Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 16 July 18 >

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer virus hoaxes[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Too many redlinks. (The article was created in January 2004, but still most links are red links) TPA5 21:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT a collection of lists, especially when the items in the list aren't notable to have an article for themselves. -- Steel 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT, 75%+ red links in the body, no content besides the list itself. I think it also qualifies for WP:CSD A3. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- as useless list --T-rex 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT, worthless list. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists are acceptable if they fulfil the purpose of lists. This list's purpose is to be the companion to list of computer viruses (as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Malware), and is clearly to be an informational list. The scope of the list (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists) is neither too narrow nor too broad, given that the set of computer virus hoaxes is finite and small but not minuscule; and the list is easily sourced from sources such as this one and this one, thereby eliminating original research. That the article comprises temptation to write lots of perpetual-stub sub-articles is a reason to de-link the names on the list, not a reason to delete the article. Indeed, those titles should be redirects to this list. Keep. Uncle G 11:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Petter 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Could serve a pupose if expanded.[reply]
  • Delete as a random and unhelpful list. It's main purpose would be to aid research into computer virus hoaxes, yet putting "computer virus hoaxes" into Google returns more helpful material. This simply diverts and wastes people's time. If it is unhelpful and wastes people's time, then I can't see a reason for keeping it. SilkTork 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the article is far from finished is not a reason for deleting it. Uncle G 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationale given by Uncle G. The list can be improved, but computer viruses are undeniably a notable subject and such a list -- even if articles on individual viruses do not yet exist -- is useful. IMO far less useful lists have been kept. 23skidoo 14:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs major attention, including a COMPLETE REWRITE!!!! Antares33712 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all keep arugments 216.141.226.190 12:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, useless list. --Off! 03:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Vegaswikian 05:26, 21 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 Deleted through PROD; debate here moot. Xoloz 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:modern[edit]

This was nominated for AfD incorrectly. Fixing this, I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 23:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spammy corporate article with no notability Antares33712 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question This page has on it an uncontested prod and an uncontested prod2 - why is it here? GassyGuy 23:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Adding: This is showing up in a screwy manner right now on AfD main page. My comment is in reference to Re:modern, not pogoaddiction. GassyGuy 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed, this does not belong here. -- H·G (words/works) 00:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close, the article has active and uncontest PROD and PROD2 tagged to it for the last four days; this does not need to be reviewed in AfD at the moment. -- H·G (words/works) 07:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment if those were removed, then we would still have to vote. I just want to ensure crap like this doesn't reappear Antares33712 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The correct procedure for this is to nominate for AfD only when a prod or speedy delete tag is removed. If the article is worth a prod, chances are it'll fail to survive an AfD; nominating for both doesn't add any insurance that deletion will occur, nor should it. -- H·G (words/works) 17:45, 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. — FireFox 12:10, 22 July '06

Pogoaddiction[edit]

This was nominated for AfD incorrectly. Fixing this; I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 00:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable website, spammy article, but was told I can't speedy on the grounds of obvious spam, so I put this on vote. Call it, neologism, call it spam, call it advertisement, call it whatever, lets vote this gone. Antares33712 23:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I second that motion. --Richhoncho 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, only a single Google hit. The majority of the text is positioned as a quote so possibly a copyvio as well. Brian 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete 216.141.226.190 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB and violates WP:ADS. --Satori Son 14:57, 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. — FireFox 12:10, 22 July '06

Erin O'Brien (novelist)[edit]

Non-notable Cleveland-area writer and blogger, fails WP:BIO. Her main claim to fame seems to be that her brother John O'Brien authored Leaving Las Vegas. She had a novel Harvey & Eck, put out by a small Canadian indie press, which currently ranks somewhere in the 500,000 range on Amazon. Those doing a Googletest, please note she is not one of the many actors named "Erin O'Brien", or the musician named "Erin O'Brien". --LeflymanTalk 19:39, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/??

