Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 9

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

Purge server cache

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

Eliza Branicka[edit]

The result was Merge GizzaChat © 23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Branicka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This woman seems only notable by marriage, and that can be included elsewhere. Triviaa 00:12, 9 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in Kirby Air Ride[edit]

List of vehicles in Kirby Air Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, gameguide matieral, not in prose format. Doesn't belong here. Clyde Miller 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment not even as a list on the game page? And I would mean a simple list of names; not with their stats and speed and such. -WarthogDemon 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can merge some info, but even merged can be argues as fancruft. --Wizardman 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and maybe the base list on the main page.SkierRMH 02:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely guidish and unencyclopedic. Zip424 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Fails WP:NOT. MER-C 04:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per reasons given in nom. ArmAndLeg 04:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Austin2040 04:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOT (game guide, there is no need to list every vehicle and discuss it). Also, creator of this article did so in order to 'stop an edit war' (IE, someone was deleting this from the Air Ride article because it was unsuitable, so this contributor just started a new article). It's all there on the Kirby Air Ride talk page. QuagmireDog 05:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you care? I was just trying to stop people bothering me about putting it on the game's main page! It was there before, and nobody did anything about it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Link 486 (talk • contribs)

We care because we want to make a good encyclopedia, and this doesn't help. From what I can tell, several people have expressed an interest in including a list on the main page of the vehicles, but only the vehicles (no stats). I have no problem with that, but I don't think this article needs to be here.--Clyde Miller 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia NOT. — Seadog 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons provided. ← ANAS Talk? 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't care if it's not in prose form, whatever the hell that is. You're all mocking me, ruining something I put my effort into. I don't know who gave you the right to do that, but I'm not going to stand for it!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Link 486 (talk • contribs)

Look dude were not trying to mock you here, and we're not ruining something you put your efforts into. We are working to reach a consensus about this article and the information in it (by the way, prose is complete sentences and paragraphs.) Maybe this information has a place on StrategyWiki, Encyclopedia Gamia, or GameInfo. Take a look at those to add strategy guide material. As for Wikipedia, I think the only suitable answer is to delete this article and put a small list on the main Kirby Air Ride article.--Clyde Miller 22:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We're just trying to follow the rules of WP:NOT, not trying to mock you. Chill. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure fancruft, and per above. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge core content to Kirby Air Ride; that article could use it better than a separate page. TTV|talk|contribs|email 03:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge This is fancruft by itself, but a reduced version could be helpful to the main article. -- VGF11 02:09, 12

December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This list in completely unencylopedic and completely unnecessary. Timkovski 10:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! Fine! Do what you will! I'm tired of going through this anyway! Go ahead and just delete it! I don't care anymore! Link 486

  • Comment Perhaps the article should be moved to StrategyWiki. -- VGF11 00:07, 14 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union and Islamic Fundamentalism[edit]

Soviet Union and Islamic Fundamentalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

POV nonsense. This is an incredibly biased, unsourced article with no justifiable reason for existing. There is no such thing as "Arabic Islam" and "Central Asian Islam" has no "relationship" with the United States. Chechnya and Dagestan are not even in Central Asia. KazakhPol 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Amarkov blahedits 01:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - bascilaly unverifiable with little accurate content.SkierRMH 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR essay, stub, no potential to be anything more. Dragomiloff 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. James086Talk | Contribs 09:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note also that we have a conventionally titled Islam in the Soviet Union article, which wants some expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Seadog 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SkierRMH. ---J.S (T/C) 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, inaccurate, POV and biased; and all in only five lines.--Anthony.bradbury 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ← ANAS Talk? 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ORish, insufficient context, inaccuracies, and material on the same general topic without these issues already exists on Wikipedia. -Fsotrain09 21:13, 9 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; all four of the "delete" !votes were due to a copyvio, which has now been removed. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenine[edit]

Lenine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
View single debate

That's not an Wikipedia-article, reads like copy&paste. IMHO it's not possible to wikify this here. Should be deleted Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 10:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've got rid of the massive MTV-Unplugged text dump (although someone is welcome to re-add it in a more judicious manner) and had a quick run-through with a wikification pencil on the rest. The subject of the artist is verifiable and appears notable. Certainly the album "Falange Canibal" got press attention, and I'd expect that the same is true of the rest of his discography. A lusophone editor should be able to shed more light on this, but there doesn't look anything wrong with it now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:34, 3 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 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable by cursory Google search. Adding Allmusic, etc. links. --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, BigHaz cleaned up the problems with this article. Hagerman(talk) 07:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently the article has been cleaned up a little, and at this point, it definitely should be kept. SupaStarGirl 15:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yeah pretty notable, on amazon too. — Seadog 16:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per allmusic entry. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a copyvio of this page. No prejudice for a non-copyvio recreation however. ---J.S (T/C) 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Clear copyvio as above. Virtually word for word. --Anthony.bradbury 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per copy vio.. Baristarim 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Doesn't matter if it was 'cleaned up', the remaining info is still a copyvio. Seen more than one good article deleted because of this kind of lazy copy/paste editing. --Brian (How am I doing?) 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as far as the copyvios go, I've done the best I can (just now) to work around that. I'm hampered by a lack of experience with the man's music (or familiarity with Portuguese sources), so if anyone else can paraphrase things better they're welcome to join in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There don't appear to be any more copyvios from the pages cited in this discussion page surviving. It looks like we can keep it now.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hume Lake Christian Camps[edit]

Another apparently entirely unnotable summer camp, like all the other ones that have been deleted here in the past. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Wizardman 01:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - and WP:CORP, nn business.SkierRMH 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely per nom.--Dakota 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sign of reliable third-party coverage to build an article beyond a Yellow Pages entry. Pascal.Tesson 15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nothing else really to say about this. — Seadog 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability. ---J.S (T/C) 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. But their hearts are in the right place.--Anthony.bradbury 19:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ← ANAS Talk? 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:50, 9 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 per WP:CSD#A7. —Миша13 14:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grosvenor PFC (AfD subpage)[edit]

Grosvenor PFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete Non-notable Pub football club. Fails WP:CORP by being not meeting the requirement that they be a senior team in levels 1-10 of the English football league system. Charlesknight 21:08, 3 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, AfD template removed early in discussion and not replaced. Agent 86 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete- would be a valid speedy IMO. No need for AFD for this. Friday (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete . nn notable.--Dakota 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Nashville Monkey 09:05, 9 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapier Instructors[edit]

Rapier Instructors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Probably not uncontroversial enough for a prod but this article is as close as you can get to Wikipedia becoming the Yellow Pages. Spam magnet to boot. Seems to have been spun-off the rapier article so maybe merge back but by all means cleanup. Pascal.Tesson 00:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, maybe merge some salvageable things into the main article. But kill the list, definitely. -Amarkov blahedits 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, list of instructors can change and the text is non notable. Bearly541 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - 70.105.138.175 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If they has articles I'd suggest this be a category, but seeing as how that's not the case I'll stick with the deletion. --Wizardman 01:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yep, reads like the Net/Yellow PagesSkierRMH 02:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all.--Dakota 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. TSO1D 14:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable and per nom. — Seadog 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge. If their are notable rapier instructors, recreate as a "List of notable rapier instructors" ---J.S (T/C) 18:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, a merge would probably be pointless.-- danntm T C 04:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a directory. James086Talk | Contribs 13:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly because most of the information - ie. list of schools is still duplicated in the original article.Peter Rehse 10:21, 12 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 per failure to meet notability. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LibTom Project[edit]

LibTom Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This software is not notable according to any criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software). The author has requested its deletion, saying, "With respect to Tom_St_Denis I did not put the page there, nor do I want a page about` myself on Wikipedia. Please remove it. Same goes for LibTom_Project. I don't think Wikipedia should be polluted with small projects and people, and I certainly don't want to be known as a person to cause such pollution."[1] — Matt Crypto 01:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i wrote it to complete a bit what was already there, but as Tom itself asked, please remove it.
Alejandro Mery 01:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't say it's CSD G7 material, but delete per nom anyway. MER-C 04:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ← ANAS Talk? 19:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only reference is to the LibTom project's web page, and there is nothing in the article that says that LibTom is considered to be of great importance. For comparison, I notice we have no article about LibTiff, which I'd guess is more important; it is of moderate importance in that it is actually used in the implementation of many commercial and open source applications which deal with TIFF files. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, delbleated this page already. BTW I've closed libtomcrypt.com until both pages have been removed. Enjoy. -- Tom
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failure to assert notability. —ShadowHalo 06:00, 14 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. The issue here is notability, and the contributors wishing to keep the article are not addressing this issue from the point of view of the pertinent guideline WP:BIO (as does Mus Musculus, at the very bottom of the discussion). Under these circumstances, I'm inclined to use my discretion to honour the express wish of the subject of the article and declare a consensus in favour of deletion. Sandstein 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom St Denis[edit]

Tom St Denis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable crypto software author; subject has requested page be deleted, saying, "With respect to Tom_St_Denis I did not put the page there, nor do I want a page about myself on Wikipedia. Please remove it. Same goes for LibTom_Project. I don't think Wikipedia should be polluted with small projects and people, and I certainly don't want to be known as a person to cause such pollution."[2] — — Matt Crypto 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 50k ghits for his exact name, published author with his books on amazon, reviews of said books out there....it's not a slam-dunk keep, maybe, and the article has some NPOV issues, but he seems notable enough to warrant an article. Darkspots 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Maybe in a year or two WP will be big enough it'll be a no-brainer to keep articles on marginally notable programmers/authors, but for the moment I don't think so. Also ghits is a misleading metric here, because the subject is very active poster on usenet and other forums. Arvindn 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per darksposts. — Seadog 16:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less talk, more deletion. -- Tom
  • Keep He might not want his page to be up there, but what counts is notability. 50k google hits is ok for a keep.. Baristarim 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Son of a ..., other cryptographers have more ghits like "Brian Gladman" who has ~55khits. Are we to make pages for them as well? Just delete the damn page already. -- Tom
  • Keep Yes, in a completed Wikipedia those cryptographers should have articles as well. --Nick Roberts 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't know what are the policies, but if the subject asks to remain anonymous, it's a sign of respect to do so. Alejandro Mery 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete out of respect for the subject. --Brian (How am I doing?) 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm about to apply my personal "book notability" test, which is "a book with Amazon sales rank of better than 200,000." (I picked that number when Wikipedia had about 400,000 articles, reasoning that less than half of Wikipedia's articles ought to be about books. I've stuck with it, for no good reason. However I've found it to be a good way of discriminating between "real" books and self-published and/or very obscure academic titles). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Cryptography for Developers has Amazon.com Sales Rank: #106,787. (Bignum Math at #220,533 doesn't quite make the cut). He's a real author of a real book. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're going to decide to keep the listing could we at least make it a bit more informational and less ripped from the bio of my latest book? -- Tom
  • Keep. I think he is notable enough in his field. Published author, publishers provide biographies (Elsevier, O'Reilly). Needs a clean-up. QuiteUnusual 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update Well fine, y'all want to keep the page. My only suggestion is that it gets a clean up and reflects who I really am (positive and negative, it should be truthful and lets face it I'm not a perfect fellow). Also, probably should merge the LibTom page into this. (Note: I still want the page to be deleted. I'm only offering more acceptable alternatives in case for some reason deletion isn't possible, which it should be because it's about me...!!! ... ok enough wiki'ing, I'm a bit drunk off of Redbull Vodka at the moment... weee...) -- Tom
Suggestion. It's not considered a good idea to edit articles about yourself, but I don't see why you couldn't draft some paragraphs or suggest some changes on the article's Talk page, Talk:Tom St Denis. Be sure to indicate any sources we could use... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't want to come off as rude. I'm just really motivated to have the articles removed. It's also probably not a good idea if I draft paragraphs about myself. That'd be kinda self-serving wouldn't it? The current article lacks details to be of interest to anyone, and even if it were flushed out with more content I still don't see what's so notable about myself to warrant an article. If you guys think you're going to hurt my feelings by voting for deletion you're mistaken. I'm the one who pushed for the deletion in the first place! -- Tom
  • Comment: it seems to me that neither the act of publishing books nor posting lots on the Internet provides notability. I'm usually happy to let sub-notable articles be, but when the subject is a non-notable living person who has expressed a wish not to be included, then we should not include them. Please be certain that this person is genuinely notable before we keep it against his wishes. — Matt Crypto 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Some local media may be doing interviews with me about my doings (setup by my employer ...). If the community wants to keep the article about me, maybe they can use the published interview(s) for material? -- Tom
    • Yep, that sort of thing is an ideal source. — Matt Crypto 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're digging your grave on the notability question, Tom. Cheers, Darkspots 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does that mean? Once and for all, I'm for deletion. But failing that, I'd at least want an article about me to be interesting :-), you know, sanity gives way to ego. -- Tom
        • I think you've been very clear, actually, Tom; nobody here doubts your earnest desire to see your article deleted. What my "digging the grave" reference to is that you are saying that new sources proving your notability are about to emerge--the best sort of sources for showing notability, that is, genuine media that's independent of you. The nominator claims that you are non-notable, which would, according to policy, be the only real reason to delete the article. You're bringing forth new evidence of your notability, thus undercutting your expressed desire. Darkspots 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, gotcha. Well, to be honest I think it's the marketting folk at my job who talked the local media into it. Though they do seem intrigued about my politics and how I "used the Internet to build a Career." I'm not trying to say what I've been doing for the last five years was trivial or unimportant. I just have to question, in the face of all the other OSS projects out there, how unique and notable it is. It'd be like if you were a really good coal miner. Even if you did a good job, worked hard, etc, do you deserve a wiki article? The only real thing that stands out between myself and other OSS developers is my desire to release to the public domain instead of copyleft. -- Tom
            • We take these things one at a time. Plenty of people argue (these are folks arguing to keep their articles, you understand) that there are many articles of, say, bands just as notable as theirs. Doesn't matter, all you can evaluate is the article in front of you. Same argument applies to Tom St Denis, just in reverse. And, coal miners are not inherently notable, they have to do something truly unexpected to achieve notice. Guys who write books, on the other hand--keep your nose clean, work hard, get the reviews, you get a wiki article. Plus, Tom, you've got a catchy name for your product. Never underestimate the power of a catchy name. Darkspots 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've added info to the talk page if you guys want to rebuild the article and keep it. At least with some details it'll be worth having the slightly elevated profile around.
  • Delete. Looking at the stuff Tom has done, I'm inclined to say that he's borderline notable at present. What sways me towards deletion is his pleasing modesty.
Tom, my own view is that a really good coal miner could certainly qualify for an article here. In assessing people's work-related notability I look for two things: first, have they accomplished something by their own efforts that makes them stand out in their field ? and/or second, are they recognised by their peers, and by the broader public, for their work ? So a coal miner could certainly qualify, perhaps if he were highly productive ( for example, we have an article on Aleksei Grigorievich Stakhanov, who was noted for his zealous workmanship ( though there are also doubts as to precisely what happened on that historic day ) ), or perhaps if he in some other way performed at the peak of his profession. The same is obviously true for any other person in any other field of human endeavour. Right now it appears, from the comments of people more expert in the field of computers than I, that you are doing a great job. Your own opinion is that you're not quite unique or notable enough, though, and ( even allowing for some gentlemanly modesty ) you're probably one of the best judges of that, so I'm prepared to go with deletion for the moment. But watch out: people know your name, and are talking about you, so you're definitely at risk of having an article at some stage ! With best wishes for the future. WMMartin 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. The way I see it, being a bit over-modest is always a good idea. It's all too tempting to drop your guard and let the ego soar. As another pointed out, usually people are fighting to keep their vanity pages because they lost perspective and think they're really worthy of notability. I'd rather lean towards the side of caution and due process. To be honest, my notability would be better proven when all those, whom I presumably (*) touched through my efforts come forward to offer testimony, then by simply listing a couple of books and a URL to some source code. I admit it seems odd that I argue for deletion instead of keeping it. It isn't because I'm anti-social or self-destructive. Just that I have enough respect for what Wikipedia is attempting to not let my personal ego interfere with the process. (* based on the concensus assumption I'm currently notable). -- Tom
  • Comment It's refreshing when a subject of a wikipedia article not only takes interest in wikipedia but also keeps a level head when they learn about their page and that it may be kept against their wishes. I do hope that tom sticks around and updates other wikipedia articles as well. I am sure he has vast experiance in different areas that would definately be a big help to wikipedia. On a site note: I admire the stance to publish into the PD instead of Copyleft. That alone should be a point of notability and what science/research is all about. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to a few articles already (not my own :-)) including the article about ToorCon and the list of Cryptographers. I don't have a wiki user but I'm considering making one... -- Tom
  • Comment What's the call? I'm still in favour of deletion on non-notability grounds. I think we should close this discussion once and for all. I'm not closed to the idea in the future about an article (if the circumstances warrant it), but as I see it now this isn't the case. -- tom
    • Deletion debates aren't usually concluded earlier than five days after they start, which means there's some seven hours or so before this one becomes eligible to be closed. The article will almost certainly be kept, though, given that there's no consensus to delete. — Matt Crypto 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there enough citable resources to fill out a competent article? I think if you really press some of the voters here for wiki-worthy material they may realize the folly of their ways. I'll bet most voted to keep out of some misguided attempt to avoid hurting my feelings or something. As it stands now, the only published material with my name on it are the two books. And aside from the prefaces of both there isn't much material that discusses Tom or his wacky LibTom Projects. Again, I encourage people to re-evaluate the situation. -- Tom
        • I don't think there are enough citable sources to fill out more than a few sentences. — Matt Crypto 11:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then do what you know is right. -- Tom

Merge The LibTom Project page is about his software. This page is about him as a software writer which seems to be the only thing he is currently notable for. Assuming that he systematically becomes more notable for other things a higher quality article could be compiled. For now it seems as though his claim to fame is as an "upcomming cryptographer" and as such could be mentioned in articles about cryptographers and in a page about his software. Paul Hjul 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the LibTom Project AfD currently stands at 9-0 in favour of deletion article has been deleted. — Matt Crypto 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that deletion, and the recent modifications to the article, doesn't it seem legitimate to process the deletion request with the utmost haste? This is the sort of information people can find with Google and has no place in an Encyclopedia. -- Tom
  • Delete. One of the criterion of WP:BIO is "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". The article establishes that he is published, but at least two of the books are public domain projects and I cannot find any evidence that any of his works meet the requirement of being subject to multiple independent reviews. Mus Musculus 13:28, 14 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. If anyone wants no merge anything, tehy can have the text, although I'd counsel against it because very little of the content is based on reliable third-party sources. Sandstein 06:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard closing disclaimer: If this discussion contained any opinions offered by single purpose accounts or arguments not based on applicable policy, they were discounted in assessing consensus for this decision. Sandstein 06:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma Kumaris Info[edit]

Non-notable website. Lack of secondary sources. If relevant, material could be merged into Brahma Kumaris after deletion. (Note: that article and involved editors are in the evaluation stage for an ArbCom case. See WP:RFAR#Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and merge any material based on secondary sources to Brahma Kumaris, as nominator. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB, if possible delete under CSD A7. Tarret 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Brahma Kumaris. SkierRMH 02:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge as per nom, and if AfD fails it needs a hell of a lot of clean-up. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable article. Plenty of independent google hits. The article was only created a mere 24 hours ago. Let's give it some time to develop before debating whether to axe it. Looks like there are already some interesting sources given at the bottom of the article - if given time, more sources will likely be appended as well. Smeelgova 06:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment - no, it doesn't have many google hits - a query on "Brahma Kumaris Info" returns hits on info about Brahma Kumaris and not information related to the webpage Brahma Kumaris Info (brahmakumaris.info). The search string "brahmakumaris.info -site:wikipedia.org -site:brahmakumaris.info" (excluding wikipedia and self-references) returns more relevant results, and those aren't too many: 287. Most of which are link listings and message board postings. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment search for link:www.brahmakumaris.info or link:brahmakumaris.info shows zero links to this site. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly using wikipedia for advertisement purposes. It goes against [3] and it does not have any credibility (as far as notability of the author,degrees,level of expertise, etc.) avyakt7 15:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Riveros11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Merge with Brahma Kumaris RaveenS 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. WMMartin 18:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It can appropriate to have more than one article on a particular cult or religious group. The Scientology page, for example, currently includes links to some 55 distinct wikipedia articles. The article proposed for deletion hosts information about the Brahma Kumaris organization, current and former members beyond the group's beliefs, practices and history as covered on the Brahma Kumaris page. Specifically, many ex-members have written personal accounts of their experiences, as well as narrating the traumas of other ex-members unable to provide their own accounts, their conflicted lives having ended in suicide. While the content of such pages may (and have been) debated, these references exist, and properly belong to a discussion that considers the cultlike aspects of this particular group. These resources have been aggregated at the BrahmaKumarisInfo website,[5] representing the movement to disseminate knowledge about the group's cultlike behaviors. It is the name of this website that gives the page its title. The high activity of this site, involving thousands of posts from hundreds of former and current members, and splinter group members and ex-members, justifies an additional article about the cultlike behaviors that can be found within the Brahma Kumaris as well as their human, legal and social consequences. Duality Rules 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge In viewing the current Brahma Kumaris it reads like an Advert of the Cult. I agree with the above by Duality Rules as it does have a large data base and seems to offer support services to the full spectrum of this area of beliefs and given the current condition of the Brahma Kumaris article the need is there as the cult members seem to be sitting on the article.LogicUser 06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— LogicUser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The Brahma Kumaris have a history of attempting to suppress information about them, even from their own literature, as is clearly seen on the Brahma Kumaris entry and supporting discussions. BrahmaKumaris.info is the most extensive and diverse, independant source of information on this religious cult, and as such is worthy of recognition in Wikipedia Howiemac 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Howiemac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek : Intrepid[edit]

Star Trek : Intrepid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable fan game Mnemeson 00:38, 9 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Dominion War[edit]

Second Dominion War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

fancruft with no canon backing, prod removed by author of article Mnemeson 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and need to search out links/references to this fancruft (see above AFD). SkierRMH 02:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go. There's about 10 articles on fan films out there, do they require a deletion too? I'm slightly reluctant because they seem reasonable articles. MER-C 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it's an offshoot of this, which doesn't, and is also up for AFD. Star Trek: Intrepid is, I feel, notable, but the forum game which shares its name is not. --Mnemeson 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, I stand corrected. All the more reason to delete. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fire at will Delete, as Memory Alpha doesn't have an article on it; therefore it's not notable in Star Trek. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Disavian. Memory Alpha is the definitive Star Trek Reference, and if they don't have it, it isn't Star Trek. FirefoxMan 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - based on non-notable, and non-canon, material. Quack 688 09:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send this article straight to the Epsilon Quadrant. ( Yes, I know there are only four quadrants. That's the point.... What I'm saying is send it into non-existence, even within the fictional setting.... Yes, that's right, I'm saying Delete.... Well, yes, I could have said that the first time, but I wanted to say something amusing. It's a joke - get it ? A J-O-K-E.... Oh, for goodness' sake, just get a life.... Yes, well, if I had a life I wouldn't have to spend my time agonising over tertiary fancruft.... ) WMMartin 18:17, 12 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert speed[edit]

Robert speed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, reads like a bio. No other hits for Vitix Robert Speed on google. Akihabara 01:38, 9 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Razak Mohaideen[edit]

Abdul Razak Mohaideen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Person seems non-notable (100 google results), went 2 months with zero references or any verifiable information added. Should be deleted. Plus, IMDb profile contains only 2 films and no info. Wizardman 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • k: Tag for cleanup and references instead Akihabara 02:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been tagged for months on both cleanup and references, as well as wikification. Those would be hard to acomplish with so little information on him. --Wizardman 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails both WP:BIO and WP:PROF, and w/ 2 IMDb hits, doesn't look like it would pass either. SkierRMH 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above concerns. — Seadog 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searched with Arabic, no results. ← ANAS Talk? 19:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Keep & possibly just stub it (that appears to be an essay just c&pasted). regards this nomination, 2 mnths with those templates obviously not enough when the wit who put them there didn't bother categorising it, please note this, article wasn't brought to the attention of anyone who might know the area (i've {{Malaysia-bio-stub}}ed it & found 1 relevant category. please pay more attention & remember WP:BIAS. also, anas, arabic not the best language to search for malaysian films/directors  ⇒ bsnowball  15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it does need citations, being neglected is not a reason for deletion. Someone who has made 20 films that have grossed that much in that area of the world certainly seems notable to me. Mus Musculus 13:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, I have begun to clean this up and add references. If you voted delete, please review the article and reconsider that I am willing to work on it. Mus Musculus 13:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks a lot better now. I'll Withdraw my deletion vote for now and just ask that it be closed as a no consensus. It actually looks like an encyclopedia article now. --Wizardman 15:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:BIAS __earth (Talk) 07:50, 15 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legacy Corporation[edit]

The Legacy Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Also nominating the Edison A. Bardowell article, CEO of this organization. Non-notable organization (drum and bugle corps, as outlined in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Drum Corps, are notable as nationally touring music ensembles, but this group has never fielded a corps). No webpage for The Legacy Corporation currently exists, the corps returns no results at Corpsreps (a catalogue of drum corps), no result for the nonprofit at GuideStar, and no results for the CEO that aren't mirrors of his Wikipedia page. Delete. Mr Bound 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing more than an ad Akihabara 02:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a hoax to me; no hits other than listings and Wikipedia mirrors. --Brianyoumans 02:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. TSO1D 14:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — Seadog 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Wizardman 21:09, 9 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a flame blue?[edit]

Why is a flame blue? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is simply not an encyclopedia article. It is a question with a huge load of awful handwavy conjecture as to what the answer might be and contains no valid, correct or verifiable information. There is NO need for a merge as the quality of information on this page is horrific and I've already added a nice section explaining the blue color of flames to that article. Deglr6328 02:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Darkspots 02:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unsalvageable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Plus some discussion of flame being blue can be found int he main article. --Wizardman 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burninate per above. MER-C 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why hasn't this been deleted yet? per nom. -- Antepenultimate 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn with a mauve flame as per nom. SkierRMH,08:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced essay with no sources or fact-checking carried out. including reading the flame article. (aeropagitica) 09:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete cannot be speedy enough for this magnus opus. TSO1D 14:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this still exist? -- Kicking222 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This article should meet the same fate as the deleted article "Why do men but terrible presents?". Sr13 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does meet any speedy criteria I know of, but it is unsourced and redundant.-- danntm T C 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A speculative lecture with no factual content.--Anthony.bradbury 19:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete ..speedy. ← ANAS Talk? 19:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a list of questions to guide students' thinking about why a flame is blue. That kind of content is quite appropriate for a Wikibook teaching physical science, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Fg2 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asobi wa owari da! Delete Danny Lilithborne 01:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete with a purple flame. - ∅ (∅), 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks FirefoxMan 16:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete there shouldn't be an article asking a question!? 86.20.53.195 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not an FAQ, the article is not encyclopdic, nor sourced.Inner Earth 13:28, 14 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eos (fictional dog)[edit]

