Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 12 July 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Dutch television channels. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch television stations[edit]

Duplicate of List of Dutch television channels. Intangible 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect per nom AdamBiswanger1 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per nom. -- Dcflyer 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect would have to agree with nom. --Wisden17 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect JChap (Talk) 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mostly Rainy 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of slogans and chants opposing the Iraq war[edit]

Original research which attempts to get around WP:NPOV policy, by consolidating a list of slogans from various sites, but few of which are verifiably sourced to actual usage. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", points out the following should not be included: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). " As an analogy, one might create a List of phrases which have been applied to President Bush, and claim that because a web site says "President Bush Sucks", and Iraqi TV said "Bush is an idiot" according to a BBC article, it's a legitimate article entry.

I am also nominating the following related page because it has substantially the same problem, and was modeled on the earlier list:

LeflymanTalk 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The difference with "List of United States military history events" is that it is a timeline of factual, historical events-- and hence, verifiable and neutral. Whereas this (and the similar article also listed for AfD) is a list of expressions promoted by particular group(s), collected from assorted Websites, with limited verifiability-- falling into the same category as "quotations" and "aphorisms". I'd just as soon nominate List of unflattering nicknames for Bill and Hillary Clinton which could likewise be sourced to a Website: [1].
Of similar note is the "What Wikipedia is Not" interdiction against "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".--LeflymanTalk 00:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier comments:

Wait. You say, "tagged for using Primary sources," and "If no non-primary references can be found, this article will need to go up for deletion." But WP:NOR, now that I look at it, says:
However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.
So primary sources are fine. It seems like you're trying to say the various antiwar groups aren't reputable sources. Of course they aren't for a lot of issues - but it seems to me like they are regarding the chants that they use. Again, from WP:NOR:
A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable." For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political newspaper could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.
Emphasis mine. This seems analogous to me. Kalkin 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, with a warning to leflyman about WP:BEANS regarding the redlink above. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not a fan of beans; gassy and all that. But if someone really did want to create those pages, I'd be more than happy to put them up for AfD. Red-links are, IMHO, perfectly legitimate ways to demonstrate the non-existence of a subject :) --LeflymanTalk 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Scorpiondollprincess 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but I will point out that I see no problem with the sourcing. Almost any group may be cited for information about themselves; that only becomes a problem when there is reason to think they are lying. A chant sheet is a perfectly good primary source and there is no general rule against primary sources. Unacceptable original research would be for our contributor to say "I heard someone chanting it". A few may be dubiously sourced, but some are very well sourced indeed: the BBC, the Daily Californian (one of the U.S.'s most prominent college newspapers), etc. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy keep obviously -- Samir धर्म 23:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

Poorly written article which needs drastic improvements in order to meet inclusion criteria. Also the fact that China is a commmunist country and Wikipedia shall not promote a communist regime. --Error 409 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep for obvious reasons --Xyzzyplugh 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is ridiculous. The article is hugely informative. The last criterion is clearly WP:POINT and no encyclopedia refuses to cover communist countries. --Ideogram 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Uh, you're kidding, right? Nate 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • its just being "CONSIDERED" for deletion NOT certain to be deleted don't forget --Error 409 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination is a waste of time. --Ideogram 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then y is there anything such as AfD? Not all articles in AfD get deleted! --Error 409 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination. --DarkAudit 23:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tigress (film)[edit]

This article consists of two lines of unsubstantiated rumor and two lines stating there's no confirmation of the rumors. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. CovenantD 13:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Bosworth[edit]

Again this weird rip-off of poor Kate Bosworth. See Google matches[2]. Non-existant. Mad Jack 07:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milipants[edit]

Delete non-notable undies and the article is the inventor's work [3], and Google (though not the end all be all of otability, only produces 374 hits [4], many of which are wikipedia/wikipedia clones.--Nobunaga24 05:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nothing to indicate that this item is notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only 133 non-wiki hits many of which are bloglinks. Advertising of non-notable undies --Peripitus (Talk) 11:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't appear to be a notable product. -- Whpq 12:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is funny, imagine what a newbie would think if this was among the first pages they saw? :D MichaelBillington 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Dark Shikari 18:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the magazine snippet is hardly a "feature article", and does not really establish notability. — Haeleth Talk 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. -- Dcflyer 22:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly. (Only 20 seconds to button 12 buttons and tie a drawstring? I am imagining doing this and I think its physically impossible without a third hand. "Hey Sotirios, can you give me a hand over here? My drawers are getting stinky." ) --Xrblsnggt 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it must be in wikipedia, then maybe it should have a short mention in the artcle about undergarments, or something like that.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted according to CSD A7. --Stormie 05:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Subercaseaux[edit]

Vanity article, 0 Google hits. Punkmorten 21:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete this is an article about a person that "that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject", I am adding {{db-bio}} to this now. (CSD A7) RFerreira 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit conflicted Speedy Delete CSD A7 ViridaeTalk 00:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the borderline of speedy, but there may be some vague claims of notability in there somewhere. Nonentheless, fails WP:BIO (and zero Ghits). OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not bad enough for Speedy but, based on 0 Google hits, clearly fails WP:BIO. Much of this is probably a vanity hoax. --Satori Son 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO -- Alias Flood 01:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is a vanity article. Author "Arturo 7" removed the speedy delete tag, vandalized a page on the big bang and evolution all within the last 24 hours (apparently a creationist). --Xrblsnggt 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn AdamBiswanger1 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and block Arturo7 if he strikes again. Pascal.Tesson 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living Causes Death[edit]

"popular online radio show" with 33 Google hits. Punkmorten 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Not notable. (I don't know what google search you did but I got 47 google results - 2 of which were the site itself and 1 was wikipedia. None of the rest were notable.) ViridaeTalk 00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination links to the Google search - I excluded Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors in the search. Punkmorten 08:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Also fails WP:WEB. --Satori Son 00:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 00:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable -- Alias Flood 01:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 33 Google hits AdamBiswanger1 01:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 05:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 33! not good enough for notability. MichaelBillington 12:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity - the article was written by a user who's name is identical to the show creator - so vanity/spam, anyhow WilyD 13:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a plug + not notable - only should be included in a list. FiftyOneWicked 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Dark Shikari 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Order with Jed The Fish[edit]

Radio show. Gets 48 Google hits (when excluding Wikipedia mirrors). Advertisement? Punkmorten 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As I doubt whether there are any truly global radio shows, aren't all radio shows therefore local? Markb 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well there are many syndicated radio shows, such as the Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show or Howard Stern. AdamBiswanger1 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is easy to draw a perfectly logical distinction between at least three levels (local, regional, national). I suppose if there were a truly global radio show, you would argue that everything is still local because no radio-waves from it have reached the Andromeda galaxy yet? — Haeleth
My point is quite simple, all radio stations are local, and hence regional. I can't receive Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show (and from it's title I'm probably not missing anything), it is therefore a local programme. Haeleth , pop over to Andromeda and let me know what the local radio is like. Markb 06:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk 19:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At least this one made an attempt at inflating its self-importance. Any "world famous... DJ" is suspect though. Not notable. Grandmasterka 05:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per previous two --David.Mestel 06:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another non-notable radio show. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of google hits. MichaelBillington 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google hits are not the definitive criterion in deciding deletions but it does provide one means of measure. This show fails WP:N -- Alias Flood 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nationally syndicated, top-whatever countdown. See Delilah Rene, American Top 40, American Country Countdown, Country Countdown USA, etc. for precedent. ONUnicorn 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability, no influence in the press, no major fansites.
    The "unofficial site" linked in the article is particularly amusing: the text is a straight copyvio of the Westwood One page, and the "message board" link leads to a Yahoo! group set up exactly a week ago, with a grand total of 1 member. Looks like this isn't a particularly popular show... — Haeleth Talk 19:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Adventure Quint[edit]

Have you heard of The People's Sprites? It's a web archive of 2D images (sprites). This nomination is for the Megaman fan fiction webcomic found on the People's Sprites here. With 27 Google links for the term "Super Adventure Quint". - Hahnchen 00:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Interesting that this comic has an article here, because I used to read it a lot, and really like it. Nonetheless, it doesn't meet WP:WEB, and doesn't really need to be here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above, unless somebody has a good reason to keep it. (no?, delete then) MichaelBillington 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 16:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Dark Shikari 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whichever. Honestly, I knew any article about the comic would inevitably be deleted, which is why I never made one for it myself. Jdavis1186 00:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For those who don't know, this is the author of the comic in question (though he didn't create the article, so it's not G7-able). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I copied this one over to Comixpedia a few days ago. It's available at: Comixpedia:Super Adventure Quint. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta noise[edit]

Neologism. Very few Ghits, many with repeated text from wikipedia article. Artw 00:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR and non-verifiable. The only reference supplied is a research paper by HP Labs that does not have the term "meta noise" anywhere in it. --Satori Son 01:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)-- Will support Keep with a disambiguation per below. --Satori Son 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GAAAA! This article is infested with neologisms: folksonomy? collabulary?, stop the insanity! --Xrblsnggt 01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 01:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Satori Son and Artw AdamBiswanger1 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable neologism, fails WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being too much of a neologism. MichaelBillington 12:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have improved cited references for the time being (more constructive than deletion). Folksonomy isn't a neologism, other than collabulary (which was referred to in 'Information Age' article - surely deserving testament? - but not cited in the wiki article). On a point of principle, Ghits should not be cited as 'god', since most academic content is not referenced. Bigpinkthing 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Hello Bigpinkthing. Thanks for the update. If possible, could you please provide some background information on the new Grimes and Torres article that is now included an outside reference source? Has it been published in any way? Thanks again for your time. --Satori Son 14:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer Have requested further information from the authors and also found various other uses of the phrase - found lots of blogs using this term casually also - common usage in the field (web 2.0 / metadata) but not citable. In various discussions (going back over a year) on poor meta-data recording (three distinct types of 'meta noise'), 'meta noise' meaning scientifically recorded environmental data that has been corrupted by unwanted physical influence (in a research paper on optics), a metadata tag describing 'noise' (i.e. sound) in addition to the poor use of XML to record small/simple data forms - namely the ratio between XML tag names and the data they contain. I think there's a pretty good case here to keep this article open for further expansion to explain various areas - and that is *only* going on things I found through Google. Eyes hurting now! Bigpinkthing 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per current citations. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand if possible since more references have been provided. I understand the subject, but it's certainly not explained well in this entry. (Not that I could explain it better - people in glass houses and all that, so I'll shut up.) Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new refs. Nice job saving this one. JChap (Talk) 03:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I don't want to create 4 short articles and a disambiguation page describing the found uses, should these bits of information be put into the main article? The differences are very small but important, and I'd like some guidance. Bigpinkthing 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IMHO there should be a disambig page. The first on the list would link to this article, and the others can just be very brief, non-wikified descriptions for now. Somewhere down the line there might be enough to write the other three articles. --Satori Son 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calico Monkey[edit]

I prodded this a while ago, but it got unprodded and then expanded upon. Probably by the flash artist himself User:CalicoMonkey. In my original prod, the reason was "3 flash animations, Alexa in the millions and 40 Google hits". Now, it's "6 flash animations, Alexa in the millions and 70 Google hits." But that doesn't make this notable. - Hahnchen 00:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Mailer Diablo 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OC Transpo Route 674[edit]

Not speedyable via a7, so listed here. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --DarkAudit 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
OC Transpo Route 152
OC Transpo Route 602
OC Transpo Route 609
OC Transpo Route 61
OC Transpo Route 62
OC Transpo Route 662
OC Transpo Route 663
OC Transpo Route 683
OC Transpo Route 684

  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT, non-encyclopedic.--WilliamThweatt 00:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am usre that this is not the first time this has come up. Is there an precedent in dealing with urban bus routes? Are there other transit systems whose routes have individual articles? Have we block-deleted bus route articles before? Ground Zero | t 00:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm we seem to have dozens of articles about London bus routes in Category:London bus routes. Ground Zero | t 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, the existence of one non-notable article doesn't justify keeping another. Secondly, are you seriously comparing London to Kanata?--WilliamThweatt 00:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not arguing one side or the other. And I am not citing one so-called "non-notable" one, but dozens. There also seem to be individual articles for Vancouver's three bus rapid transit lines -- see Category:B-Line bus -- which are different from Ottawa's individual bus routes. London seems to be the only city with individual articles for bus routes. But I am not comparing London to Ottawa (not Kanata, which is not a city), but a London bus route to an Ottawa bus route. There is nothing inherently more worthy about an article about London bus route trundling through suburbs than about an article about an Ottawa bus route trundling through suburbs. Ground Zero | t 01:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point taken. If consensus is to keep, no big deal to me. However, personally, I don't believe any article describing a local bus route is encyclopedic or especially notable.--WilliamThweatt 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd think 61 and 62 would be "notable", as they're bus rapid transit routes on the Transitway. --SPUI (T - C) 00:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Author seems intent on listing all OC Transpo routes. --DarkAudit 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any black, red,blue (early morning) and greens routes as well as the Scotiabank Shuttle are notable as it provides key service in diffrent parts of the city. Maybe the school routes and those not operated by OC can be removed but it would depend the rest, but ask the person who strated up first the routes decription republicofnewfoundland on that one.--JForget 01:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT -- Alias Flood 01:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alias Flood and nom, put into an appropriate summary article. London bus routes pages are very well detailed and of historic significance, these are not. SM247My Talk 03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and SM247. Joe 05:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a transit schedule. No evidence of historical significance. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete articles on bus routes??? We'll have one on every taxicab next. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Alphachimp talk 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could maybe keep a brief overview page of all Ottawa bus routes, but not something like this. Kirjtc2 14:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all most certainly. Articles on single bus routes? That's ridiculous! Dark Shikari 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. If I have to follow the wikilink on a page about a city's services to find out where and what the city is (i.e. not a large, metro area with a gazillion people and/or a storied past), that's a clue. -Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Quickly, if possible. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After carefully considering the issue, I respectfully believe these articles should be kept. I agree these articles certainly need alot a work, and bus route articles should be far more than text versions of the route map. However, the London bus route articles show that bus route articles can be quality articles if given the chance. Thus, I submit the suggestion that these articles be retained for improvement. -- danntm talk 01:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment FEQ ~ trialsanderrors 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please pardon me if I was vague. I myself do not understand why anyone would want an article on a bus route for schools, and I certainly do not compare most of these routes to the storied urban routes found in London. I just think that these articles should be given a chance to see if the creator, or someone else, could give them a full treatment. ---- danntm talk 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bus routes have no inherent notability. If someone wants to go through the pain and read up on local news articles to establish some encyclopedic back story history I go with keep, but none of the articles comes anywhere close so far. ~ trialsanderrors 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Perhaps smerge them all into one short page. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fbn press[edit]

First hit on Google is to Wikipedia. The 2nd is to E-Bay site. The link at the bottom of page goes to a publisher totally unrelated Missouri Center for the Book Promotional ad for no name publishing? KarenAnn 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Missouri Center for the Book is not "totally unrelated": if you click on the "Publishers" link there, you get a list of Missouri Publishers which includes the FBN Press, and a few details which match some of the ones in this article. It also lists a website address for the press, but the domain given (www.fbnpress.com) does not exist.
As it stands, most of this article -- particularly the details of the firm's history -- is looking very difficult to verify. — Haeleth Talk 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. I get 43 Ghits for "FBN Press", and most of those are eBay listings. Two local newspaper articles which quote the owner of FBN, who's also the owner of Eddie's Books, which is the first Ghit I get at the moment. The article is about a local ordinance proposal at the town council. So, no non-trivial articles written by uninvolved persons. Tychocat 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savvie and Lacey[edit]

You can take a look at this BDSM webcomic here. Out of the 58 links on Google for "Savvie and Lacey", the best assertion of notability came from the front page of Something Awful, as an Awful link of the day. Alexa says 700,000 for those interested. - Hahnchen 00:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DesignTURF[edit]

Non-notable design company, does not meet WP:CORP; prod and prod2 were removed by creator without comment OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy But Dead[edit]

This webcomic can be seen here. The search term "Happy but dead" gives around 80 Google links, mostly from blogs or list of webcomic links. None of them are good sources for an article. Alexa figures are 750,000. This is not a notable webcomic. - Hahnchen 00:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patagonia restaurant[edit]

This seems to be an advert. Not particularly notable as a restaurant.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Zone[edit]

This is totally non-notable and parts of it border on nonsensical. Maybe the creator just got home from this venue when he or she wrote the article. Opabinia regalis 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Big time delete per nom. AdamBiswanger1 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Huh? test. ~ trialsanderrors 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-Dooper-Kalla-Fragalistic-Expealladozious Speedy Delete per ^^. -- Librarianofages 02:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Hierarchy and authority are looked upon with disdain, as they might constitute an Order, or an inescapable, oppressed unity -- although the underlying cultural fascism that directs conversations and relationships is often ignored. There's no room for wallflowers in anarchist paradise? *sob* Bwithh 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burninate, fails WP:WTF?. This is a real nightclub, but the article is nonsense. As a Richmonder who actually lives near Oregon Hill, I can easily verify the club's non-notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this fantastic article. Perhaps the author partook of the notoriously cheap beverages before commencing --Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparent original research. IFF citations can be found, then I'll change my vote. WilyD 13:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article makes as much sense as can be made from such an absurd place. I'm in Richmond, too, and I think it's a fairly close depiction.

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shircago[edit]

Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC (no label, no national tours, only assertion is an article accessable only by paid subscription). Delete. --InShaneee 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can confirm that they have a CD (not sure what "label" means in these modern times of self-published artists), and that the article referred to in the Chicago Tribune did appear in the print version of the paper (I saw it the day it came out). They also perform regularly in the Chicago area. Notability is sometimes a judgement call, but given these facts, and that they are one of the few representatives of A Capella Jewish pop, I think them notable enough to not delete. --kfogel 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shircago is a professional group of a capella musicians with great voices (I'm a speech pathologist with specialty in voice and disorders). Shircago has existed for several years and has recently begun distribution of their CD at a reputable retail store, Tower records. Those who work for Wikipedia obviously have not bought the CD nor realize that Shircago is one of the few worthy young American Jewish pop artists. The type of music they play has been dying, similar to the Shadow Play in China. It is important for the Jewish people to keep that music alive. And Shircago obviously has the right qualifications given that the Jewish Community of Chicago knows the name of the group, and members look forward to attending their concerts - most recently at the Jewish Folk Festival in Chicago. Wikipedia would be making a mistake by deleting this reputable group from their Encyclopedia. Please do NOT DELETE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini-K (talk • contribs)


It isn't a MySpace page. The band has existed for 10 years and is known to audiences in Chicagoland and beyond. The group is a representative of an important up-and-coming expression of religious music in a genre that is accessible to all ages, so the proper course of action is to not delete. --Wolverine94 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Wolverine 94, 4:38pm CDT, 11 Jul 06[reply]

I would be more convinced that this isn't a MySpace page if that huge picture wasn't emblazoned across the top of the article. The picture doesn't add anything of encyclopedic value and probably is why this is even an issue. Delete the picture, save the text. (University of Chicago Alum who has actually seen the group in concert)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.121.167 (talk • contribs)

Why would photographs be inappropriate here, yet appropriate on (say) Barbara Bush's entry? Do the latter add something of "encylopedic value" while the former somehow do not? I think the photo is quite appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, InShaneee 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my eyes notable. A word for everyone else: "when in doubt, KEEP". -- Librarianofages 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As inclusionists always remind us, notability is not officially a criterion for deletion, so I'm not sure why you're using it as an argument to keep... — Haeleth Talk 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article fails wikipedia criteria for musical notability: WP:Music. Maybe the author could look at the criteria and scrounge up some verifiable tidbit that meets the requirements. (You only need one). --Xrblsnggt 02:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see no evidence, in the article or otherwise, that this band meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu t/c 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC standards for notability. If WP:MUSIC is reached by changes to the article prior to closure, please consider my 'vote' then changed to keep. — Mike (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Hey kids! When in doubt, remember WP:V/if not already/submit to AFD/something something-ee!! Bwithh 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: does have 1,050 Google hits and one article in the Chicago Tribune, but still fails WP:MUSIC. Bwitth: perhaps a career as a poet is not the way to go... --David.Mestel 06:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<:_( Bwithh 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:MUSIC and as apparent vanity. WilyD 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there may be a bit of vanity in the motivation does not automatically disquality this entry. I think the attention this group gets in the Chicagoland area and beyond puts it above your typical small band. They have been featured in one of the largest U.S. newspapers for being part of a newer movement of more ethno-religious-popular music (I read the Chicago Tribune article with interest). I think stumbling on entries like these is what keeps Wikipedia so interesting (although again, would not like to see every 'boy band' included). Since there is more than a little doubt and debate, I would certainly keep this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.56.21 (talk • contribs)
Please see WP:Vanity and review that the article fails WP:Music. If there's a an obvious rule of thumb one can apply , it's that articles about bands written by the members invariably turn out to fail WP:Music, WP:Vanity, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information et al. Please also see Wikipedia is not a democracy and recognise that there are no real rationals advanced here for keeping the article, thus there is no doubt it needs to be deleted. Please do not construe my above comments to indicate that band members cannot work on their bands' page (I myself have edited an article about a co-worker of mine) but just that as an empiricist, I am forced to conclude when a band starts an article about themselves, it turns out the band is unencyclopaedic, the objections of David Hume not withstanding. WilyD 15:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, but if someone can find another article on them besides the Tribune one, then I'd change it to keep. --PresN 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per David.Mestel. -Tapir Terrific 15:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, just not notable. "Semi-professional" and "being distributed at Tower Records" translates into "four people's weekend side-project, who are pretty good singers, and who talked the assistant manager at Tower Records into putting a stack of CD's by the register". --Aguerriero (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The world has millions of bands; since nobody has the time or inclination to write articles on all of them, we must necessarily be either selective or biased in our coverage. I hate bias, so I'll choose "selective", and since this band does not meet the arbitrary selection criteria on which we have achieved a broad consensus, I must therefore vote to delete it. (Note how notability does not enter my argument!) — Haeleth Talk 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My interpretation of the articles I found was that this was a band made up of students at the University of Chicago - hence the frequent changes of members, number of members and style. I wish them luck, but elsewhere. --Richhoncho 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The group is not comprised of any students at the University of Chicago and has featured the same membership for four years. There was also an article about the group in the September 2002 edition of the JUF News, and the group was mentioned in another Tribune article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverine94 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V-Lancer[edit]

Originally listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers Theme Tune, but should be treated as a separate AfD due to the unrelatedness of the original listing. I am listing it for deletion because of the lack of context and the weak content when compared to the information on the fictional item at Power Rangers: Lightspeed Rescue#Arsenal. --Ryulong 01:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of the Power Rangers: The Ultimate Rangers[edit]

Originally listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers Theme Tune, but I am listing it separately because of the unrelatedness of the articles' reason for deletion. I am listing it for deletion because the information on the DVD does not show any sort of importance as to why this collection of episodes (of which only three are known) is more notable than other Power Rangers DVDs. Ryulong 01:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nn compilation of material that's better covered in other articles. jgp (T|C) 06:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Carter[edit]

Non-notable person (original nomination) - Now the page has been changed and looks even more like a cut and paste of somebody's resume. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & Wikify Needs to be verified that he is an executive of "several" large corporations that are claimed, yet not named. Need to verify notability of the "institute" he directs. If done, he is notable. Also need to guage notabiluty of his written "works".

If all this can be done, KEEP If not - Mark me down for Speedy delete as a NN/vanity/hoax. -- Librarianofages 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I cannot find much indicating notability. Capitalistroadster 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to be notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the company is not notable and the only claim to fame seems to be that he is one of three editors to a book about a study conducted by his own company --Peripitus (Talk) 12:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & expand - his book listed in the article actually exists, and the Best Practice Institute appears to be a bona fide real org. But the article does need to be expanded to actually show notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I'm looking for sources, I'll post them here for comment, then put them in the article if it looks like it will be kept. here's one - 1 --PresN 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - He was, apparantly, the VP of Research at Linkage 2(PDF) --PresN 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - And he's still on their advisory board - 3 --PresN 15:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - and on the advisory board for the SLC - 4 (horrible website btw) --PresN 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pisses me off, after all that research, but while all the claims on the article can be verified, I think, he's not notable anyway. Bah. --PresN 15:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too many weasel words means a weasel. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Not notable enough for inclusion. Scorpiondollprincess 13:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miami v. Nebraska[edit]

Yet another copyvio. It has been edited but it is clearly taken from here - towards the end look for 'With no overtime, if Nebraska had kicked the extra point, it would have been doubtful if there was a voter in America that wouldn't have voted the Huskers the national champions.' for example. Delete BlueValour 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think that it would be very difficult to cleanup with confidence. All the article is taken from the source. IMHO it is not worth putting WP at risk simply to try to keep one article. The revision to my example sentence is 'With no overtime, if Nebraska had gone for the extra point, Nebraska would have been the Concensus National Championship'. Sorry, but this doesn't wash. BlueValour 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The mentioned copyvio problem has been addressed by creating a completely new article. ~ trialsanderrors 07:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was the original creator of this article, and it was a VERY long time ago this article was created. Now that this message was added, I decided to alter virtually every word, to make this completely original. I even changed sentence structures, and tried to make this as close as possible to feature status. I believe that this is an ULTA, ULTRA important article, that is of incredible significance. It is one of the most important College Football articles out there. This article needs to be kept, at any costs. It is too sacred.--Summonmaster13 04:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Individual game articles are rarely kept unless they contained a very notable single play, which this does not. If this were kept, an out-and-out summary of the game is not encyclopedic and it would have to be trimmed down considerably and have its notability asserted by something other than a point-of-view assertion. ("...was considered one of the greatest games of all time"? By who?) I follow college football and don't see a good reason why this particular game really needs its own article. Plus, I think the full game summary is still intellectual property (copyrighted.) They give warnings about this on the TV broadcasts. Grandmasterka 06:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, now that it's been fixed and has its significance explained better. Grandmasterka 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, get rid of possible remaining copyvio and cut down on the breathless tone. The game, or rather the decision by the Huskers coach is a popular case in game theory for failure to reason ahead, e.g. Dixit and Nalebuff, Thinking Strategically p. 53-4. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Grandmasterka. I appreciate the passion of Summonmaster13 in defending the article, but his belief the game is "too sacred" only points out the POV inherent in its creation. And frankly, what I'm reading in ~ trialsanderrors vote to keep, is to rewrite the article enough that it doesn't exist in its current form or context in any case (remove copyvio, cut down on the breathless tone, rewrite to fit into article on game theory). (apologies to ~ trialsanderrors if I'm reading too much into your nomination.) Tychocat 09:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Uh, yes. My cite was only to point out that this game has some relevance to others than fervent Huskers and Canes fans. My editorial comments, other than the one about copyvio, are sidenotes and not conditions for keeping. Clearly this article has serious POV and tone issues as of now, but those are not grounds for deletion. About copyvio, someone other than me should decide whether User:Summonmaster13's recent edits solved the problem. Oh, and I didn't say this should be rewritten as a game theory article. I can see that readers of the Dixit-Nalebuff text come here to read about the football aspects of this momentous decision. In any case, I added a section on the game theory aspect. ~ trialsanderrors 10:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood. Apologies, again. Tychocat 11:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure a full game summary is still under copyright and requires written permission from at least the NCAA... At least, I know that's how it works in every major pro sport in the United States. Whether college football is any different or if anything about that aspect of copyright law has changed since 1984, I'm not sure. Grandmasterka 14:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My nomination changed after seeing the rewrite. Hope I've got the acceptable format to indicate this. Tychocat 09:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a rename Another one of the more notable college football games of all time. The page would be better served with a name like Miami v. Nebraska 1984 or Orange Bowl (1984) to better specify that one game. --DarkAudit 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after remaining copyvio is removed, and rename to 1984 Orange Bowl. Kirjtc2 15:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but with some provisos. Agree with the rename something like 1984 Orange Bowl. And needs a rewrite to adhere to NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and Rename to 1984 Orange Bowl after addressing copyvio issues, per Kirjtc2 hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and copy edit the crap out of it. Johntex would love this one for his new college football portal. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BaseballBay. Keep, improve. This is interesting for Orange Bowl fans. Julie Fitzgerald
  • Comment I cut the article down to the key moments and added a stub tag. I think it is better to extend from here than to edit from User:Summonmaster13's version for the POV and copyright problems discussed above. ~ trialsanderrors 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - spoilsport :-) this is just what I was doing in my sandbox. More seriously, I am happy with Keep and Rename provided there is no suggestion of introducing a play-by-play account that would leave WP open to a copyvio (unless the editor watched the match and describes the unfolding of the game from his/her personal experience). BlueValour 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Baseball, Baby. JChap (Talk) 03:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article is kept, it must be rewritten from scratch. Paraphrasing the original sentence-by-sentence doesn't make it OK. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep everything Trunk 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater Croc vs. Great White Shark[edit]

Non-notable episode of a television show. It seems to have been written to add the bit of knowledge of who would win in the match-up. This seems to me to be unencyclopedic TeaDrinker 02:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment See also Animal Face-Off. --TeaDrinker 02:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly, the correction of the result appears to be original research. I don't know that Animal Face-Off is a notable enough program to warrant articles on individual episodes. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It probably isn't. Fails WP:NOR, as well. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:OR and letting it live will probably end up with it quoted in the great white shark or saltwater croc pages as fact. The redlinks in Animal Face-Off lead me to believe that we might be seeing more articles in this "series", so well-spotted, TeaDrinker.Yomangani 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The show isn't notable enough to warrant individual pages for each episode. And the commentary on the result was completely OR. I'm going to de-red link Animal Face-Off right now to discourage more of these articles... -- Scientizzle 20:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'll have to take your word for it guys: I couldn't bring myself to read past the Spoiler Alert! --Satori Son 04:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on the subject, but the article is to be dealt with by WP:CP procedures. Mailer Diablo 09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State v. Notre Dame, 1966[edit]