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and semiprotect - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Designer vagina[edit]

Neologism. Article refers to more extensive labiaplasty article which is apparently basically the same thing. Page is also being endlessly vandalised by children. I@n ≡ talk 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. -- I@n ≡ talk 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 06:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to labiaplasty. SynergeticMaggot 07:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any valid content, and redirect to labiaplasty, since it seems like a valid search term. Luna Santin 07:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if possible or just redirect to labiaplasty. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge labiaplasty. --SJK 09:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT -- there is no content to merge as it already exists in target article. -- Whpq 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect of Labiaplasty and protect redirect. Ekajati 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above Martinp23 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Alphachimp talk 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, redirect and protect the redirection Antares33712 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. The existence of the redirect will just see continued vandalism at a different spot. Is the redirect really necessary? -- I@n ≡ talk 04:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy this one 216.141.226.190 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect - just a redirect is simply a Keep since it can be undone next day by any editor. BlueValour 04:53, 23 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. — FireFox 12:17, 22 July '06

2022 FIFA World Cup[edit]

This article was originally prodded for deletion, but was objected to without any explanation by an anon. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; 16 years is way too far in advance for an article. Because of the unanimous deletion votes comments on 2026 FIFA World Cup, I propose a speedy deletion (or at least, close this debate quickly -- I don't think any user will object). Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Do Not Delete I found its very existence informative, and the date is not beyond the scope of reasonable speculation, given that bids have to be completed not less than eight years before each competition. User:rwgray 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not sure about speedy (the 2026 is still open). ~ trialsanderrors 06:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the 2026 FWC nomination has been met with unanimous delete votes comments. I fixed my reason for deletion to clarify things Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw that, and I'm sure this one will go down too. I just can't find any WP:CSD criterion that applies. In any case, I'll add a link to this one at 2026. ~ trialsanderrors 06:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, me neither. There should be a speedy deletion criterion that can delete articles about "sporting events that little content or are extremely in the future." Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this too, as it contains almost no known information, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per... we finished the last one, what, a week ago? A bit too soon for an article. R.E. Freak 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sensing a head... an angry head, is it - ? Yes, yes... it's striking another player in the chest... tmopkisn tlka 06:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing non-speculative, as per the reasoning behind Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Crazywolf 06:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rewrite it in 16 yrs. Michael 06:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Leave it up and running! Although the 2022 Cup is still way in the future, information already starts popping up so why not have it in Wikipedia? What's posted here is not some private person's thoughts but the info backed up by newspaper publications, so to a certain degree it's a credible info. There is a lot of speculative info re: 2014 and 2018 Cups as well, yet nobody proposes to delete it. And lastly, why are you so obsessed with the deletion? If you don't like it, just don't read it - read something else instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs)
Comment - Apples, oranges. There is speculative info for 2014, but the bidding process has already began, at least unofficially, and because of the continental rotation system, it's narrowed down to a few number of candidates. 2018 is far in the future but there is already debate over whether this will be part of the continental rotation. There's no such substantial discussion for 2022 and beyond. Also, the "if you don't like it, don't read it" doesn't work for me. If Wikipedia is filled with trivial and/or speculative information, it devalues the whole project as an encyclopedia. So yeah, Delete. Ytny 08:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's just thick. You make an argument for keeping the article and use the same article to recommend deletion. Really clever eh fellah ? Palx 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indent is your friend. So is WP:CIV. Ytny 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we should delete because it's speculative but we should keep because it's speculative. I understand. Apologies for any lack of civility. It gets frustrating reading things people post sometimes. I should get out more. Palx 08:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the above Comment Surely, there is no such SUBSTANTIAL discussion but THERE IS a discussion going on already. This aricle quotes such officials as the FFA President, for example, so you can't call it just a speculation if it comes from such a high-ranking official. And besides, there was a discussion to move the 2010 WC from South Africa to USA in case the South Arficans won't fix all problems on time, so you might as well delete "the 2010 FIFA World Cup" article until 2010. There is an alricle in Wikipedia called "the 2024 Summer Olympics", for example, and nobody has any problem with it whatsoever, so what's the problem with "the 2022 World Cup"? It clearly states that it "contains information about a future sporting event. It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available." Therefore, it doesn't devalue the project but gives the reader some insight about the future event, event which, unlike some national jump rope competition, billions of people around the world are obsessed with. So please, don't touch it but update as the time goes on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs)
Comment You just made the case for keeping 2010 WC as opposed to 2022. There's enough happening for 2010 that FIFA has to make official announcements that it will stay in South Africa. As it is, the 2022 article is more about Australian soccer than the World Cup, and the opening sentence includes a "thinks" and two uses of "probably". There's no information about 2022 beyond "Wouldn't it be nice if..". What's wrong with waiting 4 more years until there's real information about it? Ytny 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional smart-ass question What is "speculative info"? JChap (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page for crystal ball-gazing reasons. Perhaps move the information on the proposals for the Australian bid to an article connected to the FFA or the Socceros, although even then there'll be a fair amount of wild speculation to remove. As I see the "Future Sporting Event" warning, it relates more to an event the general details of which are known, but not the specifics (so we know that the 2008 Olympics will be in Beijing but not exactly how they're going to be run, we know that South Africa's scheduled to host the 2010 World Cup, but not who'll be competing apart from Bafana Bafana themselves). In this case, we know none of that. BigHaz 10:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The host team is no longer guaranteed a place in the World Cup, so S.Africa may not be in come 2010. ;) Kimchi.sg 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The host team still has a guaranteed place. It's the reigning champions who no longer get one. Jess Cully 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until FIFA at least open the bidding process Nuttah68 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As written, this article is mostly about one nation's (Australia's) probable role in an event that won't happen for another 16 years. That's far too narrow a scope for an article on a future event. Very general specifics are one thing, but with such a specific topic this article can't help being overly speculative. Scorpiondollprincess 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE -- Whpq 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No useful info, just idle speculation that Australia might bid if they don't get 2018. That's not enough to justify a page so far in advance. Jess Cully 19:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just a load of speculation - not for WP Martinp23 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not a crystal ball? Alphachimp talk 22:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm usually *very* much in favour of articles about future events, but in this case, there's hardly anything we could mention. —Nightstallion (?) 10:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. Many of the people who will be competing in this event are still in diapers for heaven's sake! 23skidoo 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete You would think it's not going to happen the way people here are talking. Not a single reasonable argument put forward. Not one. Why don't you delete Halleys Comet too ? ridiculous to suggest this article be deleted. The 2022 WC is a fact ! this is an encyclopaedia ! what is the problem ? stupid stupid arguments like crystal ball really get my back up. Now leave the article alone. Palx 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a fact, it's a projection. If there was an article on "Halley's Comet pass of year 26,749" I would recommend deleting that too. Delete. Fagstein 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there isn't which effectively means you are talking rubbish. please stay on topic if you are challenging. World Cup 2022 is in the future but it is also a fact. what part do you not understand ?Palx 15:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete The information on the 2022 World Cup is surely speculative for a (very) big part, but still it contains information from official sources as there is the Australian FFA president. I understand the crystal ball argument, but the line between 'allowing' 2018 and 2022 is thin. So why not create one page concerning the World Cup tournaments further than 4 years into the future and put all information for 2018, 2022 and further together? --Pelotastalk 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's actually might be an excellent suggestion - to make one page for all future World Cups starting from 2022 and beyond. I'd recommend to keep a separate page for the 2018 WC, though, as there is a lot of info already re: this event. Name this page simply "Future FIFA World Cups". There is enough info already available on 2022-2030 WCs to make one web page. There is even a site promoting WC 2030 in Uruguay (in Spanish, http://uruguay2030.tripod.com/), event that's still 24 years in future. Surely all this warrants the inclusion of all the available info to the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 July, 2006
Comment I think it's an idea worth cosidering, though the information that's in the 2022 probably belogs in the 2018 page under the Australian bid. Still, I disagree that the line between keeping 2018 and 2022 is thin; there's a huge dropoff in the amount of actual information. As it is, we only have the FFA represetative talking about if the 2018 Aussie bid fails assuming 2018 is still part of the continetal rotation. Too many variables and not enough definite facts or official statements, I think. And the 2030 page looks like more wishful thinking than an actual bid committee, though that might be because I can't read Spanish. Ytny 08:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing of it is, I seriously doubt that there are countries who will bid for 2022+ that will not bid for 2018. If any country is considering bidding for a future World Cup, logic would tell us that they would bid for the next opportunity (that is, 2018), rather than waiting four more years until 2022 or later (this is assuming the continental rotation will end after 2014). Do you see what I mean? Ian Manka Talk to me! 08:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is logic in that, but there always might be reasons to let one chance pass, for instance when there is another event already planned to be organised in that nation in that year (Olympics or a World Championship of another sport for instance), or maybe the nation wants to make a good first impression and first improves the infrastructure, stadiums etc... before submitting a bid. (Although I must admit the Australia case contradicts this.) Anyway, I wonder if this logic is really an important thing to consider: if an official source mentions a nation will be going for World Cup 2030, does it matter if we think they will probably also try for World Cups 2018, 2022 and 2026? --Pelotastalk 09:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see the logic too, but for the purpose of Wikipedia, I find it irrelevant. You're making an assumption about the intention of the candidate nations, however logical it may be, and you're asking Wikipedia to be a crystal ball. No one will come out and say, "We probably don't have a chance in 2018 but we're making a token bid in preparation for 2026" and you'd be dealing with speculation, not facts. Again, what happens in 2022 depends too heavily on events that haven't taken place yet i.e. the fate of the continental rotation, whether an European or a non-European nation gets 2018, etc. Really, is it too much to wait, oh I don't know, another six years before creating this article? :) Ytny 09:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I worded that wrong. I meant, even if it is just a token bid before a country really makes a go at it, the information will not change, unless their bidding strategy makes a complete turn-around. Therefore, if Country X is making a token bid for 2018, and going for real in 2022, then their bid info would be the same. They'll still use Stadium A in City B. Future articles aren't needed past 2018. Period. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to annoy anyone, but I don't completely buy that. The information WILL change, surely a nation will show to the FIFA Committee that it has improved a lot since four years earlier. Ofcourse since we're indeed looking into the future the difference is not immediately visible now, but surely you have to consider more than just the stadiums! Also quoting you twice: Future articles aren't needed past 2018. Period' I can indeed agree that that is seriously worded wrong. What possible motivation could you have to determine that 2018 is the limit for useful information? The page 2022 Winter Olympics exists and if you look at the information on that page well, there's no reference and three of the four mentioned cities are also on the 2018 Winter Olympics page. However I still agree that a complete page on the 2022 FIFA World Cup is probably overdoing it, but I dont agree that the information should be neglected because it's further into the future than your 'allowed year' of 2018. --Pelotastalk 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't word anything right. Sue me. What I meant by Future articles aren't needed past 2018. Period, is that, as of 2006 (and perhaps a few years later), there is no need for any article about hosting until either (a) the shortlist is announced for 2014, and prospective candidates who were using 2018 as a warm-up for 2022 are not on the shortlist or (b) it has been announced that the continental will continue until 2018, in which case, all relevant information will be merged into the 2022 article. Hopefully I worded it okay this time. Ian Manka Talk to me! 09:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I have no more arguments I can think of right now that I haven't mentioned already. Looks like I'm also almost the only one thinking this way, am I so stubborn? Anyway I hope most people using the crystal ball argument are not just copying from the intro without thinking. --Pelotastalk 09:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete Revolutionfan 01:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2022 is way to far ahead, things could change majorly between now and then MrDaveS 22:24, 19 July 2006 (BST)
  • Strong delete it's merely speculation --Angelo 21:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete (Even stronger!) Ladies and gentlemen, let's draw the line under this discussion. Obviously there are people here who are in favor of keeping the article, like myself, Pelotas, and some others. So I believe our desire to see this article up and running must be respected. We produced all the arguments we could in its favor, and the final one is this: we want it, so please let us have it. Does this article offends or abuses anyone? Does it have racist, pornographic, or similar content? No, of course. So leave it for God's sake! To all the people who are obsessed with deletion here, go to articles "2022 Winter Olympics" and "2024 Summer Olympics" and vent your feelings there! Delete those two and leave us this one! Deal?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...or no deal Unfortunately I don't think you quite get how AfD works. It's not about how much someone wants an article, it's about whether it fulfills the standards of Wikipedia. The key thing in this case is that it needs to be verifiable (see WP:V). As all we have is speculation there's no way to verify whether it is or isn't true, so ultimately we can't have an article until there's some concrete facts (e.g. a statement of intent to bid by an FA). --Daduzi talk 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I just don't know how to get this message across you guys, so I used that last argument that we simply want this article up. 1. About the standards of WP. Surely it should apply to ALL articles, not just this one, right? Therefore, first check out "2022 Winter Olympics" and "2024 Summer Olympics" articles. They contain the same speculative info as this one, yet NOBODY wants to delete them. Is it a double-standard or what? Now to 2. Article needs to be verifiable. The info contained in it is backed up by newspaper publication. If this is not enough for you, you may contact the Australian FA and verify their intention to bid for WC2022 in case their 2018 bid will fail. What other kind of verification do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As regards other articles, that's rarely an argument that works (unless the articles have gone through an AfD and been kept). Ultimately there's a lot of articles on here that probably could be deleted but haven't been challenged yet. If you feel that the 2022 Winter Olympics and 2024 Summer Olympics articles don't belong then you can list them for deletion separately. As for the verification issue, I didn't make myself clear; what needs to be verifieable is the fact that it's likely that Australia intends to bid for 2022. As things stand all that can be gained from the newspapers is one statement by the FA chief exec that they could bid. Which still leaves us with speculation, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oh, and please sign your comments with --~~~. --Daduzi talk 10:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment On the contrary, I believe that those two "Olympic" articles should be on WP as well for as long as there is at least one piece of info re:them. As for verification, then using your logic you may as well delete 2014 and 2018 WC articles since all we have there is just statements from respective officials that they "could" bid without any documentary proof that they will actually bid. --~~~.
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball or a soap box. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, article is not verifiable as things stand. --Daduzi talk 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no point to have this article whatsoever. After 2008 (when 2014's host is decided), or 2010 (World Cup in South Africa) then restart it, but no sooner. Comedy240 17:26, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyHD[edit]

Prod contested. Product of uncertain notability. No evidence of passing WP:CORP.Luna Santin 05:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Superficial description of HDTV capture card, no discussion as to notability.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOR, WP:NN Ytny 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to WP:CORP. Article reads more like a technical advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. Scorpiondollprincess 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the immense number of hits in google seem to suggest this should pass WP:CORP, I don't know much about this thingamajig, but to me there seems to be some well organized technical information here that just needs to be formated. -MrFizyx 17:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I got the impression that the article was written as an advertisment, and it didn't feel encyclopædic to me. Martinp23 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and now Antares33712 23:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete corporate spam. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by junk? If the pages aren't related to the item discussed in the article in question I'd change to delete. -MrFizyx 20:26, 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 merge - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every Nation Campus Ministries[edit]

nn campus minustry group. --Pboyd04 00:05, 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 merge with Apostasy. Mailer Diablo 10:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Christian[edit]

I don't think this is a very useful page. The term itself should be covered by a dicdef since the other sections on the page make assumptions about the "ex-christian" including trying to list reasons why they became ex-christian and the process they went through, which is clearly not the same for all ex-christians. --Pboyd04 00:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Apostasy. The article is about apostasy, and should be mentioned shortly in that article. There's no reason to belabor the point by making it into a separate article. Alphachimp talk 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Alphachimp. A redirect to that page probably isn't necessary. -- H·G (words/works) 01:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. I would've said keep, it seemed to have potential, but it just stinks too much of OR and speculation. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Apostasy. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. SynergeticMaggot 04:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above Crazywolf 06:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, as per Alphachimp.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the "In Christianity" section of Apostasy according to Alphachimp's reasons. Scorpiondollprincess 14:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary and presumptious. Abcdefghijklm 15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and once deleted, possibly create a redirect to apostasy. This article is obviously original research and I see nothing of value to be merged. The article is an unsourced list of reasons someone might cease to be a Christian. While interesting and while, given the prominence of the ex-Christian movement within the atheist community this is a topic worthy of an article, the currsent article is unhelpful. BigDT 18:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - Subject matter is related to Apostasy and may be a valid search term. Otherwise we may end up revisiting this AFD in the future. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to apostasy; nothing in here to merge save a dicdef and original research. Ziggurat 01:26, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eythorne Baptist Church[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. ~300 ghits. --Pboyd04 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Bill (who is cool!) 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Early example of non-comformist church. History dates back 450 years, and they now operate in 4 locations. The article needs to be improved, but so do many more on Wikipedia. --Michael Johnson 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs to be greatly expanded, but could be retained, there is enough history. Judgesurreal777 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but expand, though Ghits are low.--Jusjih 01:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - pretty much same reasons as above. I don't think it's all that notable, but maybe could be expanded. But it's been here since March and in 4 months didn't get all that much in it. So, I wouldn't scream if it was reincarnated with a better article. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for historical reasons per Michael Johnson. AdamBiswanger1 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above (NOTE: "Ghits" have nothing to do with anything, cease immiediately). -- Librarianofages 02:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment just using google to try and establish notablity/verifiabilty, because lets face it neither the article nor the churches website inspire confidence. --Pboyd04 04:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Neither the article nor the church website are particually well written, nor is the church website technically very good. But so what? And hardly surprising from a village church, where the average of parishiners is probably in their 60's. Surely we should be looking at the facts presented.
        • church has a continuous 450 year history
        • church has a strong association with someone who was executed for their religious beliefs, surely notable
        • church was an early Baptist church, important for the history of that sect.
        • The whole story adds up to part of the history of Christianity, the development of religious freedoms, and on the way the growth of political freedom. A footnote no doubt but interesting and the sort of thing I personally would be looking to an encyclopedia to expand on. Just some personal thoughts --Michael Johnson 07:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article has the background foundation, it just has to be discovered and added. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust*T C 04:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per my comment above can anyone provide verification? If so I'll drop the nom. --Pboyd04 04:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since there seems to be historical significance. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Expand and V. SynergeticMaggot 04:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please there is historical significance Yuckfoo 06:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with Michael Johnson and others - historical importance and interest --HJMG 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs to be expanded and better written, but it has historical significance and potential for improvement. I agree with the comments about a need for better WP:V though. Scorpiondollprincess 14:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a rarity here, finally, a notable church. Carlossuarez46 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Themindset 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be an 'In Progress' stub. This article has potential to be of encyclopaedic value. Let's give the authors an opportunity to bring it up to that potential. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All enduring institutions are verifiable and should be documented in any encyclopedia whose purpose is to comprise the sum of all knowledge. --Centauri 01:50, 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. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews of Rhode Island[edit]

This page is a classic example of an article violating the No Original Research Policy. It's at least 5 or 6 pages long. Hell, it even lists its author. I prodded it, but my tag was removed. Alphachimp talk 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Don't we also have a rule against essays of this sort, also? --Bill (who is cool!) 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think it's WP:NOR. Alphachimp talk 00:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer: This article was published by the Rhode Island Jewish Historical Association in 1985. The original author, Geraldine Foster, is a known historian and writer in Rhode Island. The article was copyrighted. It was uploaded with the consent of the Rhode Island Jewish Historical Association president. What's so wrong about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevebrown (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Errr...because it looks like it fails WP:NOR? --Bill (who is cool!) 00:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - because only the author can authorize release under the GFDL, not a previous publisher who does not hold the copyright on the material. If it wasn't the author who gave permission, it's still a copyvio. Ekajati 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Well, that and WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't a place for verbatim copies of sources. Ytny 01:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, definitely (and admitedly) original research. WP should be a tertiary source, not a secondary one. -- H·G (words/works) 01:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is indeed copyrighted, shouldn't it be speedied? Aplomado talk 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete there could also be copyvio issues here hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. That's what I initially thought, so I started searching random text. Even though it is copyrighted, it is not published on the web, hence this nom instead of a db-copyvio from me. Alphachimp talk 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - as above, very likely a copyvio. IP address claims they have permission - would that include permission to edit and mangle as time goes on? Maybe Wikisource? I feel bad when I vote delete and somebody obviously put in a lot of effort, but that's the way it is... should delete the various images too most likely... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns, but I doubt that anyone would type an essay that long with sources in their Wikipedia browser window. It's an original copywritten paper. We can't find a URL, because it's not published online. Alphachimp talk 04:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep remove copyvio and stubbify. Did you see the list of 13 sources at the end, many dealing only with Jewish history of rhode island! This is a notable verifiable topic. Deleting because it is OR makes sences when the topic itself is OR. If there is OR in a notable topic remove it - don't delete the whole ariticle. Out of 6 pages I am sure we can find a paragraph to keep. I don't believe that AFD should be used as a way of cleaning up articles. Jon513 02:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. No....the whole thing is the copyvio. The author even admitted to it here. Alphachimp talk 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOR and WP:COPYVIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Theres no copyvio if the author allows it. SynergeticMaggot 04:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom Michael 06:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Transwiki if the folks at Wikisource take it. ~ trialsanderrors 07:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One unsigned comment in an AfD debate does not constitute author's consent, it's still copyvio in my eyes. It may be suitable for Wikisource with actual author's consent, but not Wikipedia. -- NORTH talk 08:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource, as it appears to be a copy of source material, which we don't do. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My question is: why is this designated as "copyvio" if the publishing organization authorizes it? There are publications by the R.I. Jewish Historical Association in the Library of Congress. It is a reputable organization. The Association has authorized placing this item on Wikipedia. In searching Wikipedia, one finds all kinds of apalling postings under headings with "Jews" in the title, many of them arguably offensive. This posting contains factual, verifiable information, complete with sources. This entire discussion sets a question on the value and impartial validity of Wikipepdia postings. Canna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevebrown (talk • contribs)
Comment - as I noted above, "would that include permission to edit and mangle as time goes on?" That's one big concern. The second is that WP is not supposed to be a repository of source information - that is what WikiSource is for. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 10:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - because permission to publish does not typically make the publisher the author's agent. Permision to publish is usually a one-shot deal - to publish in a specific issue of a specific journal. Only the auhor can give permission to re-publish in a different venue. Ekajati 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to make it perfectly clear that this is not me exercising some personal vendetta against the Jewish people (in Rhode Island, Israel, or the World) or against some individual person. The content of this essay hardly matters to me at all. As any reader of AfD discussions will know, Wikipedia is Not an indiscriminate collection of information. No Original Research is a policy on Wikipedia, meaning that it has been vastly agreed upon by the entire community. I understand Stevebrown's frustration with having this article nominated for deletion, but I strongly question his attempt to boil this down into a debate over racism on Wikipedia. I think any editor would agree that my course of action was entirely reasonable (prodd'ed for WP:NOR, prod removed without comment, nominated for AfD) and precedented on Wikipedia. Alphachimp talk 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* I uploaded this article yesterday, because I found nothing on Wikipedia about the Jews of Rhode Island. I am a member of the Board of the RI Jewish Historical Assoc. and we thought that this information would be valuable for people who are interested in history. If the powers-that-be think it would be better under Wikisource, that is fine with me. The entire idea was to get information out there for people to use.
  • Comment It seem very strange to be call this a copyvio. Either you trust to anonymous and there was permission, or you don't trust him and there is no reason to believe it is copyrighted at all. The only source that this text is copyrighted if from the anonymous source. (and BTW all of wikipedia is anonymous, not signing in makes you less anonymous not more!). Jon513 12:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written because of WP:NOR. Wikipedia can certainly have an article on the Jews of Rhode Island. But it should not be a word-for-word reprint of a single existing article. Wikipedia articles should never have just one author. Geraldine Foster could be one of several sources for such an article. But as currently written, this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. WP:NOR says wikipedia is "source-based research" -- not merely a reprint of a single source. I'd encourage the Board of the RI Jewish Historical Assoc. to collaborate in putting together something more appropriate to wikipedia to replace this. Scorpiondollprincess 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto. All articles are out in the open for other editors to tear up (in a beneficial way) as the Wikipedia community sees fit. Thus, posting an article written and copyrighted by a single author isn't really appropriate and doesn't make much sense on a wiki. Aplomado talk 00:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR Abcdefghijklm 15:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Transwikify or stubbify E Asterion u talking to me? 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails WP:NOR. However, if this article is indeed published and verifiable, it could be used as a source reference for an article on the topic, but the article itself is inappropriate for WP. Ekajati 20:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Martinp23 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR or transwiki to wikisource.--Nick Y. 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki this version [1] to wikisource. They can accept original source material in whole. We need an encyclopedic article written using multiple source documents unsigned by any author and open to revision by the next person that looks at it. GRBerry 21:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. WP:NOR, source article can be preserved on Wikisource, but not Wikipedia. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per WP:NOR --T-rex 01:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki current article to Wikisource, stubbify an editable article. --Shirahadasha 04:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not OR, because it simply isn't an article in the first place. I can't imagine wikisource would want it either, if it's really copywritten. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with heavy editing and remove any offending material. This article can be included in Category:Jewish American history, which has similar articles, such as Jewish history in Pennsylvania and Jewish history in Ohio. What this article needs is time to be edited via {{Wikify}} but not deletion. IZAK 07:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up a lot. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 07:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit - there is, or rather should be, no question this is a noteworthy topic. Copyright and NOR violations are, of course, unacceptable; but the remedy is not to delete if the topic is noteworthy. --Leifern 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio but follow WP:BITE the uploader is a new contributor, who has gotten a bunch of nasty templates on his/her talk page for unclear copyright issues. Can someone leave a nice note discussing this situation? Re-upload might be ok if copyright issues are completely resolved, or Wikibooks might be a better home than the encyclopedia. Phr (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article but delete all copyvio materials. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either fixup asap or delete. Article reads like a dramatical short story or a high school book report, not an encyclopedia article. Does not do justice to the subject. And if cleaned up, then rename as per IZAK. --Shuki 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see WP:COPYREQ for what it may take to resolve copyright questions. I don't think the info we already have is enough to go on. We need to contact the author, basically, and get confirmation by email as discribed at that link. -- Phr (talk) 02:16, 21 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 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyville (webcomic)[edit]

Are any My Little Pony fan fictions notable? At all? What about this LiveJournal hosted My Little Pony webcomic, found here. A google for ponyville spoosh gets a total of 30 google hits (spoosh being the author). The answer by the way, is no, not notable. - Hahnchen 00:17, 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 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRG Productions[edit]

This is a group of webcomics hosted on a website called Fireball20xl. Fireball20xl manages an Alexa rank of 50,000, so whereas you'd probably delete it if it were a regular website, you might consider it for a webcomic. Only, if you see the traffic data, as I've linked to, you'll see that 87% of these hits aren't to any webcomic at all, but to a sprite (2d images) resource at http://sprites.fireball20xl.com . The group of 5 webcomics by the same guy, "Alan Solivan" are found at http://trg.fireball20xl.com and pulls in 3% of the hits. Neither of these 5 comics are notable individually, and grouping them together makes no difference. Searching for "Alan Solivan" the author of every comic gets just over 100 hits, as there's not many, it's not hard to work through. You won't find a single professional review of his work, because it isn't notable. This guy falls into the same boat as David Gonterman, prolific? maybe. Notable? no. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Weak Keep — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WKeep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources, no claim of notability, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 04:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, being hosted by a (marginally) notable website doesn't necessarily make your webcomic notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 11:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A version of this article is available at Comixpedia: TRG Productions. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for WP:NN, as per Coredesat's comments. Scorpiondollprincess 14:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Nick Y. 21:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems I'm in a minority here. Thought it would just be a cool to have another webcomic-related article here. G'head and delete it, seeing as what I have to say probably won't matter squat on the fate of the article. I would, however, like to point out two things that I'd like to be mentioned for the record. First, I'd like to state that while The Spriters' Resource and TRG Productions do indeed get 85% and 7% of the website's hits, respectively, it had been failed to mention that TRG Productions is the most heavily visited subdomain of the site after Spriter's Resource, gaining more than the front page of the main site itself. Spriters Resource is exactly what it says: a spriter's resource. There are a decent handful of sprite comics with undeniably large followings, the webmaster of Fireball20xl, Bryon Beaubien, included. As a result, he made what I think is a wise decision and made a subdomian strictly for those who want to make good sprite comics/works to get the mateials they need to get started, as opposed to having the said following hang onto them asking for and/or where to get sprites. Additionally, the website that was linked states only how many hits the subdomains as a whole get. Look around Spriter's Resource. There are a lot of pages, primarily because the sprite sheets are linked to the sheets themselves (if I'm making sense). If it were like Shuyguy Kingdom (http://tsgk.captainn.net/index.php), it's quite likely that the hit count for Spriter's Resource would be considerably lower. Secondly, I would like to simply state what Alan Solivan had to say about this article get deleted (note that these aren't his exact words; he was much more diverse, so to speak, in his exact diction): "This would be the second time Wikipedia had anything related to my work killed (the last time was because my site was only a 'small' porition of an even bigger one or some equaly trivial matter) and I'd rather not have to keep putting up with their being so severely ridiculous over everything."--Cukeman 22:50, 21 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 14:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Hair[edit]

A webcomic, here. No assertions of notability. Looking on Google will get you 30 links for the string "nice hair" mauchline (mauchline being the author). As the title is so generic, I couldn't just google the title. The alexa rank is 4 million. Popular? Notable? Decent Sources? - Hahnchen 00:17, 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 14:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile Guard[edit]

Webcomic here. No Alexa data here. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete non-notable webcomic as evidenced by nominator's research hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet our content policies as it is unverifiable through reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 04:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 05:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also per above Homestarmy 05:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having no alexa data cannot count for or against it since it is not a metric used on AfD. But of course the nom has been told that a dozen times already. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I did this nom after some pointless complaints about my nominations, still, could have been worse eh? - Hahnchen 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "The nom has been told that a dozen times already" is worthless when every AfD based on Alexa rankings generates several "delete per noms." Perhaps a better argument than "Because I told you so" is needed. A bad Alexa ranking is no reason to delete an article just as a good Alexa ranking is no reason to keep an article. Alexa rankings do not reflect whether any source material for constructing an encyclopaedia article actually exists. A highly ranked web site may well have no reliable sources, or a poorly ranked web site may well have numerous reliable, reputable third-party sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. -- Dragonfiend 15:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. R.E. Freak 06:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A version of this article is available at Comixpedia: Reptile Guard. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comic ranks in top 15% of Webcomics on its Web Comic List Page Ninjkabat 1:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Is it possible to place a redirect to the Reptile Guard Comixpedia Page in place of the article here? Ninjkabat 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Contacted the Creator. He is willing to flesh out the article and make it much more complete if it is not deleted. Ninjkabat 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No, it isn't possible to turn a Wikipedia article into a redirect to a different Wiki. As far as the author working on the article, that is discouraged for the reasons described in WP:AUTO. Comixpedia doesn't have the same limitation, though, so if he wanted to work on that version, it would be fine. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:28, 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 and redirect to Early Christianity. