and significant, when the company with the rights to the unit didn't bother including it in all the games in the series.Secateur 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Tiberian Dawn: Mammoth Tank, Red Alert: Mammoth Tank, Tiberian Sun: Mammoth Mk. II, Tiberium Wars: Mammoth 27. In all officially connected games the Mammoth appears in one form or another. The Apocalypse in Red Alert 2 and Overlord in Generals are obvious nods to the Mammoth in form and combat performance. The Overlord even more so. Mikael GRizzly 07:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious nods? If a gamer look carefully at it, perhaps, but then it's original research. Also, all the links seem to be very much dependent of EA. Independent third-party sources? And, the in-universe style has to go, the game guide references to their cost in game currency have to go, the dual inspiration theories, Dune and real tanks, needs to be at least merged and sourced, and the real tanks that merely happen to coincidentally look like it... why? Really, find something not EA, not original research.Secateur 10:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article needs "multiple third-party reliable sources" from the real world as a minimum indicator of notability. As this topic is and will forever be "in-universe", it cannot satisfy this requirement. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 10:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC):You mean the manuals for every Command and Conquer game? Or the developers of Command and Conquer? Or Gamespot? How about those as resources?OB --Eldarone 21:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article contains verifyable information as explained before, and it is not just a list. Furthermore, the Mammoth is clearly one of the most powerful and therefore most important units in the game, so an article specifically for this tank is acceptable. BBitterwolf 22:52, 22 December 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.

Keep - This article is part of the C&C universe containing info on this unit not easily found on other sites.

I used to go on Wiki all the time just to look for hard-to-find-C&C info. Why are ypu people so touchy about deleting everything? What, does a article take up a lot of space on the Wiki server or something? Are you guys desperate to free up space in the Wiki server? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poskov (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 February 2007 (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 Keep Naconkantari 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handbra

Unsourced article that looks like pure original research on a non-notable topic. Prod was removed without comment. Valrith 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously Guy (Help!) 00:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Cleanup - quite possibly Original Research, but wikilinks imply a need for the article. Josh Parris#: 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Be bold and take out the WP:OR if it bothers you so much, but that's no reason for the entire article to go. – Lantoka (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference. Well written, and useful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with better references Lixy 21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe expand the article to include other common methods of hinting at nudity similar to the handbra? Either way we wont be running out of paper anytime soon, I can see some potential here. Superslash 14:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep. The phenomenon is well-known, but the actual use of the phrase has not bee documented.DGG 02:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Take a look at what this article looks like after removing all of the material that is unreferenced to WP:RS and therefore unverifiable original research. It's empty! This is simply a neologism, so fails WP:NEO too. Valrith 05:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and revert to a sensible version. Deleting the content while an AfD is in process is IMO disruption. Andrewa 10:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but I agree that wholesale deletion during AfD is unhelpful. I've restored the content; I consider it unsourced OR but it should be there for everyone to judge. JamesMLane t c 17:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 07:58Z

Pikmin 3

Not enough verifiable information available from reliable sources to justify an article at this point. Currently fails Wikipedia notability criteria, including the proposed criteria for software and video games. Page can be recreated when enough information is available. Dancter 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violating WP:CRYSTAL. As of December 2006, nothing is known about the game or its characters. says it all, and pretty much makes the article self-nominatring. -- Whpq 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-balling. "Pikmin 3 is the speculated next installment in Nintendo's Pikmin series" - self explanatory, WP wants speculation like schoolkids want Jamie Oliver's turnip and rainbow-squid dinners. QuagmireDog 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as crystal-balling. We know that Pikmin 3 is the speculated next installment in the series, and I think this will be on the Wii, but it's not time yet to create this article since Nintendo have not confirm for a Pikmin 3. Big top 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love the first 2 Pikmin games and can't wait for Nintendo to make a third, but this game has not been announced. TJ Spyke 04:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just H 04:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Gvisp 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it's speculated then it's not been announced. If it's not been announced then it's crystal balling. The Kinslayer 11:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Crystal and no source. -Ryanbomber 12:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "nothing is known about this game" An article could be written once more information is revealed. --Pinkkeith 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 11:20Z

Ever-failing character

Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOT. This unsourced, neologistic term appears to have been created by the article's original writer. It has almost no Google hits. All 26 hits (11 when it cuts redundant hits) appear to draw its information from this article. Doczilla 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 00:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also a big finger wag to the author for not even mentioning the greatest failure in cinematic history, Indiana Jones. Danny Lilithborne 03:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HAD to create the name-could also call it "trend of characters failure" or something similar,yet I simply wished to specify a popular Television trend of creating characters who never do win.The names not important,heck you can make it into a sub-section of another article,all im saying is i DONT KNOW under what article it would fit,yet it IS a historical and curent trend,based on comedy of a persons ever-repeated failures and I understand that the name might be changed,got nothing against that or this thing can be moved to another article as a sub-section,yet delting this and evrything on it from Wikipedia COMPLETELY,would indicate the ignoring of an existing topic witch is already manifested for many years and would find many many more examples then I have noted (didnt watch animated series too much when I was a kid, so I dont know a lot of them) .Move,change name or make into a subsection of a conected article,b ut DONT DELETE CONTETNS FROM WIKIPEDIA.New Babylon — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Babylon (talk • contribs) 2006-12-21 16:05:24
- If the television trend has not already been documented outside of Wikipedia, then documenting it in Wikipedia violates our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. The proper place to document a never-before-documented trope in television programmes is an article in a journal about television or about literature, or a book. If you want to make an argument that this article should be kept, then you must show that this trend has already been documented in journal articles, books, magazines, and so forth, by citing sources. The sources will also tell you what it is called. Going by the article, the talk page discussion, and your comment, it appears that you have no sources, and that you just invented a concept, and decided to come to Wikipedia to document it first here. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Being "wiki" does not mean being first. Wikipedia is an enyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fictional character. Interesting article. -- Dasnedius 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Conscious 15:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guildhall at SMU

A student programme. Not much more to be said, really. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Seems to be done well, may need cleanup--SUIT 23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how is a course at a university notable? Josh Parris#: 00:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Although part of SMU, this college has its own campus but I'd still recommend a merge with its parent organisation. In fact, I was about to do so on User talk:Pizzahut2 and then saw that it was up for AFD. - hahnch e n 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a well known video game program, and has recieved plenty of coverage (Electronic Gaming Monthly even did a 2 page article on it last year). TJ Spyke 04:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SMU. Not notable as a sepearte campus or course. Nuttah68 12:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable on its own per EGM article. Drew30319 01:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per EGM (and other?) coverage. Here's a link to an article at 1UP.com, which should be the same as the thing that was in EGM [75]. --- RockMFR 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 05:46Z

Xavier Castellà

As far as I can tell, fails WP:MUSIC. No articles (except dabs and lists) link to Xavier Castellà, none of the people mentioned as associates have articles. Many Google hits, but I suspect Xavier Castellà is a self-promoter - the sites seem to be user-supplied content type sites (the only substantive article edits are by user:Xaviercastella, who seems only interested in making edits about Xavier Castellà). Such vanity must go rewarded. Delete. Josh Parris#: 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The closest the article gets to establishing notability is claiming that he has "performed at shows broadcasted by (various TV networks)", which could mean any number of things, from having been the star of the program (notable!) to having played third trumpet in a hundred-member orchestra (not notable). Without any sources for these assertions, we can only assume the latter. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no reliable sources of notability. Nuttah68 12:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Great Story in lieu of deletion —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 05:44Z

Epic of Evolution

Who is the originator of this idea? The list of proponents, including Heraclitus, Goethe, and Darwin, is pointless because it does not say who (apart from the Wikipedian who created this article) posits that these figures were promoting "The Epic of Evolution". I am going to try to edit the article into a keepable form. Here is the version that I am nominating for deletion. — goethean ॐ 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question aboue - there is no mention of Heraclitus in the original and restored article. Goethe is not presented as a proponent only that he used the term in some way in the long past which is usually done in referenceing the history of a word. Darwin is a main concern of the controversy and he is appropriate mentioning. In any event its being removed.--Jlrobertson (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable ??? see below.
Neutral for now. The book isn't an obvious failure of WP:BK - respectable publisher, and some legit reviews, but Amazon rank of only 650,000-odd. If we can steer the article towards the book and establish notability, I don't see why it shouldn't stay. Tevildo 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough for wik. -- Dasnedius 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What??? see below--Jlrobertson (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC) An article with 130+ references is notable.--Jlrobertson (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain for integration with other entries: "The Great Story" and "Big History", which all have the same theme; that is, to relate the new story of creation that originates exclusively from scholarly science and history, as contrasted with "The Creation Myth" that originates from religious teachings and other anecdotal themes claimed to be inspired by divine communications. --TomEM 17:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Retain restore article contains over 130 references indication it is a major topic with an abundance of sources. It is the subject of conferences, books and college courses. It is being discussed in their writings by very notable people. It is certainly notable. Some of the comments above were made reading a significantly reduced article. This is about evolution which gets hacked up a good bit in articles.--Jlrobertson (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice against rewrite per Zetawoof —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 05:35Z

Organizational Climate

I cannot even figure out what this article is about. The article says that the term is hard to define and that's basically it! Read it yourself and see what I mean. —EdGl 23:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that its hard to define already tells me that the article is worthless. Tarret 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely rewrite, then keep. All this article appears to be saying, effectively, is that nobody agrees on what exactly "organizational climate" means. Chasing a few Google searches yields this paper, which cites a few sources in defining organizational climate as "the way in which organizational members perceive and characterize their environment in an attitudinal and value-based manner". In simple terms, the phrase appears to be a bit of management-speak for "how good people feel about their job". I have no experience in business management, so I can't really judge how important it is, or write a sensible article on the term. If nobody else can, though, then just stub the article to a definition. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, Job satisfaction? Redirect Josh Parris#: 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Although that article needs a lot of work as well. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't got the foggiest what this article is about or why anyone should care what it's about. Totally unnnecessary management speak.--Folantin 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article as it stands is an essay. -- Whpq 17:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the article is rewritten in an encyclopedic way, which will clarify its topic and definitions.--Yannismarou 20:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BOLLOCKS. Complete nonsense. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 22:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Yeah

This band hasn't released any music yet. Some of the members have some history, but it seems a bit premature to create an article about a band which may or may not ever release anything. Chasing sources appears to suggest that the source for this information is the band's Myspace (everything else appears to cite that!). While I understand that this has become a system of communication for many bands, it still seems a little shaky to base the entire article on that. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not it's on Myspace, self-written material isn't enough for WP:V or WP:NOTE. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm calling WP:CRYSTAL on this one in summary, though it's kind of edgy right there since they're working on the album. If the album releases, it might be worth listing the entry here. --Dennisthe2 00:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Dennisthe2, seems like they are about to produce work, but trying to determine it as notable in the near future is crystal balling.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It probably passes WP:MUSIC, but I doubt it passes WP:V without any reliable sources. —ShadowHalo 04:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Dream App

Deletion nomination Contest without claim to encyclopedic notability. Obviously a contest like this has to generate publicity in order just to operate, so there was computer press coverage of the contest launch[76]. See also related afd for MacHeist Bwithh 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moved from article talk page I am moving the following new user comment from the article talk page and registering the opinion as "keep": Bwithh 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep :I see no reason for full deletion of this article (other than spite). Instead, it should be reshaped into historical reference for those people who search for My Dream App (like I just did). Unless an article is offensive or only serving a self-promotion purpose, I really see no reason to delete it.

There is no reference for rating anything on it's "encyclopedic notability". The idea of such a term is near-rediculous. If an article provides informative reference, then it should be in an encyclopedia. End of discussion. Kevin B. 03:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment by Kevin.B moved from talk page by Bwithh 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin.B, please see WP:AGF Bwithh 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.No independent sources to show the concept has achieved notability. Edison 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of blog entries, but lacks reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in line with wikipedia policy to have an article for a organization if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent. I believe some examples of these in this case would be:
- this macnn article which contains quotes from the originator of the contest but doesn't editorialize
- this PC World article which goes more in-depth than the trivial aspects of the inital contest
- other articles which have highlighted the main points of the contest/organization:
  - http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=15628&Page=1&pagePos=1
  - http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/10/26/5768
  - and also an interview with someone behind the website on macworld podcast, in which the main subject of the article was macheist, his latest endeavour. --brandon.macuser 00:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but this isn't an organization, but a contest, every contest gets written about somewhere which makes the contest i.e. the article not notable Fabhcún 20:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. — Wackymacs 13:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Fabhcún 20:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 21:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cards in Sonic Rivals

Prod removed by anon saying "Does not violate any of Wikipedia's rules." which is actually extremely amusing to me. Anyway, this article fails WP:NOT#IINFO in a big way. A really big way. Axem Titanium 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless cruft. And I've preemptively burned the "But people have put a lot of work into this article, you just don't like them!" strawman, so please don't try it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain MORE on why the article has been put up for deletion? Just so we can be more specific in the tag on the page. Knuckles sonic8 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a listing of cards in a game, with no encyclopedic value. Nobody but people who are playing the game would ever want to know this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 00:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone except Knuckles sonic8. Danny Lilithborne 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no value to anyone who isn't playing the game, so it belongs on a gaming wiki. Koweja 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful into the main article. The rest can be deleted. Just H 05:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT. Nothing can be salvaged from this article; it's just a list of all the cards. --Scottie theNerd 08:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh the indiscriminate horror! The Kinslayer 11:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - There is nothing indiscriminate about this list. It is not put together haphazardly, and it has a very clear purpose. --Pinkkeith 16:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, to be useful for anyone trying to find all the cards. (I.E. a game guide.) The Kinslayer 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the definition of a game guide. --Pinkkeith 16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What, did you mean this bit? 'The exact meaning of a "strategy guide" these days is very vague' The Kinslayer 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your quote is out of context, since you didn't quote the entire sentence. It continues: "as most could be easily ranked as "walkthroughs" or "hint collections"." The editor was trying to say that strategy guides gives both a walkthough or a collection of hints. Yet, if you want to think this is a game guide you certainly are entitled to your own point of view. Yet, I beleive this is a just a collection of information and doesn't tell you how to play a game to completion. --Pinkkeith 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, but it gives you details on a part of the game you would have to find by yourself otherwise. Lists like this are essential parts of strategy guides. They tell you what you have, what you have missed and how many there are in total. A quick thumb through a couple of strategy guides I own reveal plenty of lists in all of them. Incuding lists of collectibles from many games. The Kinslayer 16:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The major difference between this and your many strategy guides is that your guides show you how to find them. This is just a list of the cards found in the game. --Pinkkeith 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope, that would be the maps that tell me that. The list consists of just the card and box for checking off when you collect it. The Kinslayer 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be forgetting that a list of cards does not give any information to anyone except those who are already playing the game, which can mean that it may be considered a game guide, but more importantly, that only a fraction of a fraction of the population would find this page remotely informative. Axem Titanium 22:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye; the list is obviously useful, but it is not within the scope of information that Wikipedia is interested in, and is the sort of the content that would belong in a game guide. --Scottie theNerd 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list of every card is more appropriate for a game manual than a general knowledge encyclopedia. -- Whpq 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTGAMEFAQS :P --- RockMFR 02:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a list. We have plenty of lists. It doesn't even have links to anything that isn't already linked by a list of Sonic characters. -Ryanbomber 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merged It was already in the Rivals article, and split for length reasons. I have moved all of the data back to the Rivals article, and you lot can do whatever with the page.GrandMasterGalvatron 23:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are misunderstanding the point of this AfD. The information on this article is inappropriate for all of Wikipedia since it is only useful to such a small denomination of people and fails WP:NOT#IINFO. I've gone ahead and removed it from the Sonic Rivals article since it provides nothing to the general reader. Axem Titanium 01:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, find somewhere for it to go, and then you'll have something. I'm actually the one who mainly composed that list and it took a lot of time I could have put elsewhere. So, any sugesstions on where it can be placed? GrandMasterGalvatron 01:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it is now, the only place I can think of is userspace (someplace like User:Grandmastergalvatron/Cards in Sonic Rivals). This is because the info itself does not belong on Wikipedia. Actually, if you want to flesh it out a little more, I'm sure GameFAQs would be happy to accept it. Axem Titanium 01:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well...I suppose that can work. It could still be linked to from the article....correct?GrandMasterGalvatron 01:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, no. That's why I suggested that GameFAQs would be a better host for your work. Axem Titanium 02:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Ok. Humor me...why would it fail to qualify as an external link or even a reference? After all Some of the information from those cards is being used as a reference for other articles. For example, the previously publicly unnamed Heroes variant of Metal Sonic was revealed through these very cards to be called "Neo Metal Sonic".GrandMasterGalvatron 02:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wouldn't be an external link since it isn't a link to an external site (ie not Wikipedia). Of course, a reference is completely fine. Just use the {{cite video game}} template to cite information from the game. The information doesn't have to be available on Wikipedia to cite it. In the case of "Neo Metal Sonic", just cite the video game and it'll be fine, regardless of whether the article exists or not. Axem Titanium 02:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No no, I mean if the data was hosted elsewhere, could it be linked to from the article? In this case, I could have it posted on GameFAQs or some other joint, and place a link within the article.GrandMasterGalvatron 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, that's avoided because it still doesn't improve the article per WP:EL. People who are interested will search for it themselves. There is a {{GameFAQs}} template to link the the GameFAQs page though. Axem Titanium 16:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With is posted nowhere, you would rather have all of the data lost?GrandMasterGalvatron 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encylopedia, not a fan site. It's Completely irrelevant. I'm amazed there's actually this much discussion. --DurinsBane87 12:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruft. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 18:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim week

Contested PROD; local festival with no indication in the article of notability. Leading to addition of the PROD (I inadvertantly had been the second to do so) including searching the archives of the Corvallis local newspaper and consulting the Corvallis, Oregon tourist information site rather than relying on a broad google search. The festival might be quite important to the participants, but there is not an indication of why it would be otherwise notable to a broader audience. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - croissants? Josh Parris#: 00:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete week we should have a festival too. Danny Lilithborne 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Jim week" + Corvallis=Zero g-hits. Probable vanity for a group of folks who are friends of "Jim" who meet at a local coffee house, or hoax. My friends and I go to McMenamins every week, can we have an article too? Katr67 07:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources provided or findable -- Whpq 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. feydey 18:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced non-notable event. —ShadowHalo 03:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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