Eos (fictional dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable minor character in only vaguely notable book; if you look the customer reviews on Amazon, none of the plot summaries even mention the dog. The Wikipedia page on the book mentions the dog prominently, but it was created using the information from Eos (fictional dog) after I prodded the article. (see talk page). Brianyoumans 02:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is reason articles have "Characters" sections. From the looks of it, the main book article needs all the help it can get; it is certainly premature to start separate pages for individual characters from that book. However, I would like to mention that using customer reviews at Amazon as some sort of notability test is frightening. -- Antepenultimate 03:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No evidence this is a notable fictional dog. Obina 10:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, the novel itself isn't very notable, and especially is one of its minor characters. Second of all, this was already completely merged with Funeral Games, so keeping it with the same context would be silly. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SupaStarGirl 15:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Michealas10 — Seadog 18:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Wizardman 21:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that's one obscure fictional dog. Salvageable content might find its way in the book article but even that article has little place on Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 07:40, 10 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) 2006-12-09 05:37Z

Rodney and Josh Strother racing workshop[edit]

Rodney and Josh Strother racing workshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability not asserted, no hits on google Akihabara 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - fails WP:CORP and WP:BIO, esp. with the nonsense at the end of the article. SkierRMH 02:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 04:35, 9 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Antouri[edit]

Carole Antouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Delete. NN, appeared on one talk show. Ckessler 02:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Less than 50 ghits, and most of them appear to point only to the one indicent. SkierRMH 02:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The "Advocate" article about the couple: [7] Darkspots 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Baristarim 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --Wizardman 21:12, 9 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobcasting[edit]

Mobcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

neologism. someone makes up a word on their blog, and suddenly it needs a wiki article? also, the article almost reads like a blog, other than the first paragraph. Skrewler 02:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NNNeologism. (ooh, do I get an article for my dubbing a 'non-notable-neologism' that way?!) SkierRMH 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 56,000 hits = Keep--Deglr6328 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NEO should clear up any misconceptions anyone has over using Ghits for a neologism: "We must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Any questions? -- Antepenultimate 03:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. YAWN (yet another worthless neologism) Dragomiloff 03:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BAHLEET (Strong Delete). --Staos 03:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. YAWN is exactly right. MER-C 04:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable made-up word. no reliable sources. and no, bloggers and blogs are definitely not reliable sources. many external links. - Femmina 10:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. --Wizardman 21:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and because article has no references and all external links are to blogs, rather than unbiased sources. cacophony 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send it to sleep with the fishes (I know it's not referring to that kind of mob, but I couldn't resist). Danny Lilithborne 01:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Neologism. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 06:01, 13 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ran (Bob and George)[edit]

Ran (Bob and George) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a webcomic character. According to the article, it's a recurring cameo role in a sprite webcomic. As popular as Bob and George may be with it's 60k Alexa rank, it's cameo characters aren't notable or encyclopedic. - hahnchen 02:20, 9 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. DS 17:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steely Dan trivia[edit]

page full of trivia, doesn't need its own page or such Booshakla 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wow, an entire article where every line would get the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag! SkierRMH 02:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. About the only way you could more blatantly fail WP:TRIV is to say "HAHA SUCKERS I'M MAKING A PAGE FULL OF STUPID RANDOM THINGS!!!" -Amarkov blahedits 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not encyclopedic at all. Delete per Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. SupaStarGirl 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kids if you want some fun/Please don't post indiscriminate unencyclopedic trivia to Wikipedia/less I'd have to say delete.-- danntm T C 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't think of any person that would merit his/her own trivia section. Heck, his main article may have too much trivia as it is. --Wizardman 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant, unencyclopædic, superfluous trivia. TTV|talk|contribs|email 16:35, 10 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf H. Rothermel[edit]

Rolf H. Rothermel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Importance has not been asserted. I found only one google hit other than wikipedia. Credibility not enhanced as creator is person himself, and his only contribution. Akihabara 02:52, 9 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, G11, WP:SNOW, etc. Chick Bowen 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron McVan[edit]

Ron McVan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability not established and this article has numerous WP:BLP issues. Unclear if this is a vanity article or an attack article but in either case doesn't appear encyclopedic. Dragomiloff 03:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 04:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, it's a nicely begining attack article :) SkierRMH,08:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it doesn't appear encyclopedic then Wikipedia is here to do just that. Yes, it does need working on and this will be done by myself and others greatly if you please just give us time. McVan is the MAIN exponent of Wotanism and it extremily notable. It needs working on admittedly but lets do that rather than delete things! FK0071a 17:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose that Wotanism is notable, but that does not make practitioners thereof notable automatically.--Anthony.bradbury 22:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G11, mainly focuses on attacking subject. And so tagged. Seraphimblade 04:08, 10 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hikari Hino[edit]

Hikari Hino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Person is not notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable, particularly as no entry in Japanese wikipedia Akihabara 04:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doesn't seem to meet WP:PORN BIO. MER-C 04:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and does not meet WP:PORN BIO; she has a redlinked entry on the Japanese AV女優一覧 (List of AV Actresses). If she's not notable enough to have an article in Japanese, she's more than likely not notable enough to have one in English. --Limetom 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Risnm 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The use of WP:PORN BIO for Japanese performers is highly controversial, as many editors are of the opinion that the Japanese industry is sufficiently different from the American industry that many of the provisions of the guideline are inapplicable. However, the article as it stands does not seem to claim any real notability even within a Japanese context; the filmography section is not impressively long and does not indicate how major a role Hino played in the cited titles, no appearances in other media are mentioned, etc. — Haeleth Talk 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mainstream source (adult sources would no doubt show more) Japanese Amazon shows 24 DVDs currently available for this actress. How many American porn stars have 24 DVDs at Amazon? The Japanese and American pornography industries are different and to ignore those differences is to create cultural bias at Wikipedia. To put things in perspective, consider a Japanese pornographic superstar like Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [8] So, "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" fails the American 100-film test. For more comparison, the nominating editor has recently edited at a one-sentence stub on an actress with one (1) known, minor appearance in one (1) known film, verified only by one (1) link to IMDB. Yet he previously mass-nominated articles in this category for deletion on "notability" grounds. 24 DVDs at Amazon is certainly a sign of reaching a broad audience, and far more notable than the subject of the other article. If this article needs improving, let's improve it. My online time is taken up with re-instating a list the was deleted through what I am convinced are dishonest means. Once I've got that list (lists now) back up, I fully expect to spend my time improving these articles. I'll try to do some work on this one today. Dekkappai 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The article had been tagged for questionable importance since September. Nothing had been done to add more meat to it.
    2. There is no article for this actress on Japanese WP.
    3. There is no established guidelines or rules here to say that "24 DVDs at Amazon" makes a Japanese porn actress notable. I personally don't think it does.
    4. What other editing I do and what other articles I nominate for deletion is irrelevant to the fact that this actress seems non-notable and hardly anything had been done since the article's existence to assert her notability. However, if you think the Helen Kim article I edited should be nominated for deletion, by all means, nominate it. I myself question that actress's notability. Heck, I'll nominate the article myself.
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think the Helen Kim stub should be deleted. I think it should be improved. Deleting it would prevent a better article from being written on Helen Kim, and thereby remove valid information from Wikipedia. The exact same thing goes for the more notable, and better developed article on Hikari Hino. I don't edit there, but I watch the Japanese Wikipedia. Many recently red-linked actresses there have new articles, and I won't be at all surprised to see one on Hikari Hino started soon, since she clearly deserves one. Dekkappai 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add - I understand you are having a difficult time assuming good faith. But let me point out that I tagged this article with the importance tag three months ago[9]. When I nominated it for deletion[10], it had the exact same content in the article as it did when I tagged it for importance three months ago. Namely, it had two sentences, with a short filmography. I am perfectly justified in nominating this article. Furthermore, I want to repeat that there is absolutely no criteria anywhere on English WP that says "24 DVDs on Amazon" establishes notability for Japanese porn actresses. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and please see systemic bias Baristarim 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If anything, having 24 DVDs available at Amazon indicates that Japanese "porn" actresses are not in the same league with "porn" actresses of other cultures, and to try to force one standard across all cultures is a good example of bias as mentioned above. Neier 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Edit conflict) I really doubt this is a case of systemic bias. She is non-notable, and if there isn't a Japanese article on her, there probably shouldn't be an English one. A quick Google search brings up mostly adult sites and such, and I really don't see any verifiable sources in either an English or a Japanese search. I have nothing against an Idol having an English page, its just that there are no reliable sources that prove her notability; even if modified to include Japanese versions of things, I don't see her passing WP:PORN BIO. --Limetom 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The bias comes in treating the Japanese and American porn industries as if they were the same. Obviously they are not. Creating standards for one which the other is expected to pass is a way of creating cultural bias at Wikipedia. Suppose those of us interested in the Japanese side said an actress needed to have 10 videos at Amazon in order to pass notability. How many American porn actresses would pass? Also, if you know anything about Japanese popular culture, you know that these actresses/idols are far more visible, and therefore more notable in Japan than their American equivilants are in the U.S. When I was in Japan, I saw models and actresses exactly like this one all over TV, not to mention magazines, newspapers, photo books... all in standard book stores, not hidden away in an adult book shop. Dekkappai 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bottom line is, there is no seperate criteria for Japanese porn stars here. So she has 24 DVDs listed on Amazon. Why and how does that make her notable? Why does that make her stand out in the industry she's in? These are questions that have never been answered. There are hundreds and thousands of different industries and how they are perceived in different cultures. For example, calligraphy artists are probably more well-known in East Asia than they are in Western countries. The question here is - how does having 24 DVDs listed on Amazon establish that she's widely known? Do we have any information on how many people are buying these DVDs from Amazon? And exactly how many consumers would make her notable? What if only 10 people purchased her DVDs on Amazon? The American porn industry and the Japanese porn industry are not exactly the same, but maybe you just have to accept the possibility that the average Japanese porn star is simply not very notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment amazon japan is a major retail outlet, and i fail to see why you are requesting obviously unattainable information such as the number of sales. are the notability of north american porn stars hinging on their sales on amazon.com? do you really wish to establish a guideline for all porn stars to sell a verifiable number of videos? it is very true that the japanese porn industry is different from the north american one. it is also very true that one shouldn't base notability on the "probability" that someone might not be notable, but facts such as proven presence in a major retail outlet.--Hexvoodoo 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of North American porn stars do not hinge on their sales on Amazon. And if they had 24 DVDs on Amazon without meeting WP:PORN BIO, they would be considered non-notable. If we know how many DVDs this person is actually selling, we can try to establish notability. Given that we have no such information about DVD sales on Amazon, saying "24 DVDs on Amazon" is an unverifiable claim to notability. Like I've been saying, how does "24 DVDs on Amazon" establish notability? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment getting unobtainable info such as unit sales on amazon japan (just like it's impossible to get sales numbers on amazon.com) doesn't directly meet anything in WP:PORN BIO, however it establishes the fact that she has been prolific in the short time she's been in the business, which is a criteria in porn bio. --Hexvoodoo 18:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly does it establish that she's "prolific"? Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do we even know that some of those 24 DVDs don't show the same exact scenes? I ran a search for her on Japanese Amazon, and even though I don't read Japanese, between my English and Chinese reading, I can spot which DVDs are simply "best of" videos that show scenes that are in other DVDs. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i think it's safe to say that amazon japan doesn't violate anything in Wikipedia:Verifiability. if it says hikari hino is in these dvds, i am going to believe it. even if we want to be picky and discard anything mentioning "best of" (and btw we can't verify that those are indeed compilations featuring duplicate scenes), we still have 19 dvds in 1.5 years. that is still prolific --Hexvoodoo 19:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not disputing that she is in those videos. I'm questioning how the availability of those videos on Amazon automatically qualifies her as having a prolific career. Like I said, what if only 10 people ever bought those videos from Amazon? Is she still notable then? That's completely unverifiable and it's an unverifiable claim for notability. Besides, who exactly decided that "24 DVDs on Amazon" is enough for Japanese porn actresses? Who came up with that arbitrary number? I don't see any guidelines that mention this. What if she had 20 DVDs? 15? At what number is notability achieved? I can completely agree that the American and Japanese porn industries are different, but what makes "24 DVDs on Amazon" notable, and who gets to decide that it's sufficient? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment first of all, it is complete conjecture when you say maybe only 10 people bought her dvds. just like if i were to say maybe a million people bought her dvds. since this is completely unattainable information, not just for hikari hino but for just about any porn star, we should leave out baseless conjectures. second, there is no set number that universally defines prolificness, and that is good, because you acknowledge that japanese porn industry is different from american porn industry. in my opinion, and those who have voted keep, more than 1 dvd per month is prolific by japanese standards. thus she meets the prolificness criteria of WP:PORN BIO, and is notable. --Hexvoodoo 21:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the information is unattainable is actually my point - it's unverifiable, so yes, we should leave that information out. Which means "24 DVDs on Amazon" does not necessarily show notability. And the filmography section of the article actually only lists 11 videos. Furthermore, the prolific guideline in WP:PORN BIO specifically states "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche. I'm afraid that has not been shown yet. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment yes leave the sales information out (which means conjecture about how her dvds might have low sales is pointless) as it is unverifiable. however, being on an established retail outlet with more than 1 dvd per month does show that she has been prolific - which is the point. what is actually listed in her article's filmography is obviously not a full list (again, see amazon japan), and having an incomplete filmography is of course not a reason for deletion either. her movies fall into both "asian" and "busty" genres, so she qualifies. --Hexvoodoo 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, the availability of those DVDs do not serve to establish how well known she is. We don't know how many people actually buy those DVDs. Thus it's an unverifiable claim. And she may or may not fall under the busy genre, but to put her in the Asian genre, you'd be guilty of the same cultural bias that's been mentioned here. That's a western perspective. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is getting comical. you just agreed that sales numbers shouldn't (italics yours) be used at all, because it's all conjecture. you also seemed to understand that 24 dvds on amazon japan is only being used to indicate prolificness, a criteria for notability, not to directly prove notability. now you turn around and sing the old tune that amazon records are no good for notablity because you don't know the sales numbers. let me repeat this again: amazon records are to prove prolificness, and don't use the sales numbers as an argument because they are not known. unless you have something new to say about this - i have established prolificness. now let's go to the gnere part. she is a metric G cup and her films are in the busty genre. and yes the asian genre is culturally biased, yet it is an established genere. i however am not using my cultural bias to attempt to delete an article for a foreign actress because i think "maybe only 10 people bought her dvds".--Hexvoodoo 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think its a safe I know about as much about Japanese culture as you, Dekkappai. But as the policy stands right now, she's not notable. Perhaps it would be better to restart the discussion about Idols (currently in the archives) of WT:PORN BIO? Also it would probably help to put a notice on the WP:BIAS. As the policy is right now, she's not notable. After looking over all of the relevant information, I would have to say that the policy, in my opinion, probably does need to be changed. For now, I'm going to stick with policy, though. --Limetom 01:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I certainly didn't mean to question your knowledge of Japanese culture or anything else, Limetom, and hope you didn't interpret me that way. I only meant to point out the differences in the cultures and the inadequacy of the policy in this case. I missed the discussion going on in those two areas, but will try to bring up the issue there. I understand your position-- the policy is inadequate, but it is the policy. My position is that policies, when seen to be inadequate or obviously biased, should be ignored, interpreted or modified. Regards. Dekkappai 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets criteria 7 of WP:PORN_BIO: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." She has been in at least 24 videos in a year and a half; prolific by japanese adult industry standards. the fact that she is not yet in the japanese wiki is not a valid reason to delete - it is not a criteria in WP:PORN_BIO. --Hexvoodoo 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:PORNBIO is only good for North American English-language porn. It is systematically biased WP:BIAS against *everything* else everywhere in the world (including North America, since there's Spanish and French language porn). WP:IGNORE PORNBIO is useless in this case, ignore it. 70.51.9.22 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was about to go gripe about the 100-film requirement at the Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) guideline, but now I see that this old requirement has been replaced with, "5. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" So there is no reason to delete this article for lack of notability. 24 DVDs is "multiple," and Amazon is a mainstream media outlet. Notability is established. Dekkappai 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amazon is not a media outlet. It's a retail store. Media outlets are news channels, mainstream magazines, TV, mainstream movies, etc etc. Criteria #5 specifically points to Air Force Amy as an example of this. The article for Air Force Amy was kept because she appeared on HBO multiple times, not because her vidoes appeared on Amazon multiple times. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Amazon is not a media outlet." Sure, sure, Hong. Look on the bright side. At least your effort to delete the Helen Kim article seems to be going very well. Dekkappai 23:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really have no idea what the point of that comment is. Helen Kim is not notable and an article on her ought to be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has now been established as per WP:PORN BIO criteria #5 #6; from my knowledge 24 films in a little over a year is notable in Japan. --Limetom 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "from my knowledge 24 films in a little over a year is notable in Japan" Correct, Limetom. To repeat: Japanese pornographic superstar Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [11] The dead-enders are going to argue for deletion no matter how absurd the argument becomes... e.g. "Amazon is not a media outlet." Dekkappai 17:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I refer you to how the US government defines a media outlet[12] (check section 323). And again, number of DVDs on Amazon is not an established guideline for notability. It's an arbitrary number that you've came up with. How about if a Japanese porn actress has 20 DVDs on Amazon? What about 15? At what point is she not notable, and who gets to decide on this number? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteIf there ever was a case that showed the absurdity of numerical guidelines, this is it. I would take this article more seriously if one on this actress had been in the Japanese WP.DGG 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No compelling evidence of notability. "Because she's Japanese typical standards do not apply" is not an argument for establishing notability. Fairsing 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Keep. I do not find the fact that she has performed in 24 films evidence of notability, and Amazon is not a media outlet in the sense of establishing notability, so many of the arguments put forward here are not convincing to me. However, the fact that there are 13 DVDs with her name in the title (see Dekkappai's list below) is evidence to me of notability in her genre. So I'm changing over to keep. Fairsing 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "5. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" 24 DVDs is "multiple," and Amazon is a mainstream media outlet. Notability is established. "International subjects must pass an American test of notability" is a recipe for cultural bias. Dekkappai
      • Once again, Amazon is not a media outlet. It is a retail store. A media outlet is TV, movies, newspapers, magazines, etc etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additional Comment to Fairsing Compare: 1 1/2 years after her debut, Hikari Hino has 24 DVDs at Amazon. Japanese pornographic superstar Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [13] Dekkappai 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Number of DVDs on sale at Amazon has not been an established criteria for determining notability of anybody. Also, many of those DVDs simply contain repeated scenes she has done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Though I'm trying to prevent getting sucked into another of Hong's famous absurdist arguments.) 1.) If Amazon is not a media outlet, All Media Outlet had better change its name fast. 2.) Amazon is a reliable source for proving that said media exists. 3.) No one is setting up an arbitrary number, we are following Wikipedia's guidelines: "5. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" 4.) "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" made 39 movies in 16 years. 24 DVDs is clearly notable there. Dekkappai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll be happy to address these points: 1) "All Media Outlet" derives its name from "outlet store". And also, the US government probably has a better definition of "media outlet" than the brand name of a retail store. 2) Nobody is denying that media exists. The issue here is whether or not this person is notable, and number of DVDs on Amazon is an unverifiable and arbitrary claim to notability. 3) This person has not appeared in mainstream media outlets. There is seemingly no mention of her ever been in mainstream films, mainstream TV, mainstream magazines, etc. 4) "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" Hitomi Kobayashi (小林由美) is apparently not even famous enough to have an entry on Japanese Wikipedia. So what does that say about this particular actress who is not "Japan's Queen of Adult Video"? Who proclaimed Hitomi Kobayashi "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" anyway? Her manager? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note the above editor mis-links to the non-existant Japanese Wiki article on Kobayashi YUMI, not the existant one on HITOMI. But then, the above editor helped delete an extensive list of Japanese actresses claiming that it was impossible to determine that they even exist.
      • Kobayashi Hitomi (小林ひとみ) aka Matsumoto Kaori (松本かおり) Debut: 1986; Birthday: 1965/9/2 Tokyo, Height: 151cm, B:82cm()-W:58cm-H:88cm, Blood Type: AB, Shoe Size: 21.0cm Avidol Profile, News: July 18, 2003, News: March 25, 2004; Amazon: VHS: 98, DVDs: 88, books: 42, Popular Music: 18

Though the above editor has obviously never heard of her, she was famous enough for Nikkatsu to hire to star in her own theatrical film series in 1987, to stave off collapse, according to: Weisser, Thomas and Yuko Mihara Weisser. 1998. Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia: The Sex Films. Vital Books : Asian Cult Cinema Publications. Miami. ISBN 1889288527, p.155, 221-222 Dekkappai 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I searched for her name in all kanji characters. Still, who decided that Kobayashi Hitomi is the benchmark to measure the notability of all other Japanese porn stars? Did Nikkatsu hire Hikari Hino to star in her own theatrical film series? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This actress also clearly passes point seven on the notability list: "7. There is an original film (not a compilation) named after the performer." Amazon Japan lists not one, but thirteen DVDs with her name in the titles (not just mentioned in the cast after the title). (Her name is written "妃乃ひかり", look for it in the titles):
  1. Gカップ爆乳FUCK 妃乃ひかり
  2. 拷問くらぶ 妃乃ひかり
  3. 超絶品ボディ 妃乃ひかり
  4. コスプレ召使い 妃乃ひかり
  5. ハイパーデジタルモザイクVol.035 妃乃ひかり
  6. FETISH FLASH 妃乃ひかり
  7. 女乳 妃乃ひかり
  8. 家庭教師を召し上がれ*妃乃ひかり
  9. feel 妃乃ひかり
  10. Gの好奇心 妃乃ひかり
  11. 恥ずかしいけど痴女なんです 妃乃ひかり
  12. M乳玩具 妃乃ひかり
  13. 恋愛シンドローム 妃乃ひかり

I can link directly to the entries on the DVDs above if necessary. How many times, and in how many different ways does notability have to be established? Dekkappai 18:21, 13 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skousen & Skousen[edit]

Skousen & Skousen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{db-corp}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, Looks to me to assert just enough importance as to not be a speedy. Also was disputed with a {{hangon}}, though I got there before the poster had a chance to justify why. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. eaolson 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 04:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't appear that there's enough there to warrent expansion of the article. SkierRMH,08:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tagged it as {{db-corp}} (which is, last I checked, a valid speedy template). After the hangon was added, author added the citation to the one cyber-squatting case, but that doesn't IMO make the firm notable. Per the cited findlaw link ([14]), seems to be a very small firm. Fan-1967 14:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Baristarim 19:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly an advertisement, and if {{db-corp}} won't do, then surely {{db-spam}} would?--Anthony.bradbury 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Looks like they only have 3 lawyers on their books - not really big enough to be notable unless they have some important/famous cases. Lethaniol 17:19, 10 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. What the... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Fart Neutralizing Thong[edit]

Dog Fart Neutralizing Thong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I nominate this article for deletion per WP:SPAM. This appears to be an ad rather than anything relevant to an encylopedia. And the whole idea of a "fart neutralizing thong" just doesn't pass the smell test for me, or maybe I can just blame it on the dog. :) Akira 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unfortunately this doesn't appear a hoax. It's still WP:SPAM and unencyclopedic. Good for a laugh though :) Dragomiloff 04:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. per spam, spam, spam; and if that isn't good enough, then Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But also good for a laugh per Dragomiloff. I can't believe we're giving this the benefit of the doubt. -- Antepenultimate 04:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN then delete per above. MER-C 04:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent nonsense. Everyone knows that thongs make farts whistle - I'd rather smell the darned things than be whistled at by dogs' hindquarters whilst going to buy tabs. QuagmireDog 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN deserves this one then dump it like a bad odor (or should that be odour? :P)) Wintermut3 06:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even though it did give me a great idea for a "friend's" Kwanza gift. SkierRMH,08:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent nonsense and/or spam. -Switch t 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy per spam --PeregrineAY 11:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-sense. TSO1D 14:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I'll endorse the BJAODN. As an owner of two boxers who have the ability to clear a room quickly, I only wish.... Fan-1967 14:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although my Christmas shopping problem is now over. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inadequately source and likely nonsense.-- danntm T C 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fumigate and BJAODN - This article smells like BJAODN fodder... of course, it could be the beans too. :-p Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patent nonsense, should be in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, or Uncyclopedia. --SunStar Nettalk 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another product in this category
  • Delete as spam. After looking at their website and googling for Flat-D I am completely undecided as to whether or not the product line is for real or whether it's just a joke. Apparently products of this kind are bought by or for dog owners as joke gifts... see example, right. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The company's website has links to what seems to be an authentic CBS News story[15] I guess the company and product line (Flat-D) are legit and just might be worth an article. There's no indication that this particular product is of any importance, however, so my delete vote stands. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete patent nonsense substub. - ∅ (∅), 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, unencyclopedic, substub. WP:NOT a directory of every novelty product in the world. -- The Anome 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what the hell? Definitely spam. Hut 8.5 19:06, 13 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 speedied, definitely nonsense. Opabinia regalis 04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Laughalot[edit]

Mr. Laughalot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'm pretty confident this is some sort of weird vandalism, but not entirely so. No sources, and the author had edited no other articles. Only good faith stopped me from nominating this for speedy deletion. eaolson 03:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what would this be a vandalism of? Is there something wrong with creating an article without editing other articles first? I apologize, I am a new user of Wikipedia. Ultraflame 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • From WP:VAND: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." You've provide no sources or even an explanation of what this entry is for. eaolson 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no content whatsoever. CSD A3. So tagged. MER-C 04:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. What part of patent nonsense don't we understand? -- Antepenultimate 04:25, 9 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 as non-notable and not verifiable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Sound Collegiate and Vocational Institute[edit]

Owen Sound Collegiate and Vocational Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable school, no assertion of notability except for existing for 150 years. The only verifiable this I could find on Google was that the school exists. Contested prod. MER-C 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable alumni, such as Norman Bethune and Agnes Macphail. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - do notable alumni confer notability by contact?--Dmz5 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: there are a tremendous amount of high schools with entries in wikipedia already. while i realize that commonplaceness (that's my neologism!) is not really a good benchmark for notability, it will be tremendously time-consuming to clean out all the nn schools here and keep them out in the face of millions of seniors looking to score 'spirit points' for boosting their alma mater on wp! frymaster 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, alumni alone do not confer notbility. Second, there's little that's notable about this school, and what is notable is not verified. If what is notable is unverifiable, then there's no discussion to be had; if it is verifiable, I would still !vote to delete the article. -- Kicking222 17:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless we witch hunt each and every school this is a keep. Existance is notibility. Plenty of small towns etc which have no notibility besides existing are in here along with schools. Wiki's not paper as long as the article is factual and NPOV keep it.--Xiahou 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Existence is not notability. A weak claim of notability is made, but it is unsourced, as is in fact the entire article. Sources are not optional. Additionally, little information is provided beyond a directory entry. Do not oppose merge/redirect to Owen Sound, Ontario or some other suitable destination, if the inclusionists prefer. Shimeru 06:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't think that existence constitutes notability, yet the article makes explicit claims of notability. Expansion and better sourcing will go a long way to making this a better article than it already is. Alansohn 06:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without multiple non-trivial reliable published sources independent of the subject, it should be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 10:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing in the article or in the 67 distinct Google hits[16] indicate any independently verified notability. I don't see any indication of the school being discussed wrt the notable alumni (did their time at this school have any profound influence on their later careers, as discussed in biographical articles or some such?). Fram 12:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • feel free to contact the wikischool project and witch hunt them all down unless they meet this mysterious "notability" and google searches of course for a school are not going to turn up a whole lot. The internet is not the be all end of of information (yet) so unless something newsworthy was published about a school online besides the schools page what else could there be. So unless there is a major news event or serious "notable" alumni are we to delete each and every school on wiki?--Xiahou 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a witchhunt, I don't care about the project (it's not because there is a project that any article is free from scrutiny and possibly deletion), and notabiulity is not so "mysterious" at all, only subjective. As for the Google search: it indicates that I have tried to find reliable, verifiable sources (per WP:V) with the means available to me. Many schools have much much more independent exposure on the Internet, and many newspapers and magazines have their articles (or intros) available through Google. What this Google search means is that, as far as I can see, this school is not notable, and unless someone else provides other sources (offline or online), there is no notability for this school and it fails WP:V beyond the fact of its existence (which is not disputed). This is a perfectly acceptable method of discussing the merits of an article, and is the normal way to check if the article should be kept or deleted according to WIkipedia policies. Fram 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, and I actually found a verifiable reason. Ontario ranks its schools every few years, and the results are at [17]. The current ranking of this school is 5.6 points out of 10; in the previous round, it was 5.7, so it isn't improving. Let's look at all the Ontario schools. Numbers are numbers. (smile)DGG 05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not notable, except for the 150 years of history, the commemorated notable alumni, notable speakers, meeting the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline - oh wait, I guess it is notable after all. Silensor 05:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't, since it has not received any press coverage, a necessity for all criteria in WP:SCHOOL (no matter how inclusionist that proposed guideline still is). The article as it stands fails WP:V, and that is all we need to delete it. Fram 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UHM DUH KEEP sure we all know there are a lot of schools, and not all of them are notable... but i would argue ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY... maybe 1 out of 500 schools is more than 100 years old... this one is 150yrs old for christs sake... this is an obvious duh keep, 150 years makes it notable... nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in Canada and the US: there are many schools older than 100 years in Europe. Anyway, why would longevity imply notability, apart from some extreme examples? Has it received any major WP:V coverage for being over 150 years old? If this fact isn't notable enough for books, national newspapers, TV, ..., then why would it be notable enough for Wikipedia? Fram 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You don't think a 150-year-old television show would be notable? JDoorjam Talk 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: ;-) I meant that "if this fact isn't important enough to be commented upon by books, newspapers, TV stations...". I hope it's clearer now! Fram 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Barely notable per claims, but claims are unverifiable. Scholarly search via LexisNexis reveals nothing. Mus Musculus 16:07, 14 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, unsourced, not notable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McIntosh Hall[edit]

McIntosh Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I don't believe that residences at universities get their own articles. There is nothing of note about this particular building. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 04:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this one. MER-C 05:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You might want to take a look at Category:University and college dormitories. I've seen other university residences on Wikipedia, and aren't convinced that they're all notable or encyclopedic, but there's quite a few on Wikipedia. - hahnchen 05:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One article on a particular subject/location/person/thing does not provide precedent for another article on a very similar subject/location/person/thing. -- saberwyn 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are certainly reasons a dormitory might rate an article, e.g. if it's a listed building, but this doesn't. --Dhartung | Talk 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in the article indicates anything notable about this dorm.-- danntm T C 20:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced and unremarkable. Shimeru 06:41, 10 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Now?[edit]

Happy Now? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Of the eleven (proposed) standards at WP:SINGLE, the single does not meet one. ShadowHalo 05:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. OMG it got #132 in one country! -Amarkov blahedits 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while humming 'Who's crying now?' SkierRMH,08:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass all none of the eleven criteria of WP:SINGLE, but #132 is pretty high considering the fact we have articles over non-charting singles, yet it still isn't in the Top 100. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yeah, #132 in one country, with no other claim to importance, does not cut it.-- danntm T C 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To clarify, singles don't need to meet all eleven criteria, only two or three. —ShadowHalo 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, charting single in a large country. Can be expanded somewhat with tracklistings from the retail single. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SINGLE clearly states that it has to be in the Top 100 chart, #132 is close, but certainly doesn't pass that criteria. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's nice. WP:SINGLE is merely proposed, and seriously flawed, so I'm not compelled by it in the least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless of WP:SINGLE, why exactly is a song which charted number 132 in one country notable? That seems like it's rather trivial. -Amarkov blahedits 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The question is why isn't it notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That isn't the question, but the answer is that it's not particularly hard to chart 132 in one country and not chart everywhere else. -Amarkov blahedits 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because there is very little content that can be added to the article since there are nearly no (if any) sources for it. All the information in the article is contained in the infobox, and the only item in the infobox that wouldn't be found in the Tragic Kingdom article is the producer and maybe that chart position. —ShadowHalo 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • And stubs are a problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, stubs are fine. However, this stub would (almost certainly) never be anything more than a stub, and all of its information would be found elsewhere. Were there some information that wouldn't be contained in Tragic Kingdom, then this could stay as a stub. But there isn't. —ShadowHalo 05:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added the tracklisting and cover. Two of the most important things, which makes this article keep worthy. More info will come along.

PS. I disagree with that 11 point list. Fans would want to keep this page, regardless of its peak position, it forms a part of the No Doubt discography, if only a small part, I know that would appy to any other artist with a fanbase. ShadowBoxer 09:35, 14 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 Hawthorne Heights. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Calvert[edit]

Casey Calvert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article was created out of fandom. The article in question is of a person that is part of another article (see Hawthorne Heights) and has no important information about him/her that can or already is stated in that article. see notability guidelines. Human historian 05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Sympathise, but why not just redirect to the main article. Akihabara 05:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. MER-C 06:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Akihabara - no need for this one.SkierRMH,08:18, 9 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 Hawthorne Heights. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.T. Woodruff[edit]

J.T. Woodruff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article was created out of fandom. The article in question is of a person that is part of another article (see Hawthorne Heights) and has no important information about him/her that can or already is stated in that article. see notability guidelines. Human historian 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Again, why not just redirect. Akihabara 05:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. MER-C 06:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. SkierRMH,08:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In another article, which probably isn't Wikipedia material either, but that's for another day.Stompin' Tom 15:19, 13 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. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Victor Markham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Ronald Victor Markham[edit]

Whilst apparently true, of little note, and I'm not convinced this page isn't just an attempt at smearing. Wikipedia is not a database of people charged with various countries' securities fraud. Akihabara 05:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedydelete. The sources don't exist. Even with the one added, it's not notable. -Amarkov blahedits 05:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They may be old, it doesn't appear to be a hoax -- I've added the link I found. I still think this should be deleted. Akihabara 05:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Some trader who engaged in securities fraud. Not exactly exceptional or earth-shattering. Fan-1967 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being bad isn't a reason to include SkierRMH,07:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DrKiernan 11:40, 14 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. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 08:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los Cerritos Middle School[edit]

Los Cerritos Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not a encyclopedia worthy article. No signifigance other than the schools website Supersean 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: While schools have a pretty good record surviving AfD, I don't think this one should stay unless real notability is asserted. All this article seems to provide is a mundane description of a nondescript middle school. Heimstern Läufer 07:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I tend to agree, except that Wikipedia is chock full of these school articles; why this one. Akihabara 07:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really think Wikipedia should have a lot fewer school articles than it does, but I'm certainly not going to go around hunting them and nominating them for deletion. For now, I'm just concerned with this one. Heimstern Läufer 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Unless there is a general move to remove all schools based on notability criteria, I don't believe it is fair to single out this one. This page is not even in the lower middle of current school articles on WP. TSO1D 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete the worst kind of non-notable school cruft, half of it is unitelligible, fails WP:SCHOOL. NeoFreak 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not official policy yet. TSO1D 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This true but it makes sense to me (my vote being my opinion) and last I checked WP:V, WP:OR and WP:N were. All of which this article fails. Then again that's just my opinion. On the topic of "unfairly" targeting this school, well editors trying to clean up wikipedia can't be everywhere at once. Right now I'm working my way through one topic myself and after that I'll move on to another. NeoFreak 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, no claim to notability, POV, attack page elements. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:SCHOOLS. I don't think there's even anything that can be salvaged to merge -- the name of the school is already mentioned at the locality's article. Shimeru 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable school as per WP:SCHOOLS3 - and I'll be one of the ones working at culling out all of the nn schools when SCHOOLS# becomes a policy :) SkierRMH,07:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- unencyclopedic, unverifiable, unsourced. Article contains no assertion of notability of any kind. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Conejo Valley Unified School District, no reason not to. Silensor 05:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 on the assertions in the article. Also fails to have any sources in the article. Also has major content flaws, but those aren't why it should be deleted - not asserting notability and not using sources are the reasons. GRBerry 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not to badly written if it's by a current student, but certainly doesn't establish notability. Eluchil404 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to its school district. I can't find anything approaching notability and no sources that do anything other than give the address of the school. JoshuaZ 15:46, 14 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roots Festival[edit]

Roots Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Little more than an ad, for something not particularly notable. Akihabara 05:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. When I worked at the local newspaper, I remember writing things like this for the Community Calendar section. Somehow I thought Wikipedia was better than that. -- Antepenultimate 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Could probably be speedy deleted Bwithh 06:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, borderline speedy. MER-C 06:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - nn community event. SkierRMH,08:22, 9 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northbrook waters[edit]

IIRC, gated communities fall below the threshold for articles unless there are exceptional reasons for keeping the article. On this occasion, there aren't. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 06:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Show me a documented instance of a historical event or a notable celebrity that is living/has lived here, and then maybe I'd opt to Merge it with the Rangiora, New Zealand article. Antepenultimate 06:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - quick google doesn't give anything that refers to this (i.e. celebrity residences, scandals, etc.) SkierRMH,08:23, 9 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. Majorly (Talk) 20:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lando (speakers)[edit]

Lando (speakers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nomination for deletion Looks like a failure of WP:CORP. ~52 google hits for this company's flagship product. About 4 non-spam/wikimirror hits for "lando speakers". I'm very sympathetic to WP:BIAS but I don't think there is a systematic bias issue here as 1) We're talking about a luxury electronics product that should have international recognition if it really is encyclopedically notable and 2) Brazil culturally dominates Google's social networking service, Orkut, so its not like this product comes from a country behind in their googling Bwithh 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A thinly disguised ad. Akihabara 06:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to speedy, would have speedied it if I came across it first. SkierRMH,08:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sneaky advertising. "I don't trust Lando." Wavy G 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to say that I did not speedy-nom this as I don't believe it was deliberate spam. I looked at the edit history and user page of the article creator and concluded that he is just a Brazilian music enthusiast. anyway, that's what I thought Bwithh 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article! Believe me, I have no relationship to the manufacturer lol: I just have a pair of those and they are quiet popular in Brazil and even elsewhere. But hey, democracy speaks, so if you wan't to delete, go ahead! :-) Matias 12:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just to clarify, this is a discussion to generate consensus within policy and guidelines... Wikipedia is not a democracy Bwithh 20:08, 10 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 broken and muzzled. DS 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peace breaker's muzzle[edit]

This doesn't seem very verifiable. Every Google result seems to have originated from Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 06:08, 9 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Chetwynd[edit]

Rosalind Chetwynd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable enough. Only hits on Google refer to being Shackleton's mistress. No mention on Shackleton's page. Not enough information to merge into Shackleton's page. Akihabara 06:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. Borderline speedy. MER-C 06:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hagerman(talk) 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as we all put our mistresses' articles on our "to do" pages... SkierRMH,08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Triviaa 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - that Google hits only refer to her as Shackleton's mistress, and that she isn't mentioned on his page, are not reasons enough to justify deletion, but only shows that Google and Wikipedia often are insufficient tools to judge importance. Rosalind Chetwynd was an extremely interesting lady: an American middle-class woman, born Rosalind Secor and daughter of a New York lawyer. She travelled to London in 1900 and married Guy Chetwynd, heir to a baronetcy. She later divorced him and developed a life-long attachment to Jack Barnato Joel, a well-known British-South African financier, mining magnate and horse-breeder, part of the Joel family. He supported her and her son Victor Chetwynd for many years, and continued to do so even when she started her long affair with Shackleton. She, in turn, presented his wife to the Court. At the age of 33, she became a rather successful actress in London, using the stage name Rosa Lynd (picture at the National Portrait Gallery [18]) and performing in classic venues such as Wyndham’s Theatre and the Comedy Theatre, for which she even was manager for a while. She also started her own theatre company, The Rosa Lynd Company, which performed both in Britain and on Broadway. Thomas Blomberg 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas - could you put some of that, with refs, on the page? You've already posted about 4 times the content of the current article. Thanks. Akihabara 23:10, 11 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 G4 by Morven.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna Buy A Duck?[edit]

Wanna Buy A Duck? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Seems to have been made up one day. Unreferenced and unwikified. Contested prod. MER-C 06:37, 9 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. A Train take the 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roseland Dance Hall[edit]

Seems quite unremarkable, nothing of note asserted. Akihabara 06:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - gsearch didn't come up with anything notable happening here. SkierRMH,08:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shimeru 06:53, 10 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemarie tissi[edit]

Rosemarie tissi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

OK, so she's apparently a real font designer. Nothing asserts why she is more notable than any other font designer. A promotional article, not encyclopaedic. Akihabara 06:47, 9 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. Majorly (Talk) 20:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rossiter System[edit]

Rossiter System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not sure if this is an advert/bio or the beginning of a real article. Looking for others opinions. Akihabara 06:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep the article needs a major rewrite, not sure it should be up for AfD. Pretty close to it however.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. First google hits are for rossiter.com and surgerysucks.com, which happens to be registered to Mr. Rossiter. If it quacks like a duck... -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam/advert/bio/? SkierRMH,07:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As said above, it's spam. A Train take the 17:17, 14 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 as non-notable per WP:BIO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen_Greenfield[edit]

Allen_Greenfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Having checked all books penned by this person, they are evidently publications from various vanity presses and do not constitute genuine contributions to literature so much as exercises in vanity. Also, subject is an institutional personality of a religious organization, "OTO." Actual contributions to society as a whole are dubious. Further, claims regarding to Science Fiction Fandom contributions remain unsubstantiated as do claims of investigating various UFO-related phenomena. No second or third party information exists verifying subject's claims. — MensKeperRa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • See also: first nomination.
  • Found this in the first nomination. Procedural listing. MER-C 07:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the few months since the AfD, absolutely no cleanup has taken place and the significant edits are still made by the subject himself. [19] The whole content is unverified as it is written by the subject himself, in complete disregard of our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. His importance as an author is not supported by any reliable third-party source. We can't just continue to have articles survive AfD with the promise
    that they'll be cleaned up if that cleanup is never done. If this is kept, then the admin should clear the whole unreferenced content and bring this back down to a stub. Pascal.Tesson 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteI see no reason why being a member of a religious organization is a minus, and I think his claim to have been a past-president of the Atlanta Science Fiction Organization probably could be verified. Perhaps if the article were retitled: Vainest autobiography in Wikipedia it might be notable. DGG 05:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have had it called to my attention that the autobiographical info on, and literary style of the person who initiated the current request for deletion is a gentleman I know who has an intense *personal* dislike of me, and is motivated thereby. He has used various names, but is an occultist and math teacher from Alabama formerly associated with the same fraternity as myself. He placed several reviews of my books on Amazon.com which I requested be removed on the grounds that, while everyone has a right to an opinion, these reviews were motivated by personal dislike of the author, rather than opinions of the books in question. Amazon agreed and removed them. If this is the case here, I doubt that Wikipedia should delete any article because an individual dislikes the subject (and/or author) of this article. None of my books were published by Subsidity Publishers. Allen H Greenfield 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. Who nominated the article or the motivation for doing so are not really relevant here; what's important is whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The first paragraph or so seems to be a cut & paste from the only (non-reliable source, but since the author of the website seems to be the same person as the author of the article, it's probably not copyvio. -- Chondrite 08:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

To address original arguments:

1) "...all books penned by this person, they are evidently publications from various vanity presses and do not constitute genuine contributions to literature so much as exercises in vanity."

I reply that to remove an article on this premise one one also need to remove all articles regarding Donatien Alphonse François de Sade (among others...many many others), who was forced to seek vanity presses or self publication in order to promulgate his research into human nature.

2) "...subject is an institutional personality of a religious organization,..."

Again, any and all references to any and all personae who have ever been "an institutional personality of a religious organization" throughout history would have to be summarily purged from Wikipedia's database.

3) "Actual contributions to society as a whole are dubious."

It is rare, indeed, that one's "contributions to society" are fully recognized during one's life span. The cases in point are too numerous to mention, and the exceptions to this are few. In fact, it is very plain that, even within a singel a single generation, a definition of being a positive contributor to society can vary greatly between one person and another. In my lifetime alone I have seen many people, and to be on point, writers, who I believe to have been wonderous like Thomas Pynchon, who many people think is simply long winded while I feel that some of the authors some of my friends read, like Ayn Rand, are simply trite.

Who is correct? All of us are. That is just the nature of personal taste. Do I think Ayn rand should be removed from wikipedia? Nope...I wouldn't assume to speak for anyone but myself. But here is one thing for sure...If I don't want to read something, I do the easiest thing in t he world. I don't.

In conclusion, the stated arguments are not, I believe, sufficient to warrant deletion of an article from wikipedia.

I, personally, have not read, nor do I intend to read, the article in question; but it sounds like a personal issue and I would suggest that the individual who initiated this request look deeply into their personal motives rather than than avoid or whitewash them.

Peace to everyone, and never forget, "You know how dumb the average person is? Well, by definition, half of 'em are even dumber than THAT." -J.R. Dobbs

As always, and no matter what, Fear is a Dog

I have known Allen H. Greenfield for a number of years and have always found him to have an extraordinary amount of integrity. I have severe questions about the person who wants to remove Allen's entry. I vote to keep it.

Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Co-Host
The Paracast
http://www.the.paracast.com

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

The result was delete. A Train take the 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan public library[edit]

Not a notable library. Akihabara 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, non-notable --PeregrineAY 11:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The writing style and content makes me fairly certain this is a copyvio (the second paragraph on seem like they're right out of a pamphlet), but I can't find an online source that it matches. Shimeru 06:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, -WP:CORP. SkierRMH,07:11, 10 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 deleted by Morven. MER-C 08:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Neil[edit]

Tim O'Neil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

vanit and non-notable frymaster 07:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. Akihabara 07:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 07:24, 9 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. Punkmorten 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore H. Rowell[edit]

At first it looked OK. On second glance nothing of particular note or importance, likely just a puff piece. Akihabara 07:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, was ready to give it a second chance as he's from around me, but he was just a local businessman/politician. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on reconsideration. Some poking around indicates he may be notable as the "discoverer" (although the science was done by somebody else) of burbot liver oil's vitamin content, making the "trash" fish an economic resource. There are very few sources, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Seems to be notable, if barely. I added an award reference to the article but unless someone is willing to do some more digging and clean up this article I'm not really ready to argue all that hard for its inclusion. NeoFreak 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:23, 11 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, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think this squeaks in as just notable enough to keep, but it really does need better sources. Perel 05:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The multiple references indicate he meets WP:N and therefore should stay. Ccscott 11:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable "enough". --Alvestrand 11:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is not subjective... in other words, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck (you know the rest) Alf photoman 15:17, 14 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive weed optimization algorithm[edit]

Invasive weed optimization algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A new algorithm, apparently unused by anyone, no followups listed. I believe this to be vanity, especially since the author of the article is apparently also the primary author of the only reference. In short, there is no sign this is of any relevance at all to computer science, and signs of self-promotion. --Gwern (contribs) 07:28 9 December 2006 (GMT) 07:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it can be verified alright. Just check for the included reference. Problem is notability. --Gwern (contribs) 21:17 9 December 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete exists, yes, but non-notable. Now off for brownies, chips, cookies, cheese, donuts... SkierRMH,07:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One essay, written five days ago, is not a reliable source. Wavy G 07:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No context, non-notable, possible original research. —ShadowHalo 05:39, 13 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 06:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Avenue[edit]

Royal Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable, worthless article. Akihabara 07:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - just another ordinary road, no assertion of notability. Unreferenced and unwikified. MER-C 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. TSO1D 14:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wow, surreal reading... near nonsense, but as a road, bye-bye. SkierRMH,07:14, 10 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 06:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royd Moor Wind Farm & Royd Moor Viewing Platform[edit]

Royd Moor Wind Farm & Royd Moor Viewing Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN, one google hit. Akihabara 07:56, 9 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. Sorry, but there were just too many WP:ILIKEIT-type comments on both sides for a meaningful consensus to emerge. Sandstein 06:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International rankings of the United States[edit]

International rankings of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic list, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International rankings of Singapore. Delete. – Chacor 07:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 08:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand with an explanation for each category and ranking so it is more than a list. Very useful and a good read. It is not indiscriminate at all, its a very well defined article. It just needs more text to place the information in context. IT can be merged into the United States article but that article is already too large and is already being broken into smaller articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to relevant lists. It is useful to have ranking information but not isolated from the competitors, as it says nothing about who and - more important - why other countries are ahead or behind. Alf photoman 21:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the rankings are always of interests and informative. It's kinda like the CIA factbook, but has the potential to be better, more comprehensive, more updated, and well-referenced; unlike the CIA which does not reference the sources. --Vsion 06:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unencyclopedic listcruft. – Chacor 07:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Look at the site (again). It's a useful short compilation of sources for national rankings, that additionally gives the US rank. This is a useful grouping which I do not think appears elsewhere in WP. All they need is a more descriptive title. Quite different from an indiscriminate collection of information. Keep it and I'll find a title: I suggest: Sources for national rankings..DGG 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Terence Ong 08:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and for the same reasons as International rankings of Singapore. Agent 86 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. -ryand 08:03, 15 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. A Train take the 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel III[edit]

Non-notable, fandom. Akihabara 08:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Most of it is pure garbage (i.e., the part about God being a North Carolina fan, etc.) Even if it were cleaned up, though, there's still no proper assertion of notability. Heimstern Läufer 08:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete NN, fluff, etc.SkierRMH,08:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and SkierRHM as a non-notable, POV, extreme vanity article that fails WP:RS and WP:V. NeoFreak 19:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, believe it or not. It's a pile of nonsense right now, but he is an ECUSA diocesan and so notable. I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism and will rewrite it. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bpmullins, although as has been noted elsewhere, it should also be moved so that the article name does not include his Style. David Underdown 09:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bpmullins. WikiProject Anglicanism is trying to add, clean up, and expand articles on diocesan bishops. Carolynparrishfan 15:29, 11 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; although I can understand the reasoning for the nomination five days ago, since it was AfD-ed, two of the high schools' articles have been created, so it is a plausible dab page now. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeport High School[edit]

Bridgeport High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Through Special:Random I found this disambiguation page which consists solely of red links. Somehow, I don't think we need a page for a list of links to non-existant pages. —Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep Doesn't follow conventions established at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries, nor can this article in itself ever do so. Possible violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Gracenotes T § 08:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alansohn created Bridgeport High School (West Virginia), a seemingly notable high school. If this trend (hopefully) continues, this page will be required. Thanks, Alansohn. (Note: perhaps not all of the schools on this page are notable; this shall be left to the discretion of those analyzing them.)
    Also, please note that the WP:MOS issues had to do specifically with the existence of articles, thus making them relevant to this discussion. If a disambig page doesn't "act" like a disambig page, there's no use keeping it. Gracenotes T § 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the phrase "Bridgeport High School" occurs 30x in en.wiki - and none of them gives notability for their high schools. SkierRMH,08:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At least one of the existing Wikipedia references made an explicit claim of notability for a Bridgeport High School. I created the article Bridgeport High School (West Virginia), which makes a few claims of notability and provides at least one blue link here at this disambiguation page. Alansohn 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I could see the logic if some of the school articles existed, but currently none do. TSO1D 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Weak Keep I agree some of these articles will probably be created one day. TSO1D 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - given the trend to finding high schools notable, I suspect that in a few years these articles will exist, and why should anyone have to do this work again? Newyorkbrad 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It's a disambiguation page that links nowhere. While high schools may be notable, a list of high schools that don't have articles is something else entirely.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There is no such trend. Quite the opposite in fact- the last few months have seen highschools being deleted in a variety of cases. JoshuaZ 06:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sooner or later, one of these high school articles will be created, and it will be incredibly helpful to have this article serve as a placeholder to allow these articles to be predisambiguated. This will prevent the mass confusion of using "Bridgeport High School" as a title and then being forced to rename it when a second "Bridgeport High School" article is created. The argument that anyone can determine that not a single one of these schools will ever be able to demonstrate notability is patently ludicrous on its face. And if folks likes User:Gracenotes are bothered by WP:MOS issues, the solution is to fix them; not to use it as a poor excuse for deleting an article. Alansohn 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly dislike the "all schools are notable" or similar nonsense but this would be useful at minimum just having redirect to the various school districts that contain the relevant schools. And since one of the schools at this point is not a redlink and has clear notability I think it is easy to justify keeping at this point JoshuaZ 06:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — One link now exists; likely others will as well. (Rolling eyes at the usual school article-related rhetoric. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful as a disambiguation page, not sure why we would ever want to delete this. Silensor 05:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep If it had no blue links, then I would have said delete. And, Alansohn's H.S. actually is notable--site of a notable civil liberties controversy--although, Alansohn, I would still try to scare up some notable alumni.DGG 06:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, it's the best I could come up with in 20 minutes on a Saturday night. And there are so many of those darned Bridgeport High Schools out there, which makes it incredibly difficult to match up alumni to schools. If only there was an organized list of all of the Bridgeport High Schools -- maybe even with their locations -- it would be so much easier to fulfill this request... Alansohn 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not very useful now, but will be someday when more of the school pages exist. Gdavidp 07:35, 13 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. A Train take the 17:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules Monger[edit]

not encyclopaedic Akihabara 08:23, 9 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. Majorly (Talk) 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Ruxton[edit]

Carrie Ruxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Expired prod. However a source provided by Bhadani on the talk page shows the article definitely deserves an AFD. Just listing here, No opinion from me. Srikeit 08:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the above source refers to the correct individual. No opinion from me, either. StuFifeScotland 14:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if that source shows a different Carrie Ruxton, the article should still be deleted. SupaStarGirl 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor accomplishments in one's field, fails WP:PROF. --Dhartung | Talk 16:31, 9 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 EX-TER-MI-NATE. DS 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian military and robots[edit]

Likely made up, hearsay. Search for "Johann Korbletz robots" got no hits. Akihabara 08:39, 9 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. Majorly (Talk) 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Box Failure[edit]

Out of Box Failure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a nn neologism, 829 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's commonly used in technical support to describe a hardware related failure on first use. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 22:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The term is certainly no neologism. It is a real term and was already in use in 1992, when I recall first encountering it. It's used both as a legal term in warranty agreements, and as a descriptive in articles and user instructions. This is a commonly used term and as such should be covered by Wikipedia. Further, this term is used both as a common language descriptive, and a legal term in at least the telecommunications, wireless, and PC industries. Something I also want to highlight is that companies such as HP and Lucent use the term in legalese, which is a strong statement of support, considering the cohorts of lawyers both of them command. And finally, the term describes a common user experience, which should have a name other than the marketing-coined hide-the-ball terms that I run across every now and then. Thus, I strongly recommend that this article not be deleted, and instead be embraced as an industry term in common use.

Aki Korhonen 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Maybe so. It still needs sources; hopefully, you'll be able to find some. :) Danny Lilithborne 01:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merely a gloss on bathtub curve; could redirect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIt's been in use for years, and is frequently reported in computer magazines. Unlike other terms, this is indeed known by many ordinary people. Needed some citations, though, so I've put some in. DGG 06:04, 12 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Action[edit]

Rural Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nothing notable here Akihabara 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Appears to be a well-established grassroots group that regularly recieves grant funding from multiple sources. I have Wikified the page, added external links (including at least two that constitute independent sources, I believe - There are likely more, this is a rush job), noted two state-level awards recieved by the group and categorized this article. Needs to be expanded, not deleted. -- Antepenultimate 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree. They exist. The article is more 'up to wiki standards'. Wiki's not paper. It should stay as long as its factual and NPOV. Which it is. --Xiahou 00:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Factual and NPOV do not = notable. I have no opinion here, but just saying. The point of the nomination is that the user felt it was non-notable. That it is factual does not address that point.--Dmz5 01:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we want to get specific, this subject easily passes WP:N by being dicussed by multiple, non-trivial third-party sources. -- Antepenultimate 01:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Just needs a better description--the article is too modest. 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. Majorly (Talk) 21:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenPBX by Voicetronix[edit]

OpenPBX by Voicetronix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:CORP BJTalk 08:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also per nom. Appears to be attempt to promote product over several other articles as well. Calltech 12:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete as nn. (changed my vote. ) Comment: Legal wrangles are irrelevant here. Wikipedia is to report knowledge,including common misconceptions. Even if some of these PBX companies will be banned from using this name, we will still have legal rigths to write "formerly knwon as..." or "erroneously known as...", whatever the judge will say. `'mikkanarxi 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know enough about the projects in question to venture an opinion about their degree of notability and whether they deserve to be kept or deleted, but I hope this is done solely on the basis of their merits and not influenced by legal threats. Of course, any use of names of the respective projects / products / organizations / companies should be well-sourced and based on actual usage in the real world (not neologisms made up on Wikipedia), but if one of these usages should happen to be a trademark violation, it is not Wikipedia that is violating the trademark; it's only reporting on it. *Dan T.* 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect this is complete nonsense. I am not affilliated with Voicetronix OpenPBX in any way and I have no interest in promoting it. I created the page because somebody who created the original OpenPBX page made a mistake to use a common law trademark of Voicetronix for an unrelated project called "OpenPBX.org". This mistake had to be corrected.

The name OpenPBX must not be used to refer to the OpenPBX.org project. If this practise spreads, then Voicetronix may start taking legal action and that would mean potential trouble (at least in Australia) for the open source community project "OpenPBX.org".

Of course you could simply delete the "OpenPBX" page and simply carry on with the new, properly titled "OpenPBX.org" page which I created as a legal replacement. However, since this is a site where any member of the public can create a new page, it is very likely that somebody will create another "OpenPBX" page again to describe "OpenPBX.org". The best way to prevent this is to have a page that lists the known uses of the name and links to the properly titled pages.

I created another page for Voicetronix' OpenPBX software because it is also an open source software package, so why would it not deserve equal treatment and this ensures goodwill from Voicetronix not to start complaining about the name conflict.

If the view of Wikipedia is that open source projects can only have an entry if they are not controlled by a single vendor, then you would also have to remove the Asterisk PBX page because Asterisk is an open source project controlled by a single vendor, Digium. You would also have to remove many other entries on open source projects, MySQL for example.

So, why is a page about OpenPBX by Voicetronix inappropriate advertising while a page about Asterisk by Digium is not?

Stswp 14:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stswp, please check the criteria established for adding an article about a company or product WP:CORP. Simply writing a one or two statement article with no significant citation does not meet WP guidelines. Adding a link to your article compounds the problem because it appears promotional. The article needs work or should be removed. Calltech 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Avoidance of legal trouble for OpenPBX.org

The article is neither about a company nor about a product. It is there to inform people about the possible confusion that may arise, in part due to Wikipedia's original wrong doing, that is improperly using a trademark in the title of one of its pages.

Note that we (OpenPBX.org) did not create this problem. Wikipedia did. If Wikipedia had not been using the name "OpenPBX" incorrectly in the title of one of its pages, this would not be an issue now. We didn't ask for this. We never use "OpenPBX" anywhere, we always use "OpenPBX.org". The least we can expect from Wikipedia is assistance in solving this problem and making sure the improper use of Voicetronix' AU trademark to describe or refer to OpenPBX.org does not happen again.

We have amicably resolved this very same issue amicably on the Voip-Info.org wiki site after talking to Voicetronix. There we have repurposed the "OpenPBX" entry to become a disambiguation page linking to an "OpenPBX by Voicetronix" page and an "OpenPBX.org" page (and further linking to a third party using OpenPBX in the name of a software). This is a solution Voicetronix has agreed to and it therefore avoids any potential disputes which would be harmful to our project.

If you do not agree with the solution presented, a solution Voicetronix has agreed to, then please advise an alternative.

Simply deleting all references to Voicetronix' OpenPBX is not a solution because it would only introduce a level of indirection, thus still consitute the use of the name "OpenPBX" for refering to "OpenPBX.org".

If you were to delete the OpenPBX page altogether, then there is no guarantee that somebody will not create the page again and use it to describe or to refer to OpenPBX.org.

Whatever happens, this has to be resolved in such a way that

a) Voicetronix can agree to the remedy taken b) the same problem is unlikely to occur again in the future

If you mean to suggest that the solution I presented will be accepted under the condition that more information is added to the "OpenPBX by Voicetronix" page, I am happy to ask Voicetronix to edit the page following the Wikipedia guidelines for content. However, if I ask them to do so and the page is then deleted, that would only exacerbate the problem, so we will need to have a commitment that the page will not be deleted as long as it has balanced information about Voicetronix' OpenPBX software. Also, Wikipedia should allow a grace period. It is not always possible to have a refined detailed page right from the start. Most wikis entries evolve incrementally over time.

Please note that OpenPBX.org is a not-for-profit, vendor-independent, community driven open source project run solely by volunteers. We do not have a legal defense fund and it would be extremely unfair if we suffered harm because of Wikipedia's improper use of a trademark drawing unwelcome attention to a name conflict that could otherwise be managed. I expect Wikipedia to be helpful in such a way that our project suffers no harm.

thank you in advance for your assistance

Stswp 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OK, but so far you've said nothing that shows why this entry doesn't violate WP:CORP. If Voicetronix feels the need to take legal action against OpenPBX.org, then it should do so. I don't see where that is Wikipedia's concern, though, since OpenPBX.org has their webpage under that URL. Perhaps the better solution would be to add an entry to OpenPBX.org to clear up the ambiguity, if it can be cleared up without a lawsuit or an edit war. At any rate, a solution which creates an entry which isn't in coherence with Wikipedia policy doesn't seem to be a viable answer to me. (Sorry for not signing on first edit.) LaughingVulcan 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Voicetronix and rewrite about company Voicetronix the company seems decently notable, with 75,000 google hits and listed as finalist for a number of awards on their news page. I'd recommend moving this to Voicetronix and turning it into part of an article on the company. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional news story about the company: [20] (requires subscription to view, but existence indicates notability)
  • Keep but rewrite as stub as some kind of disambiguation. There appears to be some sort of real-world legal or tradename dispute that Wikipedia should not be involved in, but a stub containing a sentence or two to avoid confusion would not be out of line. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OpenPBX already exists as a disambiguation page for the term. BJTalk 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Calltech's later suggestion. All related articles should also be deleted. Doc Tropics 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wikipedia is involved

Wikipedia got itself involved the moment it started violating Voicetronix AU trademark. Let me try to explain this again ...

  • Wikipedia maintained a page called "OpenPBX"
  • this page described the project which is actually called OpenPBX.org
  • this action by Wikipedia legally counts as "passing off"
  • OpenPBX.org did not create this page
  • therefore OpenPBX.org was at no time passing off as OpenPBX
  • instead, Wikipedia was passing off OpenPBX.org as OpenPBX, which is illegal

Thus, Wikipedia has been in conflict with the law and we ask that Wikipedia provide a remedy.

In such cases a proper remedy is universally considered to require two elements:

1) the infringing party (Wikipedia) must stop infringing

and

2) the infringing party (Wikipedia) must ensure that no future violation will occur

If the references to Voicetronix were to be removed, this would not let Wikipedia off the hook, because if the OpenPBX page still refers to OpenPBX.org, then Wikipedia would still be using the name "OpenPBX" for referring to "OpenPBX.org", thus Wikipedia would still be passing off, Wikipedia would still be in violation of the law.

If the page OpenPBX was to be removed entirely, this would not constitute a remedy becaus there is no mechanism in place that will prevent a member of Wikipedia to make the same mistake again. In order to qualify as a remedy, Wikipedia would need to somehow lock the page title so that it is no longer possible to create a page with the title "OpenPBX" unless the party trying to create the page can show that they are legally entitled to do so.

Another (theoretical) remedy would be for Wikipedia to make sure that the OpenPBX page cannot be viewed in Australia.

Now, for those who still don't understand why Wikipedia is at fault here, let me try to give you an analogy:

You cannot sell Pepsi Cola in Coca Cola bottles in your pub. In that case, you (the pub manager/owner) are at fault. Pepsi Cola is not at fault. Both Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola are victims of your actions in such case. Both Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola are entitled to remedy. In such a case you cannot simply stop and say "Oh, sorry" to remedy. The claimants are entitled to a remedy designed to make sure you will not do it again (for example, by firing the pub manager).

Stswp


Response to BJ stating "OpenPBX" already exists as a disambiguation page.

The page is now a disambiguation page, because I modified it this way. However, in order to satisfy as a remedy, this page must show the different uses equally. Therefore, if the Voicetronix part of the remedy were to be removed as proposed by Wikipedia members, then it would no longer be a remedy. It would become an infringement again.

Stswp 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia not above the law

A reminder for those Wikipedia members who seem to believe that Wikipedia rules somehow have higher priority than the law: You are mistaken. If you believe that proper legal remedy does not have to be provided because Wikipedia rules don't allow it: You are mistaken. Wikipedia is not above the law. If Wikipedia rules are such that they rule out proper remedy, then those rules are null and void because the law trumps Wikipedia rules. I suggest those Wikipedia members should treat the law with more respect. Thank you.

Stswp 08:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First off, the OpenPBX trademark is not held in the U.S. where the English servers are hosted so Voicetronix has no legal recourse against the foundation. This doesn't really matter though, it is not Wikipedia editors jobs to deal with legal issues except for copyright infringement, if somebody has a legal issue they can contact Wikimedia Foundation who will take the needed action. Also I have no idea what laws you are talking about, it seems to be Australian laws but they don't apply here so I have no idea why this is an issue. BJTalk 09:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, one possible remedy would be to stop any page titled "OpenPBX" (without .org) pretending to be about something other than Voicetronix' OpenPBX from being served to viewers in Australia. The location of the servers matters not as trade agreements and other treaties between countries universally acknowlegde each others property rights including trademarks.

In any event, it is both puzzling and disheartening and to see that Wikipedia editors don't seem to have any interest in solving a problem which could be so easily solved, and apparently no interest in serving the public by providing information in a way that avoids confusion about two similarly named entities.

Stswp 10:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem if the disambiguation page mentions both and the open source article stays at OpenPBX.org. There is no need to have an article on this. BJTalk 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if the page called "OpenPBX" discriminates in favour of OpenPBX.org, then it becomes a de-facto vehicle to use the name "OpenPBX" for referring to "OpenPBX.org", which is what the problem was with the page as it was. The only change would be a level of indirection. Indirection doesn't solve the problem.

As for "the open source article" I am not sure why you are making that distinction. Yes, our project (OpenPBX.org) is purely open source, vendor-independent, vendor-neutral. However, Voicetronix' OpenPBX software is also purely open source (there is no commercial license option) although it is not vendor-independent and thus not vendor-neutral.

If open-sourceness is a criterion, then their (Voicetronix) software should not be disqualified. If vendor-independence is a criterion, then Digium's Asterisk software (for which there is a page) should not qualify either. In fact, Asterisk is not even as purely open source as Voicetronix' OpenPBX is, because Asterisk is dual licensed.

Whatever the criterion for being a commercial product might be, it doesn't seem to be applied equally to all.

Stswp 12:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are commercial products, the policy I'm suggesting this page be removed under is WP:CORP. BJTalk 12:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Compliant

If the criteria you refer to is "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.", then the entry is compliant.

Please, type "OpenPBX Voicetronix" into Google and click over a few of the many pages which are returned. You will find that there are many articles about their OpenPBX software, in many languages, by publications/websites which are not affiliated with Voicetronix, amongst them the number-one resource on VoiP+Telephony "Voip-Info.org", an unrelated but significant Japanese VoIP info site "Voip-Info.jp", Linux Magazine, mailing lists, forums, blogs etc etc.

Stswp 13:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Legal observations to the above by user:FT2

First off, I would say that if there are multiple uses and referands for the term 'OpenPBX', then disambiguation either in the article, or via a separate disambiguation page, seems very reasonable. Likewise if one form of OpenPBX is closely tied to a given company such as Voicetronix, and other uses of the term are not, then titling that article "OpenPBX (software by Voicetronix)" is no different than titling another article "Neo (Matrix character)" or "Little Shop of Horrors (1986 film)". So this issue should probably not have gotten this far.

However, there's a second side to it. People who claim legal issues where those legal issues are dubious, or simply act heavy handed, are inevitably going to not meet the best of receptions, and somewhere along the line that seems to have happened here too.

Wikipedia article titles are simply references, much like an index in a catalog. If "OpenPBX" is a reasonable term some people might look up openpbx.org under, then it has as much call to the article "OpenPBX" as a commercial product of the same name might have. There is unlikely to be any confusion because the articles do not attempt to claim that openpbx.org's work is the product by Voicetronix. That would be what passing off means. Passing off implies pretending that one thing is really something else, and there is no passing off here, nobody is being fooled or tricked by it. I'm sorry, but legally openPBX.org have as much right to be indexed under OpenPBX as any other user of that name. That an article is titled OpenPBX is not making a legal claim that they are the only people with an interest in the name OpenPBX.

As stated, any number of ordinary disambiguation remedies would solve this, as best I can tell. But that's my $0.02 worth on it. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend removal of all articles and links associated with OpenPBX[edit]

OpenPBX, OpenPBX.org and OpenPBX by Voicetronix should all be removed until several issues are resolved - i.e. potential trademark violations and establishment of unbiased, third party citation under WP:CORP.

Two organizations both providing PBX solutions using the same name (no matter what the technical differences) are open game for dispute and litigation.

So far we have only heard from one of the parties involved who is by definition non neutral. Rather than getting in the middle of any potential disputes among outside organizations and because none of these articles appear to be strong in the WP:CORP category, they all should be removed immediately until the above issues are resolved. Placing WP:Afd on the other two and linking the discussions here. Calltech 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

As stated before, there is no dispute between OpenPBX.org and Voicetronix, instead there is an amicable agreement to manage the situation in the way that was applied to the voip+telephony information site at www.voip-info.org, that is:

  • a disambiguation page under the title "OpenPBX", that page treating both uses of the name equally
  • one specific distinguishable page for each use with a description of the specific software/project
  • the disambiguation page then referencing the specific pages equally and without prejudice

A problem only arises because Wikipedia editors apparently want to discriminate against one project over the other. It is this discrimination that poses a problem.

Stswp 15:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am discriminating based on Wikipedia policies and I still fail to see how this poses any problem what so ever. BJTalk 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The United States Patent & Trademark Office has said: "When a trademark, service mark, collective mark or certification mark is composed, in whole or in part, of a domain name, neither the beginning of the URL (http://www.) nor the TLD have any source indicating significance." In other words, at least as far as U.S. trademark status is concerned, sticking ".org" at the end of a name doesn't change its nature or status compared to the unadorned version. Personally, I can't stand sticking domain endings at the end of company, organization, and product names, and favor slicing them off wherever possible. *Dan T.* 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see removal being good advice, at least in that way. If they were non verifiable or non notable, then deletion would meet the relevant deletion policy criteria. But the comment here is "delete because the names are problematic". Thats not good grounds for deletion; its good grounds for careful disambiguation, without implying any preference to the "ownership" of the OpenPBX "title". FT2 (Talk | email) 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with you, FT2. The argument of trademark and service dispute and lack of WP:CORP, go hand in hand. Good disambiguation, however, doesn't solve the problem when two products in the same industry have the same name. Disambiguation only works when the same name is used for two or more uniquely different products or definitions - here OpenPBX refers to a PBX software solution that apparently two groups claim registration rights. Frankly, it points out a weakness in the notability requirement with both organizations that neither would defend their apparent claims of trademark or service mark rights. There have been no citations to support WP:CORP. voip-info.org is listed in the both article's external links, but this is a self-publishing wiki that allows companies to write information about themselves and others can comment. This certainly does not qualify for WP:RS or WP:NPOV. My main point is that since there appears to be a conflicting use of names between two organizations, perhaps the bar should be raised when establishing WP:CORP. Calltech 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem really. If the title refers to two separate products (even if in the same field, same function and same title), then we can disambiguate the two, or have one combined article that says "there are two version"... and has a section on each. Either will work. By contrast, if there is one product, and multiple parties are claiming title to it, then again we have no difficulty. We have one article, and note the ownership and involvement dispute. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in case anyone still listens, as failing WP:SOFT, no sources for any substantial third-party coverage. Ignore the utterly confused legalese for now. We don't care about who owns which trademark, we just record who uses what term, which does not infringe on anything I am aware of under any law I am aware of. Sandstein 22:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)#[reply]

Delete The suggestion that Wikipedia is passing off is laughable. (Passing off is the act of presenting yourself in a manner deleberately likely to cause confusion between yourself and another's identity. Wikipedia is clearly not doing this even if it is wrong.) Just delete this nn company and ensure that the .org is correctly referenced. --Backface 18:02, 11 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 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New wave of british metalcore[edit]

New wave of british metalcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Only 13 google hits, some of which are mirrors. Not notable. Seems to be a neologism made up by Metal Hammer simply to describe Exit Ten, as all Ghits refer to its use by Metal Hammer in relation to Exit Ten. Switch t 09:00, 9 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 (No consensus). --§hanel 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The closure was overturned at Deletion review, and the result changed to delete based on the consensus established there. ~ trialsanderrors 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Flash Revolution[edit]

As Ashibaka said when he prodded it, there are no reliable sources. Nothing comes up in the Google news archive. No other reliable sources are listed in the article or can be found. --SPUI (T - C) 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article does not meet the notability requirements for either WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE, or WP:GAMES, whichever one is more applicable here. The article is also not verified (WP:V) by reliable source(s). --Limetom 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt this Flash game is cited in any reputable source. Ashibaka tock 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to new article Dance Dance Revolution simulators and clones with other articles such as StepMania, Dance With Intensity, pydance, Text Text Revolution. Failing that, redirect to Dance Dance Revolution, which has a section on Simulators and clones, since the history doesn't need to be deleted from view. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-09 18:58Z
  • Normally I'm all in favor of deleting things as non-notable, but at this one I hesitate. It's been active for at least four years now (I think; seems like I've been playing it at least that long) and has a million logins (not users, but whatever). 1400 people are currently playing. (I am just throwing out stats that I see on the site right now.) It does not meet the cited notability threshholds, but perhaps we should consider ignoring all rules? Deltopia 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I highly doubt those stats, and that's the problem with using primary sources. Ashibaka tock 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you highly doubt that the statistics reported by the website are accurate (e.g. number of registered accounts, number of games played, number of users online)? They're database queries, after all. Do you suspect that the administrators of FFR are (and, by inclusion, I am) being dishonest about FFR's statistics? - Chardish 09:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read through the first nine pages of google hits (after searching on "Flash Flash Revolution") and got a zillion links to the game, mirrors, and blogs, and virtually nothing written -about- the game. Frustrating. But without secondary sources, you're right, it lacks WP:V. Changing my vote to delete or merge. Deltopia 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong keep. Frustrating, yes, but as an administrator of the site, I must object. It'd be nice if we had a PR team behind the website getting us noticed in major tech blogs and news publications, but we don't. If someone doubts the number of users of our website, they can go to the forums[21] and see the vast scope of the website for themselves. We have 76,000+ active users - a number greater than DDR Freak's total number of logins. According to Alexa [22], we get more pageviews than either DDR Freak or Konami's official website - yet those two articles are certainly notable. I can also share some behind-the-scenes server statistics: this past Friday alone, FFR was played 309,757 times. FFR is kind of a web anomaly - it's not very often that such a massive community is built around a flash game. Though primary sources may not be the best sources, I'd rather use the website as a source than delete or merge the article altogether. I'd say that IAR seems to be crying out to apply to articles about subjects that are exceptions to the rule, so I'd say it applies in this instance. - Chardish 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an admin, you shouldn't be voting, but rather commenting so other people can vote. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Admins can !vote the same as anyone else, though !voting prevents them from closing the AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not a Wikipedia administrator, an FFR administrator. 76.178.95.219 01:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aha. My bad. Yes, people are generally advised to not edit article about themselves or companies where they work in order to avoid any conflict of interest. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:AFD says that it's good etiquette to disclose if one has a vested interest in the article, which I have done. There are etiquette guidelines about creating articles about a company one works for, but not about editing them or participating in their development, and certainly not about voting for them in AfD. Also, I'm a casual editor of Wikipedia in general - I'm certainly not a single-purpose shill. -Chardish 08:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Quarl. --REALiTY 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kjbd 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - This article has been around quite some time, as the website has been aswell. The site boasts over one million members, has over 300,000 active games daily, has been featured on several TV shows (Notably The Screen Savers), has been featured on several high profile blogs (Joystiq, Kotaku), and boasts music from several high profile artists, especially in the Bemani scene. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cite sources. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that lightdarkness is an admin/developer for FFR. 76.178.95.219 01:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SPUI, I believe this is a bad faith nomination. SPUI has been banned from Flash Flash Revolution in the past, and perhaps has a persnoal vendette against the site? I don't know, but this is a notable website, and deserves an entry on Wikipedia. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to throw in a good word for SPUI. I put this on prod deletion as it obviously has no sources. Someone else removed the prod without explanation just before the 5 days were up, so SPUI put it here. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge and redirect per Quarl if you must. No reliable sources. Voretustalk 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources. I made the article but I honestly don't care, it sucks anyway. Moogy (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This feels like a bad faith vote. Why would you make an article and then later vote for its deletion? If reliable sources are important to you, shouldn't you have started the article with reliable sources to begin with? - Chardish 07:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article was made more than two years ago. Voretustalk 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - pretty notable, on par with other simulators such as StepMania. Its site has an Alexa rating of 28,256, which isn't bad. --FlyingPenguins 03:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alexa is not a source. Cite sources. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep By any common sense testthis is notable, and there seems to not be the slightest problem verifying: it exists and is a game site. The many links about the game, though none of them individually demonstrates it, seen as a group, they do. DGG 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources means that it is not notable by the primary notability criteria. No evidence that it meets WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB, or WP:GAMES (which I'd never noticed before this discussion). GRBerry 23:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Quarl. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just pointing out that WP:SOFTWARE and WP:GAMES are proposals, not guidelines. -Chardish 08:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for pointing that out, though I imagine most people are already aware of that. Regardless of whether those apply, this article doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:RS, which are guidelines. As it doesn't meet WP:RS (due to only having 1st party sources), it therefore doesn't meet WP:NPOV or WP:V, which are policies. The best that can be done in this case is mention it on the other page, as indicated by others, above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Quarl or delete for lack of sources. --GunnarRene 21:44, 15 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.

Signal (U.S. band)[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete - G12 ZsinjTalk 14:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signal (U.S. band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

While the article is salvageable from a db-copyvio (as shown by Talk:Signal_(U.S._band)/Temp, much of the notability has been removed. Currently, I have two awards - one is from a notable company, the other's notability was not yet determined. Sigma 7 09:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this thing has got more problems than I've got fingers - copyright, POV, advertising, non-notability - I could go on but I think the point is made. Moreschi 11:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable local band, fails WP:BAND. I'm not fascinated with the awards they recieved, as none of these are major. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it Glorified garage band SkierRMH,07:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging as Speedy Delete, per above and unresolved copyvio. --Sigma 7 12:44, 10 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorcery 101[edit]

Sorcery 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Comment - to any closing admin, please see my note on the discussion page. -Patstuarttalk|edits 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied this as a recreation of an already deleted page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcery 101) but the creating user argues that this is a revised and improved article and that reasons for the previous deletion are no longer valid. Relisting to see what consensus says. No stance Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - reads like an advert, no reliable sources provided, written largely from a non-real-world prospective which is banned per WP:FICT and WP:NOT, notability is not asserted and no important reliable sources support notability. Moreschi 11:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moreschi. MER-C 12:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This comic is on Keenspot which is by invitation only. There are outside thrid party sources linked. If you need verification for information it's all in the comic it's self and is sited as such. And if the article reads badly then give this version more time to improve because this versions only been up for less than a weak. TheAmazingTick
  • Keep - Notable per WP:WEB criteria #3, published through a well-known/notable/whatever online publisher, Keenspot. References one independent third-party source, a review in a student newspaper.[23] Content is verifiable as a reference to the fiction itself (see WT:V#Verifiability of television episodes as support). An in-universe perspective is not a reason to delete the article but a reason to improve it. –  Anþony  talk  17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If the consensus here is that the article is seriously flawed, I recommend stubbing it and starting over rather than deleting, as the subject is clearly notable. –  Anþony  talk  22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Everything else on Keenspot seems to have an article, why not this? It seems well written to me. --Phred Levi 18:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as both a recreation of previously deleted material as well as web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Moreschi is correct in all of their points as well. -- Dragonfiend 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Moreschi. Non-notable sub-culture webcomic. NeoFreak 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does not make sense to vote delete "per nom" when the nomination is explicitly neutral. Since when is Keenspot a "sub-culture" in the context of webcomics? Henning Makholm 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has been revised and it includes external references now, the lack of which was, as far as I know, the main reason for deleting the previous article. And, as it has been said before, other Keenspot comics have entries, so why not this one? -- GabiAPF 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)— GabiAPF (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment - With regards to my previous comment, I apologize for joining a deletion debate so soon after getting my Wikipedia account, action which I now realize is frowned upon. I will do my best to make contributions to other articles. What I said still stands, though. I think the arguments should be weighed by their content, rather than by how many edits the poster has made. Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this. As I said, I'm still new to this community. If I'm making a mistake please let me know, and I'll avoid repeating it. GabiAPF 13:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article seems rather crufty to me, but might be improved. Being on Keenspot is sufficient for a webcomic to be notable in my opinion. Henning Makholm 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The author of this webcomic has asked that the readers revise the article, so it is constantly being improved and updated. The comic has a large following with a growing number of interested readers. Also - since other online webcomics from Keenspot have entries, this one should as well. I have been reading this comic for a little over a year and I have seen the transfer from ComicGenesis to Keenspot. Keenspot would not have invited Kel to host her comic on that server unless the comic had a large following. I see no reason to delete this entry in Wikipedia. Kaelan69 21:24, 09 December 2006 (Central Time)

— Kaelan69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • "Keep". Does not read like an advert. At present, the page is neutral and informative about the webcomic. This webcomic is hosted on Keenspot, indicating that it has an established and significant community of readers. I see no reason to delete. modernknight 22:52, 09 December 2006 (EST)

— Modernknight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete notability is not subjective, significant reliable third-party reporting does not exist. Nothing much seems to have changed since the last AfD: a single piece in a student paper does nothing to demonstrate notability, nor does appearing on Keenspot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Keenspot is notable as displayed at Talk:Keenspot#Keenspot notability. And because of that this webcomic passes the WP:WEBTheAmazingTick 14:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It hasn't been accepted at WP:WEB; Talk:Keenspot is not a policy, or a guideline, or even a widely cited essay like User:Uncle G/On notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that Wikipedia:Notability (web) says, "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." In other words, even if a webcomic host is notable, each and every webcomic it hosts is not. Also, keep in mind that WP:WEB is only one guideline, and it should not be read in isolation in such a way that it contradicts official content policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- Dragonfiend 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But number 3 in the WP:WEB clearly says that "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." And Keenspot is notable and indepedent of the creators of the comics that it publishes. Which makes all it's comics pass the WP:WEB, which should be enough to at least let the article remain for more than the week it has been up. So that it can be stub and be improved upon. TheAmazingTick 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keenspot is not "well-known" outside of its subculture. Note that the idea that "Wikipedia should have articles on every Keenspot comic" didn't work on the first AfD for this webcomic, or on any of the many other previous Keenspot-related AfDs that have resulted in deletion, so it's unlikely to be effectiv ein this "do-over." Again, this is because we can't stretch the WP:WEB guideline to the point that it lets us write about topics we personally feel are "notable" by resorting to original research, our own points of view, and other unreliable sources. As far as I can see, the only new information since the last AfD is that this comic was written about in the weekly student newspaper of a college with an enrollment of 2,200. This is not the type of multiple reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we, as an encyclopedia, require. If you'd like to write webcomics-related articles without the burden of our content policies, I suggest comixpedia.org. -- Dragonfiend 20:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:V States that there is an exceptions for Self Publish/dubious reliabity sources if claims aren't contentious, it's obvious who wrote it, and it's not self serving. As for keenspot not being "well-known" in the outside world there are article about it in both the San Francisco Chronicle and Publisher's Weekly.TheAmazingTick 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The claim that this topic has had any great impact or is historically significant is not reliably sourced. That this article has already been deleted once would signify that such a claim is at best "contentious." Yes, I know that Keenspot has been written about in a few decent sources (I'm the one who added the two newspaper references to the Keenspot article). This does not make it generally well known outside of its subculture. For what it's worth, we've deleted articles on websites with much better sources and larger readership than Keenspot. This is getting really long. The basic idea here is that for encyclopedia articles we need sources that are at least as good as those we'd use for a junior high school research paper. We don't have those for this article. -- Dragonfiend 22:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:WEB states only ONE of its criteria must be met. This article meets the letter of the rules under criteria 3 by being published by Keenspot, even if the talk page on it isn't gospel yet, that's no arguement for deletion- the WP:WEB does not say that notability has to be unanimous. While it needs to be improved and added to, historical significance (I don't see any claims to that?) and impact, claimed or otherwise, are irrelevant to the notability of this subject. It's fictional work published by a notable source independant of the author, therefore it is itself notable. Delete votes need to state clearly some reason why it's not meeting the third WP:WEB criteria. This shouldn't be an AfD until it's determined whether or not being hosted by Keenspot meets the notability requirement. (54x 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Keep the rule is being applied mechanically and unfairly to an article which only needs a little condensation. Of course we should and often do apply the guidelines in the light of common sense; But it should be possible to get some 3rd party discussion from somewhere and solve the problem altogether. DGG 06:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Four days later, these 3rd party sources are still wanting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So let it be stubbed as opposed to having it be deleted. TheAmazingTick 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A little work, and the article can be brought up to Wiki standards. As it is, improvements have already been made to bring it up to standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobitha (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - crz crztalk 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K2xl Games[edit]

K2xl Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not an article about the company despite the title. If the games were worthy of an article, it should be under their own names. I don't see any reason to believe the games are notable. Akihabara 11:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Almost a speedy. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Unreferenced. MER-C 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - see also WP:FICT - much of it reads like a non-real-world-perspective game guide. Moreschi 13:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, agree with MER-C, but think it's bad enough to bump up to speedy. SkierRMH,07:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, except at least one game seems notable enough. Maybe a full rewrite could salvage it but its probably better to start from scratch. --MegaBurn 03:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete a game guide/advertising hybrid of an article. The Kinslayer 15:08, 11 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 - crz crztalk 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K.K. Chiu[edit]

K.K. Chiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not particularly notable - I could only find one non-Wikipedia ghit, from which 50% of the article is a CopyVio. Akihabara 11:51, 9 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.

TRN UK[edit]

The result was Delete. Created by (now blocked) vandalism-only account. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRN UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested Prod. Channel is a hoax which violates WP:HOAX - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Channel has a frequency for the Astra 1D satellite, yet SatCoDX [24] shows no TRN UK on this frequency (its a transponder used for French channels), as well as the fact that Sky Digital and services intended for the UK and Ireland are broadcast from the Astra 2A/2B/2D and Eurobird 1 satellites. No relevant Google hits [25] for TRN UK (apart from the Wikipedia article). tgheretford (talk) 12:49, 9 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 - crz crztalk 23:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic leadership[edit]

Islamic leadership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

It reads like a large piece of original research, prohibited per WP:OR. Worse, it is almost completely unverified and unreferenced, see WP:V. Moreschi 12:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I see no OR here but rather a well-written article about the historical devlopment of the concept of religious leadership in Islam. The title is somewhat vague but the body of the article leaves no doubt as to the concept at issue. Allon Fambrizzi 13:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Allon; likely a misnamed article. Should be renamed and be given clearer context. Akihabara 13:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs references and several sections need to be developed, and I agree that the concept of "Islamic leadership" should be better defined in the lead, but the subject seems encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. - Eron Talk 13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep Stubify Not well-written but seems to be an encyclopedic topic. To be a well-written encyclopedia article, the content needs to begin from reliable references, not whatever the editors know off the top of their head. Article currently almost entirely lacks references for what should be a topic much written about in external sources. Stubify to allow a new start Bwithh 15:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic, just needs work. SupaStarGirl 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. This is not original research (novel connections between facts), this is simply an article without many references. --Dhartung | Talk 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree. It is as novel as an article about 'American Leadership', which claims that all Presidents of the US have had something in common because they swore an oath to uphold the same document. Hornplease 05:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, not referenced, not verifiable. Unless someone is volunteering to re-write in an encyclopedic manner, I almost think this would be more work to cleanup than to start over from scratch (so maybe delete and re-submit as an Article for Creation?). Deltopia 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Please. Not only is this OR, it will always be OR. Its not an encyclopaedic topic if nobody bothers to think of "leadership" as having certain aspects particular to Islam. Hornplease 08:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - cleanup not a reason to delete.Bakaman 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not OR, this is somewhat over-simplistic analysis that could be sourced ad infinitum, obviously having been debated by the various sects for centuries. There's surely a good deal more to say than this one line summaries; but I do not like to delete an article about a worthy topic because it is ill-written. The way to do it is not to stubify; they way to do it is to keep the outline and add sourced material. DGG 06:51, 12 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kahini[edit]

Kahini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No notability justification for including in English-language encyclopaedia Akihabara 12:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Normally, I'd say disambiguate but nothing in the wiki contains the word, so delete as an article on a name with no notability or assertion thereof. MER-C 13:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dicdef. Delete per nom and MER-C. Moreschi 13:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef, no need to disambiguate. SkierRMH,07:31, 10 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg Bobsin[edit]

Jörg Bobsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unreferenced and unwikified autobiography. Seems to be a bit like a resume. Article on German Wikipedia is of similar content and may also be deletable. Contested prod. MER-C 13:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unreferenced dreck. Moreschi 13:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF THIS IS CONSIDERED TO BE DELETED YOU EVIDENTLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS: A REFERENCE TO KNOW PEOPLE BETTER! I HAVE THE STRONG FEELING THAT SOME READERS JUST NEED PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP AND JUST WANT TO MAKE THEMSELVES "IMPORTANT"!RIDICULOUS! DEAN MORRIS ON THE 13TH OF DECEMBER PS: WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES SAY, AND I QUOTE: It users are expected to be civil and neutral, respecting all points of view, and only add verifiable and factual information rather than personal views and opinions.....MR MORESCHI OR WHOEVER YOU ARE: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.32.128 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. Unreferenced dreck. Moreschi 13:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS FACTUAL INFORMATION RATHER THAN YOUR PERSONAL VIEW AND OPINION???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.32.128 (talk • contribs) - this and above post are the only two contributions to Wikipedia with this I.P.

    • Yes I do... and I'm not yelling, either (and I'm not Mr./Ms. Moreschi, either). Please sign your posts using ~~~~ if you wish to have more than microscopic weight in the deliberation process of the closing admin. B.Wind 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a C.V., not an encyclopedia article. GRBerry 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT, and a fine display by that IP above, I must say... Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:37, 14 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 Listed for speedy, deleted as speedy. Tawker 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KaosPilots International[edit]

KaosPilots International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Likely spam. Authors only contributions relate to this article and KaosPilot. Only contributors are author and IP address. Akihabara 13:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - reads like the world's biggest advert and gets only 560 Ghits, so doesn't seem notable either. Moreschi 13:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On top of it all, the sources are KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, and a student newspaper article about the KaosPilots. SupaStarGirl 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete weeding through the ghits is like reading copy paper... SkierRMH,07:34, 10 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 by Tawker (talk) - see del. log. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KaosPilot[edit]

KaosPilot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Spam, similar to KaosPilots International above. Akihabara 13:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - same reasons as in related AFD. Moreschi 13:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as with KaosPilots International. SupaStarGirl 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 and so tagged. Looks like it could feasably be a copyvio too, but I shan't check. Ohconfucius 12:53, 11 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lothlorien Hall[edit]

Lothlorien Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'm willing to be proved wrong but at the moment I can see no clear indication of notability in this article. All the sources mentioned seem to be in some way connected with the USCA organisation. Fails WP:Notability--Edchilvers 13:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - no assertion of notability. Moreschi 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a rambling essay. Akihabara 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also see related nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lothlórien_Co-op Irongargoyle 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - nn corp/building/entity. SkierRMH,07:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Most wiki articles read like "rambling essays." This article is not related to the other article of a similar name, other than that the two articles both describe organizations within buildings that have had a historical and artistic impact (whether one thinks it good or bad) on their communities. It doesn't recommend the reader to adopt their policies and practices, but because of the radicalism they appear to identify with, I think alarms are sounded in the more moderate editors before the article is taken into perspective. My suggestion is that the article cite the impact of the co-op on local event and its appearance in media, documentaries and fiction. TeamZissou 04:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Here is some evidence of notability, i.e. an article in the UC Berkeley Daily Cal newspaper: http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=19542 lukasc,13:10, 15 December 2006 (PST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Cunningham[edit]

Paddy Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I can see no clear indication of notability in this article. Fails WP:Notability-- Vintagekits 13:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article needs work but I can see why he would be notable--Edchilvers 13:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Its a vanity page, the guy is a TV researcher and has added nothing to anything imo, also no hits for him on google (except for his own vanity webpage) Vintagekits 13:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Possibly notable but requires a cleanup and references. I've added that to the page. Akihabara 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is listed as a radio presenter on the MediaUK website and the radio station for which he works is played at commercial outlets across Ireland. I'd say he just about qualifies--Edchilvers 14:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If that qualifies as notability then pretty much everyone in the world could have a wiki page, he is listed as having a job, so what its not notable. There are no hits for him on the net apart from what he has created himself. Vintagekits 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see that the article was written by a certain User:Padmund who seems to have made no contributions to Wikipedia other than this one. I suspect that this may be an autobiography but this does not mean to say that he is non-notable.--Edchilvers 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment from my view it is a autobig, he even lists being an extra in an Irish Soap as one of the things that he has done! say no more Vintagekits 14:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So what does it take to qualify as notable for some people. Hits on google are apparently the be all end all notability solution. They guy works on a large radio show, on TV. Thousands know who he is. Wiki's not paper. Every tom dick and harry who has been on TV has a page. As they should. Well he's one.--Xiahou 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you for really? he works on a "show" that is piped out of 200 Spar shops in Ireland - no one knows who he is, its a totally unreferenced autobiog. Vintagekits 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • so whats the magic number qualifier to achieve this status of "notability" then? --Xiahou 03:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no number - they guy is just not notable. Google is just a good start to see if there is any notability. When you say he has been on TV - he hasn't - its an autobiography - Please note the language he uses - he states he has "contributed to many shows" - what does that mean, he could have just made tea, photocopied, what? "contributed to a number of well known newspaper publications" - no reference to any of these again and I could find anything on the net either. "working for the famous Radio and TV personality Bruno Brookes" - again doing what, cutting his lawn? again no reference to anything like this on the net! "Stations previously worked on include" again didn't state what he did there, I have spoken to people at two of the stations that he listed and they state he was never a presenter there, so what was he doing, photcopying again, fixing the mcis?! "Also appeared on the Irish Current Affairs Show Prime Time" - please not the word "appeared" - this is Irelands version of Question Time on BBC1 - he never appeared on the panel, so either he is lying or sat in the audience (which is not a notable) and then he states he was an extra on a soap opera - thats almost laughable. Its an autobiography and a vanity page in my opinion. Also noting that is stated can be verified! Vintagekits 13:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So what does it take to qualify as notable for some people" - no need to ask here, read WP:BIO. Deizio talk 16:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not even one of the notability assertions have been substantiated with a citation of any kind. At this time there is no verifiable information to show this should be kept. In fact it should have been speedy by someone on PC Patrol. It also looks like the initial editor is the subject of the article, so qualifies a vanity page that might be allowed on the user page. ww2censor 13:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable vanity page. Bastun 13:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, vanity. Keep rationales above display lack of knowledge about WP practice and no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 14:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page Subwayguy 06:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. NN Vanity. Guliolopez 11:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, and per WP:RS. Ohconfucius 08:26, 13 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy football[edit]

Sexy football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability in doubt. Poorly sourced (there is but one source that describes the term in its featured use). Seems like a personal opinion. Full of self references. May be a candidate for Wiktionary. No enough substance. Doesn't fit into existing universe of aricles on soccer. In short, a very starnge article on a very strange topic written in a starnge tone. Aditya Kabir 13:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Soccer; failing that, transwiki to somwhere. Moreschi 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge with Soccer. Akihabara 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable and badly-defined term used by a single person, and is not an official term for the game. Therefore, I don't suggest merging it into Soccer. Instead, transwiki it to Wiktionary or the Wikiquote entry of Ruud Gullit. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With soccer. I disagree with Michaelas, the term in used by more than one person (I have heard multiple commentators saying it), however I don't believe it warrants a separate article. TSO1D 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it isn't an official type of Soccer and merging it with Soccer would be pointless as there are probably hundreds more similar terms invented by individuals. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or Delete - per nom and the comments by Michaelas10 make sense. Jayden54 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not notable, and at best probably an opinion piece. --SunStar Nettalk 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see no reason to merge it into the football article. There are hundreds of words and terms out there that describes various playing styles. – Elisson • T • C • 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a naff term used to describe teams that use an exciting style of play, not really regarded as an especially serious term, and not really a recognised actual style of play in itself such as, for instance, total football ChrisTheDude 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Wizardman 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or Delete no enough sources to satisfy WP:NEO and thus keep here.-- danntm T C 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no substantial content to merge, it's just a 10-year-old neologism. Qwghlm 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dictionary definition, no more no less. Don't even merge. - fchd 09:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merge, laughing at the people who want to merge this to a redirect page. Punkmorten 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not good at all for transwiki. Don't merge with football (soccer); a very short reference on Ruud Gullit would be quite enough. --Angelo 22:54, 11 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Packer[edit]

Ben Packer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No reference to support notability claim. Fails WP:BIO. Edcolins 13:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no assertion of notability. Moreschi 13:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to be the least bit notable. A college student who has "theories" about robots, which, as far as I can tell, aren't anything new, nor substantial enough to warrant an article about him yet. If he ever does invent the first thinking robot, well...WE'RE DOOMED! (I don't think we have anything to worry about, though) Wavy G 00:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn bio fluff piece. SkierRMH,07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7. B.Wind 04:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There are no references to this guy's work at all, and as other people say, above, even what he claims he has worked on is totally unremarkable. Ipthief 07:35, 15 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uprightness of all Sahaba[edit]

Uprightness of all Sahaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Several reasons here. Firstly, large chunks of it read like original research - someone's personal essay - particularly the Shia section. This violates WP:OR. That particular section is also completely unreferenced: see WP:V. Much of the article is heavily POV: take sentences such as "Shi'a reject this view with multiple arguments especially since there is absolutely no evidence in the Qur'an of any such immunity with regards to all the companions of Muhammad nor the sub companion groups who followed later in history as being infallible and free from sin", and furthermore "Did not the archers leave their stations to collect the booty and allowed Khalid Bin Walid to advance onto the Muslim Army from the rear? So can these greedy people who disobeyed the Prophet be considered as pious? Disobedience of the Prophet is disobedience of Allah!". Not only is this POV but the tone is completely unencyclopaedic. Lastly, I would also question this term's notability. It only gets 100 ghits, most of which seem to be Wikipedia and various mirrors such as Answers. Moreschi 13:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Clean up I have to agree that in its current state the article is inadequate but the topic can be important enough to deserve an article. TSO1D 14:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please do not missuse afd as an RFC aimed at cleaning up an article. And obviously, it is not a term, it is a concept, and its existance it well established even in the present bad state the article is in. Nom, speedy withdraw this mal-placed action and help me clean it up from POV and OR. --Striver 16:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep so it can be improved. We need good articles on topics like these, although this is not a well constructed or well-balanced article. We should encourage people who can do articles on these topics to do good ones, not discourage them because they do not yet know our style. DGG 06:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Please tag it properly dont delete it.RaveenS 21:58, 13 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 deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Albert Pangajow[edit]

Frank Albert Pangajow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO--Edchilvers 14:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No claim of notability.Obina 15:51, 9 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'. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Dumbsaint[edit]

Crazy Dumbsaint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Fails WP:Notability--Edchilvers 14:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 14:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Glorified garage band. SkierRMH,07:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wonder if they succeeded in their June 2006 attempt to get together and record that EP. This verges on speedy delete territory. B.Wind 04:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever. —ShadowHalo 05:09, 13 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalup Linzy[edit]

Kalup Linzy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Mixture of autobiography and advert. Of dubious notability. Akihabara 14:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article needs references but, if true, I'd say it qualifies--Edchilvers 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've found a review of his work from the New York Times and from what it says I'd say he certainly qualifies [26]
  • Keep, touring performance artist, easily meets WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and keep - meets WP:V and WP:BIO, but details are seriously lacking. If Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow merits a Wikipedia article (and that has been debated at least twice), so should Kalup Linzy. B.Wind 04:17, 11 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting the use of renewable energy[edit]

Promoting the use of renewable energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod was removed three months ago with no comment. No improvement since. Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Fan-1967 14:30, 9 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. Seriously, how has this not been deleted already? It's been a week! —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wario the Quario[edit]

Wario the Quario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

substub, notability concerns (unsure of song guidelines) Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. The second line, about a phrase coined by some unknown person, is clearly what was deleted in the first AFD. As for the song, it's difficult to imagine how any song could be less notable than this. There's one myspace page and the other links are Wikipedia or mirrors. -- Fan-1967 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable song, and nothing to show any notability. Jayden54 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding? There must be some way to speedily delete this. I'd say {{db-repost}}, but the first AfD was almost two years ago. Still... this is garbage. -- Kicking222 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete nonsense. Article was written by a vandal. Wavy G 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete please! Complete nonsene. SkierRMH,07:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete db-context. Danny Lilithborne 00:11, 11 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.

TRN HD[edit]

The result was Delete. Created by (now blocked) vandalism-only account. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRN HD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod removed by anon user. Hoax British television channel - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Channel does not broadcast on Sky HD (source: [27]) as the article claims. No relevant Google hits [28]. tgheretford (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I endorse nominator's research. Since some information in this article is undoubfully false, it can qualify as sneaky vandalism and therefore speedied under CSD G3. MaxSem 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - definitely fake. Jayden54 16:11, 9 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 deleted as {{db-nocontext}}. What it was doing on AfD, I'll never know. (aeropagitica) 17:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldplace[edit]

Worldplace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I have no idea what this guy is on about, but it's non-notable whatever it is. Nekohakase 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Should be db-nonsense I suspect. Akihabara 15:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This article is an expression of someone on how the world should look like. A non-notable and newly-created term. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. What the !@#$ is it? SupaStarGirl 15:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. complete non-sense. TSO1D 15:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and tagged as such. Jayden54 16:09, 9 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, yet again. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Jourdan (2nd nomination)[edit]

Carolyn Jourdan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page was deleted on 5 December after nomination on grounds of "biographical article on an unreleased book, failed on criteria for notability for people or for book". Page was recreated 7 December, and edited through 8 December, but without addresing the original reasons for delete, i.e. book is still unpublished and author is no more notable now than she was four days ago. Quotes about the book from celebrities are irrelevant - the book has still not been published - and serve to make this more of an advert than it was previously. Emeraude 15:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A non-notable author with an unreleased book. I suggest to permanently protect the article if it's recreated again. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jayden54 16:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT#CBALL certainly doesn't apply here, as the book was confirmed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't know that, thanks for letting me know. I'm sticking to my vote though, as the notability claim still stays. Jayden54 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the book has not yet been published, could be cancelled, and may not be notable even when published. And writing one book does not, in itself, confer notability. Emeraude 17:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is unsourced and reads like spam.-- danntm T C 23:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - let it hit the charts and then recreate, until then, it's crystalballin'. SkierRMH,07:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my opinion remains unchangde from the first AFD. BTW, the link in the AFD notice in the article points to the origina AFD. -- Whpq 18:15, 11 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 deleted by Danny. (aeropagitica) 17:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Designs[edit]

Wolfgang Designs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN artist Nekohakase 15:15, 9 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 11:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Olive Lutheran Church[edit]

Mount Olive Lutheran Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No sign of notability. If this church is notable for its history or architecture, Google books and news give no sign of that. A cursory look through the 201 unique Google hits for "mount olive lutheran church" -site:mountolivechurch.org -site:mtoliveluth.org pasadena -site:myspace.com shows nothing promising. De-prodded without comment. Pan Dan 15:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Doesn't seem notable, and doesn't pass WP:CHURCH (proposed guideline for churches). No sources to show notability either. Jayden54 16:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The article has been up 3 weeks or so and does not yet have any references, let alone references saying it is notable in some way. If the art or architecture have been noted by independent reliable sources, or if something historic happened there, now is the time to note it. Nothing popped up in a survey of publications. Edison 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn church with not much possibility of the proposed church guideline. SkierRMH,07:44, 10 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 11:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meddiebempsters[edit]

Meddiebempsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An a cappella group at Bowdoin College. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Canderson7 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Don't think it meets WP:MUSIC so delete. Jayden54 16:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete. - I'm torn. I don't think that the tour to Korea gives them the notability they need (a lot of college a cappella groups do international trips these days). With the age of the group, I imagine there is probably something notable in their past that might get them up to and over the WP:MUSIC notability standards, but there simply aren't any citations for it. Without good citations (and the group's own web site really isn't that, especially now while their server is down), "probably notable" doesn't make it. JDoorjam Talk 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a combo of WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC - can't get reliable independent notablity references. SkierRMH,07:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXPAND - The article does meet WP:Music due to the Korean tour. Also, this group has played a vital role in the popularity of a cappella in the United States. With such a rich history, this article is in need of a consdierable expansion, not deletion. How is this group different from all the groups listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collegiate_a_cappella_groups —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.5.230.205 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment: Read the (heated) discussion about touring on the WP:MUSIC talk page. Going on a trip over winter break doesn't constitute a tour. There are no sources available to back up the claims you've just made, or to support article expansion. And explaining how this group differs from others is not the point of this AfD. JDoorjam Talk 20:22, 12 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 11:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Bonhomme Hockey League[edit]

Old Bonhomme Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I proded the article before realizing that it had already been proded with the tag being removed by the article's creator. In fact it was also tagged for speedy deletion but that was also removed by the creator. Wihtout any explanations of course... In any case, original research. The idea that inline hockey was invented in Missouri in 1990 is at best dubious. No sign of any third-party reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:V. Claiming to be the birthplace of the sport does infer notability, but only if true and verifiable. Caknuck 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the claims seem to be more than dubious. SkierRMH,07:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable with no reilable sources. And as for the claim of invention, highly dubious as hockey with regular roller skates has been played for ages, so the introduction of rollerblades is a natural evolution that would have occured in mutliple places. -- Whpq 18:14, 11 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negrois[edit]

Negrois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unsourced WP:NEO, no major edits have been made since it was created in March. JDtalk 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:NEO and WP:NOT since it offers nothing more than a dictionary definition. Jayden54 16:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fewer than 700 ghits. Fails WP:NEO. Caknuck 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced neologism. TSO1D 00:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - between dicdef & neologism. SkierRMH,07:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. <<-armon->> 04:45, 11 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.

JDtalk 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. All comments other than that of the nominator, Islay, Skier, Dragonfiend and Josh Mirman were discounted in assessing consensus, as only these people made any reference to the criteria of the applicable policies and guidelines. Please remember, "I like it" is not a serious argument in an AfD discussion (see the essay WP:ILIKEIT). Sandstein 12:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punks and Nerds[edit]

Punks and Nerds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:WEB - there's no evidence that this is an especially notable webcomic AdorableRuffian 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It seems a collection of these comic strips has been published commercially but otherwise there's nothing else here to elevate this above the countless many other web comics. The article is pretty much entirely OR and if there aren't multiple non-trivial published works to be cited then there's no article to be had. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WEB & CITE, nothing makes this one notable. SkierRMH,07:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics. This webcomic has over 20,000 readers. This webcomic has been nominated for numerous awards. What more do you want? More? Fine. It has been in multiple interviews, a few found At the webcomics list, GGL, Comixpedia, as well as college newspapers. Punks and Nerds originated the very popular [Doug Raped Patti] phenomenon found in [collegehumor.com] and YTMND, which can't be directly linked to because ytmnd is a banned link. Also forced the Pringles entry to be locked up after a mass wave of vandelization after a joke was made from this specific strip in July (see edit history in Pringles). In the end, if it's still required to be deleted. That is okay, so be it. :-) JoshMirman,03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This comic has a wide following. If things are going to be delisted due to lack of interest by a few, Wikipedia will soon lose relevance.--Xmb1121 08:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This webcomic is very popular and has spawned a few very popular internet memes. Evil Vin 18:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep it this webcomic is really what helped me get though the tough times back when I was in high school; this webcomic holds a really dear place in my heart. I would hate to see this webcomic go annotated in Wikipedia.
  • Expand This comic has spawned a meme or two. If those were included in the article, with links, I think it should definitely be kept.
  • Keep. One of the more popular webcomics out there. --Czj 02:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But we will keep see similar AfDs, so I would advise those in the Webcomic project to try to write a suitable set of criteria that meet their specialized area, as there are for other media and subjects.DGG 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Popular comic, referred to in many locations during its run. Creator has also both led and organized multiple group projects/events for the community its a part of. 11:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no suggstion of notability, no reputable sources, Wikipedia is not an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 07:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Delete. After much though on the subject, I'm indifferent on the decision and could go either way. I would prefer the world to not remember me for things I've worked on from as early as 15 years old, and things I've created as a source of entertainment for others while it's a creative outlet for me resulting in "dildo humor" and the likes. However I still know the impact it has made on the internet, the readers, and multiple communities. However wikipedia does not need to have a page to remind people about it. People won't forget about all the enjoyment they had from it if this page is deleted. As creator of the comic, I put trust in whatever final decision is given. --Joshmirman 02:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable website. 12:05, 13 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. Luna Santin 09:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binhead[edit]

Binhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

All 'references' are from user-edited sites. One relevant and one unreladed def on Urban Dictionary, a geocities web site, a few dozen hits in a you-tube search (all but two of which were uploaded by a user with the same username as one of the editors) and a livejournal community. Lots of google hits, but that's not surprising considering that the article says the inventors have been promoting the site game online for 'five or six years.' Wikipedia is not for things made up by a group of friends in Manchester one day. -- Vary | Talk 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binhead is a game that I'm pretty sure has been in exsistance for many years either as a drinking game or a smoking game (going by various names as mentioned in the article) We did not invent this game as with many drinking games (lots of which have wikipedia articles) the actual origin of the game is lost. I agree the article my contain serveral references to a specific groups of people in Manchester and London, however this is not suprising as they wrote the article. Ginjarium 17:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am gathering some more references for the article now. I have already found many more references to Binhead, Drop the Dime and The Rizla Game from a variety of websites Ginjarium 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't the first time that this article has been put up for deletion I don't deny that, the article was upheld then because it is a well known drinking/smoking game. To be honest I don't see the problem with letting the binhead livejournal community know about this discussion as they are people from all over the world who play binhead and can probably defend this article far better than I (also to let the original article writers know the article is being discussed). Anyway the community post has been made private as it bares no relavance to this duscussion other than informing the community. Ginjarium 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ginjarium is referring to the prodding soon after the article was created, not a previous AFD discussion, so 'upheld' isn't entirely accurate. Prod tag was added by Rory096 here, seconded by Ohnoitsjamie here, and removed a few edits later by single purpose account Es0terika here. -- Vary | Talk 19:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the reasons for not deleting this article are mentioned here. Ginjarium 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References

As I said I would I have done some quick google searchs and have found several more article on the web which support this article most of the stuff I found was irrelevant as it was mainly dicussions in obscure smoking forums. This is by no means a complete list but is just some of the sites that mention the game several of which are linked to the article writers and several which have no link to me or the LJ community members which wrote this article:

BINHEAD

Everything2.com http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=829962 Cannabis.com http://boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=54517 Spankmag http://spankmag.com/f/d.cfm/cc.62880/o_r.21/p.htm Wordweb http://wordweb.info/3/lookupframe.pl?BINHEAD Dooyoo http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/tobacco/rizla-blue-king-size/1022270/ Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=binhead Geocities http://www.geocities.com/playbinhead/ Livejournal http://community.livejournal.com/binhead/ Utube http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_query=binhead&search_sort=&search_category=0&page=1 myspace http://groups.myspace.com/binhead

Drop The Dime

Webtender http://www.webtender.com/handbook/games/dropthedime.game webtender http://www.webtender.com/handbook/guide/sec-09.ghtml

Cups

Everything2 http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=cups

I'm still looking but these are just the few turned up by quick google searches. Cups is a name I hadn't heard the game called before but looking at the article it is the same thing under a different name. I've heard it called the rizla game in the past. Ginjarium 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per IslaySolomon, close this AfD early per WP:SNOW. The people (all SPA's, looks like) who want to keep this article can't even come up with single reliable source, so we already know where this is going. Tubezone 02:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete & Salt and please close as per Tubezone's request. SkierRMH,07:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and padlock this puppy - no reliable sources, despite the sockpuppetry. "Binhead" appears most often in Yahoo and Google searches as a nickname for Osama bin Laden, mainly in political blogs and forums. B.Wind 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources available, and seem unlikely. -- Whpq 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments put forward for the deletion of this article, as you summarised are that wikipedia is not for things invented by a group of friends in manchester. I have to concure with you on that point. The issue I would like to raise is that it was not invented by a group of friends in manchetser. It was given a distictive name "binhead", and as stated in the article is known by many other names.

You feature a large number of drinking games on wikipedia, yet a quick search turns up no smoking games. Yet the third hit on google for a search on smmoking and games turns up:

http://www.amsterdamaged.net/forums/general-chat/1243-smoking-game.htm,

which to all intents and purposes is the game known as binhead.

Atherton2 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This last source is a chat/bulletin board, not a reliable source per WP:RS. This refers to a game called "cups" - "binhead," the title of the article in question, is nowhere to be found, even there. The number of reliable sources, either in the article (where they need to be shown) or in the AfD discussion above, remains at zero. B.Wind 20:09, 13 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mallcore[edit]

Mallcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Dicdef, but more importantly, the article's entire purpose is to disparage its subject - to tag some set of metal bands with a derogatory label, while elevating others to "not mallcore" status. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Urban DICDEF for WP:NFT concept. Largely made up of OR. Providing external links to fansites is not verification by reliable sources. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Article is only used to decry, and there is no sign of it's conclusion going any further than the heads of a small number of editors. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand article is NOT for attacking nu metal, I have repeatedly put in the correct info about the subject---that it is viewed as the "proper" term for nu metal, since nu metal is not viewed as metal---only to see it deleted every time. I even referenced this article before only to have it deleted. NOTE TO EDITORS: Metal-Rules is a perfectly legit source in the metal community. If it doesn't meet Uncle Wiki's requirements for Reliable Sources, then I suggest rewriting them. It's highly regarded in the metal community. And mallcore wasn't made up in school, it was made up on a website (metal-rules if I'm not mistaken) several years ago. Not hearing it until now is no excuse for claiming it isn't legit, isn't notable, isn't widely used, or any other such nonsense. Ours18 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • that it is viewed as the "proper" term for nu metal, since nu metal is not viewed as metal---only to see it deleted every time is blatantly POV, and if anything, furthers the argument that this is an attack page. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit; nearly every metal fan I've personally met does not consider nu metal to be metal, hence my statement. Apparently, I'm not the only one here who has had that experience. If Wikipedia talkpages count as evidence, we wouldn't have to even bother sourcing it; look around the metal (specificly nu metal) band talk pages. And for the record, I actually listen to some mallcore bands---I have no problem calling them such. Ours18 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's rather pointless for mallcore to have its own article. It should maybe be a few sentences (or less) on the nu-metal page. PhantomOTO 23:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and something used by a small group doesn't make it notable on a worldwide scale. SkierRMH,07:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You must be kidding me about the "small group" right? Ours18 08:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect If the term is synonymous with Nu metal then put the info there. Static Universe 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Negative, it has no genre meaning at all, it is pretty much only an insult. As written above, a sentence (one should suffice) in the Nu-Metal article (as Mallcore is usually used on that genre) will be enough, if at all. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete The article may need a lot of clean up, but I the term is sufficienty used and important to have its own article. The term is used a lot between extreme metal fans, and it is commonly used on Encyclopaedia Metallum (certain bands even have it as a genre!). The term Mallcore does not only apply to Nu-Metal bands, but also to bands belonging to other metal subgenres, so I think that "a sentence on the Nu-Metal article" would be not right. The term is not synonymous with Nu Metal, although many nu-metal bands are labeled as mallcore by some metal fans. I am willing to re-write the article from A to Z if that helps. --Zouavman Le Zouave 10:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid article based on commonly used term.Hoponpop69 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no way to keep this article unbiased and in a NPOV. Inhumer 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Re-direct if it can't be kept then re-direct it to the mallcore site mentioned; Encyclopaedia Metallum. On that site's messageboard every user starts with the title "mallcore kid". So it seems the most logical re-direct. - Deathrocker 08:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This suggestion should be ignored, as it is merely an attempt to mock Encyclopaedia Metallum, where the "mallcore kid" title and the term "mallcore" are used in a purely derogatory manner. Deathrocker just harbors bitterness towards that particular website. PhantomOTO 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the above comment should be ignored. The term is predominantly (and openly) used on that website, including the messageboard where every member has had the title of "mallcore kid". (a messageboard of thousands). There is no other article on here which would be more suited to have it redirected to. PhantomOTO just harbors an alleged "bitterness" towards the fact. - Deathrocker 09:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, the logic behind this proposal is completely ridiculous. "Mallcore kid" is used in the same sense as "newbie" on other websites, and is only used for a little while, until the user accumulates a certain number of posts or points. Also, a search for "mallcore" as a music genre only turns up 16 bands out of the almost 43,000 bands on the website. That hardly qualifies Encyclopaedia Metallum as a "mallcore site." Deathrocker is just trying to associate Encyclopaedia Metallum with a derogatory term. PhantomOTO 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Mallcore kid" is used as synonymous with "newbie" on Encyclopaedia Metallum [29]. It's just an inside joke - the same way that advanced users are called "Metal demon", for example . It does not logically follow that an article on mallcore should redirect this website. Morrigan 15:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research Stats Google.com search results...
"disturbed" "mallcore" = 1,500 (a band who's image is featured in the article)
"Encyclopaedia Metallum" "mallcore" = 6,890 - Deathrocker 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is by far the most dishonest "research" ever. Note that the first two results are from Wikipedia. Maybe we chould redirect mallcore to the Wikipedia page? Did you comb through every source, and see if any of them label Encyclopaedia Metallum as a mallcore website? No, of course not, because that reveal how idiotic that premise is. You're being completely irrational. You have absolutely zero interest in fact, you just don't want to admit that you're wrong. PhantomOTO 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Encyclopaedia Metallum is a popular website with a lot of traffic [30]. As such, Google will index many pages from the site, including user comments in reviews, profiles or on the forum, which in no way demonstrate that Encyclopaeda Metallum is a mallcore-related site. There is no logical link between those Google search results and the definition of mallcore. And as others pointed out, using similar logic, we should redirect mallcore to the Slipknot article instead, or perhaps we could redirect the Heavy Metal article to the Encyclopaedia Metallum article since Google hits for the keyword "heavy metal" are far more tremendous [31]. But we won't, because it's a fallacious argument. Morrigan 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have been warned by an administrator on how to act and communicate on Wikipedia, I suggest you follow the advice. [32]The search results are in no way dishonest, anybody who types the terms above into Google.com will find the exact same results, guarenteed. The first two results of each are to the specific Wikipedia articles "Mallcore" and then "Encyclopaedia Metallum", so yes, I agree with you, the term "Mallcore" should be re-directed to that website's article. Your opinions show Wikipedia:No original research, as you can see by my searches, I have proved that the term is more associated with said website than a band who's image is in the actual article. - Deathrocker 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The results of your searches don't matter, it's the inherent vagueness of a Google search itself. Now, if you had combed through each result, and discovered that most of them actually claim Encyclopaedia Metallum is a mallcore site, rather than stating the fact that one of the titles a user can have on the site is "mallcore kid" or even linking to profiles, reviews, and the few genre fields that feature mallcore within Encyclopaedia Metallum itself, you'd have a point. PhantomOTO 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay deathrocker, let's play by YOUR rules. Google search for "mallcore" "slipknot" == 10,900 results. Remove slipknot and put nu metal in its place, and you get 13,800 results. As has already been said, he's got a vendetta against EM. I have no idea why, but he does, and he's painfully dishonest in his editing policy. And he seems to have a grudge against phantom as well, as can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_heavy_metal_bands&diff=prev&oldid=94312658 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_heavy_metal_bands&diff=prev&oldid=94312996 Ours18 18:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ENOUGH. You're all in violation of WP:CIVIL, so please stop sniping at each other. This is an AfD, not a place to hash out your personal differences. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is exactly why I deleted the comment I made before all of this, because I knew Deathrocker would make a big thing out of this. Inhumer 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My biggest problem with the article are the (often an extreme metal one) and the typically hardcore punk fans) comments as they are completely non NPOV and have never been referenced.Inhumer 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I partially agree. I think the "mallpunk" stuff should take only a few sentences in the article. The article does need a lot of clean-up, and I am willing to re-write the article from A to Z. --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 10:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The biggest problem with the term can be seen on this very page. Ours18 saying stuff like nu-metal isn't metal and thus uses the term as its "correct" name doesn't jive with another person who believes it to be synonymous with any mainstream "metal" band. An article for a purely derogatory term doesn't need its own article in this instance and can be relegated to the nu metal page. And what band would seriously call themselves mallcore? What would be the use in labelling yourself mallcore? The whole thing reeks of elitism. If you don't like nu metal and want to call it mallcore fine, but coming up with a better name for nu metal other than mallcore may bring more awareness to nu metal not being metal.Outlaw-Viper 10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's already far too much overclassification of bands going on in the nu-metal genre, and this is just encouraging it. There's only so much derogatory beating of a dead horse you can do until it gets old. The sound of nu metal is clearly cut from the same cloth as the most popular (though not the most hardcore) styles of metal. The popular definition of nu metal being metal completely fits. - Stick Fig 19:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite I propose to rewrite the article in a more correct form where there would be NPOV and where the bands cited would not be offended. Instead of saying: "This band is mallcore" it should read: "This band may sometimes be considered mallcore by some". I propose that the article be re-written from A to Z and that peaceful discussion may lead to a more positive change for the fate of this article. I could take care of the rewriting, but I would gladly encourage people to help out as well. --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 10:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User already voted "don't delete" above. Also, see WP:WEASEL. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm not allowed to change my mind? --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't delete" and "rewrite" amount to the same thing. Either way, the article remains. My point in this AfD is that this article can never be NPOV, as the title is a derogatory term, and that therefore it should not exist on Wikipedia. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point in a way, but there are other articles on Wikipedia with derogatory terms as the title, like "nigger" or "faggot" for example. - Deathrocker 11:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those terms however have historical significance (and are used by more people) while the term mallcore does not.Outlaw-Viper 22:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe the term nigger and faggot are more used and more significant, but mallcore does exist and it does have the right to be on Wikipedia. I mean, there are stubs about train stations, why couldn't mallcore be there? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 10:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A slang term, not really encyclopedic, doesn't need its own article. Morrigan 15:25, 14 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 09:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Karen Grass[edit]

Karen Grass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Collective "Karen Grass" gets no non-wiki ghits, does not satisfy WP:Notability. Akihabara 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It seems as if she's written one non-notable paper, and that's it. -- Kicking222 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... 0 ghits. SkierRMH,07:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Karen Grass" doesn't get the Golden Donut award as "Karen Grass" yields 457 Google hits and 196 on Yahoo Search... but close enough to establish a definite lack of notability. B.Wind 04:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Holy guacomole! God help us all if we started allowing wikipedia articles to everyone who's written a thesis. Fails WP:BIOOhconfucius 13:02, 11 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 - Yomanganitalk 01:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Bluestone[edit]

Article fails to explain how this guy is more notable than any other murderer. Also drifts off-topic in the last two paragraphs, no references. Akihabara 17:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unfortunately, there are thousands of murders worldwide every week in today's society. Not all of the people responsible for these crimes are notable. Serial killers, yes. People like Peterson who get lots of media attention, yes. But murderers who kill "only" 3 people and receive very little media attention (Google News had nothing so I had to use plain google) are not notable. Srose (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, depends where a murder occurred it may be something for the local news or make headlines all over the country. With the few murders (less than 10 a year) that happen in some Nordic countries this could have been very notable regionally, but hardly make the news somewhere else. Alf photoman 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn murderer, per Srose. Creator seems to have been trying to make some sort of point about police weapons training, based on the digression at the end. -- Vary | Talk 21:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn, esp concerning worldwide view. SkierRMH,07:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete about 50 Ghits if you discount Wikipedia-related content. How ever tragic the story might be, this is simply not encyclopedic material. Note also that the article has gone unedited since its creation which indicates very low interest to expand this in any way. Moreover, the content is unsourced and, for all we know, doubtful. Pascal.Tesson 06:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. </div>
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Hutton[edit]

Kate Hutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Almost gave this a db-bio, but I decided to be cautious. Nothing of particular note I can see. Akihabara 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, she is the subject of two media citations already in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cleaned up the article (some of which was cut-and-paste from The Advocate), so it now reads as an encyclopedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung: Subject of two independent media articles = Passes WP:BIO with flying colors. -- Antepenultimate 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cleanup by Dhartung ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:43, 11 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 09:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. R. Leding Cactus Garden[edit]

A. R. Leding Cactus Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Garden no longer exists, apparently was removed when a bio building was expanded Bm gub 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was going to suggest a redirect to New Mexico State University Botanical Garden (per the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Places of local interest#Adding information about places of local interest). However, this result worries me. In addition, this site only lists the place as directory-style information. Even if this place is verifiable, it's not notable. Gracenotes T § 18:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not notable, particularly if the University thought so little of it that they built over it.--Anthony.bradbury 19:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ummm, probaly nn when it existed, and now that it's gone... a bit more nn? SkierRMH,07:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article has been around for well over a year. The nomination seems to be saying that since it was removed it should be deleted. Botanical gardens are likely to be consiered notable and one with a specific focus more so. No longer existing is not a reason to be deleted from wikipedia. Vegaswikian 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me expand the non-notability argument. When I stumbled across the article, I thought I'd like to stop by and see the garden, so I asked an actual NMSU professor-emeritus where it was. Neither he nor anyone in his family had never heard of it; he asked an actual NMSU plant biologist, and the plant biologist apparently had to ask around. Perhaps it was the equivalent of the "Rich O. Alumnus Memorial Shrub Grouping" and the "Class of 1937 Dogwood" you find in odd corners of every college campus. Only with cacti. I hope they transplanted the collection when they de-memorialized it. Alas, now we can only speculate about the glories of the garden that once was: "In addition to over 100,000 Lithops sp. planted personally by Louise Bourgeois, the A.R. Leding Cactus Garden had only a single cactus, a 1000-foot-tall saguaro which Norse myths say held up the sky. Its hollow, poisonous spines exude drops of liquid gold which fall to the ground and are called as "Pele's Tears"; the shamans of the Chaco Canyon culture used this fibrous material to line nests in holes in the saguaro's trunk, where (unlike the distantly-related echidnas) they gave birth to live young. The saguaro was eaten by vagabonds in 2005 and was replaced by the John Q. Endowment Memorial Cloud Forest, which evaporated in early 2006. (this article does not cite sources.) " Bm gub 08:55, 13 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Kaira[edit]

Tommy Kaira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article was nominated for speedy deletion under G11 (spam), but doesn't qualify. A7 (non-notability) doesn't apply either, because there is an assertion of notability. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry if it is rubbish i just thought it should be created because it was the only read link on GT car lists so i thought it was worth creating, but everyones entitled to their opinions I understand, I dont mind if it gets deleted I just thought it was a good idea thats all...DINOMAN 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep About 47,000 GHits; not a vast number, but clearly the Company possesses some notability.--Anthony.bradbury 19:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks notable to me, despite the article being a sentence. A brief web browse shows it could easily satisfy WP:CORP. CiaranG 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and cleanup! per CiaranG FirefoxMan 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - company exists and is notable, although this article is presently a sub-stub (I'm going to see what I can do about that). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kjbd 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand per comments above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've expanded a little, though others are certainly welcome to assist. I'm not a huge car fan. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:42, 14 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 merge to Varberg Fortress. Sandstein 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varberg Fortress Moat Monster[edit]

Varberg Fortress Moat Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Completing incorrectly added nomination. [33] User added nom to log instead of creating a nomination page. No vote. -- Vary | Talk 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a story mentioned a few times and not again since, really, at least to my knowledge. No expansion is really possible and it isn't very noteable. Unless there's something I'm missing that can be added to it. Also entirely done by one user. --CF90 16:45, 9 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. ZsinjTalk 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Patrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An unconfirmed, unsourced episode of SpongeBob SquarePants. According to this website, someone made this episode up. Since December 2005, this article has been deleted four times. Squirepants101 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete and protect from recreation. Hoax, per nom. -- Vary | Talk 18:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete, recreated deleted content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:00, 9 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. If anyone strongly wants to merge or transwiki this content, it's available on request. Sandstein 10:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard closing disclaimer: If this discussion contained any opinions offered by single purpose accounts or arguments not based on applicable policy, they were discounted in assessing consensus for this decision. Sandstein 10:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Translations for Haley in Order of the Stick[edit]

Translations for Haley in Order of the Stick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unnecessary depth. Lines lack any context away from the relevant webcomic strip. Translations can be found at the subject site, so no need to come here for information. Tailkinker 18:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain what metric is used to determine when an article is "unnecessarily deep". Explain how hyperlinks to the translations do not contribute to context. Explain why duplication of knowledge is specious in this, or any other case. The burden of proof must be supported. --ttogreh 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment now: why is this list relevant? Alf photoman 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "this"? Order of the Stick? Haley's translation page? The deletion discussion page? Something else? Be more specific.--ttogreh 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he says "this list", not "this", and the only list involved in this whole thing is the list of translations, it can be safely assumed the article under discussion is what he's referring to. Feel free to answer his question. --Tailkinker 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn there was no "this" in his question. Sadly, I am not perfect, but I am capable of admitting when I am wrong. It is relevant because a significant number of people researching Haley Starshine might also research her cryptograms, which are an integral part of her character. If Haley Starshine is relevant, than a substantial part of her dialogue is relevant.--ttogreh 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that she's currently been afflicted with a temporary condition that causes her to speak in cryptograms has no bearing of any kind on the nature of her character. She's the same person with the malady as without it. At most, once cured, the affliction will be a minor side-note to her character history. And precise repetition of dialogue is rarely important when assessing character. Have a look through articles on real people here; they all manage to describe their character without frequent reference to dialogue, so to suggest that a fictional character cannot be described properly without it is hardly reasonable. --Tailkinker 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If you can't understand half of her total dialogue, you are doomed to not understand her character very well. Moreover, comparing a fictional character to a real person is a strawman; they aren't the same thing.--ttogreh 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not a straw man, that's an analogy. You might like to look those concepts up. Individuals have personality, abilities, traits and a personal history whether they're fictional or not, making the analogy entirely reasonable. But feel free to consult the many biographical pages for fictional characters that can be found on Wikipedia. You'll find that they all manage to give a perfectly good insight into the character in questionn without resorting to repeated quotes. --Tailkinker 08:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An analogy is a similarity in some respects between two things that are otherwise dissimilar. As such, all analogies are strawmen. I have found, in my time on this earth, that analogies are only used when an argument is weak and easily dismissed with relevant facts.--ttogreh 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you ever decide to provide any relevant facts, rather than just bad-mouthing anyone who disagrees with you and throwing out accusations of unfair tactics that you can't support, then maybe we'll be able to judge. --Tailkinker 15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As defined by Dictionary.com
Strawmen: An arguement or opponent set up so to be easily refuted or deleted
Analogy: A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based --OneHappyHusky 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant facts are this; you looked at the article, and unilaterally decided that it was not worthy of being wikified, before doing any number of milder and more constructive actions. While "huh" and "but" being translated are indeed, not very insightful into the character of Haley Starshine, this list of translations does serve as a reference for readers of OoTS. Deletion is a subtractive act; it diminishes rather than enhances our knowledge. You could have suggested it being merged, or moved to Wikiquote, or any other non-deltionary action. Instead, you chose to suggest that the effort of editors passionate about something was completely worthless... AS THE FIRST COURSE OF ACTION. Don't you get it? Deletion or suggestion of deletion before due diligence is to act like a philistine.--ttogreh 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or possibly just exercising the right of free speech. From Wikipedia "Freedom of speech is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations." Everyone is entitled to an opinion, you certainly have no problem expressing yours. Don't you get it??? -- OneHappyHusky 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your retort? The UNUDHR? Yes, I fully acknowledge Tailkinker's right to act like an obstreperous jerk, and I take advantage of my right to call him as such.--ttogreh 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Fancruft for a webcomic. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your superfluous second sentence betrays your prejudice against webcomics. Moreover, Explain and defend your decision to describe the page as fancruft.--ttogreh 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no such prejudice. But webcomics are almost always of thin notability. I have read Order of the Stick and enjoyed it. But this is fancruft -- the sort of thing that fans compile about whatever their otaku obsession is, to possibly nauseating detail. Wikipedia is not a compendium of insignificant facts. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced that such polemics are more of an attempt by those responsible for Wikipedia's bandwidth and server costs to keep costs down than anything else. Really, how can any consensus be reached on what is, and is not, significant? MILLIONS of people, with MILLIONS of different reasons for it, view Wikipedia daily.--ttogreh 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am approximately as m:inclusionist an editor as it's possible to find who frequents AFD. I would agree in the sense that Wikipedia isn't paper, but that doesn't mean that we keep everything. The more things we keep the more maintenance is necessary, the more pages to vandalize, the more we look like "pop culture central", and so forth. There are many reasons apart from "server costs". --Dhartung | Talk 02:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why some editors seem to think that pop culture is less worthy of encyclopedic mention than other topics. Fancruft, listcruft, and whatever else you lot like to call minutiae and miscellany... it IS important.--ttogreh 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the definition of 'minutiae' is "a small, trifling detail". A trifle, pudding jokes aside, is defined as "an article or thing of very little value". So, no, as it happens, not important. --Tailkinker 08:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every time you type, you betray your pedantic nature ever further.--ttogreh 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And every time you type, you waste everyone's time. See, you're not the only one who can nitpick. Danny Lilithborne 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you commented; you said you did not want to discuss this issue any further. Is it perhaps I touched a nerve? Got a little closer to the truth about who you really are than you find comfortable? I am just text on a screen, and yet you felt compelled to tell me that I waste your time. Do you realize how incredibly paradoxical your comment is? You wasted your time... telling me that I waste your time.--ttogreh 05:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Be careful, if you follow that chain of logic too far the universe may explode. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Cruft" is not a reason for Deletion. (Justyn 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I must reiterate myself. How does one ever reach consensus on what knowledge is, or is not indiscriminate?--ttogreh 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How indeed? Perhaps using consensus. And a process of discussion which articles to delete in a transparent, open fashion. --Dhartung | Talk 02:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not just delete for the simple fact that it's the kind of thing that someone might look up on wp. who cares how relevent it is in the grander scheme of things? all that matters is that it's likely that someone would come to wp to find the info out, so the info should be findable via wp.
having said that, i dont really see why this page can't just be linked to from the article on OotS or Haley, other than the fact that the info is more ordered on the article page than in that forum thread --Dak 10:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But threads from the forums are not the Wikipedia. They can't be update, corrected or maintained. They're source material, not reference material.
changing to delete. actually, theres a nice, neat, maintained version here. include a link to it in hayley's article, definately, and if there wasn't that thread, then i'd still be saying we should keep this here, but i dont really see why we should mirror the info? --Dak 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete this is obvious listcruft and I refuse to discuss this matter any further. Danny Lilithborne 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that leaves very little to debate, and gives all of us an insight into your personality, doesn't it?--ttogreh 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "cruft" is not a reason for deletion (Justyn 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This information is not "about" any particular subject. Rather, it is a collection of quotes. It belongs in WikiQuote, if it actually belongs anywhere, but not in its current indiscriminate form. And it is indiscriminate -- it does not discriminate, as it (ostensibly) includes every single cryptographed line Haley has spoken. There has been no effort to present only the relevant, encyclopedic information. The Original Party Slurm 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for suggesting a more proper avenue for this article, rather than just saying "it's crap", and calling for its deletion.--ttogreh 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Why not merge with Haley Starshine under spoiler tags? If not an external link on the Haley Starshine page should point to another source for the translations. -- Ari 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would be possible, but I believe it works better as a separate page. It would dominate the Haley page, and it's a valuable reference that stands alone, without requiring support from the material on the Haley page. It should probably be linked from the general OOTS page as well. -- I have no idea how to sign as a non-registered user.
  • Keep As an editor of the topic but not a person who normally argues deletion cases, I had to caefully re-read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Unless you want to argue that OOTS is not sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion at all, I don't see anything that justifies the exclusion of this list. As a Web comic with a substantial fanbase, OOTS is an appropriate topic for the Wikipedia, as is a description of its major characters. A notable feature of the major character Haley is her ability to speak only in crytograms. A thorough description of her character would not be complete without this information. We spent substantial time gathering this information and linking to the appropriate comics. Many other media-related topics include lists of similar standing within their topic. It's not sufficient to link to a forum post with similar information. A forum post is not the Wikipedia, it cannot be maintained, corrected or updated. -- Random non-registered user
The suggestion that one cannot describe Haley's character without providing translations for her speech is hard to justify. Take a look at any biographical article for a fictional character. Most of them provide a more than adequate description of that character's personality without repeated use of quotes. Haley's own article covers her personality in reasonable depth, despite no quotes being present at all. A few links to specific strips from the webcomic provide a perfectly acceptable number of illustrations of her personality and how she tends to react to things. If you wished to add a couple of illustrative quotes to her own article, I would consider that entirely reasonable. However, the indiscriminate quoting on the translations page goes way over the top. Very little of it gives any insight into her character that can not be gained far more easily by simply reading the appropriate section of her character page. Her ability to speak only in cryptograms is a significant feature of her character at the moment, yes, and should be mentioned (and, indeed, is mentioned), but a translation of every word she says is utterly unnecessary. --Tailkinker 15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list of just any quotes. This is a list of translations of dialogue spoken by the character of Haley as crytograms. In the context of the character and the comic, this list is appropriate in a way that a list of quotes from other characters in other media may not be. Within its milieu, this list carries a similar significant to the List of guest stars on The Simpsons or the list of Magic: The Gathering characters. Given the volume of material devoted to OOTS, the inclusion of this list is appropriate. Translations for these cryptograms represent key background material that newcomers to the comic require and that regular readers frquently reference. Acting as reference material is a central function of an encyclopedia. OOTS is sufficiently notable to be included in the Wikipedia. Once we've established that the topic satisfies that criteria, the decision to retain or delete a particular article must be guided by the topic itself. -- Same random non-registered user
Sorry, but I'm forced to disagree. This is just a list of quotes, nothing more. Whether they were originally in cryptogram form or not, they're just quotes by a character. Readers of the comic, both new and old, can easily find translations simply by referencing the forums attached to the site itself, something that they would, in all probability, turn to before referring to Wikipedia. The Order of the Stick, no matter how much we might personally appreciate it, is, when it comes down to it, a webcomic and is thus of relatively minor interest, comparatively speaking, to shows like The Simpsons, or games like Magic: The Gathering. The two lists that you cite both have uses that are greater than their basic content - the list of Simpsons guest stars can provide links to the article for the actor or actress in question, for example. Likewise, the list of Magic characters provides links to the relevant articles, where those characters are described. This list of quotes has no such additional use. In all seriousness, take a look around Wikipedia, look at films, TV shows and the suchlike. You won't find very many lists of quotes for them. Even something as popular as the Simpsons doesn't have a page of quotes on Wikipedia. Nor do foreign language shows, where translation would undoubtedly be useful. WikiQuotes does have things like that, but even they do not indiscriminately quote in the manner that's provided here. If shows, films and items from other medias with far greater popularity than the Order of the Stick do not have lists of this nature, then there can be no possible justification for including one for the Order. If you wished to contribute a selection of character quotes to WikiQuotes, or even include a couple on each character page to illustrate their attitude and personality, you would find me to be wholeheartedly in agreement - I can certainly think of some that would work well - but this degree of indiscriminate quoting is inappropriate. --Tailkinker 20:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the time you're taking to discuss this matter with me. I think the "minor interest" (i.e fancruft) aspect of the topic is really at the heart of the concerns that I'm reading from yourself and others. Right now, the Wikipedia has at least eleven articles devoted to OOTs. Is this too many? Are we debating whether OOTs is significant enough for the Wikipedia to include substantial material, or are we debating whether or not this article is of encyclopedic character with respect to OOTs?
however, with most charecters, you dont NEED a list of every single piece of their dialogue -- with one that speaks in cryptograms, you do. so, i dont think it's just a list of quotes, by dint of usefulness --Dak 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. You don't need a list of every piece of any character's dialogue, whether it is originally presented in cryptogram or not. Slurms MacKenzie 19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: This should not be deleted, but it shouldn't have it's own page either, it's something that either belongs in a closeable box with the spoiler tag on Haley's page. But if it takes up too much room, then it's time for a breakaway page. (Justyn 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Merge with Haley Starshine: I agree that as of right now the list isn't large enough to include its own page, so I agree with what Justyn said just above-- let's merge it with Haley's article, put the closeable box and spoiler tag, and leave it at that. ekedolphin 08:31, 16 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 10:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Riel[edit]

Arthur Riel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN business person, notable in a very limited context. Ckessler 18:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Not notable--SUIT 19:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, low ghits. SkierRMH,08:03, 10 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lothlórien Co-op[edit]

Lothlórien Co-op (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable housing cooperative. Virtually identical to the article at Lothlorien Hall which was also nominated for deletion. Irongargoyle 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per parallel rationale on "sister" nomination. SkierRMH,07:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete The co-op itself is a minor, eclectic Madison landmark with a participatory history in Madison's political culture, therfore I feel that it deserves a penny of server space. Instead of deleting, simply rewrite so that it seems more palatable to wikipedian standards.TeamZissou 04:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Otto4711 15:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete The co-op is notable as the largest and one of the longest running co-ops in the Madison community. A part of Madison's radical history as well. — 198.150.240.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • keep The page is clearly notable. The virtually identical comment makes me think the page was not read before nomination.Xylon.doulas 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Lothlorien is a recognizable landmark in Madison. The name of the house is commonly recognized among UW-Madison students. The house has a unique culture, exterior & interior design, was one of the first building on lakelawn district of Lake Mendota. Also, it has a unique place within the vibrant Madison political history. Furthermore, Lothlorien isn't student housing. The house is clearly notable and the page should be kept. Ditto whats been said above. Lothlorien is also the home of Madison Food Not Bombs.— 70.226.153.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • keep In addition to the above, I would add that there is nothing in the article which reads as an advertisement, unless one chooses to interpret it that way. Even the first line under GOVERNMENT, "Lothlórien's Elven Council meets once a week on alternating Sundays and Mondays," is much more description-of-procedure than ad. That was the original complaint. As far as notability is concerned, a significant attempt has been made to site evidence: Lothlórien in Madison Museum of Contemporary Arts, food not bombs at Lothlórien, Lothlórien in Channel 3000, Lothlórien in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Lothlórien in Fighting Bob, Aragorn visits Lothlórien, Alec Soth on Lothlórien, Lothlórien in Capital Times. The only improvement I can think of which might add weight to the argument for keeping this page is to consider including some of these sources in the made article. For example the Food Not Bombs connection could be mentioned under "Food." --Molybdenumtop 14:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article could be better, but the issue is not whether the article is good but whether a good article could be written. the case could certainly be made for Lothlorien- there are certainly sources, although their inclusion is rather haphazard at this moment in time, and, even if individual co-ops generally speaking aren't considered notable enough to be included in wikipedia, lothlorien is certainly one of the more well-known co-ops in the madison area and beyond and is likely to be a topic of interest to those who wish to know about co-ops in general and lothlorien in particular. Acornwithwings 18:30, 15 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salwa Khoddam[edit]

Salwa Khoddam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN teacher. Nekohakase 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep It seems to me he may qualify as notable. Akihabara 01:01, 10 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, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PROF. Tarret 00:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing from WP:RS indicating that this professor passes WP:PROF. Claims such as one of the foremost C. S. Lewis scholars in the world need to be sourced to lend credibility to the article. --Kinu t/c 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kinu.≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 22:07, 15 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soupism[edit]

Soupism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neologism? Doesn't supply any direct sources, and Google turns up nothing related for a search on soupism philosophy. FreplySpang 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your concern. I thought this article was appropriate as the philosophy is put forward in a book published by a top American university. If necessary, however, this article can be deleted and I can instead submit an article on the author of the book. By the way, please forgive any etiquette or technical errors as this was my first article. Sevenofrhymes 20:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I have edited the article to make clear that the philosophy is set forth in a published book, Escaping God's Closet, which won a Lambda Literary Award. Sevenofrhymes 20:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a neologism. The book was a finalist according to the Lambda site (being a winner might have conferred notability for an article on the author). [34] Wikipedia is not a soapbox, no matter how interesting the ideas. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as neologism, nn further use. SkierRMH,08:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism not in significant use Dragomiloff 12:07, 10 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.

NNY[edit]

NNY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article looks alright, but I believe this musician fails WP:MUSIC. In fact, I can't find any good sources on Yahoo/Google documenting his achievements. Some of his work was released by netlabels, but that doesn't really seem enough to merit inclusion. Húsönd 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:VSCA. All sources are self-promotion like purevolume. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn person, tons of self/promo ghits, but not much else. SkierRMH,08:07, 10 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.

Sami khella[edit]

Sami khella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN artist. Possibly vanity. Nekohakase 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to have more notability as a doctor than as an artist, but still not enough to pass WP:BIO. -- Vary | Talk 20:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably would not pass WP:BIO in either category. SkierRMH,08:09, 10 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaquille Carroll[edit]

Shaquille Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN vanity page Nekohakase 20:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article is premature per WP:BIO, but I wish her luck and look forward to her article being recreated when she makes the olympic team in 2012. -- Vary | Talk 20:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as WP:BIO, maybe in 2012, but not yet. SkierRMH,08:10, 10 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, NN blogs (it's on Livejournal) and attack pages both qualify for speedy deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe (talk • contribs)

Rachael Ray Sucks[edit]

Rachael Ray Sucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article was nominated for speedy deletion under G10, attack, but doesn't qualify: the subject is an anti-fansite, but that does not make this article an attack. The issue remaining is notability, which is asserted. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 20:30, 9 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 MERGE to List of minor Star Wars characters. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shedao Shai[edit]

Shedao Shai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nonsense, or seriously needs explanation. Nekohakase 20:34, 9 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks[edit]

Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subjective nonsense. It represents violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR at their worst, and has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Ezeu 20:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Who decides what constitutes a stereotype? Who decides how notable a stereotype must be? Most importantly, why does this need a seperate article? -Amarkov blahedits 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. Alun 21:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nomination. Edison 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please note that no rationale has been presented that would justify a speedy delete, see WP:CSD. hateless 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Stereotypes exist and are standard objects of sociological and psychological research. Of course, the article is badly written and POV, but this is not a deletion reason, only a reason for improvement.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I've never heard of half of these stereotypes but this article's a great way to start them. This article is also very poorly sourced (how do do you document the existence of a stereotype in an encyclopedic way?) Timelist 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently this all goes back to the article Ethnic stereotypes in American media, from which the author extracted and created the following (see the Talk pages):
  1. Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks (Talk)
  2. Stereotypes of American Indians (Talk)
  3. Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims (Talk)
  4. Stereotypes of Asians (Talk)
  5. Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites (Talk)
  6. Stereotypes of Jews (deleted 20 July 2006)
  7. Stereotypes of Latinos (Talk)
Some of them have turned out Very Well, but this one has unfortunately become a magnet for WP:OR and WP:POV "I think that Xxx should be in the list, too!" additions (lists tend to do that) ... maybe some of them have grown crufty and should be AfD'd as well (as was done with "Stereotypes of Jews").
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic stereotypes in American media 2 for further discussions related to this article ... if you delete the unsourced lists and partially protect it, there may still be a place for it in the "Stereotypes of ..." WikiVerse. But, yeah, the existing "article" blows chunks. —72.75.105.165 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep and rewrite. Stereotypes exist and are standard objects of sociological and psychological research. Of course, the article is badly written and POV, but this is not a deletion reason, only a reason for improvement -- exactly what Ioannes said I agree with, keep it redo it. Shouldn't have to delete a page just to recreate better. Just improve current. Wiki's not paper. --Xiahou 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xiahou. hateless 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and rewrite. I agree that the article is in terrible shape and is of no academic value right now. I created the article (split off as mentioned above) because I feel that it's important to have legitimate academic information about racial stereotyping available in an encyclopedia, and I still stand by that. I don't feel that the "no one can be the authority on what stereotypes are notable" arguments are valid because there's tons of research and scholarly work done in these areas. However, on the other hand, it doesn't seem that there are any experts on this topic spearheading the rewrite for this article. The article is doing more harm than good at the moment by spreading wrong information so I agree that deletion is a viable option until an expert comes along and re-creates it; but a better option, if someone informed in this area was willing to take on the task, would be to rewrite. --Drenched 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly original research or POV fork? Dragomiloff 12:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepand improve if needed, and we should get the one on Jews back. The POV is not in the article--the article is intended to be, and is, a neutral description of real-world prejudice. It's not adequate to the subject, for there is clearly a lot more to be said, but it is indeed difficult to find neutral language in which to say it or people willing to add it when it is subject to actions such as this.

Where the POV is in the choice to delete the articles which arouse the strongest feelings in the most people. That is against the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia, which treats all ethnic groups equally. DGG 07:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - mildy sourced, in principle highly encyclopaedic (albeit the actual article needs work). The article does need a lot of real work, but the concept is workable, and there's at least one source - it seems inappropriate to delete. I understand that some people may not like that Wikipedia is not censored, but she ain't. WilyD 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These stereotype article are a minefield of POV and OR. They serve to reinforce rather undermine the stereotypes they cover. Ultimately all groups have been sterotyped at some point- women, black people, Asian people, the Irish, gay people etc. Must all have an article? In fact none of these stereotypes is notable enough to have its own article- all are based on some irrational prejudice. Their content should either be in general articles about prejudice/oppression of particular groups or as examples in the article Stereotypes. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A stereotype article should seek to neither reinforce nor undermine the stereotype. Stereotypes are documentable and where verifiable are encyclopaedic, as long as they're documented as stereotypes (i.e. of unknown/irrelevent truth for their importance as a stereotype). As much as I hate to say it, your argument here flies in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for and runs counter to several policies, such as Wikipedia is not censored and WP:NPOV. The "moral value" of content is entirely irrelevent (or at least, that's what we're supposed to be aiming for). The Holocaust article doesn't come with a disclaimer saying You probably shouldn't do this nor do we delete the Creationism article on the grounds that someone might read it and be duped into believing it. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. WilyD 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You misunderstand me. I do not mean that this topic should not be covered on Wikipedia. However IMH opinion the correct place for the coverage is at discussions of racism or discrimination. Steeotyping is a minor instance of such occurances and is not sufficiently notable per se for seperate topics on every group that has been stereotyped. I agree that Wikipedia is not censored and have no problem with that policy. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Edit the Racism article and you'll see a little reminder Note: This page is 63 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. This article doesn't have an appropriate merge target as far as I can see. And your statement They serve to reinforce rather undermine the stereotypes they cover is mostly what I'm taking exception to. The stereotype article shoudl already cover what relation, if any, exists between stereotypes and truth. Specific examples deserve their own article all the time - for example, I don't think anyone would say Why do we have an article on Toronto? There's already an article on City - isn't that enough? WilyD 14:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stereotyping is not just a minor manifestation of racism, and I believe it is notable enough to warrant independent articles. Writing about all the stereotypes under the racism article would make it way too long; if you look at previous versions of Ethnic stereotypes in American media, you'll see that even when we had a page devoted to just stereotypes, it was still too long. There are entire books written about racial stereotyping; a subsection/mention in a general article about racism would hardly be sufficient. Although it may appear from many of the above off-shoot articles that there isn't enough substantial content to warrant independent articles, this is not the case. The content exists, but just hasn't been written up and put into the articles. See Stereotypes of Asians for an example of a stand-alone article with a substantial amount of content. --Drenched 23:00, 16 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The eye of animated christmas EVE[edit]

The eye of animated christmas EVE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a hoax, there is no such programme. Zero Ghits for the supposed title plus the external link in the article is fake ChrisTheDude 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-09t21:04z
  • Speedy Delete - probable hoax. SkierRMH,08:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent Delete Wikipedia is for real articles not for fake shit. Sorry about language, it's appropriate - there's an article on it! 86.20.53.195 17:59, 12 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Ivan Lewis[edit]

Preston Ivan Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails biography notability (specifically academics), is probably autiobiographical and advertising. Previous prod. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-09t20:58z,

Comment Given that the deletion process has started to garner a bit of media attention [35], it would be nice to have reasons for deletion that aren't stuffed with jargon and acronyms. Catchpole 22:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does the existence of what amounts to a filler article have to do with the use of acronyms, especially if those acronyms are linked to the policy? Otto4711 23:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination made reader friendlier as per WP:WOTTA, using SkierRMH's vote, especially since it's autiobiographical. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-10t12:59z
  • Delete as per nom, spelled out, it's a biography piece, probably autiobiographical, could be considered as spam/advertising. And, the submitter missed WP:PROF. Nuf? SkierRMH,08:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and SkierRMH. Agent 86 00:42, 15 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'. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrosia Co-op[edit]

Ambrosia Co-op (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable housing co-op. Otto4711 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. Akihabara 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has been around since 2/06 with little improvement. SkierRMH,08:17, 10 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Co-op[edit]

International Co-op (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable housing cooperative. Otto4711 21:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. Akihabara 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like part of a project, but nothing happened with completing it. NN corp. SkierRMH,08:18, 10 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Cooperative[edit]

Nottingham Cooperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Another housing co-op. Less clear-cut than the others, may have sufficient notabilty based on connection to Frank Lloyd Wright or as a music venue. I'm leaning toward not notable but would hardly cry bitter tears if others disagree. Otto4711 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no connection to Frank Lloyd Wright, only a connection to an acolyte of his, who doesn't (yet) have his own Wikipedia article. There is no landmark designation for the structure. Non-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many reasons why someone would be interested in reading up on Nottingham Co-op on wikipedia. not only are affordable independent housing co-ops which are open to people of all occupations a dying breed, but this one in particular is a unique music venue in that it takes no money and is also a residence, and yet has managed to stage a fair few quite notable bands (many with wikipedia pages, as is demonstrated on the page) . nottingham has been featured on the front page of a local weekly just for that reason. it has had a particular influence on the culture of madison and on the co-op movement. nottingham is at least as influential as many things that do not get targeted for deletion, such as shopping malls, local sports teams and the madison museum of bathroom tissue. Acornwithwings 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in nominating it, I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. But please, don't resort to "it's as good as X" as an argument for keeping. Each article stands or falls on its own merits and the existence of one article has no bearing on whether another article should exist. Otto4711 03:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, the last sentence is frivolous. However, the rest of my argument stands (albeit poorly worded).144.92.184.50 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to avoid confusion, the IP address was me). Acornwithwings 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep but it probable should be retitled to indicate that its notability was as a venue. DGG 07:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if for no other reason than that it's history as a independent and non-for-profit music (as well as other events) venue. What sets this particular house apart is its hosting of well-known (infamous to actually famous) bands (such as Husker Du, Bikini Kill and Eugene Chadbourne) over the years, and not for monetary interests, as 99% of other venues they'd play would. This, I think, is a notable rarity: a community of people hosting truly independent shows just for the sake of having them, just because they can. --Molybdenumtop 15:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

The notability of Nottingham as a venue has implications that may not be obvious at first--as an intentional link between Minneapolis and Chicago, making it worth the while of smaller touring bands to make the crossing. Has it succeeded in doing so in a way that could be readily documented--perhaps not in a way that could be immediately documented--but I suppose if proof had to be built it could be--the idea itself, though is intuitively obvious 0once the question is asked. Yet I think that Nottingham is notable for reasons beyond this--looking at the general or theoretical pages about Co-operatives get the reader only so far--there need to be real and individual examples, not only of co-ops which have made it but even some of the notable failures. Look at this question from the viewpoint of someone who doesn’t know much who wants to know more--it seems to me that Nottingham’s' site, for example, and the other sites under consideration for deletion, greatly fill out what the less-knowledgeable reader can know. It seems to me that this especially fits into Wikipedia's mission, that it evolves, that pages can be added that fit the examples of the living world--what is the real difference between Wikipedia and a paper encyclopedia if it has to wait for things to be come very popularly known or very thoroughly covered by historians (often long after the subject has passed on from the world?) Could someone come to Wikipedia, get interested in the theory, and then log off and Google-up many of these eco-operatives and learn that way?--sure. That now means that a generic google has become more informative on this particular topic than Wikipedia. As many co-op websites have sections of co-op theory (and many more will) Wikipedia, not the Co-ops themselves stands to lose notability--that is to say relevance--on this topic. Yet because Wikipedia does have a certain format (I honestly have enough doubts right now to be sure if it has viable standards) it can shape the information in a way useful to the researcher--and should I say in a way useful to the discoverer? It would e a pity if Co-ops had to provide their own Google-notability absent from Wikipedia. Indeed, this is why I often have questions about what has been deleted or edited-out in other areas--part of the point of an encyclopedia is to allow less--known things to be found--and part of the reason for a hyperlink encyclopedia is to allow this to happen because unexpected connections are noted and their follow-through made convenient. The co-op web-pages are just starting out in that regard, I think. One day (if they are not deleted) the role of housing co-ops as rather early LGBT-embracing (or at least safe) spaces, will be added, with links to personal pages in that regard, as at least some Alumni become notable (or noted, I should say) in their own right. Finally, one reason why individual co-ops might not seem relevant is that right now, not very many people actually live in co-ops, a greater number shop at them, and a number of people who don't suspect it buy from the large ones (like Ocean Spray) all the time--there's one of the connections that might be explored by a discoverer BTW--does the fact that co-oping is a smaller movement meant that it is not notable as a whole? I hope not--I hope that people might be able to not only discover, but get involved--and again, having Wikipedia pages about the history etc. of real live, local and particular examples show the point. I am, in summary, confident that the links and the content, the broader signs of an existent notability, will show themselves in time--it seems like it would be a waste to have to do the work of the sites themselves from scratch only after a slam-dunk case had already been established. Clown in black and yellow 15:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nottingham stands out from the general cooperative movement in Madison WI because of 1) It's independence from Madison's Cooperative Council and 2) It's role as a music venue. It is really a legitimately interesting bit of Madison's history. MeganH 19:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:Notability is not established. The question is not whether the subject is popular or unpopular, important or unimportant, but whether a proper encyclopedia article can be written on the subject; doing so requires multiple, independent, reliable sources.-- Chondrite 09:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just now referenced much of the Events section. more can be done. Acornwithwings 05:11, 16 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 Temple University. Agent 86 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambler College[edit]

Ambler College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I am a student at Temple University which owns Ambler College, and I can say that it no longer called "Ambler College," and it is basically just an auxiliary campus of Temple's main campus, which is in downtown Philadelphia. There really isn't too much that can be added to this article that already isn't said in Temple University#Pennsylvania. I orphaned the article from the main Temple University article because it is insignificant and should be up for deletion. Crashintome4196 21:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems notable enough for its own article, which could easily be expanded by a subject matter expert to include its history, how it became part of Temple University, if there are any notable faculty or alumni, etc. But it should be moved to Temple University Ambler. Otto4711 21:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Except, uh oh, that space is currently occupied by a copyvio notice. Otto4711 21:36, 9 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazzolato[edit]

Mazzolato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Term used in one cited fiction work for execution by bludgeoning. Dicdef at best. No cites to show the term is in general use. No sign the article will be expanded. Edison 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete And it's not the word for 'bludgeon' in Italian, which would be randello (noun) oppure colpire con un randello (verb); and execution is giustiziare. SkierRMH,08:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 11 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunja_Mladenic[edit]

Dunja_Mladenic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable professor, fails WP:PROF. Previous prod (not by me) reverted. Seems like a delete to me. Aagtbdfoua 21:31, 9 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.

Pierre Verdan[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G12 ZsinjTalk 14:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Verdan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{g11}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, in this case. Looks like a real inventor. albeit not well known. I don't think this stub is a speedy delete. There seems to be some sources on him vie Google. (some seem to be in french). Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not persuaded that he needs his own page. He's covered in the article Food Processor and I think a redirect there is all we need. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Bpmullins. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am convinced that this is motivated by commercial advertising. The author (Magimix man) has been very active linkspamming the Magimix site here, here, and here while spamming a distributor of Magimix and related equipment here. I admit that the article has grown up a bit since I db-spammed it, and it may be bordering on useful. I'll soften my stance and change my vote from a delete to a redirect. -- dpotter 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - seems to be a copyvio from http://www.catering-machines.com/rcoupe_history.asp and WP:CSD G12 applies here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:26, 10 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Kim[edit]

Helen Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination. See nominator's discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino. Moreover, the subject has appeared in a major film, and a better article could be written on her. Deleting this stub prevents that, and removes valid information from Wikipedia. Dekkappai 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is a bad faith nomination. How exactly is this actress notable? One singular minor role in a major film does not pass WP:BIO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify why this is a bad faith nomination: The nominator edited this article, and saw no reason to recommend its deletion last week. Previously he had systematically nominated for deletion multiple articles in the Japanese adult actress category. When his efforts to erase that category began failing, he stopped for a few months. Now that he is again trying to have articles in that category deleted, starting with Hikari Hino, his editing hypocrisy at this article was pointed out. He then retaliated by nominating this article for deletion. Dekkappai 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I "saw no reason to recommend its deletion" then because I was only mass categorising actors/actresses that day. If you check my contrib history on the same day, you'll see that I put the same category on 10 other actors/actresses. I apologise if it did not occur to me, while editing with the intent of categorising articles, to nominate articles for deletion if they ought to be nominated. I'll try to do a better job next time. And please assume good faith. If you believe this article ought to be kept, please actually make an argument to show that she is notable under WP:BIO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously correct, Pan Dan. But this article was up for 2 years, the nominator previously saw fit to edit it, and nominated it for deltion today simply out of petty retaliation. Dekkappai 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect, lack of notability. From WP:BIO: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Notice that films and productions are in plural. I also see no bad faith at all, that an editor would edit a page does not imply he thinks its an acceptable page; people should be allowed to change their minds. No redirect, because there are a ton of Helen Kims out there; there is a chance there is a H.Kim out there who has or soon will have notability. hateless 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete db-bio. One minor role in a major film doesn't cut it. Danny Lilithborne 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no redirect. She has one minor film role to her credit. That doesn't pass muster for WP:BIO and redirecting to Kill Bill would be confusing for anybody searching on Helen Kim as it would nto be at all obvious why the redirect occured. And as for this being a bad faith nom, I can see where an editor who is busy on a specific task of categorising could come back and nom for deletion. And does it matter? Based on merits, the article should be delete. -- Whpq 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it would nto be at all obvious why the redirect occured" -- makes sense. Her role in the movie was apparently so minor. Have changed my suggestion above. Pan Dan 21:42, 11 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poemas de un portero[edit]

Poemas de un portero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable poem. 47 Google hits, most of which mirror Wikipedia article Edison 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 1 ghit en espanol! SkierRMH,08:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As nominator. This seems to be a non-notable poem written by a possibly notable author when he was in high school. Does an artistic work of no known merit get an article because the author won a couple of awards for other works later? Seems like a slippery slope that woul lead to a lot of undistinguished stuff getting its own pullout articles. It could get a mention in the main article about the authro (which I believe it already has.) Edison 15:02, 10 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amiot (car manufacturer)[edit]

Amiot (car manufacturer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

"Amiot-Peneau", "-wikipedia", and "-answers" (as in, "answers.com") only turns up 36 Google hits, all of which appear to be either Wikipedia clones of this article or Wikipedia clones of other Amiot car articles or of articles that have to do with anything ("analytical chemistry"?!). Rmky87 14:39, 8 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, ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the title is now, "Amiot (car manufacturer)", then why is the article still about the alleged power pack?--Rmky87 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it was about Amiot car manufacturer originally, but it was replaced by disambig before AfD closing. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No, it wasn't: it was about an alleged, turn-of-the-last-century power pack (sp?), then a disambiguation page, then the same page with a new title that promised a treatment of the car manufacturer Amiot but delivered no such thing.--Rmky87 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd really like to see an article about this subject, but as is, the article is unsourced. Delete would seem fine until someone can create a proper article. Tragic romance 08:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added more information and a source. Malcolma 12:33, 15 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. Notable, nomination was withdrawn. —Moondyne 14:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Automobile Club[edit]

Cambridge University Automobile Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable student society: the University of Cambridge has scores of societies of equal or greater stature. Talk page says "Welcome to the Wiki for Cambridge University Automobile Club" contradicting Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now think this article should be kept, see below. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I was very disappointed to receive this nomination for deletion mere hours after submitting my first entry to Wikipedia.

Your grounds for deletion rest on the following observations:

1. It is a "Non-notable student society: the University of Cambridge has scores of societies of equal or greater stature"

2. Talk page says "Welcome to the Wiki for Cambridge University Automobile Club" contradicting Wikipedia is not a webspace provider

Let me address these now:

1. I would certainly contest the claim that CUAC is a 'non-notable' student society. Founded in 1902 it is the second oldest Automobile Club in Great Britain. Part of the purpose of beginning a Wiki for CUAC was an endeavour to assemble the early history of a club that played an important role in British motor sport.

I understand that several prominent racing drivers of the early 20th Century were CUAC members, such as Dick Seaman and Archie Scott-Thomas. I will add reference to this in the Wiki once I have obtain material to support this information that meets Wikipedia's criteria for citing sources.

One historical fact that I have been able to verify concerns CUAC's role in re-starting motor sport in Britain post-WWII when it organised the first motor race in Great Britain after the end of the war. On those grounds alone CUAC merits an inclusion in Wikipedia.

2. That specific phrase in the Talk Page had been deleted. CUAC has its own web site and the Wiki is not an attempt to duplicate that. (Incidentally, if you look at the rest of the remarks in the Talk Page you will see that there are nurmerous avenues of historical investigation that are being pursued to develop the Wiki in line with point one.)

Fasterthansound 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this society has a long and interesting history, the article should focus on that, which is now given a mere four lines, and it should be based at least in part on published sources independent of the society, to show that its activities have attracted outside interest. The names of the current office-holders are not really of interest to anyone, except, possibly, the current members, and should be removed. Upp◦land 08:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Uppland. If the article were rewritten to remove the list of office holders and details of regular meetings, and instead describe the society's history using independent sources as much as possible, I for one would be happy to keep it.
I notice that you keep saying "a Wiki for CUAC". This is not a wiki for CUAC: this is an encyclopaedia. I think this is the core of the problem. If you were to rewrite it as an encyclopaedia article, not as if it were a home page or a societies' fair flyer, I think people would be happy to keep it.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article (and by extension myself) are being treated unnecessarily harshly. The piece is factually based, corroborated and there is a stack of links in the discussion section that show that I fully intend to expand on the history of the club (which I have now moved to the top of the article). Given the state of many other articles I've seen on Wikipedia I never thought for one second that this would get such a poor reception.

I don't know where you assume the authority to make comments like "The names of the current office-holders are not really of interest to anyone" when we're talking about a club that is over one hundreds years old and in that time would have had a large number of members who, I would hope, through Wikipedia, could help add to this article and form a detailed history of the club.

You tell me to "rewrite it as an encyclopaedia article". It is written as an encyclopaedia article - it's straight, factual and not opinionated.

If you want to delete it, fine, delete it, and I won't bother contributing to any Wikipedia articles any more. But I think using a few pedantic niggles as grounds for deletion is over the top. Fasterthansound 10:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not being unfair. I have not recommended deletion of this article (look at other Articles for deletion discussions, where you will see people beginning their statements with a bold-faced "delete"), as I can easily imagine that the topic has potential. But stressing the age as a significant aspect of the notability, while saying almost nothing about that history, seems paradoxical. Do you really think the names of the current treasurer or webmaster should be a significant part of an article on a society that is over a century old? Are they more important to the society than, say, the so-far unnamed people who took the initiative to found the Club back in 1902? Upp◦land 11:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren't and plainly I am not making that case. As I have said so above I fully intend to expand on the history section but finding detailed material to back it all up with (in line with Wikipedia citations standards) is not easy. Hence the material in the Discussions section and the appeal for more information. But all you seem to be interested in regarding that is that I committed the heinous semantic crime of using the phrase "a Wiki for CUAC".
At any rate I don't see the same argument being used against the Hawks' Club (for example) for listing their past five Presidents and Hon. Secretaries.
Nor did I say you were being "unfair". I am saying you are wrong.
If you don't mind I would rather vest the time I choose to spend on Wikipedia expanding this article as I have already said rather than arguing about it. If you are going to delete it in the meantime, at least do me the courtesy of getting it out of the way sooner rather than later so I know not to waste my time with it any more. Fasterthansound 12:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are a newbie and excused for not understanding the intricacies of Wikipedia. Unless you are writing on something where the significance is obvious to the average Wikipedia editor (George W. Bush, Paris, iron, whatever), you really have to be paranoid about someone nominating the page for deletion and forestall that already when you create an article. You need to think about it from the point of view of a skeptical outsider with no prior knowledge of your particular topic or its importance. I would suggest that you restart this page in your userspace (as a subpage of your userpage, like this: User:Fasterthansound/CUAC) and work on it at your leisure until it is ready to be reposted. If the nominator agrees, the article could be moved there (in Wikipedia jargon that is called "userfying"). It may still get deleted at some point in the future if it is kept around as-is and not improved, but you will get plenty of time to work on it before that happens.
Please note that I am not trying to get your article deleted. On the contrary, I am trying to tell you what you should consider to avoid that. And yes, you should not waste your time debating here, but work on improving the article. Upp◦land 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've changed my mind. You've persuaded me that this club is notable. But I strongly urge you to rewrite the article along the lines Uppland and I have been suggesting. Talk more about the history of the club and some of its famous previous members: the article itself must make clear why the club is not just another student society, or it's likely to get nominated for deletion by someone else.

I don't know how to withdraw this nomination, or even whether it can be closed before a certain time has passed, so I'll wait for an admin to do that.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technically it should wait out the seven days, but I think in this case, a speedy closure is the best outcome so we can move forward. The club is notable IMV, the article however needs some work as suggested above. —Moondyne 14:47, 11 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xrista[edit]

Xrista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested Prod. Original Prod reason was 'Does not adequately establish that this person is notable. The magazines, artists and record label cited do not appear to be significant enough to establish notability'. Additionally, the original author blanked the page, this might make it speedily deletable under G7. Tra (Talk) 22:23, 9 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Applebey[edit]

Mary Applebey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No independent sources to show notabiliity. Edison 22:20, 9 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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada)[edit]

Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This was originally considered for deletion in this AfD, but was moved during the discussion from Thames Valley College to the current title, resulting in some comments about the wrong page. Relisting now for further discussion. Opabinia regalis 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination: This article appers to be an advertisement for a Diploma mill. See my comment in the article's talk page for more info. This article either needsto be deleted or transformed, so that it makes the true nature of this "organisation" is made abundantly clear, especially considering that prospective "students" may use this article to research the subject. Also the article's contents are not verfiable and the organisation(s) is/are not notable. As such the article in question should be deleted. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (edited: 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]


  • Delete as and per nom ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a diploma mill, but rather a career college in London, Ontario, Canada which offers training in areas such as medical office administration. It does not offer degrees. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning#United_Kingdom and London Medical School ( http://www.londonmedicalschool.org/wst_page2.html ) - not to be confused with the many genuine, lawful and high-class medical schools in London. Why would a supposed legitimate education institute be investigated by Trading Standards. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 20:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The early edit history of the article does not help its case. --- RockMFR 05:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it may be better to keep the article but heavily re-word it so that it reflects the suspicions about the subject. Specifically mentioning its apparent links to London Medical College, which has a Mobile/Cell Phone for its main contact and an accomodation address fax number. It would also be beneficial to mention the fact that London Medical School was recently investigated by Trading Standards. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mark the others for speedy delete. Obvious commercial spamDGG 03:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete now that I know what article we're lookign at. The lack of info about anything, including its own site, points to a possible mill. --Wizardman 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article makes no claim to notability. There's thousands of career colleges, unless it's otherwise notable, it shouldn't have an article -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please if it is being investegated by trading standards we should definitely have an article about it Yuckfoo 01:05, 14 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.; AFD created by a single-purpose account, with the intent to delete articles created by WietsE. User has been indefinitely blocked. Ral315 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Lodge[edit]

Alan Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable Carl Timothy Jones 23:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Subject of at least 2 independent media articles listed in the page; passes WP:BIO. Akihabara 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not pass WP:BIO on that evidence. The only article from a well known source seems to be the Observer article and that is an eyewitness account from the subject, not an article about the subject themself. The other main article seems to be the Freelance one. Hardly a major media source. Even if they were both independant articles from major media sources, it would be a is very flimsy application of WP:BIO - but they are not even that. None of the other WP:BIO criteria seem even remotely relevant. Carl Timothy Jones 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have contributed to the article in the past and it seems someone has registered a few days ago and the only contributions so far seems to have been nominations for articles I have worked on. Have a look: Special:Contributions/Carl_Timothy_Jones - WietsE 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly does that have to do with whether the article should be kept or not? Familiarise yourself with the process to be followed here, and what constitutes a relevant debate. If you must know, I have previously edited anonymously and I came across the Sumac Centre articles via Random article, I then checked out your user page and this took me to your other contributions. The majority seem to be of a highly questionable level of notability and I wouldn't be surprised if you are trying to publicise groups that you belong to (I note that some other articles of yours, with a similar theme, have already been deleted). Regardless, try to stick to the criteria here, I have questioned the notability of the group, so if you want to argue, argue that. Carl Timothy Jones 22:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also seems that I am far from the first to suggest that the subject of this article is non-notable [36] Carl Timothy Jones 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see by this edit summary that your are, in fact, closely related to these groups, as I suspected. Almost all of your edits are to articles on these groups. Carl Timothy Jones 22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not sure if you're a troll or not. All your contributions so far have been to propose deletion of articles made by User:WietsE. This could be a coincidence of course, but we can short-circuit the guidelines if we find out you're misbehaving. Kim Bruning 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really sure what to say here, except to ask you to look at the articles that I have nominated and decide whether I have done anything wrong, or whether it is just that this user has created a number of articles that justify at least a deletion discussion and has advertised their existence on his user page. When you do this, please also look at the fact that other articles I have flagged have already been deleted, and that this article has previously been tagged for a speedy deleted more than once. Carl Timothy Jones 23:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one, if the winston award is in fact notable Kim Bruning 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to be rude, but shouldn't you find out whether the award is notable before voting Keep? Isn't this only one step away from saying "Keep if this person is in fact notable"? I can't personally find anything to show that it is notable. Carl Timothy Jones 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not a vote, so that's irrelevant. :-) My opinion is conditional on the notability of the winston award. (ie. if my opinion becomes a key point in the discussion, this fact will need to be checked somehow, either by myself or someone else. It doesn't need to be checked right away). Kim Bruning 01:20, 11 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rated-RKO[edit]

There is no need to have an article on every temporary tag team pairing that comes along. Each of the wrestlers in question have an article already. The temporary tag team alliance can be noted there. Otto4711 23:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Basically agree with what the person below said. Two of the top superstars in the company, and they're Tag Team Champions right now. What? Should we propose to delete the Kings of Professional Wrestling stable page as well? Put this as temporary, but this is mostly stupid.--Faded 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every reason to keep it. Factual, NOPV. Notable the top wrestling promotion on TV one of the top tag teams. Notable stars in it. Just mention it was temporary. Wiki's not paper.--Xiahou 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as a bad-faith nom. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rated RKO dated less than a month ago, which was nearly unanimously kept. Overwhelming consensus is that all WWE Tag Team Champions are notable. --RoninBKETC 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to vote speedy keep, go right ahead, but keep your false accusations of bad faith to yourself. Otto4711 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(For Now) Rated-RKO is in a very active state. The article can only be built up. If it is a good enough article when finished then that would be okay. There are problems with the article which I removed. The problem at current is putting Lita down as winning the Woman's championship as Rated-RKO. This would be incorrect, because an alliance or stable helps each other out. Lita had no help or was either escorted to her match. If the article continues to be built around bad data then it will end up being prone to removal. So as long as Rated-RKO stays clean and correct I see nothing wrong with it. Govvy 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Rated-RKO has become the tag team champions, and they are feuding with arguably the most popular tag team today (DX). This is a very notable tag team, and I am left to wonder what thought process motivated this nomination. -- THLR 01:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: He did it only to justify deleting Christian and Tyson Tomko because I mentioned it's only been two months for Rated RKO whereas that combination had been done for years, is still strong now, and proven notable during its time. And as for Govvy's statement about Lita winning the Women's title being bad data: Orton didn't get help from Evolution when he won the world championship. Yet as far as all parties are concerned, he won the title as a member of Evolution. He didn't stop being a member til after they destroyed him, remember? So Lita being Women's Champion as Rated-RKO's valet is not bad data. As far as I'm concerned, keep Christian and Tomko, keep Rated-RKO, and keep Lita's title reign as part of Rated-RKO.
  • Actually, I did it because in my opinion a two-month old tag team is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, which is exactly what I said in nominating the article. I'm getting really sick of editors over the last couple of days failing to assume good faith on my part. Regardless of whether there's an article on Christian and Tyson Tomko, it remains my opinion that there should not be one on this tag team. If enough people disagree that consensus is established to keep this or any other article, so be it. But you need to knock off this bullshit phony accusation of bad faith. Otto4711 13:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overall consensus established by countless wrestling afds in the past says that holding a title is equal to notability, with the exception of teams like Ric Flair and Roddy Piper. -- THLR 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flair and Piper were thrown together and have absolutely no recognition as a true tag team. Rated-RKO was allied together with a singular purpose, and their gimmicks - while already similar in nature - were put into a noticeably more unified stance after they banded together. Based on that alone, Rated-RKO is a definite keep unless they suddenly break up out of nowhwere and lose the tag titles. Yes, they are a two-month-old tag team, but they are the it team on the scene right now on RAW, and general consensus is they will last considerably longer than two months. 172.149.224.143 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point exactly. With the exception of transitional champions like Ric and Roddy, holding the belts is equal to notability. -- THLR 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, what determines whether tag team champions are transitional? We may have thought that Flair and Piper were transitional, and with enough time we can determine they were transitional champions (time being relative here, as I think it's fairly safe to say they ended up being just transitional champions), but can we really make that judgment now about Rated-RKO? There's arguments for and against it. I would say don't be quick to make pages about a tag team that's held championships just because they seem to not be transitional champions. Anakinjmt 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can judge now that they won't be transitional champions because it looks like they will be a part of one of the best tag team divisions Raw has had since Edge and Christian, the Hardy Boyz, and the Dudleys. With DX, the Hardy Boyz, Rated-RKO, and maybe MNM, it is fair to judge that there will soon be a tag team revival on Raw, and the current tag team champions will be a part of it. The stage is perfectly set for Rated-RKO to become one part of a resurrected tag team division, and at this particular time it would be unwise to delete this article. If it turns out that I am wrong, then there is nothing stopping another afd, but right now this article meets the standards of Wikipedia. -- THLR 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aren't all tag teams temporary by nature? They last just as long as they are popular/infamous. This one is pretty "big" at the moment and both of the wrestlers are notable. A definite keep I must say. --Eqdoktor 12:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI thought they would break up after cyber sunday but they are the tag team champs now so they should be around for a while. any team that has teamed regularly should have an artile, especially if they have won titles. --Nymetsfan 18:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WWE Tag Teams that have won Championships Need I say more? semper fi — Moe 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This page is good so far and it will only grow. Apparently Rated-RKO will be getting a new member in Kenny so they are not going anywhere anytime soon. Both wrestlers have many fans including myself and this team is already making a great impact, there's no point in deleting this page. - KelVintage
    • I doubt Kenny will join. TJ Spyke 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Personally, it doesn't matter to me if the page survives on its own. I think it can for as long as Rated-RKO remains a team, which judged on their heat right now, I would guess it will last at least till Wrestlemania. And, just another comment on Edge and Randy Orton as individuals, forming Rated-RKO seemed like a good idea. Edge needed to get out of the WWE title picture for a while, and Randy Orton really didn't have anything good going on at the moment (as far as I'm considered, putting Carlito in a feud with Randy Orton was lack of use of Orton's talent, despite my feelings on him, he's still a fantastic wrestler), and putting the two of them together as a tag team and having such a high-profile feud with DX was a good call. Just keep that in mind when voting for or against deletion: their feud with DX is a huge feud right now, possibly the biggest feud going on in the WWE right now, which would suggest reason for keeping the article, them being such a noteworthy team right now. Anakinjmt 03:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article meets criteria.. as it is both named and has had a title run... however just being named, or just having a title run isnt a suitable criteria unless no individual articles exist --- Paulley
  • Keep: What's to say they are a temporary tag team? Rated RKO I doubt is a temporary team, as they draw ratings with their feud w/ DX. The last time there was a vote to delete this, everyone wanted to keep it. If they were to be just a small temporary team, WWE would not go out of their way to give the team a name such as "Rated-RKO". They would simply call them "Randy Orton and Edge". Also the fact that they are the current holders of WWE's World Tag Team Championships, so I think this article is very notable to keep. --James Maxx 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad-faith nomination. They are dominating the storylines, have been tag champs for over a month, and no sign that this is just a "temporary alliance". TJ Spyke 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: I personally believe teams that have won a championship, especially a major championship like in WWE, and even more especially if they are top-tier guys, dominating the storylines (as TJ Spyke alluded to before me).-- FPAtl (holla, holla, holla) 03:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Current World Tag Team Champions, in a major storyline, two of the brightest WWE superstars who will probably stay together to at least WrestleMania - and beyond. Any other points?! Bad faith nomination. 86.20.53.195 17:17, 12 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. Sandstein 11:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interim[edit]

Interim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:WINAD PhilipR 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing Wiktionary if possible; else delete and move Interim (album) to this title. Make into dab - Apparently this article was created in good faith in order to provide something for all the people who had erroneously linked to Interim from an article expecting a definition. The linking articles need to be remediated to link to Wiktionary. Cheers, PhilipR 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (vote changed 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete, interim already at Wiktionary. hateless 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ACK - with the number of articles coming into this one, there is surely a way to expand this article, isn't there? Now someone's just going to move that crummy Interim (album) back in that slot, and all 8000 links there will be wrong. If there is ever a case to WP:IAR, it's now, especailly as the article could expand. -Patstuarttalk|edits 02:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, delete and unlink all the links to it from other articles. Really I don't think this could be made into a proper article, it's a dicdef for sure. Why other editors go about making "interim" a link is beyond me. If anyone moves Interim (album) back to Interim, track them down and impale them with a trout. Herostratus 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I de-linked it from most everywhere, therefore this article can now be deleted. (There are a few links to "the Interim" (capitalized) which was apparently some sort of renaissance Church thingy. Those should remain and perhaps someday someone will write an article about "the Interim", whatever it is.) Herostratus 05:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly as disambiguation per Patstuart. Note that lots of other wikipedias have a page corresponding to this (de:Interim, fr:Intérim, it:Interim, simple:Interim, sv:Interim). Some of them are dicdefs, or usages that don't occur in English, but there is probably enough for a decent page here. The Simple English page is based on the dicdef but gives examples that might be beyond the scope of a mere dictionary entry. These could probably be expanded (e.g. list of interim officials, etc.) Note that in the opening definition, interim should be treated as a noun (which it can be, as in "in the interim") instead of the adjective ("interim president," which can be viewed as a noun in apposition). The reason people link it is perhaps it is deemed possible that someone will not understand the usage, the same reason people link floruit (a similar page to this one, in that it is basically a definition with example, but which seems to be well established by the community). Rigadoun (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the church thingy is basically an interim agreement/ceasefire in the religious wars of the 16th century, and could be given as examples in that section of the page. I believe the links in this case refer to the Augsburg Interim, but I'm not sure since there was another interim that same year (according to the de: page). Rigadoun (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      simple has virtually no WINAD policy; see e.g. simple:About. - PhilipR 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that is true, but I think this page in particular is beyond a dicdef. (The Swedish page was the one that is most like a dicdef.) Anyway, I have greatly expanded this page as per my comments and think it is no longer close to a dicdef, though it is clearly related to usage. I'm not sure if it qualifies as a disambiguation page. Rigadoun (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now, obviously, and kudos to Rigadoun for his great work on the article. Of course, this is after I went and delinked it from a couple dozen articles.... argh, oh well. Herostratus 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Length of article isn't a mitigating factor for WP:WINAD. That said, Rigadoun's additions do go a long way toward making the case for a dab. I'm convinced that the article is a viable dab as is, with redundant content refactored out. - PhilipR 17:46, 14 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 11:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chu Wing Kit[edit]

Chu Wing Kit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

(1st AFD) White collar crime. Notability concern has not been addressed since February. Story generated news blurbs, no wider discussion, and has no encyclopedic importance. Pan Dan 23:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. White collar criminal with no encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a news service archive. Media coverage does not automatically translate into encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 00:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:BIO SkierRMH,07:01, 10 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Sister[edit]

I think thier should be the reason why i cannot keep this article.User:Newyorkcatwhite

  • Strong keep - Film starring recognised A-listers. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if, for no other reason, the nomination does not articulate any sort of reason for deletion. Regardless, internationally released film with notable stars. Otto4711 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious KEEP why is this even up for deletion? --Xiahou 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. - Walkiped (T | C) 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and cancel this AfD as BF nom, one of a series of weird nonsense edits today by this editor. Tubezone 01:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Bad faith nomination. And block user. Edits are nothing but vandalism: [37] Wavy G 03:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - bad faith probable vandal. SkierRMH,07:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:13, 11 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, default to keep. Sandstein 11:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leilani Bishop[edit]

Leilani Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No sources, no claim of notability. Edison 04:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment For whatever reasons (verification of notability difficulties?) models just aren't covered well in general, it seems. There was recently a similar issue with frequent cover model Emilia Attias. Only one sentence. --Oakshade 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So if you find reliable and verifiable sources, please add them to the article. There is virtually no content in it and no sources. Nothing to distinguish this person's article from hundreds of articles about people of no notability. Edison 17:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Many would argue that a model being on the cover of those magazines automatically means she's a notable model, even without the typical sources that verify notability. --Oakshade 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are probably occasionally people in ads or covers who are not famous supermodels. Not everyone appearing oon a cover probably deserves an article. So please find a way to cite to the cover, or list the covers as part of the article with the issue date in the text or listed as a reference, in addition to posting images of the covers (which someone might delete). Again, there are articles for literally thousands of utterly non-notable individuals which are also without references, and there needs to be some sources in this one if the person is famous in some realm of achievement. Otherwise it will stay a sub-stub sourceless article and likely come up repeatedly for deletion. The covers were not part of the article Dec 10, and the model's gender was incorrectly stated. Cites to a few articles would also help to inform the reader and establish notability. It said "He has one son, born in 2003. He proposed to girlfriend Mashonda Tifrere in 2004." So what's the story on that? Edison 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting essay. Won't knock it. I'll only comment about deleting the gender-confusing sentence. As it didn't make any sense and not sourced, I thought it was best to delete it. If someone wants to restore it, I would suggest clarfication on the "he" and being married to the apparently female Mashonda Tifrere and maybe a citation to back it up. (my guess is the article creator cut-and-pasted from the wrong text). --Oakshade 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of weak keeps She's one of the more prolific fashion models alright, but outside the Cindy Crawfords its pretty hard to find hard facts on them. I added her sole film role with a review. Does anyone have the October 1992 edition of Interview (magazine)? Supposedly she has a write-up in there, but I'm not paying $23 bucks to read it. ~ trialsanderrors 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. It is not possible to write a proper encyclopedia article based only on fashion magazine cover photographs. Chondrite 09:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Chondrite's comment squares with the lack of factual info, such as the person's gender. Sure looks female on the cover, if that is the subject of the article. Can there be an article with just pictures and no text references cited?Edison 15:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, she's a she, Hawaiian, 5'8", 34-25-35, dress size 6, shoe size 8, according to [41]. The comment about the son in 2003 is confirmed here: [42]. There's a bunch of biographical info out there on her, but not exactly from the most reliable of sources. ~ trialsanderrors 00:29, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_9&oldid=1081094961"