Another copyvio. It has been edited with sentences moved about a bit but it is clearly taken from here. Look for 'After throttling USC 51-0, Notre Dame won the national championship while Michigan State ended up second.' at the end of a paragraph in both article and source, for example. Delete BlueValour 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Copyvio, not very encyclopedic anyway and IMO not worthy of inclusion. Grandmasterka 06:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 11:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup This was, and still is, one of the most significant college football games ever played. It's still referred to as 'The Game of the Century'. --DarkAudit 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that it would be very difficult to cleanup with confidence. All the article is taken from the source. IMHO it is not worth putting WP at risk simply to try to keep one article. BlueValour 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Either clean up or reduce to a stub per DarkAudit's reasoning. My father still yells "Play for the tie, Ara" whenever he sees Parseghian on TV. Wikipedia should definitely have an article on this game. JChap (Talk) 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article is kept, it must be rewritten from scratch. Paraphrasing the original sentence-by-sentence doesn't make it OK. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, stubify and start over from scratch. Enough sources and accolades out there for this one. ~ trialsanderrors 11:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DarkAudit. The Copyright vio needs to be removed completely. Agne27 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still a copyvio, that tells me that none of those who favour keeping this really mean it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Closed and relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#Posteral_hypotension_.E2.86.92_Orthostatic_hypotension.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posteral_hypotension[edit]

redirect based on misspelling Moioci 03:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close: Redirects for deletion should be discussed at WP:RFD. --Kinu t/c 03:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. My opinion is that there's nothing wrong with misspelled redirects if they point to the proper articles. --Alan Au 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter. Mangojuicetalk 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawlish (Auror)[edit]

Nonnotable, only makes a brief appearence in the Order of the Phoenix. Could be merged with a new article called Minor Aurors or Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter which the article Williamson was merged with. Treebark (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom--Jusjih 04:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind specifiying which article to merge to, please? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Auror and Minor members of the Order of the Phoenix and/or Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm..where's the proof that he's a member of the Order of the Phoenix? He remained loyal to Fudge in the Order of the Phoenix. Treebark (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was confusing Dawlish for somebody else. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Fbv65edel. ForestH2 t/c 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom--Elendil's Heir 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several other Aurors have their own entries on Wiki; I'd accord him the same privilege. (NB. This is part of Elendil's Heir's comment, added in the same edit.)
      • "Keep per nom" is a meaningless vote: the nominator is arguing that it should be deleted or merged, so you cannot say that you agree with him/her that it should be kept.
      • Why not just merge them all into one article, so people who are interested in aurors can find out about all of them more easily? Then they will all get the same level of privilege, all the information about them will still be on Wikipedia, and the people who don't like them having separate articles will be satisfied. Everyone wins. Sounds good to me. — Haeleth Talk 19:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. My slight preferences is for "Minor Aurors". --David Mestel(Talk) 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as separate article--Elendil's Heir 04:30 16 July 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 of the discussion was speedy delete. Joelito (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn[edit]

Obvious nonsense Amadis of gaul 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as CSD G1, general nonsense. Yanksox 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binaca Geetmala 1971[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? nonsense? cruft? There is a whole series of these articles, but I am following guidance at WP:AFD to list one article here first before bundling. --Brian G 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Individual radio program's charts, while interesting, are not encyclopaedic. A link to an offsite repository of these can be linked from the Binaca Geetmala article. GassyGuy 04:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. Frankly, I think that this has no business on Wikipedia. But I am worried about systemic bias: do we really think that this would get the axe if this was an american radio show's list? I see a lot of lists concerning Bilboard hits and no one is putting these into question. (although maybe one should) Pascal.Tesson 04:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This isn't really comparable to Billboard. Billboard is the major national chart of the United States. If this were a national Indian chart, I would vote to keep it. This is more like a chart issued by a local US radio station, though. To be completely fair, however, I will disclose this information: I recently voted to delete a comparable American radio chart summary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns for similar reasons, but that one ended up kept, so if you're looking at thisprecedent alone, it'd be a weak keep. I don't know if other ones exist. GassyGuy 04:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum If I am misrepresenting the BG charts, somebody with a better understanding please correct me. GassyGuy 04:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I would have to change my vote to a very reluctant weak keep because of precedents. I'm baffled that the KROQ countdown would survive an AfD, but thanks for honestly sharing that information. I'll be ready to vote for deletion once we start having more systematic standards against listcruft though. Pascal.Tesson 04:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be strictly accurate, the result on KROQ was No Consensus, not Keep, partially based on some "Keep because we kept it the last time" votes. Just because we made one wrong decision doesn't mean we should repeat it for consistency. Fan-1967 15:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Criminey - the KROQ countdown was a "no consensus"?... Tychocat 11:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Local interest listcruft. Not even sure about the parent article Binaca Geetmala but given the built in bias in the Net it's hard to tell --Peripitus (Talk) 12:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GassyGuy, though I am a little bothered with the inconsistency of that KROQ one being kept. If this is kept (and its dozens of brothers), would it be too much to ask that there be a header line to explain what it is? IMNSHO the entire set could be speedied as db-context. There is no way from the article to even know that it's a list of songs. Fan-1967 14:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --PresN 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Gassy Guy let me correct you. Binaca geetmala is NOT a chart issued by a local radio station - rather it is an old program that used to play in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the middle east through radio stations in Sri Lanka and then India. The program played every week from 1952 till mid 1994. The annual charts were a summation of the weekly charts. It was the ONLY countdown show of Hindi film songs in South Asia and the Middle East during its times with many millions of listeners every week - in other words it was definitely comparable to the Billboard charts. The historical significance of everything that I (and others) put up in these pages are immense for the many South Asian heritage readers that you have and will have. And yes, history whether it be musical history as represented here, or movie history or political history or military history is always encyclopaedic and deserve a place on Wikipedia - irrespective of whether we are talking of US history or the history of some other nation. And by the way - it is NOT an indiscriminate collection of nonsense as observed by one very wise (?) commentator here - For everyone's information, the cultural history of some country other than the US does not make it indiscriminate nonsense !!!--Ghoshi 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ghoshi, please do not take offence to my nomination of this article. Quoting from WP:GD - "Please do not take it personally Please remember that the deletion process is about the appropriateness of the article for inclusion in Wikipedia. A deletion nomination is not a rejection of the author or an attack on his/her value as a member of the Wikipedia community. When I first saw these articles, there was no context for them, and my lack of knowledge of the proper language honestly made it appear to me as gibberish. I never meant to imply that non-US culture was either indiscriminate or nonsensical, but rather, I could not make any sense of the article when I read it. Respectfully --Brian G 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, however, consider WP:OSTRICH.Hornplease
  • Comment Can you at least add some explanation into these articles? Imagine an ignorant Westerner (me, for example) stumbling onto this article. What is it about? No way to tell. All I see is what looks like a list of foreign words or names. Nothing says it's a list of songs. Nothing tells me what the entries mean. Is "Zindagi Ek Safar" a song title or an artist? What about "Andaaz"? "Shankar-Jaikishan"? It's like some of the articles we see about an episode of a television program that forget to mention what the program is. The article needs to provide context. Fan-1967 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe we can put this group of articles under some suitable Hindi Film Music or Bollywood film music topic - I will search for something like that - I'm sure it exists on Wikipedia. It will take a while for me (and others) to put in all the information and explanations - so please be patient - I promise at the end of our project everything will be well explained. Please do not delete the group of articles - i will keep adding info, and find a suitable topic under which we can place it . Thanks --Ghoshi 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I'm still iffy on whether the lists themselves have a place here, I do believe that the songs themselves deserve mention as popular songs. Is there any way to incorporate them into the years in music articles (1970 in music et al)? I just read the 1970 one and it has a horrible lack of material about non-Western music. Anyone have any thoughts into possible integration of the songs into articles of that sort? GassyGuy 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment boy... I can't believe I'm actually fighting to keep this article... I understand the argument that just because we made a mistake on the KROQ list does not force us to make the same mistake here but I will say this again: some people put a lot of effort in trying to develop the non-north-american content to Wikipedia and I think that we should think twice about holding different standards for other cultures. Of course, who's going to notice this article being deleted? One or two people if we're lucky. In contrast there will be a few dozens of KROQ listeners ready to step up and defend the "I know this radio station so this should be kept" line. What's the rush here? at least one editor seems to know what these lists are. Let's give it a few months to expand, explain the context and so on. If we conclude that the whole thing is still unverifiable cruft, then I'll be happy to delete. In the meantime I think this deserves a bit of a chance. Pascal.Tesson 01:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add context. JChap (Talk) 03:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - You mean you only keep what the masses want? These poor people have worked on this article! Trunk 18:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Respectfully, I don't think that there is an issue will all the "poor people" that you are concerned with. It appears that the article was a simple copy/paste job and has no edit history to speak of. Of course, more work may have gone into it, but I don't see any evidence of that. At any rate, I'm not sure that this is relevant to the discussion to either keep or delete the article. --Brian G 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The Binaca Geetmala used to air on Radio Ceylon. Somewhat like the BBC Home Service at the time, All India Radio would play a very limited amount of popular music. Radio Ceylon was the sole outlet for much popular music, and the Binaca Geetmala its primary countdown show. Top ten lists from the Binaca Geetmala, the programme itself, and its legendary presenter Ameen Sayani are all encyclopaedic articles. At least, they are if Billboard is. Hornplease 05:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to definite keep as I think there is now sufficient indication that this is waaaaaaay more notable than the KROQ countdown! Of course, there should be an expand-tag added to the whole bunch of articles but they deserve their spot. Pascal.Tesson 05:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, let me say that I was never in doubt that the Binaca Geetmala itself was notable. Second, based on my understanding of this, this is a year-end chart of a popular music radio show. I'm starting to feel more that we should err on the side of caution and not delete this one, but first I would like to ask - was this a daily countdown? Weekly? Monthly? Currently, we have year-end charts from this show. If this chart is analogous to Billboard, is it possible to format it similar to the Billboard lists? For example, rather than a year-end chart, could there be a chart from each year showing the song that headed Binaca Geetmala's countdown week by week? GassyGuy 08:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I did do some searching before I entered this nomination, reading more at WP:CSB and WP:OSTRICH have convinced me that perhaps I did not do enough. I'm still not happy with the lists as they are and hope that they would be cleaned up, and I do feel that this generated some good collaborative discussion about that improvement that likely would never have happened if I had simply posted a question to the talk page. At the same time, I must acknowledge that deleting this article is probably not the way to go and am leaning towards withdrawal of this Afd. --Brian G 13:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keepper Hornplease. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but please provide context and more information, as commented on above. Should be tagged with Needs Improvement and/or Cleanup. Scorpiondollprincess 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Catholic Media Office[edit]

Delete - WP:NOT Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Brian G 04:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy G7 by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Tevildo 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Brandon[edit]

This is an incredibly long vanity page from which my speedy tag was removed by the author. Quite simply, it is the biography of a non-notable acton/musician. AdamBiswanger1 04:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; vanity page, fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. Moving the article to the creator's userpage would be fine. Antandrus (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I note the contributing author is Nbrandon, rather similar to the subject name, and whose only edits are to this article. If the author wants to put it up on his userpage, fine, but delete here. Tychocat 11:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy per above. NawlinWiki 12:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and Delete per everyone --Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a G7, author blanked article. I've applied such tag. Yanksox 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10th World Science Fiction Convention[edit]

I'm unable to verify that this convention even happened (what year was it?), and the claim that this is where Sturgeon's Law was formulated does not mesh with our history given in the Sturgeon's Law article, which is more referenced/reliable. So the whole thing seems questionable. Delirium 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: In light of the below, I'd now support this being kept and cleaned up as well. --Delirium 23:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This convention definitely took place (in 1952); it's on the Long List of Worldcons [5] on the World Science Fiction Society web site. But if its claim to notability is the formulation of Sturgeon's Law, and that's not even a verifiable claim, I don't think it needs an article. Delete as a first choice, and as a second choice redirect to Worldcon. --Metropolitan90 05:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, it's possible that this is the site of the "panel discussion" that Sturgeon's Law references, but it'd be nice to have a source if so. --Delirium 05:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This piece says that Sturgeon set forth his revelation/law at the Worldcon in Philadelphia in 1953, as opposed to the Chicago Worldcon in 1952 that this article is about. --Metropolitan90 06:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a world annual convention - not necessarily the best-known or best-documented, but a worldcon nonetheless. I've added what information I can to it, but sadly my collection of Astoundings only goes back to 1954, otherwise I'd probably be able to add more. At the time this one was a very big convention, too - it held the world record for registered attendees for over a decade. It was also at this convention that the idea for the Hugo Award was formulated. Grutness...wha? 09:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS - it's also part of a group of articles, each dealing with a separate Worldcon. At the moment about 25% of Worldcons have separate articles, and if this one is redirected it will be strange once all the others are done. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I think the Sturgeon's Law statements needs to be taken out until a verifiable reference can be found. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Worldcon. The convention is quite notable, but the reasons that this particular year's one are remembered don't really make the '52 one worth a standalone article. The references to Sturgeon's Law and the Hugo Award need to be researched and sourced (and corrected if needed) when they're added to the parent article. Barno 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The convention definitely took place. Reference to Sturgeon's law needs to be verified. The convention (like all Worldcons) is an important part of the cultural history of Science fiction. If the article does not sufficiently reflect this, it is a good reason for expansion, not deletion or merger. --Chino 07:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to World Science Fiction Convention. Start general, becoming more specific only when necessary. -- GWO
  • Keep and expand. There is no fundamental reason why this article could not grow to look more like 63rd World Science Fiction Convention (which is no more or less significant than any other Worldcon). If we include all data about all Worldcons (64 of them so far with one added each year) to World Science Fiction Convention, the article would grow out of all proportion. --UFOPOLI 13:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes, but we have no need to include "all data about all Worldcons." If we limit content to verifiable general-encyclopedia material by WP standards, rather than everything that one might want in an "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction", the article would stay within the 64K guideline. Barno 14:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we were to do that, half of Wikipedia would have to be deleted. Really, the nice thing about Wikipedia is that we have pages like Spoo and Karl Mayer. And who would go to an encyclopedia expecting to find as much information as there is in Interim Peace? Or Atta sexdens? Both articles contain more information than you might expect to find in "Encyclopedia of Finnish History" and "Encyclopedia of Ants", respectively. --Chino 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments from Grutness. Scorpiondollprincess 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per comments by grutness Yuckfoo 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-positive[edit]

This page was nominated for AfD in an incorrect way. Fixing the nomination; I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be dleeted since i find it to not be noteworthy. At the very least i think it should be merged with Sex or Human Sexuality as a subsection of one of those articles. So delete or merge in my book. what do you think? Qrc2006 04:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, or merge at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Keep I'm not sure I see how this article fails notability. There are two books referenced in the article, and it's well-sourced to indicate that this is not a new or unfamiliar concept. The nomination reason doesn't seem grounded in WP policies. Perhaps a discussion in the article's talk page should occur before such an off-the-cuff AfD nomination? -- H·G (words/works) 05:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HG, with whom I also agree that, for an article that has existed for nearly three years, for which sources are given, and that appears (under any relevant test) facially notable, a discussion at the article's talk page ought likely to be started prior to one's AfDing the article; in the absence of such a discussion, though, one should take pains to explicate why he/she believes the article to be inappropriate for the encyclopedia, lest AfD participants should be left, as I, nonplussed. Joe 05:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nom appears to be fairly young and fairly new at Wikipedia. My first AfD nomination involved a pretty well-sourced article on a subject who was notable (if not obviously so), and I was reamed appropriately in the AfD discussion. I'm going with AGF here; I pointed out some resources on the user's talk page and encouraged him to read up on WP guidelines in the future. -- H·G (words/works) 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment HG is, to be sure, correct that one ought to assume good faith here; I meant not to suggest that the nominator was acting untowardly but only to apprise him of how best to participate at AfD. To the extent that my comments can be interpreted otherwise, I'm altogether sorry... Joe 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources are given; the content is backed up. I don't think it's mainstream but it's notable enough. - Richardcavell 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Nominator hasn't explained why it's non notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - article does not fail notability, and there are no other reasons for deletion given. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, no justification given for deletion. Catamorphism 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Smerdis of Tlön 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article has references and is clearly notable. PseudoAnon 05:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, no valid justification for deletion. -Neural 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is informative, factual and well-sourced. Add'l sources may be added for clarification. What was the initial motive for deletion? A dislike for sex-related articles, perhaps? I can't think of any other explanation right now, so someone please enlighten me. (Patrick 04:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Prime Ministers by longevity[edit]

Just an unsourced and basically abandoned list. Buckner 1986 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, listcruft. A perfectly good List of Prime Ministers of Japan exists; not sure of organization based on longevity is of any use. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- H·G (words/works) 05:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All sorts of lists like this exist, including a List of Canadian Prime Ministers by longevity. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary and indiscriminate. I might bring List of Canadian Prime Ministers by longevity up for AfD for the same reason - it's not necessary. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a harmless and interesting list - we also have List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity. This isn't listcruft - it would be different if this was List of American Idol contestants by longevity or something, but being Prime Minister of a major country is quite an important thing, and people are interested in this information. It's not difficult to maintain either. As for verification, all the information in the list seems to have been sourced from other Wikipedia articles. I don't see any reason to delete this. — sjorford++ 08:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Indiscrimilistcruft. What's next, U.S. Vice Presidents by shoe size? ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That'll be you comparing longevity and shoe size there, then. — sjorford++ 09:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, evidently. I can see a list of popes or emperors by longevity, as they tend to hold office until death, but prime ministers are mostly long out of office by the time of their death. Indiscriminate applies. ~ trialsanderrors 09:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:LIST and WP:LC. Tevildo 09:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 11:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A list ordered by length of time in office would be more interesting. Fg2 12:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Longevity is irrelevant to holding the office of Prime Minister, and Wikipedia is not a data mining operation. flowersofnight (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is completely accurate. And as for the comment comparing longevity of life to shoe sizes, may I say this: your immaturity and complete lack of appreciation for human life is rather disgusting. Further, the simple fact that similar lists have been compiled for Canadian and British prime ministers, and that neither list has come into question, shows a rather sad trait found occasionally on these forums. Just because the public official is not from an English-speaking country (i.e. Britain or America) does not mean that their life span is "unnecessary and indiscriminate." The fact that this article is even being considered for deletion is rather sad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.159.15.53 (talk • contribs) .
    • With your approval I'm posting this on my talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 16:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 69.159.15.53 has a point. Don't we all need to look deep into our hearts and come to terms with the fact that we're all horrible racists who have a disdain for human life? At first I was just voting "delete" because this list is ridiculous and useless, but then I realized it was just my own prejudices and hatred. Thank you, 69.159.15.53 AdamBiswanger1 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HumbleGod and flowersofnight. --David Mestel(Talk) 15:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Any chance of putting the longevity charts for this and Canadian and similar lists in with the main listing? It seems pretty frivolous on its own, but it might be an interesting way of sorting the information if part of the main article. GassyGuy 16:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add source. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Whispering 17:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How the heck is someone's lifespan a violation of WP:NOR? There are sources all over the place for the birthdate and death date of various famous people. The only thing missing is an actual citation. Dark Shikari 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see the usefulness of this list. Can anyone give me a possible application of a list sorted by longevity? AdamBiswanger1 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about someone writing a paper on the history of Japanese Prime Ministers, and could include data on who lived to be the oldest? I know people compile statistics on US Presidents like that - who's still alive, who died early, who lived to be an old fart, etc. I can't substantiate this, but I know people study the effects of holding high-stress jobs on one's health. People that hold those offices tend to die younger. Wouldn't an article like this be of use to a person like that? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone actually carried out a study like that of US presidents, the sample size would be so small as to make the study invalid. Even assuming the researcher were to include all 43 presidents, its still using only a sample of 43 to make claims about a very large group of people (people with high stress jobs, which numbers in the millions), and the researcher still have to deal with all the very wide historical differences in healthcare, diet, environment, operational role etc etc etc not to mention individual genetics and so on. The people you know who are compiling these statistics are compiling trivia. About the only practical use I can think of for this kind of information is if it were for a pub quiz or perhaps some kind of number puzzle, both of which are themselves trivial pursuits. Bwithh 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is www.pray4ray.com, but that's going out the window. AdamBiswanger1 01:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's trivially interesting and useless encyclopedically and in every other way, or are people going to try a prove a correlation between a politican's policies and his lifespan? Its a meaningless list like List of Argentinian professors by shirt collar size or List of Ugandan footballers by hair length. Bwithh 22:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments in the mass nomination on the same topic. The longetivity of ex-heads of state is discussed, at least in the US. As part of fighting systemic bias, we therefore need to keep this list. --JJay 01:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a duplicate of List of Japanese prime ministers, per Ragib. Creating multiple versions of lists for the sole purpose of sorting them differently is a waste of time - it's a maintenance nightmare, as well as not particularly useful. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is wonderful and interesting. Trunk 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per HumbleGod and trialsanderrors. 'by term length' would be more pertinent. - Wickning1 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting list. -- User:Docu
  • It's certainly interesting. Actually, it's hilarious, because it's riddled with blatantly, stunningly wrong "information". But even if it were right it would be mere primeministercruft. Delete. -- Hoary 07:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm .. indeed. That's why I had added {{verify}} in the first place. I fixed some of the entries. Any additional corrections needed? -- User:Docu
  • Keep, notable and useful. This sort of close comparison is fine when it is about a Head of State of a major country. NoSeptember 17:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--Rye1967 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, their relative longevity is irrelevant. --Huon 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Japan has the highest life-expectancy in the world exempting possibly Andorra. (Conflicting info on that nation) And I think it's probable some of these are the oldest leaders of any nation anywhere ever. That could be of real interest. A List of longest lived politicians, non-nation specific, might be better but probably harder to do.--T. Anthony 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBA's 60th Anniversary All-Time Team[edit]

Contested PROD produces yet another prolix nom from Joe. The extant version of this article enumerates prospective candidates for a team that, as a simple Googling reveals, does not exist. A previous version to which one might revert exists but simply conflates the text of the lead of NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team with a subsection thereof apropos of a "next ten" players announced by TNT (not under the auspices of the NBA), erroneously, in any case, terming the 60th anniversary team a league-sponsored team akin to the 50th anniversary team). In essence, the article is either (a) altogether redundant to an already-existing article (since the article copies exactly the text of the 50th anniversary article, a merge is unnecessary, and since the text came exclusively from the latter, GFDL concerns do not entail), or, even if expanded, an unnecessary content fork about a topic insufficiently notable as to merit its own article or (b) about a team that plainly does not exist, detailing candidates for a similar venture long since concluded (and undertaken only by television broadcasters); in each case, deletion is the proper disposition. A redirect to the 50th anniversary article is, per WP:R, unneeded and useless (toward which, see [6], [7], [8], [9] , Googlings of permutations of the title returning no relevant hits). Joe 05:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield podcast, Battlefield Podcast[edit]

"What's wrong with having this? Other podcasts are listed here as well..."--Peekj 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no advertising here, and i created this article with no intention of doing it. This is purely an informative article about the popular podcast among many BF2 fans. Who feels this should be deleted, please post it here so we can see why you would consider such a thing!

- SuperTyphoon— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.182.179 (talk • contribs)

Haha Angus just because you don't like the article doesn't mean you need to delete it, idiot. because other people enjoy reading it and learning about it. You got a problem with videogame podcasts? Take out your childish anger somewhere else, pal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTyphoon (talk • contribs) 22:30, July 17, 2006

No demonstrated notability.--Peta 06:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to Battlefield Podcast. No Vote. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:WEB.--John Lake 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:WEB again. A podcast about a video game ? A poster child for Wikipedian systemic bias for sure. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Peta is spot on, forgot to demonstrate notability however with the exception of that it doesn't fail WP:WEB it in fact passes one possibly even two of the three criteria's. On a side note "Delete WP:WEB" just doesnt cut it (give us a reson) or how about you lot go help expand the wikipedia instead of trolling the AfD section. - Alan McGeoch 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What part of WP:WEB's notability standards does it meet ? Reviews ? None mentioned or found; if there are reviews, add them to the external links and mention them in the article. Award ? Same. Distributed by a well known site independent of the creators ? Can't see that it meets this either as the example given on WP:WEB is Gervais's blog being carried by the Guardian. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It meets this part: 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. The content is distributed via a site independent of the creators': Fileplanet. http://www.fileplanet.com/104762/0/section/Chalk.One-Battlefield-Podcast --Peekj 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "FilePlanet is a video game download service". That's not one of newspaper, magazine, publisher or broadcaster. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think a lot of people would disagree with you there. Fileplanet is part of Gamespy/IGN. They are one of the largest publishers/broadcasters/content providers on the net for this type of content. I'm not sure why you're so adement about deleting this article, but your reasons for doing so are pretty thinly stretched. --Peekj 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB. I verified lack of notability per Angus McLellan's research, and can add that Google found me only 125 distinct hits, no reviews, no awards, a lot of mirrors. Tychocat 11:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problempoker.com[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. It is an ad for a nn company. Rob 06:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ad for non-notable company. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair 09:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doesn't help that this is the article creator's only contribution. -- Steel 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Fsotrain0900:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Jose State University. Redirects are cheap. :) Mailer Diablo 09:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California State Normal School[edit]

Repeats information found on both San Jose State University and California State University articles. No notability aside from now being SJSU, and a different name shouldn't be a sole reason to have a separate article. Last paragraph also suggests it is trying to promote the obscure agenda to rename the school. Recommendation to merge any new information in the article to the SJSU and CSU articles, and either delete article or redirect to San Jose State University since it is just a former name of the institution. NeoChaosX 06:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to San Jose State University. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, merge if necessary. -- H·G (words/works) 08:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I pulled the "merge" recommendation upon checking the articles; there's nothing new in the article in question aside from the paragraphs promoting renaming SJSU (which have no place in Wiki). Still up for deletion or redirect, though. NeoChaosX 08:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect per nom. Redundant article covered fully under San José State University, so no need to merge. --Satori Son 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. It is not just about "SJSU" or the CSU, it is about the entire California State Normal School system. It contains information and images that are not included in either the SJSU or CSU articles. One of the reasons for creating and maintaining this article is to combat the "San Jose State" historical revisionism that has attempted to wipe the California State Normal School from the pages of history. This article is also being expanded upon on a weekly basis. The main proponent of deleting this article, "NeoChaosX" is a self-avowed "hacker" and recognized Wikipedia vandal who have repeatedly vandalized this article and others, to advance his own anti-CSU political agenda. He deleted this article, and now that that has failed, is attempting to have the article deleted to help suppress accurate California, CSU, SJSU history. Michaelch7 08:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment All I did previously was try and have the article redirect to San Jose State University, not delete it. The article has redundant information and has nothing notable that would warrant a seperate article. I have nominated the article for those reasons, as well as being advertisement and promotion for your agenda, which is something Wikipedia is not. NeoChaosX 04:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is interesting to note that the so-called "promotion" in this article, an inaccurate reference to an inaccurate article, was included in this article by someone other than the author (but has now been corrected). Also, a part of the discussion regarding this article, in which NeoChaosX admitted to vandalizing this article, and apologized for it, has now been deleted. This fits the pattern of NeoChaosX's deletion and vandalism of historically accurate entries and articles, simply because they do not comport with his preferred (but historically inaccurate) views. This is exactly the type of "San Jose State" historical inaccuracy and revisionism this California State Normal School article is meant to combat. The stakes are high: historical accuracy and preservation of California State University history in the face of brute "San Jose State" revisionism. Moreover, NeoChaosX spurious claims that this article simply repeats content in the SJSU and CSU articles is self-serving nonsense, as NeoChaosX himself has repeatedly vandalized and removed many accurate references to California State Normal School and California State University history in those articles. Michaelch7 10:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment First, all I did was remove links that promote the renaming campaign, since they were off-topic links in those articles. Second, if you checked the history of article where I admitted to "vandalizing" the page, you would find it was not deleted by me, and in fact was recommended by another user to keep the redirect and to make further additions in the article it was redirected to. I do not know where you get this idea that I am repressing your views; I am simply making changes that I feel (and other agree) that improve the quality of Wikipedia, and to undo changes that do not fit Wikipedia guidelines. NeoChaosX 06:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment NeoChaosX, you admitted in writing that you deleted the text of this article and redirected it to the SJSU article, which is tantamount to deleting the article. The issue is not whether you are repressing my views, but whether "San Jose State" has and is revising and repressing authentic and accurate California history for its own political purposes, and whether you are helping promote that effort by repeatedly attacking this article, and other contributions to other articles. The record of your actions makes it clear that you are guilty of this. Michaelch7 08:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        • Comment Look, it doesn't matter what you think the purpose of my edits are. We're here to discuss if the content of the article merits being included in Wikipedia, not what the reasons are that I've nominated the article. You've given no reason to keep the article other than your unsubstantiated claims that San Jose State is "repressing history" and repeated personal attacks on me. Furthermore, you have admitted that the article is meant to "combat the "San Jose State" historical revisionism" in your words, which makes it a POV fork, which is not supposed to be on Wikipedia. If you can't come up with a reason to keep the article other than claiming how you're protecting what you believe to be "accurate history", then my argument with you is done. NeoChaosX 03:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to SJSU. The institution changed names (several times, as noted in the article). The official and most common name is San Jose State (or San José State). Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gentgeen 05:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Its a nice article about something in history. Irreguardless of the censorship conversation above, could it be better served as a more expanded history section of San José State University? I saved the article for merging into the university article if this doesn't result in keep. Kevin_b_er 06:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am still uncertain how or why this small advocacy group keeps coming back to this subject. This does not belong in an encyclopedia, but rather on GoState's own seperate webpage that they can finance themselves. Please delete this so that we can keep a neutral point of view as to subjects that are worthy of an encyclopedia, and not be bothered by articles and comments which simply express one small group's hope for a name change to their own instutition? PLEASE DELETE. Streltzer 23:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted by User:Fang Aili.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaddadi Papaiah (Telugu Artist)[edit]

Direct rip from http://www.hyd-epages.com/entertainment/art-gallery/painter-late-sri-vaddadi-papaiah.html, i.e. violates copyright. Rob 06:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD-A8 - new copyvio. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above, the link is no longer active, but Google[10] shows that this is indeed a copyvio. -- H·G (words/works) 08:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yes, the original link is dead but Google cache is still there, sorry I should have mentioned that. Thanks for spotting HumbleGod. Rob 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs a decent cleanup, though. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rightrides[edit]

Probably copyvio of a non-notable organisations web page.--Peta 07:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, couldn't find anything on Google that shows this to be copyvio; however, this does read like a press release. I think a little cleanup and a couple of sources would fix this up; looks like a couple of NY-oriented and gay-lifestyle magazines cover the group, so it shouldn't be hard to wrangle. -- H·G (words/works) 08:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup - well, clearly large parts of this article were taken from here and reworded a bit. So yeah, the article definitely needs cleanup--at least proper citation and adherence to copyright policy. -- H·G (words/works) 09:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, conditional on massive, massive cleanup. Stop get rid of the press-release style headline, for a start. --David Mestel(Talk) 16:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a paraphrase of this page so not technically a copyvio, but needs to be re-written. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what actually makes this group notable, night partols like this exist many towns.--Peta 22:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my opinion, it doesn't fail notability criteria. Though WP:ORG is still only a proposed guideline, something it shares with existing guidelines like WP:CORP is that organizations that are the subject of multiple non-trivial media articles qualify as notable. There are several to be found on Google[11][12] to say nothing of the print, TV, and radio stories archived on the organization's own website[13]. The uniqueness of the patrol's focus (on safety for "women, transpeople and gender queer individuals") combined with this makes it notable enough that an article on WP isn't unwarranted, as I see it. -- H·G (words/works) 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Eppard[edit]

  • Delete - twice speedied already - does not appear notable Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems notable to me. Almost 12,000 Ghits, and his solo album 'Been To The Future' was released in 2002 and is still selling to this day on Amazon.com. [14] Dionyseus 07:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, allmusic.com confirms that he has at least one solo release and four albums with the band 3. Article also notes that he's toured North America and Europe, so by at least two criteria he satisfies WP:MUSIC. -- H·G (words/works) 08:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a lot less notable articles on Wikipedia who stay. Michaelas10 08:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Artist seems notable to me for reasons already mentioned by others. Sky 09:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, artist seems notable enough to warrant his own article. Mr Pope 10:29 14 July 2006
  • Keep He is in the band 3, and 3 was once signed to Metal Blade Records. Many artists signed by them have their own articles. CardinalFangZERO 10:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is not notable enough to warrant the creation of an individual Wikipedia entry. Sure you could debate that "less notable" pages exist on Wikipedia, but that does not mean that this one should. Maybe it's time that we crack down and look more closely at some of the drivel that is being created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenclaw (talk • contribs) 14 July 2006
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC. Has an album, sure, but no evidence it, or any singles, charted. Article claims inter/national tours, with no sources, and I'm unwilling to presume on that one. Also note Amazon ranking of album is 132,755 and dropping. I get only 90 distinct Ghits for "Been to the Future" + "Joey Eppard". Tychocat 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please passes music guideline per humblegod Yuckfoo 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geneticization[edit]

nn neologism. --Peta 07:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 589 unique Google hits, and it seems to be used in quite a few scholarly journal articles, though probably in a different context. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Coredesat. Dionyseus 08:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, this should be expanded and more sources should be provided, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. It's probably used in a very limited context, though. -- H·G (words/works) 08:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best, it's a dicdef. I'm not opposed to transwiki'ing to Wiktionary WilyD 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Hitting about 500 Google hits is quite a high number and this makes the topic notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken suid[edit]

Bio of unremarkable university administrator (Vice chancellor is as high as he ever rose). Wikipedia is NOT a memorial. Calton | Talk 07:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but .. - change name to Ken Suid, and completely rewrite it so it does not read like a memorial. This guy is clearly a notable educationalist. It just does not come out of a poorly written article. It needs someone who knows the system better than I do to rewrite it. --Bduke 08:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guy is clearly a notable educationalist Based on what? --Calton | Talk 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, none of this is verifiable with reliable sources (the Princeton link doesn't work, and the UCR link just lists him as a promoter), and WP:NOT a memorial. The Yahoo group dedicated to him has 16 members. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up, found a death notice[15] confirming that he was "vice chancellor of the University of California at Riverside, an assistant U.S. secretary of education, dean of Immaculate Heart College, and a vice president of Bell & Howell." These sound like an awful lot of reasons to keep the article. Still, clean it up to not seem like a bad cross between a resume and a memorial. -- H·G (words/works) 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To elaborate on my "keep" opinion, I think the subject arguably meets WP:BIO--"Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office..."--as Asst US Sec of Ed; this doesn't specify elected office. Not a strong meeting of that criterion (this isn't one of my stronger "keep" votes), but combined with his other roles, enough to skirt by. I tend to think of notability criteria as an extension of WP:NOT--indiscriminate collection of info, and by that measure I feel the subject doesn't fall short. Needs work to be sure, but I think this would be of enough potential interest that it deserves an article here. -- H·G (words/works) 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Ken Suid Dim Sum Yahoo group made me think this was a hoax at first, but he pops up in UCR timelines twice. In any case, 147 G-hits for Ken Suid, most of which aren't about him. ~ trialsanderrors 08:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Bio, and WP:NOT a memorial. Dionyseus 09:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending cleanup per HG - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Bio, not by miles but still fails.--Nick Y. 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assistant Secretary of Education for both Kenedy and Johnson is significant. To remember a country's leader is imeprative to understand that country's evolution. That being said, this article needs a signiicant amount of revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.34.142 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep pending cleanup I am the original author. I've placed this wikipedia as a placeholder until I can dig into more detailed information. Ken Suid had a trememdous impact on education in America, first as Asst. Secretary of Education, then as VP of Bell and Howell, then Trend. His story is interesting and informative on the intersection between academia, government, and private enterprise. For this reason I believe he deserves a wikipedia entry--not for a memorial, but for education. There are few google references to Ken Suid, because he had no knowledge of the internet, not even an email address. I feel he is notable for the following reasons: He held a high position in government, he was instrumental in the rise of the polytechnic institute as an American fixture. --Harperbrad 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone who has had "a tremendous impact on education in America" should have left bigger footprints, don't you think? And what, pray tell, are some verifiable examples of his "tremendous impact"? --Calton | Talk 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Assistant Secretary of Education, by itself, does not qualify as a national office. There must be hundreds of them at any given time. If verifiable, reliable sources can be provided toward his impact on education, keep. Otherwise, delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Judging by the Education Department's own website[16], Assistant Secretary does not seem to be a particularly high rank, and I think not encyclopedically notable enough for an article for everyone who holds that post. Certainly the Vice-Presidencies of the 3 corporations is not notable enough. Major corporations have many VPs, and they are not generally very powerful. Wikipedia is not an archive for articles about every single moderately important Mandarin or corporate executive or university administrator. Perhaps he did something notable in the CIA? We may never know. Bwithh 23:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please passes bio guideline per humblegod person is notable Yuckfoo 20:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emporers of Necro-America[edit]

Non notable, probable hoax. Spelled the wrong way as well. 2 Ghits in this spelling, 1 with the correct spelling. ProD removed after three days without explanation or changes to the article. Fram 07:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems to be a hoax. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, from Myspace: "I founded the hypothetical Death/Black/Sludge metal outfit Emperors of Necro America that featured all of my friends" (emphasis added). Sounds like a hoax to me. -- H·G (words/works) 08:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Dionyseus 08:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per H·G. Ryulong 08:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 10:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hypothetically speaking. NawlinWiki 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispyz[edit]

I speedied the first version of this under CSD A7. The creator has now written an expanded version which I feel still falls under A7 but I'd like to go the extra mile for what looks like a good-faith contribution and get a second opinion. I recommend a delete or a speedy-delete. Haukur 08:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have an explanation as to what we are doing wrong? I'm sure that we can provide the correct information and fix this to your standards. Konnektor 08:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have certain criteria for what subjects are "notable" enough to have articles on them in Wikipedia. For musicians the guideline used is WP:MUSIC, which is a rather tough nut to crack and I'm afraid I don't see anything indicating that Dispyz fulfills it (which is no bad reflection on him). Haukur 08:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A Myspace band/musical artist, possible self promotion. Ryulong 08:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just informed of the proposed deletion. I want to add more info to this but need some sleep. This article is NOT finished and I would like to keep it open for further updates.

Two questions:

What are we doing wrong?

Why are you guys so quick to delete this page?

We are willing to play by your rules as long as you can let us know exactly what problem you are having with it.

Thanks! Realistik 08:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, nothing is being done "wrong" here. But as Haukur notes above, Wikipedia has certain criteria that subjects should meet. This nomination is to generate discussion as to whether the criteria for musicians (WP:MUSIC) and other WP guidelines have been met; if we feel it hasn't, we encourage the removal of the article. If you feel that verifiable information (see WP:V) can be provided in the article that shows that the subject meets these criteria, now's the time to add it; such info would undoubtedly sway editors into wanting to keep the article. -- H·G (words/works) 08:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I tagged this with {notability} and {music-importance} earlier to encourage any info that might prove notability; I don't believe anything significant to that effect has been added. I don't know for sure if this meets speedy delete criteria, but I do feel the subject fails to meet WP:MUSIC. -- H·G (words/works) 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't take this personally Konnektor, there is simply a standard that a band must meet in order to have an article in Wikipedia. For example, take a look at the band Shadows Of Tomorrow which looks like is going to be deleted as well. I think it is a slightly more notable band than yours, but even their band falls short of meeting the WP:MUSIC standard. Dionyseus 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Music. Dionyseus 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We all have more info to provide. This is extremely quick to pass judgement. As far as myspace being possible self promotion, anything can be possible self promotion. Tyler plays an extremely big role in local Milwaukee music and we want to share the information. Realistik 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Your article asserts notability, so this AfD discussion will last for at least several days, and then an administrator will look at the votes and discussion and decide whether or not to delete the article. Feel free to improve the article between that period. A vote is not permanent and a user can always change his or her vote if new additions to the article warrants it. Dionyseus 08:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll continue work tomorrow. Any suggestions to keep this thing afloat? Realistik 08:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have posted some suggestions in the article's talk page. [17] Dionyseus 09:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article currently fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:MUSIC.--blue520 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been watching this, hoping something could be added to push it over the line, but I don't see anything that puts this guy above the tens of thousands who have a minor following on myspace. Fan-1967 13:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but this artist is not notable yet. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Just go ahead and delete this. It's an uphill battle and maybe we were just a little too quick to support. Thanks anyways 72.131.42.99 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 09:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music Lives Beyond.com[edit]

Non-notable website with an Alexa ranking below 6,500,000. Was prodded as such but prod removed by author without comment. ~ Matticus78 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- spam. - Longhair 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. Dionyseus 09:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 10:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Andeh 10:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Insightful, Music Fan and I prefer indie music and this web site introduces web users to more variety of new music, non of over played music -- AKA DONGER 03:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment is this user's only edit. ~ Matticus78 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the first site that I have been on that doesn't place a contract or limits of uploads on musicians -- Paris21 07:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment is this user's only edit. ~ Matticus78 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I logged onto this site I heard a variety on new music. As a fan I like the personal interaction with the artists and fans that this site offers. --Wmcrey 04:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment is this user's only edit. ~ Matticus78 19:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Website provides a resourceful music tool that will allow fans to have access to songs and bands that they would not normally hear of. --Busterbust123 23:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment is this user's only edit. ~ Matticus78 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This web site is much needed in a world where music is over played and unoriginal. By searching this site I have found some real talent that is not the same thing I have listened to over and over again on local radio stations. --Poptart82 04:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment is this user's only edit. ~ Matticus78 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like the ease of use of this website. I am not computer savvy and if I can understand what to do, then I know they had people like me in mind while developing this website. -- Jackson1 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP is not a web directory. I'm glad people like the titled website, it just doesn't need a WP article, and ease-of-use and having nice music doesn't create notability. Tychocat 14:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously, this is spam. Moreover, with such a low Alexa ranking, this article is non-notable in itself as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Head-fi[edit]

An internet forum for the headphone enthusiust community. Speedy deleted twice on notability grounds. Article is being re-created despite notability advice given. Bringing to AfD to determine if any notability exists at all. -- Longhair 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What's the reason for your delete vote, Longhair? Dionyseus 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a notable website and community. Alexa ranking of 8,634. [18] Its forum has over 40,000 members, I think that's notable. Dionyseus 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is blatant vanispamcruftisement, list of moderators, pleading against deletion inserted into the article itself (in bold) and all. Number of forum members and Amazon rank, whatever that actually means, are not indicators of notability - multiple verifiable non-trivial third-party coverage is necessary to meet WP:WEB. Amazon.com reviews don't count (they can be written by anyone and are trivial). The closest we come is "Described by HeadRoom Corporation as "the center of the universe for headphone enthusiasts" [19], which doesn't focus on the forum - it's covered in the final paragraph. Even if you consider that non-trivial, we still fail the "multiple" criterion of WP:WEB. I searched on Factiva and found nothing but passing mentions - nothing on which to build an article. The article that came to came closest to covering the forum was from 2002, which wrote a bit about the forum though its focus was on a headphone trade show. It said little more about the forum than that it had 3,000 members - obviously more users have registered since then, but whether it has more regular members is a different matter, and no sources seem to have taken especial notice if they have. The ground rule is - if they're really that notable, someone unrelated to the website will create an article. Oh, and there are no articles linking to this one. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of the website did not create the wiki, its members are editing it... we are still working on it... --Flecom 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to neutral per Xyz below. I won't go for 'keep' as the article does need heavy cleanup to remove the VSCA (and whoever does that may need to be defend the article from its members re-adding unencyclopaedic cruft afterwards), and I can't unequivocally support keeping a hypothetical article that may or may not ever exist. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An average of about 2.2 million posts monthly is quite notable for a forum. [20] Dionyseus 10:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be impressive, but it's not notable. Of course, I haven't the faintest idea whether it's impressive or not - it's not up to us to decide whether that primary data makes something notable, it's up to secondary sources to decide whether that makes the forum sufficiently interesting to tell their paying readers about it. When that happens we can make the decision whether those secondary sources justify inclusion in a tertiary source (us). We aren't at that point yet. WP:CHILL might be of relevance here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Check the link again, btw. It's 2-3000 posts monthly, 2.2 million total. --PresN 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I still havent gotten a reasonable explaination as to why this message board is not allowed to exist here while there is an entire section dedicated to message boards on wikipedia, that includes things like something aweful and general mayhem... what makes head-fi different? besides actually serving a purpose of course... --Flecom 12:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sam. Recury 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Please see the recent additions in the external links, as reputable trade publications in the audio industry such as Stereophile have reported on this site and its importance to the resurgance of headphones as a viable alternative to the speakers and home theater markets. Stereophile's Editor-in-Chief came to the past International Head-Fi meet, as well as representatives from Sennheiser, Headroom, Shure, Etymotics, Beyerdynamic, Audio Technica, and many other major manufacturers. Deletion of a site mainly responsible for the rise of this phenomenon (coupled with the rise of the iPod) may do a disservice to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. -this unsigned comment was by 06:34, 13 July 2006 199.67.140.83
  • Keep Alexa ranking of 8634 (which was incorrectly reported above as an "amazon.com" rating), and the external links (which I think were just added) link to two different substantial articles from online magazines regarding this forum. The stereophile one at http://www.stereophile.com/news/042406heaven/ is the most impressive probably, since stereophile itself has a decent alexa ranking and is a paper magazine as well. The head-fi article needs some serious cleanup, of course. --Xyzzyplugh 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed, the cleanup needed will most likely start after people stop throwing everything in they can think of to stave off deletion. There is another stereophile article that captured the direction this community was moving towards prior to its dramatic rise this year, an interesting read on the future of audio as well. http://www.stereophile.com/news/111405headfi/
  • Delete unless major clean-up 35.9.6.175 18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Alexa rating is high enough imho, and an article in a magazine pushes it over for me. Clean up and source. --PresN 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well, I can understand why it is up for deletion, but there is notability to the community. When I started the wiki, it was just to get the ball rolling for the other more experienced members to begin filling in the holes. The website has pretty high traffic number, is voted top "hi-fi" community by Alexa, and has had an impact in the audiophile community. I'd say it is a keeper and just needs for cleanup. --Footemps 16:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dionyseus. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Head-Fi has been covered by multiple Stereophile articles as well other independent music forums on the web. I feel that these qualifications meet the notability standard and the article should not be deleted. Needs cleanup. Dept of Alchemy 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like Head-fi also has a long-standing link in the audiophile entry, and specific mention of headphones as part of that definition is included there as well. Browsers of Wikipedia interested in this aspect of being an audiophile now have a wiki entry to learn more about the main community dedicated to it, and in fact the Audiophile entry should incorporate an internal link to Head-fi in the Headphone section once it is accepted as being off deletion-watch. Also, in case a web article by Stereophile is not sufficient, The new Stereophile arrived in the mail today and the actual magazine has a full review, by Wes Phillips, of the AKG K 701s, where he mentions Head-Fi, the New York meet in Nov. 2005, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.67.140.84 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - barely meets requirements IMO, but it does. Article needs a lot of work. --jkl_sem 10:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Funny, there are tons of articles of forums which do not exist anymore or too small that no one knows that have ever existed, while the forum which can be found in google by typing 'headphone' and simply click the forth link (which implies 4th? correct if I am wrong) cannot be listed in wiki. I am sorry to say that, but I don't see any single logical reason of being deletion. The forum is recognized by not only by stereophile but also by several hi-fi websites/forums such as AV-forum in UK. Also, because I am a korean, and I can say that head-fi forum is very well known to most of korean hi-fi sites. I can give several proofs if any moderator needs. Regards. (edit: I do agree that it requires some work, but you guys need to be patient.) --Wnmnkh 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Orkney Islands. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orcadian[edit]

Delete Breach of WP:NPOV. This article was created from the original Redirect to the Orkney Islands article, and is purporting to describe a nationality, or perhaps (even more ridiculously) an ethnicity, called "Orcadian". No such nationality nor ethnicity exists, or has ever existed; and Orkney has never been a state (the island was Pictish before the Norse occupation). Orkney is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland, nothing more and nothing less. Its status is exactly the same as North Ayrshire, Aberdeenshire or Fife. The creation of this page is part of a campaign by User:Mallimak to utterly divorce Orkney from Scotland. For example, see his persistent attempt to remove Category:Orcadian Wikipedians from Category:Scottish Wikipedians and add it into Category:Scandinavian Wikipedians. He seems to think that he "owns" certain articles (see WP:OWN), including this one. I have tried to re-instate the Redirect to Orkney Islands, but been reverted. I note for example that Glaswegian redirects to Glasgow, and Bostonian is a dab page. There is nothing about the word Orcadian that cannot simply be stated at the Orkney Islands article; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mais oui! 09:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. —Nightstallion (?) 09:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect. "Orcadian" needs to go somewhere, and Orkney Islands is the obvious place. Tevildo 09:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect as per Tevildo. Dionyseus 09:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nomination is an attempt to resolve a content dispute via AFD, so I'm minded to keep the article. POV issues, unless irremediable, are not grounds for deletion in most cases. The same is true of WP:OWN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV-fork, and reinstate redirect. The article appears to treat the culture and history of Orkney, which can be done just as well in the main article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect, at least until such time as the "Orcadian people" section of "Orkney islands" expands to the point of needing to be factored out for summary style reasons, rather than POV-fork-ish ones. Angus is correct, however, this is technically a misapplication of AFD, though one that's tempting to use as an effective means of gauging consensus for turning into a redirect (even though that's not in theory effective). Perhaps an argument for a more active "centralised merge/redirect process" of some sort. Alai 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to Orkney. Not really a viable article as it is. I don't doubt there could be enough history or reliable POV to establish a separate article, but there is not even enough content in the main article - come back when the Orkney article is filled up and there are more references. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Orkney Islands BillC 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. An AfD is not the right way to resolve a content dispute. There is enough consensus here to simply restore the redirect and merge the content into Orkney Islands. Thanks/wangi 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. In protest at the hijacking of AfD to settle what is blatantly a content dispute, per Angus. I don't see anything wrong with the article's existence per se- Glaswegian may redirect to Glasgow, but for example Cockney and Geordie do not redirect to London or Newcastle. By the same token, the article is clearly a POV fork. In future I'd suggest the parties actually get their heads together and try and talk constructively to one another before resorting to these kind of tactics. Badgerpatrol 02:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!

Mais oui! says: “This article ... is purporting to describe a nationality, or perhaps (even more ridiculously) an ethnicity, called "Orcadian". No such nationality nor ethnicity exists, or has ever existed; and Orkney has never been a state (the island was Pictish before the Norse occupation).” - I am afraid this is simply Mais oui!’s POV. He is not qualified to make such claims until he has read up a bit on Orkney (I suggest some books to get him started on the Orcadian discussion page), or maybe lived here for a while. The concept and the article do not fit in with his prejudices and so he is determined to have the article removed. He has already tried removing the page without any debate (vandalism).

This article has a legitimate place in Wikipedia. As Badgerpatrol points out, Cockney and Geordie do not redirect to London or Newcastle. (Note that I am not the first to introduce the term “Orcadian” to Wikipedia, there was already a very brief list of “Some well-known Orcadians” on the Orkney Islands page before I started editing. - It might be sensible to expand this list, as I have added a lot more to Wikipedia in the meantime, and move it into the "Orcadian" article.)

I never wanted to get into a dispute with Mais oui! I know there is the warning: “If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it“, but I never expected such pettiness or such prejudice. I have not been the only target, judging by the comment in the “Orkney people stub” debate:

” Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)”[reply]

Mais oui!’s statement: “Orkney is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland, nothing more and nothing less.” is a clear demonstration of his prejudice. In international law there is still doubt over the status of the islands, which is why John D. Mackay’s letter provoked the response it did. (Mais oui! insists on turning the patriotic Orcadian, John D. Mackay into a “Scottish man of letters”, I note.) The Scandinavians still see Orkney and Shetland as forming a part of Scandinavia (an historic and cultural designation rather than a political one), which is why they will allow the coats of arms of Orcadians and Shetlanders to be placed in the Skandinavisk Vapenrulla, a right they do not extend to any of the other 30 council areas of Scotland. The unofficial flag of Orkney (which you see flying all over the islands) is a Scandinavian cross based on that of the Kalmar Union of which Orkney was a part. There is a lot more to Orkney than Mais oui! will admit, or maybe there is lot more to Orkney than he knows - which is all the more reason to have this information in Wikipedia!

Is Wikipedia going to allow itself to be limited by Mais oui!’s prejudices? I hope not.

Mallimak 08:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close. Whether Orcadian is a redirect to Orkney Islands or an article is not a matter for AfD. Spacepotato 08:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Orkney Islands Will (message me!) 19:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy with a speedy close per Spacepotato and others. But since I'm here: redirect. - Jmabel | Talk 03:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Orkney Islands is my official opinion, however I agree with the above that this is not really an issue for AfD. On the other side of the coin, though, this article is obviously a POV fork--the fluff should be removed and the rest merged to Orkney Islands.--WilliamThweatt 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted by FayssalF as CSD A7. DarthVader 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kishan Yerubandi[edit]

Not Notable, more of a user page, google yielded just a few autobiographic pages JuanPDP 09:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:Bio. Dionyseus 09:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Not notable and no assertion. Has been userfied. DarthVader 10:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after a 3rd party rewrite. Ryanjunk 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Acosta[edit]

This seems to be a vanity page -article has only been edited by one person who, I believe, is likely Joe Acosta himself. Ladybirdintheuk 09:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Passes WP:Music. His single 'I Need Her' topped the Billboard_charts for 21 weeks. [21] [22] Dionyseus 10:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete unless cleaned up, unverifiable and likely untruthful claims to notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The only entries edited by the author is this page, images of albums, and a photo of himself. He also hasn't responded (or it seems he hasn't) to a request on his talk page for copyvio information. I believe he wrote it and likely hasn't been here since. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 11:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentHe did write it. He has been here since. Please see the comment left by him on my talk page regarding rewriting it from a NPOV—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending further research. I suspect the Billboard listing is for their "Hot Latin Tracks" chart, not the regular Hot 100. I will try to figure out if there is some way to look this up. If true, that credit itself would make him notable. NawlinWiki 12:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Followup. I've looked at the pictures referenced in Coredesat's comment above. For starters, one of the photos includes a clip from Record World magazine promoting the album. The radio station top 10 lists do in fact appear to be from Billboard, probably before the official Hot Latin Tracks lists. More importantly, my Google research indicates that the DJ at that station, Dick "Ricardo" Sugar, was the leading American radio host for Latin music in the 60s and 70s, (search for "Ricardo Sugar"), making his lists the de facto Latin Top 10 of the era. The article obviously needs substantial rewriting, but I vote keep.
      • Comment Looks like I should've done more research. I'm going to weaken my argument, but unless this gets a major cleanup soon, I still favor deletion. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More followup I've rewritten the article - what do you think? NawlinWiki 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nicely done, NawlinWiki, thanks for your efforts. Dionyseus 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks to Nawlinwiki for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after NawlinWiki's rewrite. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thanks Nawlinwiki. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy G1 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 16:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped in the Pantry[edit]

I think it's a hoax. Tinlinkin 10:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy G4 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Phase[edit]

Recreated version of a deleted page, rewritten as another advertisement. Not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. RandyWang (raves/rants) 10:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Paisant[edit]

Hoax as with Trapped in the Pantry --Tinlinkin 10:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as patent hoax. RandyWang (raves/rants) 10:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for blatant hoaxery. Most 14-year-olds don't look like middle-aged men. Also, it looks like the editor of the article has a history of adding nonsense to articles. If this can be speedied, go ahead, but I have a feeling it can't. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G1. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. For the template, this way please. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public transport connecting to The Hague[edit]

Article contains no notable information in addition to Railway stations in the Netherlands and Train routes in the Netherlands . It is cluttered with a transcluded template, that only used for this article (Template:Railway stations in The Hague) and I also propose that for deletion.Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. --PresN 15:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Deleted by Woohookitty (Eluchil404 11:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ivonne Hernandez[edit]

Canadian fiddler that I don't believe passes WP:MUSIC. No entry on allmusic.com, CD not avaible, limited touring seems to be mostly clubs [23] and [24]. Delete unless, I've missed something obvious. Eluchil404 11:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer to the article's talk page to resolve the question of merging. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine[edit]

I'm pretty sure we don't need a page on every book. I've never heard of this one either. Mithridates 11:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. Tevildo 12:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets proposed guideline regarding books, "The book is by a person meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." It appears that since this book is written by a notable author, it is in fact notable. Yanksox 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but could use some work to reduce POV. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Candice E. Jackson. BuckRose 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with User:Reinoutr, could use POV refining. Easter rising 16:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BuckRose. Notable only because of its author? Write about it in the page on its notable author! No knowledge is lost, and Wikipedia becomes easier to use because the information is in a useful context. — Haeleth Talk 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge per haeleth 165.206.54.44 19:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete (not to be taken as in any way, shape, or form as a "Keep" vote). Whatever notability authors have (and its marginal in this case) doesn't automatically pass on to their works. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, book by a notable person, and book wasn't published by a vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as BuckRose. This book is Ms Jackson's major claim to notability. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Deleted (CSD G7) by Fang Aili. --(blue520 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Em-chan[edit]

Attack page, twice tagged as such, tag removed by author. Even if it were not an attack page, subject is non-notable. Speedy delete A6. --Huon 11:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy A6 per nom in its original form - now up for a G7. Tevildo 12:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt the article. The user seems to be intent on this page existing, but it's about a fanfic.net subscriber - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted per A7; no "remotely plausible" assertion of notability was present. Xoloz 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harris mercer[edit]

Can't find evidence of notability on Yahoo or Google; probably vanity; even title of proper name is wrong Tinlinkin 11:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a hoax. Tinlinkin 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aside from my research bringing nothing up, it's obvious that this is a hoax/vanity piece. If a 7 year old wrote a piece that helped form a Court Case, we would definitely know about it. It doesn't click or seem like this is a person that is actually notable. Yanksox 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious hoax. Just read politically active at the age of seven :). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. Nothing in Google or Google News. --DarkAudit 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty clear hoax. -- Whpq 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as hoax, per User:Yanksox. Ifnord 02:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7 There are no references stating the importance of this person. Also looks like another hoax. Will nominate for speedy deletion after this. Jesse Viviano 01:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Craig H. Yorke Jr.[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. A Google search for "Dr. Craig H. Yorke Jr." produces only 5 results. Schzmo 11:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of Global Warming[edit]

Blatant POV and OR. NawlinWiki 12:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. Not quite A1 territory, unfortunately. Tevildo 12:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete/Grade F as per nom. Recommend student takes remedial summer classes Bwithh 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete because it just barely misses speedy. I'm curious, though, how can an article with actual content be labeled for a POV dispute? - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for no context and blatant nonsense. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just some person's opinion. Violation of WP:NPOV, and we already have an article at global warming. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now that the POV has been removed, it's just a graph that could be rolled into the global warming article. Sky 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an empty page, save for a graph that could be added to Global warming.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge graph to Global warming. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge That graph might have use in Global warming. Either that or just delete it. I did not mean to cause any trouble. — --Sln3412 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Crouse[edit]

This artist has no album releases, no tours, etc. - doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. feydey 12:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy A7. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 12:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this just barely misses A7 territory. Having put out a single could count as a claim of notability, albeit not a good one. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, that's why I went with afd, WP:MUSIC is not a "speedy A7" criteria. feydey 12:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom; meets none of the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. --Satori Son 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AJILE[edit]

AJILE was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-13. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJILE/2006-07-13.

Non notable JS thingy Computerjoe's talk 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. Using wikipedia to gain notability and awareness. --Sleepyhead 15:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous discusion only included three voters (and one of those three had no edits besides those related to AJILE), but all three voted for keep. Considering this discussion came barely one month ago, I have to go with speedy keep. -- Kicking222 17:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A useful and notable project. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above. --Dennette 18:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Like AHAH, it looks like this article could be important to some people. Dionyseus 22:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some people find it important, but that does not mean the article is notable enough to be kept. --Sleepyhead 08:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Via Musica[edit]

Not notable music retailer, just advertisement for a company. Also overcategorized. Jklamo 12:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Guito Hassan[edit]

Hoax. If he's a renowned international criminal, why is he unknown to Google and Google News? Pablo Hassan returns some hits on Google, but they reinforce my belief that this guy is just a forum user... or a character from Human Traffic. And c'mon, look at the references. From UrbanDictionary: "All round top geezer. The kind of bloke you'd like to buy a pint!" KingTT 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 09:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peloponnesians (Greek)[edit]

This page was reprodded despite having been previously deprodded, so I'm making it into an AfD. The prod reason was:Unmotivated and poorly named fork of Peloponnese main article, contains no info that isn't already there; unnecessary disambig addition "Greek" makes it unsuitable as redirect. See Peloponnesians, which is a useful dab. Procedural nomination, no vote. --ais523 12:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • redirect or delete; I don't really see the need for this article, of the inhabitants should be spoken in Peloponnese; this is only a fork.--Aldux 12:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my original PROD nomination. Merge not necessary, as the text is already virtual identical anyway. No redirect, since name in this form is not a likely search term. (Sorry for not noticing it had been prod'ed two months back, though in an entirely different form apparently). -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it should be re-written to talk about the people. talk to +MATIA 09:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on precedence. See, e.g., Greeks, French, Russians. --Satori Son 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HelpServer[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. goofyheadedpunk 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy A7 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knockin Boots[edit]

This article is a spam page for an obscure bandSpylab 23:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]

  • Speedy delete and so tagged; band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryanjunk 16:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letter kills[edit]

Doesn't really outline anything from Wikipedia:Notability_(music). I can't find any sources whatsoever on their tours, their whereabouts, their charted hits or anything. Feel free to dispute. --Fractions 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Their album was released on a major, nationally distributed label. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one album on a major label does not establish notability according to the guideline. They need to have two albums, or have a least one charted hit or gold album. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per established notability. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - 280,000 Google hits, listed on All Music Guide, signed to major label, played Vans Warped tour (and has toured the U.S., including with Story of the Year). I kindly and respectfully request that anyone who has voted delete change their vote, and that nominator withdraw nomination. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination? This is a legitimate listing, because the article does not establish any notability per WP:BAND. Google hits and being on All Music Guide are not criteria. A national tour is a criterion - so why don't you edit the article to include that information and establish notability? Then, I'll reconsider my "vote". --Aguerriero (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). Anything less than a Keep at this point would be leaving one's head in the sand. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added those two refs to the article. --Joelmills 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like I've been proved wrong! :). Good finds. --Fractions 03:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we consider that a nom withdrawn and a speedy keep? PT (s-s-s-s) 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediasurface[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Moreover, it feels kind of like an advertisement. goofyheadedpunk 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Europe[edit]

The consensus on the talk page is that this is merely a political manifesto and the article has been created to bump the search ranking of the group concerned. --Red King 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Red King 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a more balanced article or stronger claim to notability is made. Brisvegas 08:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless given a severe and *critical* rewrite. —Nightstallion (?) 13:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porto Alegre Skinheads[edit]

The group in this article doesn't seem noteworthy enough to warrant an article, and there is no citation showing the claims are true. Spylab 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)spylab[reply]

  • Delete non-notable group hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think we need articles on every skinhead group, and this one doesn't sound at all interesting. Mangojuicetalk 00:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was RENAME to Rodwell Munyenyembe and KEEP. Ryanjunk 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodwel Munyenyembe[edit]

Unless we plan on maintaining an article for each person on the planet I think this article is a good candidate for deletion. A quick googling brought up little, though that is a rough indicator of worth. Anyway, it needs work if it's not to be deleted. goofyheadedpunk 00:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He is described as a member of the Pan-African Parliament but I don't see him listed in the members list on their web site. [27] --Metropolitan90 13:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep subject to moving to correct spelling, per additional information below. --Metropolitan90 02:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I say "Weak" because of the above note by Metropolitan: can we verify that he is indeed a member of the parliament? If he is then this should be a definite keep. No one would argue about an article for a congressman in the US so please remember concerns about systemic bias. It should not surprise anyone that googling gives poor results for African politicians, especially politicians from Malawi which is probably among the least Internet-connected countries in the world. Pascal.Tesson 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment changing my vote to keep. It does seem that he was at least a member in March 2004 [28].
  • Strong Keep. If you google Rodwell Munyenyembe instead of Rodwell, you will find that he is described as "Speaker of Parliament Rodwell Munyenyembe" [29]. It seems he died a little over a year ago. It needs to be updated, not deleted.--Thomas.macmillan 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I believe this article meets the guidelines of WP:BIO, specifically: "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Article just needs more work. --Satori Son 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A speaker of a national parliament is notable; a speaker of a parliament in a country that suffers the effects of systemic bias, doubly so. — Haeleth Talk 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and Move to Rodwell Munyenyembe see [30] Dlyons493 Talk 19:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eluchil404 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fresa[edit]

Reprodded deprod, changing to AfD. The reason given was WP:WINAD, but I'm not sure this applies here. Procedural nomination; but given the content of the article, I'm voting neutral, not no vote. --ais523 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. This article only defines this slang term, both go against the aforementioned policy. --Porqin 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, one way to fix a mis-placed dictionary article is to turn it from a dictionary article about a word into an encyclopaedia article about a person/place/concept/event/thing. I've started this. Research shows that there is a cultural stereotype in Mexico that is commonly known as "fresa". But it is proving difficult to find sources that discuss it any more than superficially. (There are plenty of "fresas say 'o sea' all of the time!" "no they don't!" "yes they do!" arguments on discussion fora, but those aren't sources.) Like chav, this article requires strict sourcing to prevent the introduction of original research. This was an exceedingly bad start to an article. Weak keep. Uncle G 14:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I don't think we need to support an English language article on an alleged Mexican slang word that has no article in the Spanish language Wikipedia. If Spanish language speakers don't find such an article notable, why should we? Rklawton 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a poor argument given that the article simply might not have been written in the Spanish language Wikipedia yet. The Spanish language Wikipedia has roughly 1/10th the number of articles of the English language one, and 1/10th the number of editors. To argue that Spanish language speakers don't find the subject notable, one has to look at the world at large rather than at Wikipedia (as is always the case with notability). There is no shortage of Spanish language speakers discussing this subject. I mentioned above that one can find them arguing about it, in Mexican Spanish, on discussion fora. Uncle G 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's leave the POV of whether or not my argument is "poor" out of the discussion. If you don't like the argument, just say why. Now, to address your "why"... If they're actively debating the article then 1/10th resources aren't an issue for this particular article. Posting the article in English while the Spanish speakers debate it is like saying to them "hey, we know your language better than you do." Let the Spanish language speakers sort things out first in their language. If they decide it's a worthy article, only then should it appear in other languages. Rklawton 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A poor argument is a poor argument. And the argment that we should have no article because the Spanish Wikipedia has no article is a poor argument, plain and simple, for the reasons stated. Your additional argument, about "posting the article in English while the Spanish speakers debate it" is irrelevant, simply because it bears no relation whatsoever to what is happening here. There is no such debate. The article is being debated here. Finally: Waiting for the Spanish Wikipedia to decide whether articles are worthy before writing about the subjects in the English Wikipedia is a very bizarre approach to constructing an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • A "poor argument" is a personal judgment - and it runs counter to WP:CIVIL (see Examples section). I based my recommendation on your comment that there was "no shortage of Spanish language speakers discussing this subject." For the purposes of this AfD, I simply propose waiting for the experts to sort out what's what before creating an English language article about Spanish language slang. By way of illustration, I would find it strange if someone wrote an article in the Finnish Wikipedia about a debatable English-language slang word not found in our own version. Rklawton 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I disagree. I think it's OK to say that an argument is "good" or "poor". There is, admittedly, a fine line between arguing that an argument is "poor" and making a personal attack on the person making the argument. Nonetheless, I would suggest that both sides "chill out" and focus on the arguments rather than characterizing whether an argument is "poor" or not. --Richard 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparent original research unless suitable citations are found. WilyD 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a matter of fact, I was revisiting this discussion with this edit to point out that I had finally found a few for some parts of the article. They are written by Spanish language speakers. Uncle G 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: now it has cultural discussion and sources for some of its claims, it is clearly an acceptable article. The question of sourcing or deleting the claims that remain uncited is one for the article talk page, not AfD. — Haeleth Talk 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Es.wiki is only 1/10 of the size of En.wiki so lot's of perfectly valid articles don't yet exist there. Given the good work that's been put into this article let's keep it. There are lots of Google hits even if few good ones. Dlyons493 Talk 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable term in Mexico on the same level as chilango, for instance, or even dandy in England back on the day. It needs to be more thoroughly sourced, but that is no reason for deletion. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:WINAD is not applicable as the article has encyclopedic information. I also agree with the preceding arguments in favor of keeping this article. --Richard 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Relatively common concept, and rather important in understanding Mexican social dynamics. JZ 05:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Forest Results 2005-06[edit]

Wikipedia is not a results service. Warofdreams talk 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Strength Training[edit]

Spamvertising for nonnotable weight training system; I lost count of all the (r)'s and (TM)s. NawlinWiki 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Heppell[edit]

Non-notable bio; vanity. Page created by subject himself! Not notable enough to have an encyclopædia entry. Delete. EuroSong talk 11:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is surely a WP:Vanity entry, and he cites his own personal website in which he quoted "To be honest, I've completely lost track of where much of my stuff is on the Internet - conference slides, videos, transcripts, podcasts, debates...". However, he appears to have won some sort of (notable?) award. --Porqin 14:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Poorly written vanity. A professor? (of what, where?). Advises a string of governments? (which ones?). Won an award? (yes, the RTS Judges’ Award--a bit lacking in notability itself, but it gets a mention here, which is basically a press release, not an independent source.) Seems like an ordinary teacher with a vanity project. -- Slowmover 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and, as proposed, WP:PROF. A search on Google News produces exactly 2 hits: 1 is an article written by him last month, and 1 where he gets a very brief mention in Cayman News Net Online , apparently for some consulting he did last month for the Cayman Islands school system. The WP article here is both vanity and an advertisement. If he truly is "frequently found in the world's media", we need to see the links, otherwise that claim to notability fails WP:Verifiability. --Satori Son 01:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary DVR[edit]

Google's 827 exact results with this term are not sufficient enough for its WP entry. There is no real intro to the article either. Non-notable tech jargon, it seems. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article contains very jumbled information, with a lack of purpose, that shouldn't have its own article. --Porqin 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. As it stands, very confusing, badly written. Doesn't really define its subject (software? hardware?). But if someone knows the topic, perhaps it could be made usable. Should be linked from or merged with Forensic video, which it refers to. -- Slowmover 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am new to WP and I wrote the article. Can you give me more time to improve it and clarify? I work in the industry and can seek others who can help shape it, but I need to know how much time is allowed. Perhaps it just needs a better title.--Hartzz 19:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You typically have 5 days from the AfD date, so until 18 July 2006. This looks like a borderline call to me, so you can probably save it. You really need some links to published articles that use this term, otherwise it probably violates Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. I'll try to visit back and "cast" my opinion after your edits. Good luck. --Satori Son 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hartzz did flesh out the article more and it does seem to be "technological notable". I would add a source tag and give the article more life. Agne27 15:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. . – Will (message me!) 08:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Lupo Sinclair[edit]

This article MUST NOT be deleted. It was placed there by a member of the historical fencing community, is referenced by members thereof, and is linked to several other articles. If there are any grounds for deletion at all, it is that this page has become a political quagmire. It should instead be locked. This "mob editorial" policy is the reason why academics such as myself refuse to allow Wikipedia as any sort of reputable source.

-Ken Mondschein

A non-notable fencer who, excluding a few mirrors, only has around 200+ exact hits on Google, and whose page was started by an IP user. Even more pitiful, it's been there since last September... And there we go—one of so many reasons why this Wikipedia has only recently given registered users the power to create new pages. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it would be interesting to know the exact names of those who are so continuously attacking this well respected Maestro. He has been teaching to almost all researchers in the USA and America, but some (few of them, but very aggressive on the Net) have started to mob him since he clearly espressed some disagreement with them. Non one can offer REAl certification of Mastership in Tradition of Fencing. But his skill is repeatedly confirmed by several great personalities such as Maestro Ramon Martinez, who stated that he (Andrea) "clearly teaches what is the real tradition of fencing".

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair has been teaching to almost all the students and researchers of Historical Fencing in the USA and Europe. Removing the article about him should mean that most of many other articles about others should be deleted.

Fact: he has created the biggest Federation for historical Fencing in the world. The standards of the Federation he created are followed and seen as an example from other organisations such as the Spanish Fed and the British one. To me, this is enough to give relevance to Andrea lupo Sinclair here on Wikipedia. [No, this is not correct. ARMA is the largest historical fencing federation in the world, and it can be easily verified.]

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair has founded the IMAF that collects some of the most relevant teachers in world. This is another fact of relevance. [How many teachers does IMAF number right now? According to the IMAF website, not more than ten, only a few of whom teach fencing]

Fact: he has been mobbed for three years by some of the very aggressive self promoting "researchers" in the USA because the knowledge of this Maestro was obscuring their own one. [This is debatable, and therefore a non-fact]

Fact: he has been independent from political games, and this can be absolutely proved. That is why some of the big "politicians" in fencing hates him so much, at the point that have no shame in attacking he who has been the only one to create a true independent federation in Italy. [Nobody hates anyone. Again, this is about credentials. These either exist or not.]

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair still travels in the USA but not at the same events of other researchers or so called ones. All the IMAF has decided to change a bit its policy of public presence. But it is deeply unfair to use this as an evidence of other issues. [And this is from someone uninterested in politics. Ah.]

Others informations could be given by Maestro Ramon Martinez. Arzach 2

  • Delete this also appears to be an attack page. Almost all the content is to question Mr. Sinclair's credentials. --DarkAudit 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have reverted to the version as of July 11, which is free of personal attacks, per WP:LIVING. It is badly in need of sources, though. Kimchi.sg 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gentlemen; this individual has a worrisome propensity for free-wheeling claims that he invariably can't back up. Just take a cursory look at his bio page on his website. There's no mention of how he obtained his title. One would think that would be the first thing a Fencing Master would mention, no? But he surely "attended the best high-school," "designed the best blade" and taught "most researchers and fencers in Europe and the US." Right. A passing mention to the HUGE controversy this guy's created around his name by spouting off these enormities (which is why he no longer shows his face at general US fencing events) has to be included, or else Wiki is just a vehicle for unchecked self-promotion. A personal attack would be: he's a fraud. An objective statement, instead: critics say he hasn't produced his credentials, which is what the overwhelming majority of historical fencers in the US are asking themselves. If you think this latest version is imperfect, please let me know and I'll be glad to tone it down further or add any reference you consider appropriate. Cheers. Nuages2000.
    • All of this user's edits have been to this article, its talk page, and this page. Kimchi.sg 04:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Cheers. Trunk 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was not able to find any information published by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (per WP:V) that would validate notability under WP:BIO. If anyone finds differently, please provide links. --Satori Son 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Mondschein, there is no mob editorial. Questioning the credentials of someone who claims them is not a personal attack. Questioning the motives of those who pose such a simple question, on the other hand, is. As for locking an entry, well. So I can post an entry calling myself the father of contemporary Psychology, and as soon as someone asks for my credentials, I'd have one of my minions cry for the entry to be locked? Not deleted, mind you, but locked? And then cry wolf about Wikipedia's lack of academic credibility?

That's a bit too convenient, don't you think? So let's each of us put up some romanticized fiction about ourselves, lock the entries when somebody raises some predictable questions, and cast aspersions on those meanies who do the asking.

So, for the 1000th time: where's this great Maestro's official certificate? If this cannot be produced, where's the "notability" about this individual, as someone keeps asking? Again, let's all put up a higly embellished page about ourselves. Go Wiki!

(Nuages 2000)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollonfriday[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Procedural nomination; someone tried to db-bio this, but it's a website and so doesn't fit. No vote. --ais523 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I did try that, but you are correct. The article reads like a "behind the scenes" of the forums right now, and does not give any reason as to why it is notable. I can correct myself when I appear to be wrong and I wish to change my vote to Keep. Doing research the site indeed does appear to be notable, however the childish attacks and unencyclopedic information needs to be removed. Wildthing61476 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be just another website. Alexa ranking 390,000. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as part of it is definitely an attack on one of the forum's admins. This otherwise reads as an advertisement for the fourms. Wikipedia is neither a web directory nor free ad space. --DarkAudit 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speediest Delete This wikipedia entry should be deleted as it's not nearly as funny as it used to be. Lollers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord Shaftington (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete It clearly is not "just another website" but one with a cultural reach far beyond it's intended readership. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hannibal s (talk • contribs) 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • put the electrodes on its danglage and send the poor lil minge to heaven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flying Wang (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • maybe it should be saved but first describe looks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord Shaftington (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Duplicate vote, then deleted by caster. --ais523 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The editors of the above 4 votes have only edited the article and this AfD. --ais523 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete The entry itself is worthy of inclusion due to its growing significance and influence. It is widely referenced within the legal press, and represents a refreshing and rapidly developing new facade to the legal scene. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.25.137 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yet the article does not refer to any reference other than a Times website article. If these references could be cited, the article would be more likely to stay. LinaMishima 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page has now been blanked by the author. Wildthing61476 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - this website is a unique insight into the closed comminity of lawyers. It provides topical and interesting information on current thinking in law and the culture of law offices in the uk _ Longtermlurker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.133.69.162 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete - 'tis a cultural phenomenon, albeit amongst Solicitors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mynameismike (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I moved this vote from the talk page. --ais523 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it a vote or not a vote?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdelphinus (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a discussion, in that keep/deletes aren't added up to determine whether it gets deleted. Comments with keep or delete bolded in them are often, slightly incorrectly, referred to as votes as a form of shorthand. --ais523 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete entirely non-notable website - no media coverage, few users, et al. WilyD 15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed my accidental duplicate vote. - Thanks, Ais523 WilyD 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking duplicate presumably added by mistake in the midst of many edit conflicts. --ais523 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article would be significantly improved by a rewrite (perhaps removing a lot of the chafe), and most certainly needs better citing of referals by primary sources. The website certainly is not a vanity one, which also leans in it's favour. I say keep for now, and if in a few weeks no references have been cited, then put up for deletion again. LinaMishima 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also worth noting for the record that Ais523 made me aware of this entry. LinaMishima 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Much like Dilbert, RollOnFriday began as a humorous parody of a phenomenon and has since become part of the phenomenon itself. It is one of the few sources of an unbiased view of a profession often presented as staid and old-fashioned and surely is deserving of a Wikipedia page. Partnerfrance 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can someone say there is no media coverage when media coveraged is linked to within the account of the site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It mentions in the article that it HAS been mentioned in the press on a number of occasions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdelphinus (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Either wiki is a knoweldge database or it isn't. Rollonfriday is a significant element of lawyer culture and should be acknowleged as such.--81.144.180.200 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Clyde[reply]
    • This IP has edits from before this page was created and appears to be static. --ais523 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not. It is an encyclopaedia. WilyD 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lord does it need some cleaning, but the article legitimizes it, and it is, apparantly, a big part of British Lawyer culture. --PresN 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After all that {{unsigned2}} tagging, it's time to vote. This seems to satisfy the notability criteria guideline WP:WEB 1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself (see the references added to the article), it's inherently verifiable, and there don't seem to be any other deletion-worthy problems. (It needs cleanup, but that isn't a reason for deletion). --ais523 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - These poor people have worked on this article! Trunk 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete all as nonsense. The bits about "2005 gummy worm squeeze" and "binary identification pneumatic" did it for me. Kimchi.sg 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark's markets[edit]

Also nominating:

Blog that does not appear to be widely noted[31][32]. Articles slip into semi-nonsense ("playboy savant", "Gummy Worm squeeze", "ultimate metaphor for...genius and power", financial world adopted his "masterfully engineered linguistical system", ...). Weregerbil 15:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete all three as nonsense, patent nonsense. --DarkAudit 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete pwn3d. Mailer Diablo 09:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident owned[edit]

Fails: WP:SPAM Blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to start his own internet meme. Fails: WP:WEB - 0 Google hits for ("Resident Owned" + pablo83). --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: OK, I probably used the wrong search terms since the site is Chilean...but still, I don't think this meme is ever going to break out of Chile and ever receive mainstream press coverage. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no apparent existence of the term, no encyclopaedic value, et al. WilyD 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiable, but not really notable. Local Chilean stuff. -- Slowmover 15:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (moved from this AfD's talk page) Article full of lies made to offend and harass the person in question, it has been removed multiple times in wikipedia spanish and the same person is attempting this once more, also is currently the object of a police investigation and a legal action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnTitor (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also not funny. Danny Lilithborne 22:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Dcflyer 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 17:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Waste of bytes. ... discospinster talk 18:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy G7 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam_Belmar[edit]

I am an intern for ABC News. Adam Belmar is my senior producer and we created the page as a joke. The information in the page was taken from ABC News.com and was not changed at all. Adam Belmar requested that this page be removed and I am following his instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshaffer (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Keep. Mostly Rainy 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of automotive flops[edit]

The article contains inherent POV, as there are no fixed standards for determining an "automotive flop". As can be seen in the article's history and discussion page, it provokes perpetual conflicts, and is used by some people as a means of publicizing their POVs on selected cars or brands. It is evaluatory in its nature, and Wikipedia's main task is not to evaluate, but to provide information. I do not see why would any user seek for such information on WP, and if found, this article can only compromise WP's status as a good source of impartial information. Bravada, talk - 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Another reason I should put Bravada in my "bad guys" list. --matador300 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to acquaint yourself with WP:NPA, and also try to understand a difference between factual information and value judgement. Bravada, talk - 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason why this article should be deleted, and I watch the page, and if some users, like Wairthu, use the page to just push POV, then I revert it. end of story. Karrmann 16:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it makes for interesting commentary. The individual articles linked from the page should have enough information that substantiates the concept of a "flop", though. The talk page for the list should contain some objective definition of what it means to be a flop, such as a short production run, lower than expected sales, or widespread criticism (like "Unsafe at Any Speed"). The Plymouth Prowler, for example, doesn't qualify for this list because it was intended to be a limited-production vehicle -- as far as I can tell, anyway. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the article sure made for some interesting discussions there is no reference for what a sales flop is. While I realize that this is vague concept, much like the term flagship, a policy similay to that found on the List of flagship vehicles by manufacturer, should be instituted here- one source for every vehicle listed as a flop. POV is not too strong, as Karrman stated, it is ususally removed quickly. Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - let me reiterate that POV is INHERENT in such listings, and as we can see in the above comments even, it will be perpetually causing discussions and not reach a stable, satisfactory form. Wikipedia is also not a place to provide "interesting commentaries", encyclopedias do not provide these, but facts and information. Bravada, talk - 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I realize what you're trying to say, but rather than deleting the article for fear of wrongful inclusions in the list, lets find a way to better define "flop". Nobody is going to put Toyota Camry as an entry (the best selling car of the last decade in the US), and we won't have to worry about any excessively inappropriate inclusions. Also, if an entry seems to be not quite a flop, or questionable, the user simply has to click on it and more information about the car's sales failure can be given.
    It is a question of only allowing mathematically accurate and precise definitions, vs. allowing general consensus and obvious but unprovable fact. AdamBiswanger1 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "obvious but unprovable facts" are a nicely-sounding catchphrase that can serve as a loophole for introducing non-encylopedic topics and pseudo-information, while avoiding proper definitions and referencing. Sometimes a definition of a subject is vague, and this is then discussed by a given article, but the definition of a "automotive flop" is inherently subjective and dependent on the peculiar POV of a given person - there can be as many definitions as users here. But that's not the main point.
The main point is that lists in general should only be created if they are really needed in WP for information/navigation purposes, and are too big or cumbersome to be included as parts of an article or a template. For example, one would expect an encyclopedia to contain a full list of Chinese Emperors, with reign years, date of birth/death, dynasty etc. preferably, but it would be far too big to be included in the Emperor of China article. Therefore, some factual information got moved to a separate list/table.
But, as you can read here, lists are not a place to make value judgements. The WP:LIST guideline refers to people and organizations, but I believe making value judgements of places or items would also be quite improper - would you find a "list of cities which are really terrible" or "list of disgusting jewellery items" proper? This list is in fact very similar to those examples.
This could be remedied by devising a good definition and change the title to a non-judgemental one, like "List of automobile models that sold worse than manufacturers' sales projections", but would it be anything really necessary in an encyclopedia? Wouldn't it be better to keep such lists in car-related websites, where one does not have to mind NPOV, and which are in general directed at car buffs and not the general population of Internet users?
And if you believe a given vehicle WAS a flop, and have a good rationale for such statement, why not just include that in the article and not cause tensions by putting it on a "list"? Bravada, talk - 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a 3 paragraph response and then lost it in an edit conflict... I'll rewrite it in a while AdamBiswanger1 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a given that some car models will flop for one reason or another. And it's also a given that deciding on what is or isn't a flop is definitely POV. The POV here, however, is not from the article editors, but rather the automotive press, the manufacturers, and the general public. I found the article through the AfD, and it's a fascinating read on all the ways the automobile industry has mucked thigs up over the years. --DarkAudit 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DarkAudit is absoutely right, the POV here comes from the Auto industry not the users. The only problem is lack of referencing. Upon the appearances of references (hey, that ryhmes! ;-) I will change my vote to keep as well. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world does the auto industry generate POV here? Have you ever read an official GM press release stating "Cadillac Cimarron is a flop"? Flop is a term expressing value judgement, the inclusion of a vehicle in this list is purely a POV action on the user's side. Bravada, talk - 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The press is POV because they label these vehicles, "flops" through various publications. Signaturebrendel 03:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) The press is not industry 2) The press is POV and this is why WP does not contain everything that the press writes, and the editors should be very careful and considerate when citing the media, and especially should make sure they separated opinion from factual information. Bravada, talk - 10:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it's not a value judgment as in a page called "List of really, really good authors" or "great recipes". It's a value judgment of common sense, and although I know that some people don't have it, the definition of a "flop" is so obvious and yet intangible that we cannot let a need for an exact definitions be the downfall of this article. In addition, each entry is explained, so we can let the reader decide. AdamBiswanger1 19:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will you laugh if I say that the above statement is POV? Bravada, talk - 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing indefinable with POV. See Grey area. Other than that, I'm not sure why you would consider it POV. AdamBiswanger1 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you've got something that's indefinable and within a "grey area", then trying to categorize items definitely according to that criterium is POV. You put something on the list because your "common sense" suggests you that it is a flop. Still, some other person might not think of it as flop, and as being a flop is not defined well and a "grey area", you can both be right in your own perception and there is no neutral and fixed criteria to decide who is right. Therefore, putting or deleting anything on the list is inherently POV.
As concerns "we can let the reader decide", the reader is browsing through an encyclopedia not really thinking all the time whether the information contained here is true or not, so this list should contain a disclaimer like

This list is made up of some vehicles that some Wikipedia editors considered flops, and also doesn't contain some vehicles that some Wikipedia editors do not consider flops or didn't even hear of. It is not definitive or complete, and it is also up to you to browse through the descriptions and references and decide on your own whether a vehicle on the list is a flop to you or not.

If this does not prove how nonsensical this whole thing is, then what would? Bravada, talk - 10:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm going to be strange here and vote delete I can't see this list ever getting to NPOV or past the WP:NOR stage. Whispering 19:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is written now. Too opinionated and a lack of credible resources. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Not an encyclopedically definable topic. Barno 21:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep God I hope this isn't another one of Mmx1's deletes. Every one of these can be backed up by an external reference which claims one of these was a flop, all it needs are some references. This is a terrific article that does not deserve to be purged, and I apologize if this is another article that got wiped out because mmx1 didn't like my editing part of the list of scientific failures. There are many success and flop lists on WP, in the absence of a total ban on these pages, it makes no sense to keep or delete these on the basis of how popular they are, since the most popular pages usually survive such requests. --matador300 19:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per above. BigE1977 01:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steong keep as mentioned by matador300. --Arbiteroftruth 17:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to List of automobiles that were commercial failures. The article is already in Category:Commercial failure lists. Vegaswikian 18:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep possibly renaming to List of automobiles that were commercial failures. Entries seem to be autos that are generally regarded by the automotive press as failures. References would be helpful to substantiate inclusion in this list. --rogerd 20:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This list undoubtedly expresses a POV on each brand concerned, and a title including the word 'flops' makes it impossible for the article not to violate WP:NPOV. It's also completely unsourced, so claims that it only reports points of view rather than express its own can't be verified. I agree with Bravada's analysis of why it's not appropriate material for an encyclopaedia. Worldtraveller 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that this is no longer completely unsourced, as I've been adding quotes from sources that say these cars were failures. I like the renaming idea too. --matador300 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a sidenote, the reference you just added to the section on "Eagle" pertains to the Premier as lacking sales success, not the brand. Bravada, talk - 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarchal marriage[edit]

Non-standard usage. Consists entirely of factual inaccuracies and non-neutral POV. Certainly, patriarchal marriage is a commonly used phrase, but to say that it is refers simply to couples who call themselves "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" instead of "Ms. and Mr. Jane Doe", as this article seems to suggest, is absurdly inadequate. I suppose it's conceivable that a good article with this name could exist in the future, but the current content is all junk. (Taken along with its sister article Matriarchal marriage, which I will nominate shortly, it is also—and I say this as a feminist—sexist bullshit, but don't get me started.) —Caesura(t) 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know I took about 15 minutes trying to come up with an accurate definition, but I couldn't because all internet pages that discuss patriarchal marriage discuss it as if the reader is intimately familiar with the concept. Perhaps someone else can define it and save the article? AdamBiswanger1 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without prejudice to a new article being created someday that isn't inherently POV and original research as this one is. In the current article, there is not one sentence that is without a biased statement or argument. Agent 86 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - You mean you only keep what the masses want? These poor people have worked on this article! Trunk 18:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: User has 16 Wikipedia edits, of which 14 are AfD-related. User has voted "keep" on every AfD discussion s/he has participated in, except the one s/he started, and her/his reasons are copied and pasted from one AfD discussion to another. —Caesura(t) 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom PLUS "no original research" Rklawton 01:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - problems with OR and verifiability, bias, misleading inaccuracy. --HJMG 07:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... this is really trying hard to pass as a legitimate article, but it's extremely WP:OR and WP:POV with no semblance of WP:RS. For over 2000 years, patriarchal marriages were the only way to go. Now, people are becoming more aware of matriarchal marriages and this type of marriage is becoming extinct. What? Sez who? --Kinu t/c 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rebel without a cause. – Will (message me!) 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Without A Cause curse[edit]

  • WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't think that dying 26 years after a movie counts as a curse.. Mitch 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Rebel without a cause. Not enough fame to have its own article, but it is plenty notable enough to have a section in the main article.[33] AdamBiswanger1 15:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mostly Rainy 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GEMAYA[edit]

Article is a dictionary definition, and is non-encyclopedic in content. Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this term doesn't seem to be in wide use, so probably wouldn't be accepted at Wiktionary. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matriarchal marriage[edit]

Current text is irreparably non-neutral and generally factually inaccurate. It isn't quite as wildly inaccurate as Patriarchal marriage (see my AFD for that), but has the same POV problems. I could certainly see a really good article on matriarchal marriage existing in the future (say, describing the marital customs of matriarchal societies), but none of the current text is worth keeping. —Caesura(t) 15:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are some key POV issues in the opening paragraph, but the items under "Reasons" seem to be unverified, opinion, or speculation. The crystal ball gazing doesn't help. Agent 86 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nom PLUS "no original research" Rklawton 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. People need to be informed about matriarchal marriage as a growing trend in Western civilization GVnayR 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This editor is responsible for a lot of articles nominated for AfD. I'd appreciate it if an admin with a bit of extra time would review this user's "contributions" and assess whether or not this editor should still maintain an account here. Rklawton 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also Head of the household and Patriarchal marriage
  • Delete... WP:OR, WP:POV, and lack of WP:RS. The "example" provided is laughable as well. Maybe people need to be informed about this, but not with this unencyclopedic drivel. --Kinu t/c 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. The article doesn't actually describe an organized movement which bears the name "matriarchal marriage"; it's just a biased, POV and just plain weird take on the hardly new or radical phenomenon of the stay-at-home dad. There most certainly is not any growing trend of marriages where women own all the property and men are restricted to domestic servitude. Gender roles in marriage are certainly evolving, but not that far or fast. Matriarchal marriage is a valid and encyclopedic term, but this isn't even close to being the right article about it. Bearcat 05:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Frank Anderson[edit]

I don't know what the hell this is. It seems to just be random crap, with links spammed onto other pages. See Stephen Root. Delete this please. Jack Cain 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkmiracle[edit]

Reads like an advertisement. Top album sold "more than 350 copies". From the Dominican Republic so I have a hard time judging if they meet the WP:BAND test, but 350 copies doesn't sound like a major band. GRBerry 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete This Band appears to fail every WP:BAND guideline, except "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.". The article claims the band is on the top 30 of a national radio station with no sources. --Porqin 16:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I am intrigued by the 13,000 Google hits, but the number of sales (as noted above) is ridiculously low. AdamBiswanger1 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little notability besides the radio play in the Dominican Republic. Also, it's a vanity article, created by User:Darkmiracle. --Joelmills 01:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Gathering of Storm Clouds[edit]

Contested prod2. Nominating as the prod2'er. Seems to be NN. --ais523 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unencyclopaedic, and likely spam - Amazon sales rank of none WilyD 16:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only a few dozen Google hits AdamBiswanger1 16:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the original prod'er. I think a print on demand book needs pretty solid sales or other evidence to be notable. Anyone who can create a PDF or .doc file can be a POD author; upload the file to a web site and you are a "published" author. Weregerbil 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This subject clearly does not meet WP:N: "There is no hard notability requirement for a book to be included in Wikipedia in a separate article, apart from this one: the book needs to be influential. If a book is influential, several third-party reliable sources will discuss it." --Satori Son 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu Wikipedia[edit]

Non-notable website (Liberatore, 2006). 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, the other language wikipedias have articles as well. Saying that Urdu Wikipedia is non-notable is like saying that English Wikipedia is non-notable. That just doesn't make sense! Easter rising 16:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep we always get a few of these self-referential AfDs in which someone applies notability guidelines to areas of Wikipedia itself. Not a good idea. Just keep it. AdamBiswanger1 16:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is a notable organisation with a large article that requires seperate language versions to be spun off. Easy as 31.4159 WilyD 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no reason to delete 1 language wikipedia, but I'm not sure I agree with any of the language Wikipedia's having mainspace articles as it seems a bit too self-referential. Still, this should be something that is decided and applied across the board, not to just one specific language variant.--Isotope23 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A mass nomination of Category:Wikipedias by language, you mean? Why not? (Liberatore, 2006). 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia is a notable encyclopedia. Punkmorten 19:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I hadn't realized other wikis had articles here; it does seem odd, but consistent; and some may have useful information about the projects that aren't available elsewhere, at least to english speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanbeg (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per the unsigned above. -- Steel 23:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the wikipedias should have a seperate mainspace article, better to have all the info in Wikipedia article or in the meta.wikipedia. --Eivindt@c 03:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut Cafe[edit]

Non-notable small cafe - does not meet WP:CORP. Deprodded without comment.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing WP:CORP and most likely failing WP:SPAM WilyD 16:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "One lady visits daily along with her small friendly dog and will chat with any customer if they desire." That about sums up the reason why this is a non-encyclopediac entry, failing WP:CORP. --Porqin 17:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: fails WP:CORP and WP:ADS. --Satori Son 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was strike with ten-pound sledge. Punkmorten 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elektriq[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable online publication. Deprodded without comment.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as SPAM, I recommend the ten-pound sledge as a tool for this deletion. WilyD 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WilyD. Do we have anything heavier? AdamBiswanger1 16:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete "I, Ruben van Wijnen, am the author and it's from my own website. It's for the website's article." This comes from the very large logo that is put on the articles page. Fails WP:VAIN. --Porqin 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam. Artw 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeyface[edit]

Looks pretty made up, monkeyface "pubic hair" only gives 45 hits on Google, with just a single one mentioning the subject at hand (excluding Wikipedia/mirrors). Article was created by a user with a single edit. Woseph 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas F. Hamilton[edit]

Delete as this is an essay which is original research - I am not sure, but could it be transfered to anther wiki? Gay Cdn 14:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but rewrite. Thomas F. Hamilton appears to have been heavily involved in early aviation. However, this article doesn't go about establishing this properly. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up with sources. Current version is probably a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially if sources and links can be provided to substantiate what appears to be a comprehensive biography of a notable figure. AlexTiefling 13:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is (almost completely) a copyvio from [34]. -- Mikeblas 17:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See the talk page. --Zoz (t) 11:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please original source released text into gfdl Yuckfoo 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My previous comment was intended to be a keep. It isn't a copyvio and he seems to be notable. The current version needs to be wikified and copyedited, but having this text is far better than having nothing. --Zoz (t) 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to List of neologisms on The Simpsons. No need for Afd in cases like this. Friday (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skotchtoberfest[edit]

De-prodded without comment. Fake-holdiday on Simpsons, and this page should either be merged to one of the many Simpsons pages or deleted, which is probably the best choice. 11kowrom 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm a big simpsons fan, but even I can't see a possible grounds for inclusion. It's a nn dicdef. If someone can find a place to merge this, that's fine with me too. AdamBiswanger1 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't any reason a fictious holiday, with very little reference should have its own page. It can be mentioned somewhere in the conglomeration of Simpsons articles if needed. --Porqin 17:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge may merit a redirect into an episode article, but not its own article Sanbeg 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bart's Girlfriend Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of neologisms on The Simpsons because there is already a Scotchtoberfest article that redirects there Salahx 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not even entirely sure that the definition's accurate. AFAIK, "Smarch" only turns up in an episode unrelated to the holidays mentioned. BigHaz 06:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Golberg[edit]

Non notable candidate fails WP:BIO doktorb wordsdeeds 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep May have some notability as an academic--Her 1998 paper in the Journal of Advanced Nursing has 13 citations in the ISI web of science database (which is a fair, though not huge, number). Expansion to include information about academics would be appropriate. --TeaDrinker 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, 13 citations as an academic is not particularly noteworthy, per WP:PRPF WilyD 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a suburban politician? 202 google hits? I say delete AdamBiswanger1 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can we at least get the results of the elections mentioned? I suspect they would cement the non-notability. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nugget porn[edit]

Delete non-notable neologism, unverifiable as actual practiced porn genre. Google shows nothing but a relative smattering of off-hand uses of the term,[35] and a Google image search reveals no actual nugget porn, which I find particularly damning.[36] Postdlf 17:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lion-baiting[edit]

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - User:Hipocrite has only made this deletion request out of spite against me. He has also tagged the Monkey-baiting and Human-baiting articles. SirIsaacBrock 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this needs a good cleanup to avoid OR and possible copyvio and needs better sourcing. Having said that, it is definitely encyclopaedic and of interest. BlueValour 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With respect, the quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yes but that is not sourcing. Each section, or set of facts, needs to be tied in with a specific chapter of a book or a webpage, for example. BlueValour 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While that is true, if it were grounds for deletion, most of Wikipedia would be gone. –Joke 02:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This historical topic should be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. We can't censor history. Also, I don't understand how this article can be original research when it quotes contemporary periodicals. If we applied that standard now, we wouldn't be able to use newspapers and magazines a sources. Is that Wikipedia's policy? And anyway, the books cited are clearly secondary sources themselves, so OR doesn't apply to them. Rbraunwa 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You need to review WP:RS with respect to history vs. current events. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge reliable parts (if any) into bait (dogs). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One issue is the article would be to large Wikipedia:Article size. In addition, it would make it more difficult for searchers to find the individual article topics using wiki-search or external search engines. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+Tags[edit]

It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While he is being quite excessive about the tags in order to make the articles look worse during AfD, some of the tags are certainly warranted. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I was being excessive with the tags because every one of my attempts to fix the article by correcting the problems the tags documented was reverted by the owner of the article.Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rat-baiting[edit]

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a good article, on a historical topic of interest to some people, and supplying information that is difficult to find elsewhere. It does seem that Hipocrite has an objection to the sport or the main author, but neither of those is grounds for deletion of the article. Rbraunwa 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If the information sources are not listed in the article, it is a violation of WP:V. Do you believe this article complies with WP:V, given that you believe we are the sole source of information regarding this so-called sport? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was impossible to find the information elsewhere, just that I don't think it would be easy. The author of the article has found the information, in the sources he cited. He is making it available in a more accessible location. It seems to me that's a major functon of Wikipedia. Rbraunwa 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His sources do not support the article. Did you review them? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One issue is the article would be to large Wikipedia:Article size. In addition, it would make it more difficult for searchers to find the individual article topics using wiki-search or external search engines. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is absurd. I can't verify all the information in this article, but it is certainly a notable subject. An entire chapter (nine) of Robert Sullivan's Rats: observations on the history and habitation of the city's most unwanted inhabitants (Bloomsbury, 2004) discusses rat baiting and it's importance as a sport in mid-nineteenth century New York City. –Joke 01:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Subject obviously warrants an article. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not sure this is a speedy candidate. Same as before, looks reasonable but could use a little cleanup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator has not noted any valid reasons for deletion. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and scold nominator. --Aranae 16:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though some rewriting needed MikeHobday 07:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
+Tags
It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human-baiting[edit]

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think this needs a good cleanup to avoid OR and possible copyvio and needs better sourcing. Having said that, it is definitely encyclopaedic and of interest. BlueValour 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fix the article please. Violations of OR and copyvios MUST be deleted. There is little salvagable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With respect, the quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - User:Hipocrite has only made this deletion request out of spite against me. He has also tagged the Monkey-baiting Rat-baiting and Lion-baiting articles. SirIsaacBrock 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Article could use quite a bit of work. Even more optimal would be if the gruesome nature of the story of the bulldog and the dwarf were made slightly more palatable. Nonetheless, article is well-sourced and NPOV. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article has no referenced secondary sources (the two listed books are not used for anything), and the entirety of the content that does not consist of gruesome anecdotes of fights reads "Human-baiting is a blood sport involving the baiting of humans." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deary me, deary me. I was so taken up by the bizarre story that it distracted me from the article content. I'm going to have to say, then, Delete pending an actual expansion of the article part, not just the stories. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Incorrect, the books both have info. In addition, read this secondary source in the article, which you have overlooked Low-Life Deeps/Chapter 1 SirIsaacBrock 20:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment That is a primary source, and is used only to discuss a random anecdote. The article consists only of primary sourced anecdotes and the one sentance listed above. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a strange article, but then it was a strange "sport". I had never heard of this before, but where else than Wikipedia could a person easily find out about it? And the fact that it's unpalatable now doesn't make it any the less a historic occurrence. Rbraunwa 18:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not convinced its an established sport, rather, they seem like a collection of anecdotes where humans were baited. In any case, assuming the sourcing is correct, I only see a need of a clairification for the lead paragraph. And also, I would request nom cite an actual WP policy next time he/she would like to post an afd. hateless 20:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge reliable parts (if any) into bait (dogs). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One issue is the article would be to large Wikipedia:Article size. In addition, it would make it more difficult for searchers to find the articles using wiki-search or external search engines. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very interesting artickle -Towel401 23:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know if this or monkey-baiting are reliable, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I can't help but think that these nominations have been made in bad faith. –Joke 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are many citations in the articles up for deletion. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless information can be included as to how common human-baiting was, any controversy surrounding it, etc. If these are rare incidents, then I don't think we need an article on them. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment After having carefully read the article, and reading Laura's comments, I find myself in agreement with her, and think that if there is no other history of "human bating" then this merely merits a mention in the main dog baiting article. –Joke 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not against a merge into dog baiting on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator has not noted any valid reasons for deletion. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Aranae 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+Tags[edit]

It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While he is being quite excessive about the tags in order to make the articles look worse during AfD, some of the tags are certainly warranted. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I was being excessive with the tags because every one of my attempts to fix the article by correcting the problems the tags documented was reverted by the owner of the article.Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustagen[edit]

Advertising. Deprodded by creator. --ais523 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment It certainly seems to be a nutitional drink of little notability and importance; apparently this stuff is not available in North America so hopefully some of our AU/NZ contributors will weigh in.--Isotope23 14:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 17:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Does not appear to be advertising (no marketing-speak) any more than any other soft drink article would be. Notability, however, is the reason for the "weak" part of the keep vote. Google searching seems to indicate a new/emerging product. Agree with Isoptope23 re: AU/NZ contributor feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chet nc (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Does not seem to be an ad at present, although a few reviews appear online make me think it is more than yesterday's rollout. --TeaDrinker 04:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep many references in the media as something they sent the miners at Beaconsfield mine collapse --Astrokey44 04:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above -- Librarianofages 04:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit, notable product in Australia certainly. --Canley 10:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as a notable product. JPD (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and tag for cleanup/stub. This is no encyclopedia article, but it isn't an add. Definatly notable. Ted BJ 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as a well known product in Australia. -- Synapse 05:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite - for reasons above. Notable beverage, but the article needs to be written properly. (JROBBO 12:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite - for reasons above. Feedyourfeet 11:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite -- this is a notable product commonly used as a nutritional aid in hospitals and aged care facilities. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Rite Research Society[edit]

the page is little more than a dicdef, and there's really nothing else that can be said about it. MSJapan 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with a merge is that this particular Research Society is one associated with the A&ASR Southern Jurisdiction in the US, and is not a universally present group (the AASR Northern Jurisdiction, for example, does not have one), so it's a bit difficult to add in. MSJapan 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not in a position to say whether it is notable enough to merge into Scottish Rite but the editors of that article can decide if they want to incorporate it. BlueValour 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable organization. There is not "A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject" per WP:ORG (which is a proposed guideline, but has essentially the same notability requirements as official guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:CORP). --Satori Son 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area 51 - Concept Album[edit]

I think the author himself summed it up best when JasterMereel (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) said on the article's talk page: "I am seriously fuzzy about some of the details of this... This is just what I could glean from the various websites about this album, if anyone actually has it then please correct."

As far as I could work out, Area 51 is a "science fiction" concept album starring Claudia Christian from Babylon 5 that spawned a musical. By seeing as I can't find any information on the actual album apart from the copyright-violating copy/pasted reviews on the article, I think I can safely say it fails WP:MUSIC. If it's not listed on Amazon or Allmusic, how else can anyone be expect to find this album? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think it is a bit unfair that an article should be wiped purely because the product is not on Amazon... the CD was previously available from Dress Circle, FootLight Records in New York, and all Forbidden Planet stoers in England. It was also sold through UFO Magazine, and is currently available through www.musicline-ltd.com (which in fact DOES sell through Amazon.) My society is staging the show and we were pleased to see the artilce. I have alerted the author, who states that, the authors of the original quotes do not mind their feedback being printed. I have asked him to contribute, so maybe that will help too.
    Just checked about what is "notable" - The author, Daniel O'Brien, was nominated for the Really Useful Group Best Newcomer Awards at the Vivian Ellis Prize 2000. This should qualify for a major music competition - it was a staple of the Musical Theatre industry for many years, and was where the lyricist for Phantom of the Opera was discovered. Many industry profesionals were judges - Cameron Mackintosh, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Don Black etc. The composer / arranger of the show / CD is Iain Cook, of the band Aereogramme, who have been published by Chemikal Underground Records worldwide, a very respected indie Scottish label who also publish Bell & Sebastian and The Delgadoes. So hopefully this won't be deleted, would seem a shame to! We are having a great time in rehearsal and hopefully others can find out about it too through this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.247.248 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am a little fuzzy on the details since I don't have the album... (but would like it thanks for the hint on how to get it)

If the critera for deletition was that it is no longer available could we also remove most minor bands enire back catalogue? And if the Criterea for deletion is that the article is incomplete can we remove all the stub articles? Could Stifle fill in some of the details please ? --Jaster 08:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I def think this should stay - there seems to be quite a lot of info now, and it can also still be bought... why so keen to delete something? It's a fun show, we certainly like it, it has been staged to very positive feedback and been in a lot of magazines / press. Fingers crossed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.247.248 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as nn. Also, by the anonhymous comments above, it seems pretty safe the article's appearance is to puff the revival of the 2001 musical, thus, an advertisement. In most afds, editors are faced with judging notability from evidence here and now. In this case, we have the hindsight of five years to judge by. The original musical had a handful of reviews, arguably the most notable being the SF Channel's. There is nothing since, the album isn't available anywhere that I can find except from the one outlet in the UK. It's not an official WP policy, but I'm saying the musical disappeared with nary a whimper and nothing to mark its passing in five years. Tychocat 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain The musical that this CD is of is still in production - see comments above - these are Amateur productions that would be much more likely to want to be able to find something about the musical on Wikipedia, the CD itself seems to not be available but when did this make it worthy of deletion? --Jaster 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain "It's not an official WP policy, but I'm saying the musical disappeared with nary a whimper and nothing to mark its passing in five years" - it's ironic that you are requesting objectivity when you lack it yourself, making an ill informed and unprofessional comment, which you yourself admit is irrelevant in the current context. It is very easy to be snippy - one might suggest that you need to learn how to spell, for example. The fact of the matter is, the show is out there being produced. We could supply some photos, if you're interested. It is also available for purchase. I really don't see the problem - a dictionary is intended to impart knowledge, why so eager to cut information? It's very easy to hit delete, not so easy to invest a little time into something. There are people out there investing money and staging this work, it has been featured in a lot of media features, what more do you want? There are people who are more than happy to give you the info you seek - photos, details of the show itself, just list them and they will be supplied (some already have been). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.247.248 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: Details of your production of a musical have nothing to do with the notability of this album. It'd be more appropriate for a separate article called "Area 51 (musical)" but it's irrelevant here. That's the problem of this article. It doesn't focus on the notability of the album but tries to promote a musical that you're putting on. Note the conflict of interest? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:SNOW and CSD:G1. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Theory Parallels to Consciousness[edit]

This article consists entirely of nonsensical musings over pseudoscientific psychic claims. Most references are either not reputable, or taken out of context. Legitimate content concerning somewhat similar pseudoscience can probably be found elsewhere in wp, though I don't currently recall where. Delete Philosophus T 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Somebody's musings. --CSTAR 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR--Nick Y. 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV and nonsense dressed up with bad references. Anville 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:Please don't write articles that make my eyes bleed WilyD 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. -- SCZenz 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent nonsense.Nonsuch 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not patent nonsense, just regular nonsense. ;) -- SCZenz 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not convinced it doesn't meet criteria II for patent nonsense - maybe it's just over my head - the majority of my university level quantum mechanics courses were at the undergraduate level. WilyD 22:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's type II patent nonsense (IMHO). The jargon is legit, but the words are strung together into grammatically correct but semantically meaningless sentences. It's quite artful. Nonsuch 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't fathom how this might be permitted to remain. To quote Pauli, I believe: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong!" — Dave 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I occasionally enjoy reading such stuff, and sometimes think that someday it may even be found to be true, I also think that someday is thousands of years away, and must be necessity be approached in a scientific fashion. This aint it, so delete. linas 01:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think reading this caused "entire cell ensembles in [my] brain [to] be mentally decoupled from their thermodynamic environment." Ouch. --Satori Son 04:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks like a very half-baked (quarter-baked?) attempt to express Roger Penrose's theories using inappropriate scientific-sounding language. Tevildo 12:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Karol 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by all means...disreputable and not even what might be called an "article"--Byrgenwulf 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well beyond patent nonsense, and into the rarified air of deranged claptrap. -- GWO
  • Delete as nonsense crankery. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eluchil404 01:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 4 Agresso[edit]

It reads as an advertisement and seems to fall into WP:OR otherwise. Gay Cdn 20:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, ad. --ColourBurst 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agresso is a large and well-known company - refer to WP:Corp. The article needs extensive cleanup though as it currently reads as an advertisement. --Sleepyhead 09:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes to the article to make it more encyclopedic. --Sleepyhead 09:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Affairs Board[edit]

Presumably non-notable internet forum. Google returns a few links, no more. Wikipedia is not a directory of web sites. Notability and importance non asserted anyway. Edcolins 21:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a large board, but that is not enough. No notability established, and no LexisNexis hits. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid talk show[edit]

This article is both a long-winded explanation of a neologism and also original research. It is heavily POV, and heavily non-cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harro5 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nomination, except for the part about the phrase being a neologism. There are enough Google hits to suggest that the term has reasonably established a common definition. --Metropolitan90 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this article and I would like to thank everyone for their feedback. I will do my best to remove POV and long-winded language, and add references. I don't think it should be deleted or merged with another article because many sociologists feel tabloid talk shows represent a very unique period in American pop-cultural history and since there have been entire scholarly books written about tabloid talk shows, there should at least be a wikipedia article on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingoprah (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 23:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article looks interesting and I notice attempts made to make it less POV and more cited in the past day, with mentions this effort will continue. I think assisting with the formalizing of references and helping make the article more NPOV would be more useful than deleting it. The efficacy of a merge would depend on the amount of useful information after slimming, but I note no mention of it on either talk page and at present I oppose a merge. TransUtopian 02:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As TransUtopian points out, I am trying to make this article more neutral and referenced. I took a lot of the details from the Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake page, and now that I read it over there was indeed a lot of POV language like "vulgar" and "trashy". But I obviously agree with TransUtopian that these are simply a matter of style and can be slowly corrected if you're all kind enough to give me and anyone who wishes to help the opportunity to do so. I also believe it would be a huge mistake to merge this article because it describes a very unique breed of talk shows representing a transitional period in American history and the article mentions a Yale sociologist who wrote an entire book about the genre and he's not the only one. I also felt the article was needed because the intro to the Phil Donahue page used to contain a huge long winded explanation about how he was the first of the talk shows to take his microphone into the audience etc. I edited the intro to simply say he hosted the first tabloid talk show, with a link to this page explaining the concept and significance. I believe this article is relevant to many different existing wikipedia articles as this genre has existed for decades and was watched by tens of millions of in the U.S. alone Editingoprah 03:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've heard of this term for years. The article still needs cleaning up, but is notable enough to be kept. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs a source for the name. (I've heard of of it for years, also, but I am not a WP:RS for this concept.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term "tabloid talk show" is used in the subtitle of the book by the Yale professor: "Freaks Talk Back: Sexual noncomformists and tabloid talk shows". Can't get a better source than a Yale professor.-- Cartridges 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cathsoc football[edit]

Non-notable amateur football (soccer) club. Cathsoc football doesn't meet WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Perhaps a merge with Oxford University Catholic Society would work, but I question the notability of that organization, too. -- Scientizzle 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Amateur football team, that doesn't have claim to notability. (And the pictures are ENORMOUS and make up 1/2 of the article) --Porqin 18:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Satori Son 04:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7 clubs. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Car I Win[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Need I say more? Alas, Category:Car_games has set awfully slippery slope. "SHOTGUN!" --  Netsnipe  (Talk) 

  • Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete While I am tempted to play the game, google has only 15 hits for "Yellow car I win". This game obviously isn't widely known, and therefore shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia. Lastly, "While in the car, the first person to see a yellow car quickly says the phrase "yellow car, I win!" The last person to have successfully called a yellow car at the end of the trip is the official winner" Apparently to be the winner of this game, you have to do nothing at all. --Porqin 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red link, you lose (delete) NawlinWiki 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice, and then dance upon it's grave. Fails Wikipedia is not for things you pull out of your ass WilyD 19:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the discussion at Talk:Yellow Car I Win. Uncle G 15:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you have to be driving at the time, doesn't that make the game very hard for passengers (or very easy, if you're the driver). Do you have to grab the wheel? Isn't that, you know, dangerous? -- GWO
  • Strong delete Wiki is not for something made up at school in one day.doktorb wordsdeeds 11:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least as notable as The Game (game). Stifle (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lunacore[edit]

Non-notable website that fails the WP:WEB criteria. Alexa ranking of 72,373[37].--TBCTaLk?!? 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Tapir Terrific 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN with "We see ourselves as an educational site and not as just another tutorial site.". --Porqin 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone rearranged so it looks more like SPAM. Originally, it was just saying, we're a site, now it sounds like Lunacore is gloating.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.172.230 (talk • contribs) 10:44, July 14, 2006
  • Delete per WP:ADS. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.Blame the five of spades.Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 of spades[edit]

  • Besides the notable Ace of Spades, which is notable for carrying the trademarks, this is the only card with its own article specifying both rank and suit. Delete if no one can show all 52 cards are notable. Georgia guy 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete "The five of spades is widely known as the unluckiest card in the deck of cards" The whole article is based off of someones opinions, and without verifiable sources. There is no need for this article, unless someone can provide verifiable sources to these claims. --Porqin 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've never heard that it's unlucky. I can't find anything that says it's unlucky either. Recury 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Porqin.--cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.I thought the unluckiest card is the 8 of spades.

.— Arthur Rubin |(talk) 23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP!!! As a professional poker player from Las Vegas, I have often found that the 5 of spades is unlucky. Yesterday, for example, I lost both my cars and $24 thousand, all because of that evil card. Many of my fellow card players have had similar problems and they all blame it on the 5 of Spades. --pokerking 10:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this entry. I am a professer at Oxford University, England. I have an MSc in Applied Statistics and also do some work for RoSPA (The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents). My department has found that over 90% of household accidents and over 70% of all accidents are a direct cause of, or happen in the near vacinity of the 5 of spades playing card. I conclude therefore that you should not delete this entry as our findings backup the speculation of this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by profanthony (talk • contribs)
  • Delete.Seems like original research.Also note that User:pokerking and User:profanthony have no other edits. AfD discussions are not votes, and attempts to "stuff the ballot box" with new accounts aren't likely to help your cause. fbb_fan 13:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reading this page, it seems that the superstition surrounding this particular card is unique to my area of the world - I apologise that this is not internationally recognised. I have not so much as mentioned this entry to anyone I know and due to the tone of these two defending entries, I believe they are simply just jokes. I know that this claim, however, will be difficult to prove. --Kryters 14:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Also edited --Kryters 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (inclusion of the italicized text)[reply]


  • In my opinion this entry should stay because it explains the folklore surrounding this playing card. The history of many seemingly odd things appear in the wiki. It is possible that this is a regional superstition but that should not rule out its credibility in the wiki. Perhaps however there should be a link in the superstitions entry to this an example of regional superstition?
  • Gorgia Guy: Yes, the Ace of Spades is notable, however, in Kryter's view, and in his area, the 5 of spades may be equally notable.
  • Porquin & Chomes75: Although not backed up by reliable fact, the article is not based on the view of an individual that "the 5 of spades is unlucky". It is based on the sup[erstitions of a region and goes on to explain variations of card games; not necessarily related to the so-called bad luck of the card.
  • Recury: I'd not heard this either but I have played the mentioned versions of the card games involving the 5 of spades, perhaps there is a basis to the entry?
  • There might be a basis to it, but we need to see at least one or two things published that mention the 5 of spades being unlucky. If you could just find a couple web pages that mention it being unlucky or at least as part of the rule variations that are mentioned in the article, that would go a long way towards convincing people to keep this, I think. Which part of the world are you from, if you don't mind my asking? Recury 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to a tarot site has been added to the origins section, explaining that it is a card with very negative effects. [[38]]. I live in the Highlands of Scotland. Many people in this area are at least familliar with the idea that this card is apparently unlucky. --Kryters 11:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authur Rubin: I hadn't heard that before. You should make an entry if there are theories about it.
  • Pokerking: Could be completely due to luck.
  • Profanthony: I'm afraid I question your credibility. I couldn't find the statistics you mentioned anywhere.
  • Fbb: I agree that this is not a vote. However, just because the users have not edited before it should not damage their credibility.It is possible that they are just new and this is their first edit, as it is mine.
  • Kryters: It may be that this supersition is a local thing but I feel this should not hinder its credibility; nowhere is it stated that regional entries will be removed on the basis that they don't apply to everyone.
  • My conclusion is that this entry should remain as there is no valid reason to remove- it if it is true that in the author's area this card is regarded as unlucky. If it is removed I would like to request that the section on variations of card games remain as there is no problem with that part.

Hope my contribution is helpful, The Flame Haired 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theflamehaired1 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom and sockpuppetry (also note that Theflamehaired1 has no other edits because of speedy deletes on articles he made, as warned on his user page). I doubt that the five of spades has any sort of notability as to being unlucky over any other cards. It appears to be orignal research, which Wikipedia shouldn't have. Ryulong 06:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of whether sockpuppetry was involved or not, it is the value of the arguments that theflamehaired1 put forward that is important - though I deny any association with this user. As it states above, this is certainly not a vote. --Kryters 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, in standard decks of cards (to my knowledge), the five of any suit only has 9 figures on it (the five suit symbols, 1 number in the northwest corner, 1 number in the southeast corner, and the suit symbols in each of those corners). Ryulong 06:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I have noted above, the 5 of Spades is also highly unlikely (unlucky) in tarot [[39]]. Also, [[40]] shows that the 5 of Spades corresponds to a jealous rival when enquiring about love. Many packs of cards go by a different design, with the number and symbol in every corner, as you can see by the entrys picture. This clearly shows 13 black figures in the design. --Kryters 11:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unlikely in tarot is right.Our article Tarot doesn't even recognize "spades" as a possible suit. — Arthur Rubin |(talk) 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Spades corresponds to swords in tarot. [41] --Kryters 15:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still, in normal Playing Cards, ones that people play poker, euchre, cribbage, solitaire, etc. with, the five of any suit only has nine figures on it. The image on the article is taken from an outdated version of Microsoft's Solitaire. The version on my computer does not have numbers or suit symbols in the northeast and southwest corners, just in the other two. Ryulong 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is another point for dispute. According to [42], original cards went by the design shown in 5_spades.PNG - with symbols in each corner. However, these designs have faded in favour of the version you have described. I noticed you described the design as "out of date" rather than "original" :). As far as I know, Microsoft Solitaire has always used the simplified version of cards - I made 5_spades.PNG myself based on the MS design. --Kryters 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fbn press[edit]

First hit on Google is to Wikipedia. The 2nd is to E-Bay site. The link at the bottom of page goes to a publisher totally unrelated Missouri Center for the Book Promotional ad for no name publishing? KarenAnn 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Missouri Center for the Book is not "totally unrelated": if you click on the "Publishers" link there, you get a list of Missouri Publishers which includes the FBN Press, and a few details which match some of the ones in this article. It also lists a website address for the press, but the domain given (www.fbnpress.com) does not exist.
As it stands, most of this article -- particularly the details of the firm's history -- is looking very difficult to verify. — Haeleth Talk 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. I get 43 Ghits for "FBN Press", and most of those are eBay listings. Two local newspaper articles which quote the owner of FBN, who's also the owner of Eddie's Books, which is the first Ghit I get at the moment. The article is about a local ordinance proposal at the town council. So, no non-trivial articles written by uninvolved persons. Tychocat 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was speedy flush as, well, nonsensical crap. Patent nonsense doesn't have to be what comes from 50 monkeys banging on the keyboard for an hour. This is just as bad. Kimchi.sg 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Thurmond Wilford-Anderson III[edit]

Contested speedy. An article about a piece of crap. Somebody took a dump and named it, then wrote an article about it. No, I'm not kidding. Fan-1967 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Flush this one down so it can be Deleted Wildthing61476 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Whether or not the saga is true, this has no reason to be inside an enclopedia. Neither Wilford-Anderson, nor his dump have any notability, and the article is a bunch of nonsense. --Porqin 18:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a good, full-length article. If people worked on it, it could become a featured article. Tannerton 18:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article doesn't maintain any sense, the article's title is purported to be the piece of fecal matter, and the dumper was Larry Wilson. Later in the article, "It remains to be seen whether someone else will be able to take a dump as big as Dr. Jason Thurmond Wilford-Anderson III, Ph.D." The fecal matter suddenly becomes the person. --Porqin 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is saying that Wilford-Anderson is the dump. If it was referring to Wilford-Anderson as a person and not a dump it would say "as big as Dr. Jason Thurmond Wilford-Anderson did" instead of just "as big as Dr. Jason Thurmond Wilford-Anderson." Jacketeer 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tried to help create this article yesterday, but somebody deleted it with little warning. Jacketeer 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As nonsense, hoax, and previously deleted. --DarkAudit 19:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There actually is at least one site on the web for things like this. But Wikipedia isn't it. Sanbeg
  • Delete and send to WP:BJAODN. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. – Will (message me!) 09:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Arab-Israeli War[edit]

This article is highly speculative right now, attempting to turn two current military operations into a new full-blown war between nation states, and at the same time just providing links to the two articles already dealing with the two operations. I think it should be deleted until the world's media regard this to be a proper war between Israel and its neighbours. Thomas Blomberg 16:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is speculative - let's not delete it, let's work to make it accurate. Let's try to create a clear picture of the situation. That's the purpose of an Encyclopedias, no? Jeanmariesimpson 18:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the situation has not yet been considered a war; nor have Syria and Iran's involvement been confirmed. -Keer Gondeh

Delete, there's no all-out war yet, Syria is not yet involved. Robin Hood 1212 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now without prejudice against recreation if war occurs. There isn't currently a war, even Lebanon are not calling it a war at this time. Until the weight of external commentators call it a war, it isn't one. This article adds no value and it's existence is contentious at best and POV at worst. There was some discussion of this on Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah_conflict but that was somewhat aborted when this article was created. MLA 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree, too early for labeling it a war. If the media are not, Wikipedia should not. -- 203.124.2.18 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect-Redirect this to the Arab-Isreali Confilct article untill the media sees this as a full blown war. Storm05 16:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename/Hold

[43] This is a semantical issue: something is happening that will either validate or make moot any of this. The Lebanse are calling in the UN; Abbas says a regional war is developing. Cwolfsheep 16:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - all hell has pretty much broken out. There are hundreds of rockets going in both directions. --aishel 16:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is not claiming that it is against every Arab nation, any more than 1948 Arab-Israeli War is claiming it was against every Arab nation. This article is about the conflict for which Operation Summer Rains and Operation Just Reward is a part. Something doesnt need to be an all out war for us to consider it a war. At most, you should be calling for it to be moved to a different location if you disagree with calling it a war, not deleting.. Rangeley 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Media IS labelling it as a war--TheFEARgod 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • +Haifa has been hit, wait for the response--TheFEARgod 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This is one of the reasons why I suggested on the article's talk page that the AfD (like the article itself) is premature. Events are going to keep happening, and people are going to vote based on the events as they stand when they vote; and then they may or may not go back and change their vote based on later events. One more reason to "park" this article under a less controversial name until events develop further. 6SJ7 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - perhaps to something more wishy-washy for now, and to whatever name the world media settle on when they do. We definitely need an overview article about the recent escalation in Middle East. Zocky | picture popups 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Has been renamed to 2006 Arab-Israeli conflict. Keep the renamed article and expand as appropriate. Zocky | picture popups 23:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "2006 Arab-Israeli hostilities" or something similar, and then put all delete/move/merge discussions on hold for one week while we see what this actually turns into, and if a common way of referring to it develops among the governments and media. The creation of the article was probably premature, but a standstill (under a less official-sounding title) would be appropriate. 6SJ7 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The topic needs an overview article; the title just isn't appropriate (yet?). --Philosophus T 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold IMO this article is grouping certain conflicts that should logically be grouped, and they will probably be remembered as a single event in history. Keep it there for a few days and see how the issue is treated. Consider renaming it in the meantime. --Pifactorial 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I voted "Hold", assuming that means "leave it as is for now, then decide in a few days." --Pifactorial 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the term is unreferenced. The incidents itself (Operation Summer rain) are listed and explained somewhere else. The term itself is POV and factually wrong. -- 194.94.81.54 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No concensus regarding status of the conflict, making predictions about future events. If things go badly it can be recreated later when it's more clear what's going on. Emax0 18:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 2006 Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, which names the primary combatants at this time, but doesn't go so far as calling it a war, yet. StuRat 18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • the existing article 2006_Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah_conflict better describes the situation imo Emax0 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea is to group that with Operation Summer Rains and any future related operations, I believe. --Pifactorial 18:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually word is coming across now that the IDF has given the Lebanon op a different name "Just Reward" (translation still being argued over) and there is a mini-edit war going on now for the name of the article. In any case at this point it seems like it can't be merged with summer rains. Emax0 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • looks like you said "group" with not "merge". doh. in any case its too early into the situation. for all we know israel could just bypass lebanon and go into syria. Emax0 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep dcandeto 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename/Hold but don't delete. There is a common thread through this latest round of one-upsmanship between the sparring parties involved. We may want to call the article "Israeli responses to Hezbollah kidnappings in 2006" or something like that. It's a little cumbersome, but maybe more specific. --Jon 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Wait a week. Then decide whether to rename. It's still too early to tell. Besides, even a two-day war is still a war. --User:nafisto 19:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename Even the israeli ambassador to the United States calls it a war [44]. --Cattus 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename Premature labeling. Even if the media calls it a war now, there isn't much justification and if things calm down, it will probably be labeled a 'conflict', as it probably should be now. It's still too small-scale to be considered a war, even the "war on terror" wasn't really called that until the US had engaged significant armed conflict in Afghanistan. So far the Israeli and Lebanese armed forces have had minimal contact. --Keflavich 19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename - It's a little too soon for Wikipedia to call it a war. Many people are using the word, but we need to keep our distance until it becomes more clear. 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict sounds better. ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Premature. It won't cost anything to recreate it if this should happen to be called a war by the general media. Certain outlets refer to the GWOT as the fourth world war, doesn't mean Wikipedia calls it that. Joffeloff 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but FoxNews are one of those outlets known to coin their own words for things, like calling what is normally known as a suicide bomber a 'homicide bomber'. It's what I was talking about with the WWIV and all that. Joffeloff 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a war, call it a conflict - whatever it is, it certainly is something. It makes sense to keep, because two operations are clearly a part of something. Someone decided to name this something the 2006 Arab-Israeli War, because it seemed appropriate to them. If you disagree, we can settle on something like 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict. But to delete it is to prevent us from covering an obvious event. Rangeley 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as premature. Better off in Wikinews at the moment. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above for now. Little or no documented usage of the name, though the concept has been discussed. (forgot to sign) TewfikTalk 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Premature for now. We've seen this type of conflict before. It's not a war, yet. Fan-1967 20:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Premature, currently the only ones claiming connection between the events in the Gaza Strip and the Events in Lebanon are Hezbulla, using the connection as justification for their attack. That is not the least bit NPOV. --darkskyz 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - premature. Also, no need to duplicate 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly... this isnt a duplicate of the Lebanon thing. It is for the conflict for which the lebanon thing and the gaza operation are a part. If you disagree with the name, rename it, dont delete it. Rangeley 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a POV to link the Operation Summer Rains in Gaza with 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis and on top of it, another POV is to call it a war. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that it should be kept, and if and when the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis spills over into other states the article should be redirected to 2006 Arab-Israeli WarHello32020 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (change of position) Merge because of arguments i've seen and a large amount of news orgs stating it as a warHello32020 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis. It's a war, all right, and it's definitely worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, but we're beginning to get scattered info across two (probably more) articles. -- SwissCelt 21:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! This article isnt only about the Lebanon Crisis! It is for the conflict for which the Lebanon Crisis, and the operation is Gaza (Operation Summer Rains} is a part. Rangeley 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! Two separate conflicts. Obviously related, but at this point I don't think you can say they're the same. Fan-1967 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It is not yet a war but it can be like "Israeli-arab conflci to 2006.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arigont (talk • contribs)
On its talk page I posted a suggestion to rename to 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict. This is a better solution to deleting. Rangeley 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis and redirect for now, with the possibility of renaming 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis to 2006 Arab-Israeli War or whatever the conflict becomes known as if it grows bigger and/or becomes generally recognized as a war. - RPIRED 22:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. There's not enough perspective yet to all this a "War" (quotation mark and capitalization optional) already. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's hardly anything added by the existence of this article except a political frame. --Dhartung | Talk 00:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I said on the article's talk page, much of the article is speculation. We are dubbing this a war before anyone else. That violates "No original work." If Iran and Syria get directly involved, THEN we can make the article. --Crucible Guardian 02:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its already been moved to 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict. Whether you think its a war or not doesnt matter, its obviously a conflict. Rangeley 02:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a POV that it is a conflict. There are separate conflicts in different places. Fan-1967 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 02:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as has already been done. Keep in it's current incarnation. --Iorek85 08:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't seen any sources that connect the Hamas and Hezbollah actions as a single conflict, and there article doesn't seem to have any information that isn't already in the articles linked within in. --DavidK93 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the new name. It is very early days yet, this page will almost certainly completely change in the next few weeks, but it is an escalating crisis and a current event and as such does deserve a page--Jackyd101 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DavidK93 — Yet another minor skirmish in a decades-long conflict. Now the Darfur conflict, that's a war. — RJH (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis everything here is already covered there. It is also a less POV topic to cover(even if the article is not). Falphin 15:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jackyd101. --Silver2195 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep possibly rename, its not fair to say its an arab conflict simply because it involved 2 arab nations, possibly 3 even if you count the fly by in Syria. It is however evident something happened here and its alraedy been renamed to conflict, so the arguement against calling it a war is moot. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, but monitor for potential vandalism. Also, refrain from referring it to as a war in the article, as no nations have officially declared war. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A mer redirect to 2 articles (Operation Summer Rains and 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis) plus a clamzy and unsucsesspull attemt ot merg both articles info boxes into one. P.S. both articles already point to each other. It's redundant. --TheYmode 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not much of a reason to delete it, thats a reason to improve it. But its funny how hard it is to improve things when all the discussion is about deleting it. The article is about a day old, and its obvious that the conflict for which it describes is real, and worthy of a good article. This isnt an attempt to merge two articles together, its an attempt to have an overview article over the conflict for which Operation Summer Rains and the Lebanon crisis are a part. It needs more work, noone is denying this, so lets be productive and work on it, shall we? Deleting this will solve nothing. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That’s my whole point, It can't be improved now because we lack the proper perspective to try and describe this phase of the Arab-Israeli conflict other then what’s already been done in the two respective articles (which are more of a news articles then an encyclopedic articles but that can not be helped because its an on-going current event). Any attempt to write an overview now will resolute in an original research and POV article. --TheYmode 07:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but closely monitor for aboslutely unavoidable vandalism, and huge POV problems. This is should be a short article pointing to recent actions that are clearly related, in part to assist disambiguation in sorting out conflict with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in the north. They are clearly related as having been triggered and extended by hostage-taking of Israeli personnel, couple with rocket attacks. Israel has escalated the conflict on both ends with dramatic force. Hezbollah is widening the conflict, and the page should stay as it is with content updates until this does move to a broader conflict (rather than skirmishing and attacks from a distance like Kashmir between Pakistan / India).
  • Rewrite. Minimial context. SYSS Mouse 20:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and See. It would be premature to delete what is already here, but hasty to start declaring that anything is certain. The event is unfolding and nothing should be written until it has played out. The wikipedia is a source, not news. Also, to keep article vandalism to a minimum, I would suggest locking it and allow those trained in historical practices to write it eventually.
  • Keep j did just update it--88.192.59.26 11:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jackyd101. --Shizane 15:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Hold I think the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis, linked on the front page is currently doing a good job of keeping up with the situation. Some of the information in this article can be salvaged and added to the other article, however. --74.131.67.167 18:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The VfD was initiated because the article name contained the term War. This is no longer the case, why is the VfD still going? For the record I believe VfD is too easy to initiate on WP 70.31.184.153 17:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the move from war to conflict is suitable. Furthermore, the article is already part of an extensive series, is not really a news article, and would not fit Wikinews as is. --Jay(Reply) 23:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Master Jay's argument. -- WGee 04:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an Encyclopedia, not a military/political speculation forum, currently there is no "war", what exist si a military conflict that not between soverien states. believe me that if the situation will change - the diffrance will be most noted. if you want opinions go to a forum, not here -- TheDM 01:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated news[edit]

The Yahoo articles are linking the events, and the CSM article has people calling the situation a "war." Cwolfsheep 04:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to say the article should be renamed or kept as "war:" rather that people stay on top of things before deciding on what to do. I want people to arrive at a consensus on how to treat this situation. Cwolfsheep 04:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the Yahoo article cited above: "The military offensive coincided with a major Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip to retrieve another captured soldier and halt Palestinian rocket fire." (emphasis added). That doesn't sound to me like they're regarding these events as a single conflict. It's obvious that the events are related. That is not the same thing as saying it's a single conflict. The CSM article is calling the Lebanon situation a war, but refers to the Gaza events beginning with the words "At the same time..." Fan-1967 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikinews. Folks, we should not be trying to cover current events here. This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia. Wikinews is the appropriate place for coverage of news events. Beware the problems that Wikipedia:Recentism creates. GRBerry 01:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesnt the change of this to 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict solve that problem? The debate seemed to be whether or not this would be considered a war, that is no longer an issue, because there is no debate there is an obvious conflict going on. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with GRBerry. Those who like to cover ongoing news should devote their energy to contribute to Wikinews instead of attempting to turn Wikipedia into a news agency copycat. Also, the fact that the page has changed name doesn't change the fact that it attempts to claim that there is one conflict instead of two. Until independent historians afterwards can establish that Hamas and the Hezbollah planned their attacks together, or that Syria or Iran instructed both to do it at the same time, Wikipedia shouldn't claim that this is one conflict instead of two. Thomas Blomberg 18:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't transwiki to Wikinews. Wikinews uses Creative Commons license, which is not GFDL-compatible. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking that suggestion per Stifle. No opinion at the moment. I don't know what to do with this. The Recentism problem means that we need to tread carefully. This is clearly at least as significant as Operation Accountability, and if this does wind down soon, we'll probably end up with about that level of content, meaning that a whole lot of stuff will be jettisoned over time. GRBerry 22:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a clear debate (which Rangeley repeatedly chooses to ignore) as to whether the events constitute a single conflict. Related, clearly, but not one single event. Fan-1967 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicates another, much more expansive article. If the situation grows further then the other article should be renamed and extended. StuffOfInterest 11:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some nice info in here.--Infolabza 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. Redundant to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Yeah, it covers Hamas in the south, but everything that's been going on in the last few weeks should be covered in one article (or one article branching outwards, using summary style).

  • Weak keep. It's not hurting anyone being there and includes some valuable information. OSU80 23:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The so called "conflict" are interlinked. There is no other articel covering the "big picture". (This article as it stands is IDF pov.) -- Petri Krohn 02:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR term gren グレン 06:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The article will need reworking throughout time but: 1) We have many articles regarding ongoing events. 2) We have many articles covering each event on the ongoing Israeli-Arab affairs through history. nihil 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict nihil 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge information and delete neologism. The original point is correct in that there's no name, but it's moot in that we gave it a name and linked from the main page. There are two different issues being voted on, the original research vs relevant info, and the duplicity, which was not in the nomination rationale. Therefore, as a matter of fairness and neutrality, it goes without saying that this should be deleted once any relevant info is merged. Moulder 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict Zenosparadox 23:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future of article[edit]

I just counted the votes, and after 5 days, there are presently more keeps than deletes: the fact being that calling the situation a "conflict" instead of a "war" resolved general objections. Furthermore, there have been some work on timelines for events before and during this conflict: I feel content from those lists should be used to expand the article. Links to all articles relevant to the current situation should be posted in a "See Also" section. Updated references should continue to be posted. Cwolfsheep 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[edit]

Copyvio. Taken directly from the UN site - as stated by page creator during creation! EuroSong talk 14:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey-baiting[edit]

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - User:Hipocrite has only made this deletion request out of spite against me. He has also tagged the Lion-baiting Rat-baiting and Human-baiting articles. SirIsaacBrock 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this needs a good cleanup to avoid OR and possible copyvio and needs better sourcing. Having said that, it is definitely encyclopaedic and of interest. BlueValour 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With respect, the quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yes but that is not sourcing. Each section, or set of facts, needs to be tied in with a specific chapter of a book or a webpage, for example. BlueValour 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are five citations noted and four identified artists paintings posted. For an article on the topic of Monkey-baiting, I think that is reasonable. -:) SirIsaacBrock 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that you may be missing the point. To take one of numerous examples I could pick out of your series of articles, if I wanted to check that 'Jacco Macacco was a celebrated monkey gladiator' it should be clear by that paragraph exactly where I should go and it isn't. BlueValour 02:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This historical topic should be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. We can't censor history. Also, I don't understand how this article can be original research when it quotes contemporary periodicals. If we applied that standard now, we wouldn't be able to derive information from newspapers and magazines. Is that Wikipedia's policy? And anyway, the books cited are clearly secondary sources themselves, so OR doesn't apply to them. Rbraunwa 19:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referenced, interesting topic. Needs cleanup to read more professionally (i.e., "The English were always keen for something new to challenge their dog fighting breeds" isn't an encyclopedic style of writing), but it looks pretty good in general. -- Scientizzle 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please make such changes. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very Weak Keep I attempted to remove some of the unencyclopedic writing to improve the overall tone, but found myself removing most everything but the first sentence and the quotations. I'm swayed by Laura Scudder's delete argument and BlueValour's comments, too. I'm not voting delete, however, for the same reason as Malber...This article doesn't outright fail any standard deletion arguments, but has considerable issues that can and should be addressed. -- Scientizzle 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems like a legit article. Sanbeg 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know anything about monkey-baiting, but judging by the company this nomination keeps (i.e. the absurd nominations of lion-baiting and rat-baiting), I'd judge this one is a keeper too. –Joke 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be entirely original research, as there isn't a single citation provided to suggest that this was a sport in the commonly-used sense of the word (and wording like "quite unusual fight" in the quotes suggests that these were no more than isolated incidents). Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - This is a Blood sport not a Sport. In addition, the books in the reference section of the article were written recently, they are not original research. SirIsaacBrock 11:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is absolutely true, it is a blood sport and doesn't appear to be original research. –Joke 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten into more than a summary of two isolated incidents. If it's a sport than it's like the article baseball consisting of nothing but descriptions of two isolated games. It may be sourced and verifiable, but that alone does not an encyclopedia article make. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment After having carefully read the article, and reading Laura's comments, I find myself in agreement with her, and think that if there is no other history of "human bating" then this merely merits a mention in the main dog baiting article. –Joke 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if isolated, it appears to be sourced well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator has not noted any valid reasons for deletion. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a good article. --Aranae 18:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but some of the clean up tags should stay. It needs works done but it's a worthwhile subject matter. Agne27 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+Tags[edit]

It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While he is being quite excessive about the tags in order to make the articles look worse during AfD, some of the tags are certainly warranted. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I was being excessive with the tags because every one of my attempts to fix the article by correcting the problems the tags documented was reverted by the owner of the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 09:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeugma (literary journal)[edit]

It is with sadness (Canadian content and all), I nominate this as a non-notable publication. A limited edition, with only 2 issues completed. It may fall within WP:ADS. Gay Cdn 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I tend to like literary journals, so I kinda wish this wasn't the case, but their first issue had a photocopied and hand-sewn print run of 200 issues? I realize that this kind of a small-scale, low-tech and personalized approach is intentional, but it doesn't really do wonders for their circulation -- or notability... (Also, the article's tone is decidedly unencyclopedic.) I wish this guys the best of luck in what seems like a very cool venture, but Wikipedia material this ain't. -- Captain Disdain 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret Dlyons493 Talk 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Literary journals typically have much smaller circulations than mass-market magazines, and Zeugma did get a grant from the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council, which adds to its credibility. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Gay Cdn and Captain Disdain. -- Kjkolb 00:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but, to be clear, I was the one who started the article, so you might want to discount my vote. On the other hand, I am not directly connected with Zeugma (other than social acquaintance with authors - impossible to avoid in a city like St. John's) Here's why I felt that it had merit, and created it:
    • The journal exists within an arts community (Newfoundland's, that is) that is generally strong, but it is the only literary journal currently active. As such, it bears a importance that goes beyond simple circulation numbers.
    • Zeugma has successfully reached it's second edition, and received more funding (such as the N&L Arts Council grant mentioned above) and greater circulation. I would not have supported the presence of this article after only one printing.
    • Zeugma is functioning as a professional publication in ways that are not maintained by many "non-notable" publications. The founders (and primary driving forces behind the publication), mentioned in the article, are not publishing their own work, for example, meaning this is not simple self-promotion.
    • Zeugma's has been covered in local media (none of which maintain online archives I can point you to - sorry!) by programs and publications that have no connections to the publishers.
    • Basically, Zeugma probably is non-notable outside Newfoundland (at least, so far), but maintains more than enough regional significance to justify it's existence. I'm sure the next poster is going to say "I'm from Newfoundland, and I've never heard of it!", but I'm not trying to say that *everyone* here is touched by Zeugma, only that it is relevant enough within the arts community here to justify inclusion.
    • Finally, as a response to the hand-sewn comment, that was clearly intentional - This wasn't a "run it through mom's sewing machine" type job. I know you have allowed for that, but you make parallel claims that the type of binding can hurt circulation (true - it's time-consuming, I assume) and notability. I disagree with the second - as long as a type of binding looks professional, or at least intentional (both of which this one did, at least to the uneducated eye such as mine), I would suggest it has no effect on notability. AshleyMorton 16:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized that the article has been edited a couple of times to make it more "addy", and I'm going to go back and filter a bit, hopefully creating an article that will pass POV tests. However, within an encyclopedia/community which is willing to maintain an entire category for "encyclopedic" |lists of porn stars, I hope that an article on a small but growing literary journal can be maintained. AshleyMorton 16:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - I ignored the socks of course.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pennington[edit]

Nonnotable person. Prod tag removed. Created by User:Rpennington, so I think it should be userfied and then deleted. NawlinWiki 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Entry is noteworthy, not unduly aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources. Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.99.26 (talk • contribs) , who blanked the listing to add this comment. NawlinWiki 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete looks more like a resume than an article. Sanbeg 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete as non-notable, though I found his company's press release. --Huon 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a notable figure in Washington State government and politics. Article is totally factual and not promotional. Do not delete.--Renee-nay 23:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Completely factual and unbiased article. Noteworthy contributor to regional public policy.--Smidgetdz 23:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. Prominent in 2004 elections in WA. Found some corroborating materials hereand here.--Pilchuckpenguin 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Each of the above three comments is the user's only WP edit. None of them explain *why* the person is notable, they just assert it. NawlinWiki 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and check for possible sockpuppetry. --DarkAudit 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN-bio; vanity. --Madchester 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn per nom. Wow. PR director for a PR firm and this is the best he can do. (Does he really think the multiple new user ID's fool anybody?) Remind me not to hire these people. Fan-1967 01:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:BIO. --Satori Son 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. Subject is notable for work and received press coverage for such. Article is not biased.--Bigboy49 23:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note User has only 2 edits. Only other one was 7 minutes prior to this, and change was a single letter. --DarkAudit 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Alleged press coverage is not about Ryan Pennington qua Ryan Pennington; the KUOW link directly above does not discuss him at all: he appears nominally as an incidental demonstrator. Also, I find it quite incredible that a number of users felt so passionately about this article they were moved to create accounts just to chime in. Smells like socks to me, too. --Ori Livneh (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. Dissenters have said nothing that discredits anything in the article and the multiple independent and verifiable sources clearly corroborate the information and demonstrate the encyclopedic value of the subject.--67.168.153.253 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. The evidence presented here demonstrates that this is a notable regional individual and the artcile in question clearly addresses the subject in an unbiased manner.--Downtown005 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Above user has only 2 edits. Only other one was 3 minutes prior to this, and change was a single letter. --Satori Son 23:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philberth-Transformer[edit]

I am fixing a nomination (see talk page and history for details). Rationale is (essntially): "Not notable. Not encyclopedic [...] obscure and trivial.". I personally disagree. (Liberatore, 2006). 19:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not very many related Google hits for philberth transformer or philbert transformer, and most of them were pages in French which just happened to have the French word transformer ("to transform" I guess?) in them. Also has the worst diagram ever in it. It seems pretty obscure to me right now, though I admit I'm not familiar with the subject matter. I'd reconsider if someone made a case for notability, of course. Recury 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:V. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zen of Sudoku[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE (Liberatore, 2006). 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --PresN 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:SOFTWARE is only a proposed guideline that is currently far from consensus, so it is not fair to cite it as a deletion rationale. However, the current text of this page is not verifiable from reliable sources, and most definitely fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV ("sets the player in a beautiful, relaxing, and comforting environment"). It possibly also fails WP:ADS, although I don't see any proof that Foughtfoo (talk · contribs) is one of the authors of this software. The web-site for the software links to this WP article, which is suspicious. If the article is kept for some reason, it needs significant cleanup. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


FoughtFoo:I edited the page to fit Wiki guidlines. I have no affiliation with Charlie Cleaveland or Unknown Worlds other than the fact that I use his product and web services.

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cym kafe[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic club BillC 19:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't meet WP:ORG as far as I can tell. Recury 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow. Nathan Beach 20:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. "Wow" is about right. -- Steel 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Can't believe this one wasn't Speedy. --Satori Son 04:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel. Probable copyvio. Don't forget to nuke the images too. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas_Bromberg[edit]

Vanity Sanbeg 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nathan Beach 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nothing in the article indicates any notability -- Whpq 21:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable work has been added to this article on July 14th, 2006.

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan goji juice[edit]

Hits on Google are hyper adverts for its age-defying health benefits. Article in Wikipedia Wolfberry which this article links to because Himalayan goji juice is made from it talks mainly about other uses and makes vague reference to Wolfberry uses for health benefits in Asia.KarenAnn 19:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Pepsidrinka 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.pray4ray.com[edit]

A guy named Ray Ducharme was paralyzed last week running with the bulls in Pamplona. Friends and family have set up a website asking for prayers and donations. Sad story, but I really don't see that it merits an article, per WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nathan Beach 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB -- Whpq 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 21:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Mystache 22:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - -Steel 23:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm tempted to say that it's his own damn fault that he's paralyzed, and wikipedia doesn't exist to compensate for the lack of a publicly-funded health care system in the United States. - Richardcavell 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sink the Biz[edit]

Prod removed, sending to AfD per procedure. Just becuase a drinking game is notable at a local college hangout, does NOT make it notable for Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was orginally delete all - listcruft, changed to no consensus upon review.. – Will (message me!) 08:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity[edit]

After reading another AfD today, List of Japanese Prime Ministers by longevity, I was inspired to nominate these. Here's why
This is essentially a collection of trivia and has no apparent usefulness. The information is alreadly fully contained in another list. Also, the old "shoe size" analogy has been brought up a number of times, and hell, I think it's appropriate here. If you gave me 3 hours alone to think of a possible application for these lists, I would be dumbfounded. As much as I hate citing Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information, this is exactly what it was created for. Here are some other pages I'm nominating:

AdamBiswanger1 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all - of course! Wikipedia should be a place for masses of information. Where else in the www can I find lists of longevity which are regularly updated? Keep it!
  • Keep the List of United States Presidents by longevity. There are lots of lists of United States presidents in various orders, so why can't we have this one?? Georgia guy 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. What makes the list of US Presidents by longevity inherently more notable than the other lists? --ColourBurst 20:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of them, except perhaps height, have a clear and obvious use. That's why they're not of AfD. These have no use to anyone outside of writers for Trivial Pursuit AdamBiswanger1 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion Triviality is one of the strengths of the medium, If it's true, and verifiable I say let it be. There is far more innacurate and unverifiable articles than ones deemed purely trivial. FancyPants 01:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Kimchi.sg 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, very indiscrimate collections all. Recury 20:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Very interesting collections all. Ramseystreet 20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Delete Nobel Prizewinners, Keep the rest. Much more interesting and encyclopaedic than, say List of Orange Islands Gym Leaders or List of minor Clone Wars battles. But, the fan world is more important here than the real one, so I expect them to go. Tevildo 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This is not about the importance of the persons listed, but about the importance of their relative longevity. I fail to see any. --Huon 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all It is reasonable to quote trivia in a bio, such as X was the longest-lived of Y, and on reading that, I would like to link to a list of the Y's. The policy quoted by the originator doesn't explicitly rule out lists of trivia.--Rye1967 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All as per nom. This is ridiculous listcruft. Are we to have longevity lists for all categories of people - French tennis players by longevity or Chinese scholars by longevity? How about Mexican poets by weight or Indonesian military leaders by armspan. This kind of listcruft trivia may be trivially interesting but has no use encyclopedically or otherwise (what do the keep voters want to do? prove a correlation between the politicians' policies and how long they live? prove a correlation showing that winning a Nobel makes you live longer or shorter?) Bwithh 21:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. My opinion is mainly based on the fact that, whenever a Chief Executive (for want of a more appropriate term) dies, is elected, or has a birthday, one of the first things the newspapers will point out is that he (or she) is the n'th longest-lived Chief Executive. I'll grant you the Nobel Prizewinners, but the relative ages of Chief Executives is something that's of general interest to the media, and (one assumes) to the general public. However, if the general consensus is to delete these lists, the corresponding lists of monarchs should go too - if longevity is generally _uninteresting_, then why should we acknowledge it at all?

Tevildo 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of that. Newspapers mention that a given ruler was the n'th longest-lived president? I don't want to be rude or incivil, but I highly doubt that is a common practice. AdamBiswanger1 22:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems odd to me, but I wouldn't have noticed this sort of fact, so I decided to look around a bit. I picked the death of Ronald Reagan, as I figured that'd be major and recent enough to have some reliable sites still available. [45] is a CNN.com story. I don't see anything about his longevity compared to other Presidents in it. [46] is a foxnews.com story which also fails to make such comparison. [47], from BBC News, mentions that Reagan was the oldest to take office, but fails to make a longevity comparison. I don't mean this proves that no news source ever makes reference to this sort of thing, but I don't believe it is a common practice. GassyGuy 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Bwithh Whispering 22:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So somebody is going to update living holders of these offices on a daily basis? I don't think so. If it was the length of time in office it might have some meaning, as it is it's not even "shoe size," it's people with 10 toes by shoe size. Anyway who are these lists for, people who are numerically-challenged? Delete. --Richhoncho 22:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The UK list is updated monthly, which seems adequate to me. Tevildo 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nom and Bwithh. Agent 86 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as trivial, but I would not be averse to this sort of restructuring of information to be included after the main list or something. There are an awful lot of existing lists that sort the same information in different ways. Would not be terribly disappointed if these disappear as the information contained within can fairly easily be recreated from existing birth and death dates in other tables. GassyGuy 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as trivial. The longest and shortest lived president information can go into the article on the U.S. president and it can be mentioned on Kennedy and Reagan's articles that they are the shortest and longest lived respectively. I suppose the same could be done for the other lists. -- Kjkolb 00:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The age of the ex-presidents is a media topic and was certainly discussed before Reagan died. Examples include this very on-point article from the Wall Street Journal (scroll to bottom) [48], The Washington Post ("At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected president. At 93, he was the oldest former president" [49], or this mention in Time [50], It was specifically mentioned in honorary House resolutions throughout the country [51], [52], [53] etc. If the info is worth noting for Reagan it should be true for the other presidents. It has also been a major topic with the Pope. Given that this is a global encyclopedia, we should also keep the other lists. --JJay 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that every single Pope except one has held office until they have died, so the end of term of their office coincides with their death. That's why age is non-trivially significant for the Pope - because people expect them to serve until they die. The modern US Presidency is limited to 2 terms (8 years) and they cannot serve again. The age of former Presidents is irrelevant to the US political system. The media talks about the age of former presidents, because - bluntly - its a game (for the news commentators) of wondering when they're going to die (especially in the case of Reagan, who had Alzheimer's) because when they die, it means a big media event and a state funeral. The comparative longevity as opposed to the anticipated deaths of former Presidents is marginal and trivial compared to that main consideration. The House resolutions are celebrating Reagan not-dying-yet not his winning-the-race-of-longevity-against-every-other-President-which-will-prove-his-ultimate-superiority. It's the same when we talk about our own elderly relatives. We're glad they've not passed on yet, but we're not expressing the hope that they "beat" everyone else in the longevity "contest". The WSJ column you cite is a humorous trivia piece about a humourous interview exchange. And in that specific Washington Post example you gave, they're emphasizing his age not his comparative longevity (if they were, there'd be a silly discussion of why Reagan is living longer than other Presidents blahblahblah)Bwithh 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points, certainly more insightful than "ridiculous listcruft". Thanks for the discussion of the Pope, although you might have noted that I mentioned that in passing, not unlike your more appropriate French tennis player and Mexican poet examples. You are certainly entitled to view the longetivity of the Presidents as "humorous trivia". However, I would beg to differ, not the least because comparative longevity has long obsessed the ex-Presidents themselves, for example John Adams, whose famous last words were "Thomas Jefferson survives" [54]. --JJay 01:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere probably is a category such as "List of popes by length of reign", or else there should be, so why not get rid of this junk and focus on that list, which is much more to the point. AdamBiswanger1 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment Found it. This article, List of 10 longest-reigning popes could be expanded and moved, thus making the papal longevity list useless (in my opinion). AdamBiswanger1 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the ones on heads of government/heads of state per JJay. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Kjkolb and Bwithh. They're not encyclopedic, and (except in the case of individual recordholders) they bear no relation to what made the individual heads of state notable. Does anyone really envision someone waking up in a cold sweat wondering, "Holy crap, who was the 4th-longest-lived Austrian chancellor again?" As Kjkolb notes, the recordholders for longest and shortest lifespan, and maybe even longest among living presidents, warrant mention in their respective articles, but the comparative ages of all or a good number of them strikes me as, yes, listcruft. -- H·G (words/works) 03:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. AdamBiswanger1 03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. As I wrote on the earlier AFD, multiple versions of the same list are a maintenance nightmare, and there's really no particular reason this information would be really useful. If figuring out the longest-lived Austrian chancellor (for example) is really important for someone, they can calculate it for themselves from the information already available on Chancellor of Austria. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ones for heads of state. This is a common type of question which one would use an encyclopedia to answer. You can either be forced to do the math in your head, or the many WikiGnomes can maintain this list for us. Not like it has to be updated every day -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really feel you'd have trouble doing the math in your head, you could always use copy+paste into Excel/use a calculator/use a pen and paper/ask your mum or dad Bwithh 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...or check our article. --JJay 22:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now when I'm wondering who the seventh-longest lived Nobel Prize winner for physics is, I'll know right where to look. I wonder who had the largest shoe size... AdamBiswanger1 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Oldest living President doing well" [55]- nothing about shoe size though... --JJay 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything about the 8'th oldest? AdamBiswanger1 03:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll to bottom [56]. --JJay 03:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was in a newspaper, so it must be worthy of an article. AdamBiswanger1
Newspapers are perfectly valid sources at wikipedia and the WSJ is better than most. According to our article, the WSJ has a circulation of 2.6 million and serves a global elite (a readership profile of about 60% top management, an average income of $191,000, an average household net worth of $2.1 million). They don't just print anything. --JJay 03:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that they printed a table of the ages of the oldest-lived presidents, but I dont' understand how this illustrates that it is a matter of common concern and not more than a nice bit of trivia. AdamBiswanger1 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have already placed a number of links into this discussion showing that Presidential longetivity is frequently mentioned in the media. I have further pointed out how the issue of longetivity has been an issue for the presidents going back to Jefferson and Adams. I understand how some might find that trivial. However, I consider it just as valid as any other aspect of presidential scholarship. --JJay 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the first thing you do when a president dies? You mention how old he was. Of course the relative age of presidents comes up often, but that does not mean it is notable, and that does not make it more than trivia. I also cringe at the fact at such justifications being used for "List of Wimbledon champions by longevity" or something of the like. Lists arranged as such should have some value in their arrangement, i.e. why does it matter that Dwight Eisenhower(#13) lived longer than Andrew Jackson(#14)? Also, what about the other nominations up for deletion? AdamBiswanger1 04:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it comes up often it is "notable". Otherwise, it would not come up at all. Regarding "trivia", one man's trivia is another man's vital nugget of information. Every article here contains some element of trivia. If I looked at the articles you created, I would probably consider some to be trivial. I might also think that someone would have some use for the information. I didn't know that Andrew Jackson lived almost as long as Dwight Eisenhower. I think that is an amazing bit of information considering that Jackson was born in 1767, fought in a bunch of wars (like Ike) and was sick most of the time with TB. The ramifications of this type of thing for historians and president buffs are endless. Regarding the other nominations, I already pointed out that this is a global encyclopedia so we need the same lists for foreign heads of state. I can tell you that the same issues of longetivity are frequently raised in other countries (Churchill and Mitterrand immediately spring to mind). I will say that as a general rule group noms are a bad idea. --JJay 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong keep, The list of US presidents longevity is what brought me to Wipipedia in the first place. Now I know that James Polk was the shortest lived president not to be assasinated, and my life is better because of it. FancyPants 22:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't ya know! Its Gerald Ford's 93rd Birthday today! He and Reagan are the only US presidents to make it that long. Few more months and he will be longest lived.FancyPants 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and the fact that he is the oldest living is covered round the world, so of interest to many --Rye1967 02:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Certainly notable, however I wish we had some form of variables so that we would not have to manually update them periodically. I also oppose to a mass-deletion of articles unless there is a good reasoning for each of them individually, and not just a generalization. --Mrmiscellanious 03:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tag this bunch of garbage "Children's television series" FancyPants 04:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all though I doubt there is much use in recalculating them more than once every three months. -- User:Docu
  • Delete all because of my disgusting lack of appreciation for human life. ~ trialsanderrors 11:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a oft discussed topic in the real world. Top leaders are heavily scrutinized and compared with their predecessors in all sorts of ways. This is much more notable than most articles on WP. NoSeptember 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and encyclopedic. Certainly more so than schoolcruft. ;)—Nightstallion (?) 22:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and these high-maintenance lists appear to have been created just for the sake of having such lists - in other words, they are listcruft. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all. The initial post is argumentative, at best. Poster claims "this is exactly what it was created for" yet none of the 11 bullets correspond to his notion of "a collection of trivia". While I'm snobbishly sympathetic to their cause, in the end it seems clear that poster and subsequent supporters are motivated by passions and/or agenda rather than the cited rules. If you ever do succeed in your quest to change the rules, then I'll switch to your side. KevinWho 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest Kevin- It is not a quest to change the rules, but a quest to create rules when there aren't any. A clear violation in the absence of a specific ruling against it is not grounds for inclusion. But I suppose that this call for change is a foolish venture and we should simply live with the status quo. Remember that we are not mindless rule-followers, and we do what we believe is best for the encyclopedia. Remember the Pharisees? This is not to say that we are not to have the utmost respect and reverence to rules and guidelines, however you may want to take a look at WP:IAR to take in the spirit of Wikipedia since you are a newcomer. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came upon this page out of my own interest and would feel sad to see it go. Ichelhof 07:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all-In least until "Wiki-Almanac" is created as a source for lists.--T. Anthony 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amending slightly. Thinking on the Pope one makes me think that if these survive they should be limited to just listing "ten longest lived" and "ten shortest lived." Also do we have one for monarchs as they, like Popes, often serve until death.--T. Anthony 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note these two users have a combined edit total of under 30. AdamBiswanger1 23:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Collins[edit]

NN comic author, nothing published yet, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prodded as such, prod removed. Delete --Huon 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrollfesT[edit]

Article was originally proposed for deletion, but tag was removed without an explanation. From some outside research I did, and the current article, it doesn't appear this meets WP:MUSIC. Delete Yanksox 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Arthur E de Sa[edit]

Non-notable. I hate to pick on the creator, but a lot of his other articles are of similar non-notability. Nathan Beach 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. The article asserts strong notability ("well known icon of his time"), but doesn't back it up with verifiable citations from reliable sources. Google searches for all spellings of this name ("de Sa", "Desa", "DeSa") come up dry. Will consider changing vote if proof of notability is presented. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete claims at notability (famous, icon) don't seem quantified. Sanbeg 23:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. Very close to a speedy. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Oddworld. —Centrx→talk • 06:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glukkons[edit]

Delete - WP:NOT Listcruft? --Brian G 20:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Weed[edit]

Yet another nn candidate for public office. Wildthing61476 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom. Nathan Beach 21:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per nom. He's a former Major who's gotten nominated so he matters least till the election is over. grazon 21:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Keep per nom" makes absolutely no sense. "Per nom" means "for the same reason as the nominator", and the nominator is asking for the page to be deleted, not kept. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artw 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Candidacy in and of itself does not make one notable. Wikipedia is not here to give candidates free press. --DarkAudit 23:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD was removed from page by author, I have replaced. Wildthing61476 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD was removed because it had changed since you labled it. and again his being a candidate isn't enough no but he's gotten nominated now grazon 17:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, he'll matter AFTER the election, if he wins. Now he's just another candidate. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A poor guy who went to Yale served in Vietnam rose to the rank of major and has been nominated to run or congress? this guy is impressive. 75.7.152.96 21:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Unregistered users' recommendations are not generally considered on AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Virginia U.S. House election, 2006. Proposed guidelines at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections suggest articles on the election itself be created first. I think candidacy for federal offices should be notable (articles on incumbents can and do include info on their candidacies), however current policy doesn't permit that. The rules say delete, or preferably merge with a page on the election itself. Scorpiondollprincess 14:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was usefy and delete. Mailer Diablo 09:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sanie[edit]

Zero Google hits for this person as a pianist or composer (a few for a "Michael Sanie" who is a midlevel tech executive). Article author is User:Msanie; userfy if deleted. NawlinWiki 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was moot. Mailer Diablo 08:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Maxwell[edit]

non-notable person Whpq 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not slanderous; it is purely informational, based on sources on the internet which can be verifed. This person may not be as notable as George Washington, but it does not violate the tenets of Wikipedia and the tag "non-notable" seems inappropriate based on the content of the article.

"Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited."

    • Nobody has claimed that the article is slanderous. The article has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet the notability criteria for biographies WP:BIO. Essentially, the person in question has done well in college and is now a medical student who has been elected class president. I don't really see how that hits the mark for notability. Compare this with the professor test. -- Whpq 16:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am a boy who Cory helped learn to read and adjust to life in Charlottesville, U.S.A. I came from Guatemala. I was having problems reading and writing last year. School was not going well because it was so hard. Cory helped out at my school in Charlottesville last year and now I get B's on some tests. I looked Cory up on www.wikipedia.com because I wanted to show my Mom who helped me. She did not think he would be on the internet but she was wrong. We have posters of Cory up in our school. He is famous to a lot of us and please don't take him away.
  • This is a joke, right? Speedy Antares33712 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, probable hoax. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The church of mundallah[edit]

Even if not a hoax, the article asserts that this church has only 50 members -- nonnotable. NawlinWiki 21:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:V. Likely hoax. Not a single google hit. Fan-1967 21:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed, likely WP:HOAX and/or non-notable. Not a single reliable source for any of the claims, so fundamentally unverifiable. Gwernol 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The church has been briefly mentioned on newscasts locally (northern IL/southwest WI) for its disruption of seemingly "normal" fundraisers/food drives. However, other than that, I have not been able to find anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.125.140 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Yet, they don't appear in a single online news source, even these days when just about every local paper and TV station has a website. Odd. Please review the policies on Verifiability by Reliable Sources. -- Fan-1967 22:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable at best. --Metropolitan90 03:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G3 and/or CSD A7 This is an obvious hoax and therefore falls under CSD G3. Even if it does not fall under CSD G3, it can be speedied as a non-notable club (CSD A7). Jesse Viviano 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoax is not a speedy category, and is not the same thing as vandalism. Fan-1967 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Fan-1967: this is not pure vandalism under the criteria for speedy deletion. The CSD:A7 (no assertion of notability) claim is closer, but the article does make a weak claim of notability. I've removed both speedy notices. Let the AfD process run to its completion. Gwernol 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the list of non-criteria for speedy deletion, obvious hoaxes count as vandalism. Remotely plausible ones do not qualify, though. I thought that this one was not plausible at all, so I nominated it for speedy deletion as vandalism. Jesse Viviano 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. It's remotely plausible. It's conceivable that such a group could exist, though unlikely in the extreme. Give it a few days, and it'll get deleted in the normal course of things. Par for the course with these fake religions. Fan-1967 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. Jaranda wat's sup 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt[edit]

The Wikipedia cabal are really starting to show their true colors right now. Brandt is far, far, faaaaaar less notable than someone else up for deletion right now, and has long requested that the biographical article about him be deleted. For the last time, please show compassion and vote delete on this subject of borderline notability and respect their right to privacy. Hypokrysis 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This article has had eight previous AFD's. Also, that the subject wants the article to be deleted is irrelevant to this discussion. Extraordinary Machine 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Nomination fails WP:POINT, although it might not be bad-faith, strictly speaking. Tevildo 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme[edit]

Not significant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hackwrench (talk • contribs) 2006-07-13 17:33:20 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, and Recreate as disambig page for Gimme Gimme, Gimme Gimme Gimme, and Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight). Tevildo 21:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For two reasons. Firstly, as a Eurovision Song Contest entry it has clearly won some form of national contest. Exactly what sort of contest I can't be sure offhand, but some kind at the very least (see the archived debate linked from Du Bist for this sort of an argument). Further, as it was the first time the Cypriot ESC entry was not in Greek and the first time that English had been performed, this makes it a significant point in terms of Cypriot ESC participation as well as a point in the progression towards the largely monoglot English Contest of today. BigHaz 06:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As per BigHaz: it is a song which represented a whole nation in an international competition, and was voted for by a significant section of that population in order to represent them. It went on to be seen by hundreds of millions of viewers in one of the world's longest-running television shows. There are many other articles about "XXX (song)" - so songs clearly have their place on Wikipedia. This is a very notable example of a song. As for a disambig... well there wasn't one already created, so not too many people have been confused. EuroSong talk 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - if there's fear of confusion, I would be behind it being renamed as "Gimme (song)" or "Gimme (Eurovision song)". It just happened to be a pagename that wasn't taken when the article was created and which covered the subject matter well. BigHaz 22:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would compare this to American Idol, which I would say every contestant isn't notable enough on their own to warrant their own page, but they each do currently. However, the Eurovision has many more contestants, doesn't link to the songs, but does link to the artists. Why wouldn't the artist's page be sufficient? Gimme is not currently linked to by Eurovision Song Contest 2002 nor One (band). Also, the 2005 Cyprus Eurovision entry by a former member of the band doesn't have an entry. How many songs that were entered into Eurovision have their own entry? Neither of the ties for 3rd place of Eurovision 2002 have their own entry either, and this song placed 6th. Hackwrench 05:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To address the points in the order in which they were raised: I'm not totally cognisant of the debates regarding the notability or otherwise of Idol contestants, however I'd be tempted to argue that if each contestant does currently have their own page, they're notable enough to warrant same. Regardless, as the ESC is larger than that (broadcast throughout the world for starters), I'm not sure that it's the most useful analogy. The song is not currently linked to from either of the pages you've named due (in the case of the band) to my own laziness in not linking it and (in the case of the Contest page for that year) a conscious decision to link the Contest pages to the songs en masse rather than piecemeal (i.e. once all the songs for the 2002 Contest, or as many as don't get AfD'd, have entries, then the page will be updated to link accordingly). In regard to the number of ESC entries with their own pages, a quick check of the the relevant category tells me that there are 273 (275 entries in the category less one song not performed and one separate entry for the Swedish version of "Waterloo"). In regard to the songs at that particular Contest, there are currently 8 entries with their own article - including this one. One of them (Run Away, or "Runaway") being a tied-for-third entry. As I said earlier, the lack of links is due to a combination of laziness and it not having seemed like a good idea at the time. I'll happily put the relevant links in if that's what's required here. BigHaz 07:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, in relation to the claims regarding the 2005 entry (which I missed earlier), I would direct the nominator to the article Ela Ela (Come Baby). I was unaware (I'm not as well-up on Cypriot pop music as I'd like to be, this isn't a laziness thing) that the singer there was a former member of the band, but will update the relevant articles in accordance with the information. BigHaz 07:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't broadcast in America to my knowledge... Dunno about China. What makes you think it is broadcast outside the EU?Hackwrench 20:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reasonably sure that I've heard about it being broadcast in the States (certainly there are plans afoot for an American version thereof, designed as a competitor to Idol). I know it's broadcast outside the EU because I live in Australia and watch it every year. Further, it's broadcast in countries like Armenia [who compete], Georgia and Azerbaijan (none of whom are EU members). I'm also aware of a broadcast in Canada. That said, even if it's only broadcast in the EU, that's still at least a comparable potential audience to American Idol. BigHaz 22:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the EU whatsoever. It is broadcast by full and associate members of the European Broadcasting Union. Full members lie within the European Broadcasting Area (which has nothing to do with the EU, and is only loosely based on geographic Europe), and associate members may be any around the world. The Contest is broadcast in Australia and Japan - and has been shown also in Canada. It is not shown in the USA because no American TV company is an EBU member. Hope that's cleared that up for you :) EuroSong talk 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Du Bist. It has won a major national song competition that would have been on television, and most likely the song sold a pile of records. It was also a finalist in the Eurovision Song Contest, on about a par as the top ten in American Idol. Also ESC has had more of a staying power, as we can see that people still keep archives and info on songs some 50 years old.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is notable and won a major national song competition Yuckfoo 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft version history[edit]

If World of Warcraft is like every single other video game for PC ever made, the version history will just be included with the patches you download or on the game's website somewhere. Violates WP:NOT by being both an indiscriminate collection of info and trying to use Wikipedia as a webhosting service. Recury 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete gamecruft. Artw 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Good Grief Bwithh 21:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delee per above. -- Steel 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and delete the eponymous category too. BoojiBoy 23:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruft. (For some the line between reality and RPGs is little too fuzzy.) --Xrblsnggt 03:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cruft, but mind the sideswipes, Xrblnggt. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. -- GWO
  • Delete There is more detailed information about each Patch on the official World of Warcraft website, which in effect defeats the purpose of this article. --Carlinlord 11:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doktorb wordsdeeds 10:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bionicle World[edit]

This page is utterly bogus. I have seen no note of it on BZPower and one of the Bionicle Storyline team members himself notes it as bogus. This is completly fake. Look at his comment on it:

I know nothing about that. There is a game called BIONICLE Heroes out later this year, but it does not involve all three islands to my knowledge. And I have not heard anything about a BIONICLE World game. Since it is on Wiki, and not BS01 Wiki, it is most likely just bogus. BS01 Wiki is pretty accurate, regular Wiki is full of nonsense.

All I can tell you is no one here at LEGO seems to know anything about that. In general, standard Wiki is full of a lot of nonsense and really shouldn't be used as a resource -- if you want to check out a Wiki for BIONICLE, stick to the one BS01 does.

Basically, I'm wanting this to be deleted, because I don't want anyone to fall for this bogus nonsense. Utopia7391 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete if it's not bogus, delete for being a future event Sanbeg 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the comments on the Bionicle Storyline writer saying that the standard Wikipedia is full of nonsense. We have to get rid of all of this nonsense to make Wikipedia a reputable resource. Ryulong 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Satori Son 04:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and utter nonsense made up by some fool.69.153.122.110

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

The result of the nomination was speedy delete CSD G3 - vandalism fork of CS Marítimo. The club exists however, and their official website is here; however, the deleted article was such an unmodified copy-and-paste that anyone who wishes to write about the real Ashdon Cricket Club would have found it absolutely unhelpful. Kimchi.sg 22:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashdon Cricket Club[edit]

Possible hoax "third division" cricket club; most of this article is cut and pasted from the article on CS Marítimo, a Portuguese soccer club. NawlinWiki 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update Well, they do have a website, but can any English cricket fan chip in and tell us if this is real or not? NawlinWiki 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The article comes complete with a "portugese" cricketer transferred to Chelsea football Club. Not even clever enough to be a hoax. --Richhoncho 22:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. G1 or G3 seem appropriate. Tevildo 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal metaphysics[edit]

the text of the article does not really match its title as it is a limited personal view on rather speculative topic al 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - appears to be nonsensical in places, probably someones private view. Artw 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does need some editing, but it appears to be a known and used term in the mathematics world. Article is sourced and does not appear to be OR. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pseudo-mathematical claptrap masquerading as maths. -- GWO
  • Delete, appears to be original research at best, crankery at worst. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Unencyclopedical. We are aware that the formula <modifier>+<noun> can conjure countless entities out of nowhere; their existence is, however, only linguistic. The 2 links are clues to the existence of the author, not to the disputed subject.195.96.229.95 07:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Aguerriero's comments. Article needs editing and cleanup, but it does have sources. The term "Fractal metaphysics" yields plenty of Ghits. Doesn't seem to be OR. It's kooky and probably pseudo-mathematical. WP:V doesn't require this article to be true, just verifiable. If verifiable sources are cited, I think it should stay ... even if it does represent some strange, fringe ideas. Scorpiondollprincess 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to be Original Research. The "source" *Fractal Metaphysics Home Page is a dead link and the second source is from the same website www.kitoba.com. Looking at that site you see it is the personal page for Christopher Sunami and quote Welcome to the Kitopedia. It represents my personal view of the world. No claims are made about accuracy. Agne27 15:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Xoloz 03:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Canoe Records[edit]

Non notable record producer label. The only author who did major contributions is User:Bluecanoe who is obviously using Wikipedia to promote itself and it's only "notable" artist Joseph Patrick Moore whose page is also listed for deletion for notability reasons. Ryulong 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also listing Decade 1996-2005 because it is the only album listed under this self-promoting label. Ryulong 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be Speedily Deleted per creator's request (below). ~ trialsanderrors 02:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 23:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --InShaneee 23:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above editors are incorrect we have 10 artists and it's growing. Joseph was the first on the list that deserved by your guidelines to be considered. If you find it objectionable, then pull article. My name is Karen Frieske and I'm the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER of THIS LABEL AND I CAN CITE THIS HERE:http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=KAREN%7CFRIESKE&sql=11:4b851va4zzva~T4

    What is objectionable about this entry? Ryulong Our entry has followed your guidelines......... Karen Frieske, Executive Producer of Blue Canoe Records

  • Comment Your contributions to this enyclopedia are objectionable because you, Ms. Frieske, have the same user name as the record label that you work for. With these contributions, including your repeated insertions of this, Mr. Moore's, and Moore's album into more reputable articles are done in a way that seems to me that you are treating Wikipedia as an advertising service, which it is NOT. Ryulong 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you Help?Not advertising here Ryulong...just stating facts which are backed up by your guidelines. Being the exectuive producer, I would know more than most about our record label. I'm not spamming and I'm not using this as a soapbox. I've spent the last 72 two hours pouring over your guidelines, correcting posts, adding links, emailing your editors and in return all i get is negative feedback. It seems to me that you should point out HOW I CAN FIX these opinions so we can have an entry on wikipedia or please simply pull this off. I respect Wikipedia and I respect all the editors who work tirelessly to keep your encyclopedia to a high standard. I only wish that you Ryulong would provide us with the necessary information to HELP us instead of your own personal negative slant towards us. Blue Canoe Records is a respectable label, I only wish that you would find it in your heart to see this. I speak the truth and I stand by this and everything I've added to this free Wikipedia Encyclpedia. Will you please, reconisder your opionon? Karen Frieske, Executive Producer of Blue Canoe Records
    • A large amount of my issues with your contributions that you are pushing your label, its artist(s), and their album(s) as being notable in their areas of interest, which from what I know, is not the truth. A large amount of your edits put Mr. Moore onto lists of other reputable musical artists within articles, listing him along side Geddy Lee and John Entwistle, among others. Your contributions about your label are severely questionable as to assert the notability of those within. I'm afraid that I cannot think of any way to help you to have these articles stay within Wikipedia, and I apologize for that. Ryulong 04:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryulong i looked at those pages you cited and I don't see Joseph's name on those pages. You are accusing us of adding things we didn't add. Joseph is a bass guitarist and obviously so is the two gentleman you cited. According to your post above, you are asserting that our contributions are not true and that we are posting false info and our embellishing our own personal opions here. Last time I checked Joseph was a bass player and darn good one at that. He is #25 out of the top #100 as posted by an outside source:http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_jazz/best_jazzbass.html

    So now you know. For the record...I stand by what I post and by your guidelines set forth in your credible and amazing enclcyopedia.

    Thank you for your fair consideration.......................Karen Frieske, Executive Producer of Blue Canoe Records

    • First, stop making your comments headers. They disrupt the AFD logs. Second, sign your comments by placing ~~~~ at the end of your comments. Third, you did not add Joseph's name to the pages for Geddy Lee or John Entwistle, but you added him to lists where they were also listed, such as Bass guitar, List of bass guitarists, and the alumni list for University of Tennessee. I went through where his article was listed and removed him from these lists because of the dubiousness of his notability, which is still being questioned (I did not remove the listing at U Tennessee, but another editor who felt the same way did, as well). Once again, I have nothing against your company and anyone involved withit, but I do have something against people who feel that they are important enough for mentioning on Wikipedia, which has been lauded by some as an unreliable resource because of editors who wish to do nothing but advertise, which your actions I felt to be as such. Ryulong 04:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • why are you pulling links on your own accord Ryulong, I respectful disagree. I've stated the facts. Joseph is an alumni of UTK and he does play bass guitar. Again all of which are BACKED up and cited on NUMEROUS sites that we've supplied links to (both external and internal). The fact that your pulling things on your own free will out of the encyclopedia that are indeed fact's, really questions the true validity of Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Signed Blue CanoeKaren Frieske, Executive Producer of Blue Canoe Records
      • He may be a bassist, but because of his (so far) lack of notability, I had removed him from the various lists and articles where you had inserted him. Ryulong 04:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • #1 on EMusic.com's Most downloaded Artist in the Jam/Rock Genre for the month of july at the second most digital downloading store (behind itunes):http://www.emusic.com/charts/ch/b/-dbm/b/0-0/556+1200000404/0.html
        It seems to me for what I know, Geddy Lee and John Entwistle (which you cited above) is also considered Rock/Jam bassists and would fall under this same catagory....Ryulong Is this a lack of notability?
        Again, I stand by what I've been saying on the last 30 posts to you...I state the facts here. I'm not spamming nor am I advertising, because we don't need to do this, as we are having success without abusing or spamming credible bodies of work such as wikipedia. I'm simple citing articles of notable artists that met the guidelines of which you have put forth. Karen Frieske, Executive Producer of Blue Canoe Records
        • I have heard of Geddy Lee and John Entwistle, and they are established musical artists. I have never heard of Joseph Patrick Moore until I found him listed on WP:AFD. They are internationally renowned bass guitarists. From all standpoints, Mr. Moore is not. Ryulong 05:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok , I think I've proved my point about your negative slant and non-helpfulness towards Joseph and Blue Canoe Records as stated by your comments above. You would rather impose your own personal opinion, which seems to go against the very guidelines which you have set forth. It appears that many other people are familiar with Joseph his music and his contributions to both the world of bass and beyond. If this wasn't so, his CD would not be #1 of the most downloaded CD's on emusic.com's rock charts as well as in the top 10 out of 9,000 on the jazz charts, in addition to all the numerous links we have provided. The fact that he has a CD titled "Decade 1996-2005" should offer some sense of notability, credibility and thoughtfullness as to your guidelines. I regret that you have taken upon yourself to insert your own opinions as opposed to doing what you we're hired to do, which was to fact check and see that the info posted can be verified. Instead you removed links that are credible and could be of value to many wikipedia's visitors. I have made every effort to provide plenty of internal and external links to varify the article. I have met wikipedia's guidelines while not full-filling your own personal opionion's. Karen Frieske, Executive Producer of Blue Canoe Records
          • I am not imposing a personal opinion. If there are others who know about Joseph Patrick Moore and Blue Canoe Records, they are free to edit the encyclopedia as well. It is just that you are the sole contributor to the articles connected to the record label that you work for, and are promoting this artist by placing him elsewhere in the encyclopedia when his notability is in question by others. If he is notable, then yes, he deserves a mention at List of bass guitarists as well as his alma mater, but he does not need to be mentioned in the actual article for the Bass guitar or other various guitars. Ryulong 05:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. However this entry has been in wikipedia for 3 days and in that time, we have been working to met your guidelines. Give it some time, I'm sure others will add to Joseph's listing-that is if you decide to keep it.Karen Frieske, Executive Producer of Blue Canoe Records
  • Delete per WP:AUTO, WP:NN. Only news item is a press release. My comment to Ms. Frieske is to not try to push her label or artists on Wikipedia. If they're notable, someone else will do it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's meant to read some other individual, not a sockpuppet of the page creator. ~ trialsanderrors 19:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strongly agree with Trialsanderrors. Nathan Beach 17:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, and the Blue Canoe user keeps blanking the page. --Awiseman 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Don't understand above posts? Looks like there is plenty of verifiable sources and notability on this CD release. --Sallyroberts28
That's because you're a sock puppet adding links to "your favorite cd", which just happens to be this guy. Strange that User:Bobj7 has the exact same kind of edit summaries when he adds links to his "favorite CD" - [57]--Awiseman 19:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the Executive Producer for Blue Canoe Records, I would like to REMOVE our label listing Blue Canoe Records from Wikipedia. It is obvious from the editors posts that our label is not ready to be listed at this time. On behalf of Blue Canoe Records I appreciate your time and attention to this article. Thank you for your consideration-Karen Frieske. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecanoe (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Nominations cannot be withdrawn. Capit 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think she means she wants the article to be deleted. Right? --Awiseman 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a speedy, creator requests removal. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, that means I'll have to start another AfD for the two sockpuppets' "favorite CDs" that belong with this, then. Ryulong 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Alone Together should definitely be deleted. There are two other artists where this links to, including Tony Orlando's discography. Ryulong 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should list those two albums separately and let this one be speedied. ~ trialsanderrors 01:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are now listed separately. Ryulong 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At 14:47 I asked for our account to be deleted. The spam from the sock-hoppers occured after this (as I have been doing some investigating of my own). Does this make sense? Why would I ask for the Blue Canoe Records account to be deleted and at the same-time be orchestrating some sort of mischievous campaign? This is clearly a cruel joke!! I will wait patiently for the account to go through the deletion process. bluecanoe
  • Delete, as the creator wants it deleted. However, I don't think it qualifies under CSD:G7, as it was not created by mistake. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. OSU80 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was do not keep. Punkmorten 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond cole[edit]

Candidate for city council. Does not pass the notability test for political candidates. --DarkAudit 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Speedy if possible. Wickethewok 22:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I started with a speedy, then thought better of it and brought it here. --DarkAudit 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular delete asserts notability: has been involved in many local, provincial, and national initiatives - what would a political candidate's nomination statement be if they didn't even try to show he did significant things? Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not the place for candidate nomination statements. Kimchi.sg 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Sanbeg 22:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete I have improved it. I agree it was unsatisfactory before and I will take sugestions for further improvment. I would like to know how to edit the title of the entry: It now reads "Desmond cole" and the "c" in cole should clearly be capitalized. --geordiemcruer 12:07, 14 July 2006
    • Comment. Geordie, while you have improved the article, that's not what's up for debate. The article is considered for deletion on notability grounds, since Wikipedia isn't really a soapbox. Information about a candidate's personal life is campaign brochure material, not for wikipedia. Try using verifiable sources like newspapers, etc. In fact, take a look at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections for a start. --ColourBurst 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pretty useless article. Nathan Beach 17:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete I have removed some more personal information and added more context at the bottom. Note that two of Mr. Cole's opponents have entries. Vaughan's is of questionable significance since his greatest public relivance outside of the upcoming election is as a City TV reporter. Meanwhile, Dwight Drummond, a news anchor on the same station has no entry. Please continue to give me tips for improvement. --geordiemcruer 13:46, 14 July 2006
    • Comment Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether Mr. Cole's opponents have entries, as Wikipedia isn't promotion for campaign candidates. The only thing for debate is whether Mr. Cole is notable. If you believe Vaughan's entry is not notable enough, list it as an AfD. The event participation that you have put in is probably not notable enough, though winning City Idol might be. Also, please do not vote twice - I have stricken out one of your votes. --ColourBurst 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete I think we could keep Desmond's entry on the grounds that he was "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" City Idol received a lot of press (locally and nationally) and the winners are still getting a lot of press because they are City Idol winners not because they are yet another candidate running for council. In this light I would reorganize the entry to focus more on Desmond's involvement with City Idol. hakka_moy 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:BIO and proposed guidelines in Candidates and elections. An article on the election itself is notable; a single city council candidate is not necessarily notable. Scorpiondollprincess 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete City Idol received --- http://www.torontoist.com/archives/2006/06/city_idol_comin.php , http://webapps.utsc.utoronto.ca/ose/story.php?id=169 --- a lot of press in Toronto, as well as nationally, in Canada --- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060620.CITYIDOL20/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/ --- as geordiemcruer has already mentioned. If anything, someone should pen entries for Arthur Roszak, Bahar Aminvaziri and Amarjeet Chhabra, the City Idol winners for Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough, respectively. That Desmond is a city council candidate is interesting; that he won City Idol is notable. --duncanphilipnorman 15h40 (edited 15h50), 18 July 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. Punkmorten 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh_Belson[edit]

Vanity, one edit by subject Sanbeg 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete violates WP:VAIN and is a non-notable article. --Porqin 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely vanity. Article being created by a User:Jbelson doesn't do it any favours. -- Steel 23:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy. Only IMDB credits are as film editor. NawlinWiki 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nathan Beach 17:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Haven[edit]

Non-notable local band Artw 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't qualify for WP:MUSIC, "The groups crushing debut album, "Romance of The American Kingdom" was released in June of 2006 to rave reviews by local newspapers.", demonstrating their lack of notability. --Porqin 23:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable band. NawlinWiki 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nathan Beach 17:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyphone[edit]

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

The result was speedy delete (by Borghunter). Mushroom (Talk) 22:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fannon[edit]

This is probably a neologism, perhaps something made up in school one day, and in any case a dictionary definition. - Richardcavell 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was speedy deleted by Borghunter after I created this nomination and before I could list it at AfD. - Richardcavell 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerd Schenkel[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. The guy has obviously had a successful career but he has never made CEO and is no different from thousands of successful executives around the world. Only 51 Google hits here. BlueValour 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 01:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Many companies do IT stuff and then have some executive written in trade press. -- Whpq 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have restored the AfD template that was blanked by the creator and asked him not to do it again. BlueValour 03:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fascinating, though! Nathan Beach 17:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (creator) Why don't "thousands of successful executive" deserve an entry ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbooth (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. Punkmorten 22:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jae Dougall, Wilson chu[edit]

Also nominating: Kiff Holland, Francine gravel and Nicholas Bott. Promotional artist articles added by website they are affiliated with. Delete as spam, non-notability.

Comment: Editor has also contributed the articles Francine gravel and Nicholas Bott which may fall under same AfD. - Tapir Terrific 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 01:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dafino[edit]

Delete per WP:BAND Brian G 23:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, so tagged, no claim of notability. NawlinWiki 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy userfy to User:Tarartrat, clearly CSD A7 candidate - simply being a painter is not an assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TAR ART RAT[edit]

NN, vanity. {{prod}} removed without explanation. --Chris (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google search brings up 97 results, the first page of which shows mostly DIY sites such as MySpace and Flickr. ... discospinster talk 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Discospinster. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly NN, and even misspelled own name. Sanbeg 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - I ignored the Ip address and also one keep which had two edits. another is the author, and another is suspected of the being the article's subject.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Guttman[edit]

Any claim to notability that this person has is solely due to the Stolen Sidekick ordeal; he is not famous enough outside of htat incident. The article should logically redirect to How NOT to steal a SideKick 2, which was deleted. If that incident isn't notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia, I feel that this person doesn't either. Hbdragon88 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Appears to be another means to create an article on the Sidekick 2 non-event. Agent 86 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Barely notable when it happened, completely non-notable now. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nathan Beach 17:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non notable individual in the fields of information technology and photography, and the Sidekick event was completely non notable as well. Calwatch 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I felt the sidekick 2 article was worth of at least a merge into internet vigilantism but this individual has no fame beyond a single fleeting incident. If that changes he can be added later. - Tεxτurε 15:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I am confused. The StolenSidekick story was reported around the world, with the name Evan Guttman appearing in Newspaper headlines, radio, and TV. For 3 weeks straight there were 5-10 million hits a day on the website and even though the story is over, more than 100,000 hits still a day. It was linked in over 400,000 websites. Yet, Wikipedia deleted the page twice. Now someone has created this page, and again it is being put up for deletion. What does it take to "make" Wikipedia. There is a page about the Dog Poop Girl. That wasn't reported in US newspapers (let alone on the front pages of them), yet it has a page here. The Star Wars Kid has a page... The StolenSidekick saga too had people creating videos, flash games, and photoshops. So, again...what does it take? In the end, I will quote what someone wrote when the Dog Pool Girl page was up for deletion: "these are the kinds of entries that make wikipedia so much more than an encarta clone. Interesting, if not always tasteful, articles about EVERYTHING notable... not just one person's concept of "appropriate". Themindset 06:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)" - EvanWasHere16:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 23:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Worth keeping, the story is fresh, newsworthy and interesting. teaches people to be honest. JohnD508 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument against this article's notability has been sustained yet no valid reasoning has been presented in this light. That the value of the information being presented here can only be weighted in context is, in my opinion, not a legitimate argument because the nature of all information in this universe is that it can only be viewed in context--inside an infinite size system, all events are relative to each other. Ergo, the notability of first president George Washington exists only in context of a country called the United States of America, which in turn is only notable in context of a planet named Earth, and so on. Ultimately, a true encyclopedic endeavor would mandate the inclusion of all perceivable information without bias or regard for its "relevance," if only because relevance is subjective while reference sources ought to be objective. I am not saying that limitations of current technology and financial availability must not reasonably limit such an endeavor, but rather that an event which has been recognized by the international community could not have done so were it not "notable" in the eyes of a great many. This factor must be considered if Wikipedia is truly for the people, because it is the people that demand this information. --Connected 24x7 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What matters is WP:BIO. Specifically, one of the guidelines states: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" Guttman has only been mentioned in the context of a single day's news event - the Sidekick incident - and nothing more, and thus does not meet the notability guideline as set in WP:BIO. Hbdragon88 06:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, another guideline states that it is okay to have articles for "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events," something Evan Guttman has, indeed, accomplished. And "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?" Most certainly--the moral aspect behind the Stolen Sidekick issue transcends time as a core value of humanity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Connected 24x7 (talk • contribs) at 15:08, July 18, 2006.
  • Well, the second guideline that you pointed out is under the alternatives section, which has not necessarily gained widespread support. Also, why are you making such sweeping judgements over the predicted sentimental value of this incident? One oculd argue that the P-P-P-Powerbook also teaches the similar morales, about honesty and what-not. It is on Wikipedia because it was still memorable and well-known months after it had taken place. I don't necessarily know if it's a de facto guideline or real, but it has been a general guideline that people only notable due to a single event are redirected into that event's article. For instance, the owner of GameFAQs, CJayC, redirects to GameFAQs because he is not notable besides being the owner. Patsy Ramsey, accused killer of her daughter, simply redirects into JonBenét Ramsey because she is not notable outside of her daughter's murder. Hbdragon88 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg to differ. There were actually now 3 news events that were reported. One was the start of the website, the second was the arrest of the alleged thief and return of the Sidekick, and the third was the Ebay auction with portion to charity. On top of that, it caused debate online and in the media on what is the right thing to do when you find someone else's property. Maybe one of you can explain how the Dog Poop Girl fits in the WP:BIO Actually, according to the guidelines of WP:BIO this entry qualitifes:
  • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers

(Does TV, radio, and newspapers around the world count?)

  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following

(Does it's own forum, IRC channel, 1,000-3,000 mails a day, and massive amounts of hits STILL a day count?)

  • An independent biography

(well...that would be this page you are recommending for deletion)

  • Name recognition

(see below)

  • Commercial endorsements

(because of the publicity associated with the website, there are talks of doing commercials <can't mention the brand at the moment>) (UTC)" - EvanWasHere10:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I believe that the three events that you mentioned are still tied into one main event - the sidekick event. It still all points to the same thing. Hbdragon88 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Are we to presume that User:EvanWasHere is the subject of the article? Due to your comments above, one might conclude that you are arguing for this article because of its publicity value. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You could conclude whatever you wish.. I didn't use a anonymous name on here. If you had read my site, you would have known that I have been turning down media interviews as I am done speaking about this story... So I am not trying to create more publicity. This page though, as it was made by one of my readers, I enjoy and appreciate. If there was a page about you on Wikipedia, wouldn't you defend it too? In the end, lets stick to the facts... 1.) There are other pages like this one on Wikipedia 2.) As stated above, this qualifies as WP:BIO 3.) Wasn't a single news event, but multiple. EvanWasHere11:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All users, please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date and time. Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was a huge internet deal and the page got many, many hits. The creator deserves to be in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.171.208 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh j noble[edit]

Possibly non-notable musician, unverified, possible vanity. "Hugh J and the Picnic" has 58 Google results, and "Hugh j noble" has 67. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless a discography can be produced. BlueValour 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His record company was founded by him and written by article creator. It appears this is a vanity piece. Yanksox 02:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above as not notable. DarthVader 06:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nathan Beach 16:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and Geogre's law. If kept move to proper capitalization. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cali Ruchala[edit]

This is a curious recently recreated page I am bringing here to get some opinion/consensus on. I first noticed this article when it appeared on AIV[58]. It had been around for quite a while (since 2004 if you look at the article's talk page and the first AfD), but two days later it was listed for AfD[59] and within thirty minutes, before the AfD3 was made and without any comment from anyone, the article was deleted[60]. I looked into this before, and there are some curious things going on between the two editors mentioned in the AIV report, and involved in editing the article (eg [61]). I can only see these issues arising again, and maybe even another hasty deletion, so I think it best to get some opinion here. This person may be a journalist, and a founder of a publishing press. The recently recreated article is currently light on content, but it has looked more convincing. I have no vote at this time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across some material written by Cali Ruchala and was surprised not to find anything about him/her in Wikipedia, - on further search I noted that there had been an article and I basically restored it as I did not see in the discussion of the article any reason for deletion. Indeed it looked to me that the consensus of the few respondents was "keep". I agree that there is not much information but a little is better than nothing, and we have to trust the wiki to get more over time. Is Cali Ruchala the real name or a nome-de-plume? This a spurious argument. That's all we have, and there are lots of people who are listed here not by their given name. If it is not the real name, let us say so in the article. So that's my reason to keep/restore the article.Ekem 02:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are issues around maintaining articles on living people, mainly because they become targets for vandals, but I think we should give it a chance since so much time has passed. The fact that it was recreated independantly is a strong suggestion of notability. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aguerriero's comments. Article needs to be expanded. But "Cali Ruchala" gets plenty of Ghits, and as Aguerriero indicates, the article being independently recreated strongly suggests notability. Scorpiondollprincess 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who has published a few things on the internet gets plenty of Ghits. Try Googling "Cary Bass" or "Cary Michael Bass" (use quotes). Not an indication of nobility. Bastique▼parler voir 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per aguerrieros comments also where is the second nomination Yuckfoo 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Frankly, the press is no longer in existence. Anyone can start a journal. There is no other indication of notability. The fact that it was recreated has less to do with notability than to do with how many people know who he is. There's a big difference between the two. Barring other evidence, this individual fails WP:BIO on every level. Bastique▼parler voir 23:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gill Langley[edit]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO - no doubt a worthy scientist but consultants and research fellows are, without being disrespectful, two a penny. One published report for a lobbying body doth not a notable person make. BlueValour 00:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 01:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 06:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She does have a few hits in LexisNexis, but they are mostly news blurbs about her report and news releases that she wrote regarding the same subject. I don't think this makes her notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nathan Beach 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you've written fewer peer reviewed articles than me, you're nowhere near notable. -- GWO
  • Keep. This woman is a well-known animal protection expert in the UK and has acted as an advisor to the British government. This is just a stub. It will be filled out. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find this somewhat disturbing. BlueValour, who has been editing only since May, nominated this stub for deletion just 34 minutes after I created it. [62] Do we now have a situation where people must post finished articles first time, lest they be nominated for deletion before they've added anything? This is a published author, a former scientific consultant to the government, who is frequently used as an expert source by the media, and as an expert witness by the British government. I hope BlueValour is not making a habit of this type of nomination. And BV, please don't edit other people's posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I spend long periods patrolling new articles hence the rapid response. The report that Langley wrote was not in a peer reviewed journal. There are countless people around who have advised the Government, including me as it happens. And, SV please don't play the man and not the ball - it simply demonstrates a lack of confidence in your case. BlueValour 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you were patrolling new articles is not the point. You shouldn't be responding so rapidly. Stubs need time to grow. And why on earth would Langley's material need to appear in peer-reviewed journals? Are we now to go around deleting all living bios of people not published in peer-reviewed journals? Please reconsider your approach to this. You're a new editor. Wikipedia would have virtually no articles if every stub was nominated for deletion within 34 minutes of being created. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the Research Defence Society discussing Langley's notability, and a recent television interview she gave: "Gill Langley is from the Dr Hadwen Trust (an anti-vivisection organisation which funds non-animal methods of research) and is also scientific adviser to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. She stated in a television interview last week that she was "looking forward to an open debate, but it hasn’t started yet". This is an astonishing statement from someone who gave evidence twice to the House of Lords committee, sat on the Animal Procedures Committee for eight years, and has been involved in dozens of debates, workshops, interview, reports, committees and investigations into animal research." [63] SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SV. Nom was too quick off the mark. FeloniousMonk 14:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like a premature nomination. Langley gets almost 15,000 Google hits, a not inconsequential number, and she's also mentioned over 40 times in works on books.google.com. The article is significantly improved since the first stub was put up, giving ample indication of notability, and mention in many different sources. I recommmend that the initial voters re-examine their votes in light of the state of the current article. Jayjg (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vote solicited by SlimVirgin on Jayjg's talk page [64]. (I had Jayjg's talk page watched and noticed this.) --Ben Houston 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin did not "vote solicit", she asked me to look at the article and AfD, and told me her reasoning as to why she thought it should be kept. I looked at it, did a little research of my own (I noted, for example, that Langley has been interviewed for 1/2 hour on BBC TV as well [65]), and decided that the article should be kept. Is asking for third-party opinions on Wikipedia now something to be frowned upon? I have had literally hundreds of requests on my Talk: page from dozens of editors asking me to look at situations. It used to be something that was applauded. What is frowned upon is Wikipedia:Harassment; I would classify watchlisting someone's Talk: page , and then using the posts there to make bad faith accusations regarding their actions on various articles, as falling under that policy. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jayjg, those claims you make above are pretty extreme. Anyhow, SlimVirgin's response was "So what?", she didn't contest she was getting support from you, just that from her perspective there wasn't anything wrong with it. --Ben Houston 23:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after taking the time to read through the article I agree with nom. --Ben Houston 21:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. You feel free to accuse others of making bad-faith votes, but feel no concern that your own vote will be seen as nothing more than a continuing campaign of harrassment against SlimVirgin. Wonders never cease. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, you really should be ashamed of yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the strategy of trying to show notability, such as your comments below, are much more valuable and more likely to result in a desirable outcome that either recruiting friends to vote keep or aggressively attacking those which may not take a position you approve of. --Ben Houston 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know that Gill is "well known"? Her name appears once in the Independent once in the last two years, [66] twice in the Guardian [67], [68] (in 2002 and 2006) and not at all in the Times. Delete, being a member of a pressure or advisory group does not make you notable; public recognition is missing. Dr Zak 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a 27-minute interview with her on BBC television, and an interview on BBC Radio Four that I just linked to. Plus she is the author of one book and the editor of another. And sat on an important government committee. I find this utterly bizarre. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has she had any public recognition? Sitting on a committee doesn't confer intrinsic notability, neiother does appearing in an interview on TV. Has her work been cited anywhere? Her name comes up just three times in what are arguably the three leading British newspapers. Her book "Vegan Nutrition" has a sales rank near 500000 on Amazon.co.uk, "Animal Experimentation: The Consensus Changes" has long been out of print. What I am asking here is: would anyone outside the circle of Animal Rights activism ever have heard of Gill? I'd say no. Please convince me that I should have heard of the lady. Dr Zak 22:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she is known within animal protection circles, not just animal rights activism. So anyone involved in animal testing will know of her i.e. anyone involved in writing about it, presenting evidence about it, taking cases through court etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her recent report was cited in The Scientist if that's what you mean by cited. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Scientist doesn't exactly command great respect. In Nature (the leading British science journal) Gill is mentioned twice (as spokeswoman for the Hadwen Trust), saying that not enough is being done to replace animal testing. I see no evidence (in Nature again) that her report has been cited anywhere. The "Union for the Abolition of Vivisection" on the other hand is mentioned often. I'm a bit reminded of the Lumber Cartel. It's a running joke amongst antispam activists - I certainly have heard of it - but outside that narrow circle the joke is unknown, and I'm not convinced that that particular meme needs its entry on Wikipedia. Same here. I'm just looking for her being mentioned giving testimony etc and getting noticed for it. Dr Zak 22:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mistyped: New Scientist. If you mean her recent report, it has only just been published, so people will need time to respond to it in full. When you say getting noticed for giving testimony, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm very confused by this, because there are so many (possibly hundreds of thousands) of articles about people and issues less notable, and less well referenced, than this one. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about expert testimony in courts, or anything else that might confer public recognition. Sine you mentioned less notable people and issues, no, I'd say that minor porn stats, morning radio presenters and local politicians shouldn't have entries here either. Dr Zak 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article says, she was invited to be an expert witness at the House of Lords inquiry into animal testing in 2001. She sat on the Animal Procedures Committee for eight years (the committee that oversees animal experimentation in the UK). She advises the European Commission on issues related to animal experimentation. She is one of a very small number of researchers in this field who are extremely highly regarded by all sides of the debate (scientists, animal-rights activists, governments, courts). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The editorial part of Nature commands great respect amoungst scientists as a reliable source for news on science and science policy, especially European issues. I've said it already: what I doubt is the assertion that Gill is "highly regarded by all sides of the debate" as she is mentioned in Nature merely twice, and only as a spokesperson for an organization. Also note that unlike Nature, the New Scientist is a popular journal. Until we see the "Next of Kin" report mentioned in notable journals we must assume that the publication went unnoticed. Remember that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle to advance worthy causes, it is a record of notable causes. Dr Zak 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and the nominator have misunderstood this article and, with respect, Wikipedia. This is not an article about an eminent scientist qua research scientist who is writing in peer-reviewed journals and working for a university. This is an article about a zoologist and writer, who has become an expert in an unusual field (where peer-reviewed articles are rarely, if ever, written), and who has succeeded in gaining respect from all sides of the debate, which is exceedingly rare in this area. However, I think the article speaks for itself, so I won't say any more about it, except that I'm somewhat bewildered, and very disappointed in certain people on this page. I have never viewed myself as an inclusionist, but if this is what deletionism causes, then I may indeed have to cross the floor. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read again what I said above. I mentioned the editorial part of Nature, the "News" section in particular. Here is what an issue looks like. Anything important in animal testing would be reported there; it's such an important issue that affects so many scientist. I made my case that Gill is non-notable (because she rarely appears in the newspapers and twice in the scientific news but not as an expert). Can you make your case that she is a highly regarded expert with verifiable evidence? There was a blog cited further up... is there really nothign better? If you can't, and someone disagrees with your view, please don't attack that person. Dr Zak 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to agree that this is totally bizarre. I came across this because I've been arguing (politely, of course) with the author elsewhere and looked up her contributions, and the individual is clearly notable. I'd suggest those who voted to delete before she had the chance to weigh in be asked to reconsider given her response and the article today. Sam 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Editors will be interested in reading the talk page of the article that clearly breaches WP:AGF. My factual addition 'The Next of Kin report into what is a contentious subject has, however, not yet been peer reviewed nor subject to critical analysis' has been reverted. Let me be clear; yes I am a scientist but no I have no strong position on animal rights. Despite accusations against me, and adolescent jokes, I base my case on the facts not personalities. This article is pivotal. This is an article for a lobbying body that has a clear (though obviously legitimate) agenda. For such an article to have merit it most certainly requires peer review to establish its neutrality and scientific merit (on which I express no view). Dr Langley is obviously well established in committee circles but what is needed is evidence as to what she has actually done e.g. peer reviewed papers, academic positions attained (e.g. professor not research fellow), generating new knowledge etc. BlueValour 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my edit has been reverted again without any talk page discussion. I am not prepared to engage in a fruitless edit war so I have simply put an npov tag on the page. BlueValour 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. &#0151; JEREMY 02:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm going to place myself firmly in the "this is bizarre" camp. Something truly odd is going on here. This article could serve as a template for how to create new articles and what topics they can cover. And not peer-reviewed? Ummm... I think maybe a foreword by Jane Goodall would constitute a peer review, perhaps the best review on the face of the planet. Yeesh. IronDuke 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per IronDuke and others. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 08:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per IronDuke. This is rather strange. She appears to be a notable activist, add to that the unusual factor that she's a former animal researcher, and she's easily notable enough for a WP article. If we delete this we'd probably have to delete 2/3 of the bios in WP. Wrote an important report for an important activist group which was cited in New Scientist, was interviewed by the BBC... there's plenty here to call her notable enough for a WP article. Guettarda 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per SlimVirgin and IronDuke. The article has been fleshed out from its stub state and there are many items in the article that would make her notable in the world of Animal Rights Activism. As a whole that category needs a little more attention (especially from a POV slant) and this article is a quality example of a NPOV bio in that category. It would be a shame to lose. Agne27 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Courage[edit]

Nothing in the article suggests to me that he is inherently notable enough, aside from being a candidate, for his own article. I suggest Delete and redirect to United States House elections, 2006. It is not a merge because a balanced entry for Texas 21st Congressional District is needed there. BlueValour 01:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as not notable. DarthVader 06:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article about the race should be created first, and he can me mentioned there. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nathan Beach 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom as notable in that he has been nominated to run for Congress.75.7.152.96 20:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC) No user contrbutions before today. BlueValour 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete A candidate for a Congressional district is not notable by reason of nomination alone. The other accomplishmetns listed would not make for an encyclopediac article, either. --DarkAudit 21:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I'm uncomfortable with the policy that candidates are NN by reason of nomination alone. That policy introduces a subtle bias in favor of incumbents with pages mentioning their candidacies. Nevertheless, Candidates and elections seems a mostly fair policy stating, "articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates." Aguerriero is correct: an article on the race itself should be created first. Then perhaps this page could be merged there. Scorpiondollprincess 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_13&oldid=1081095696"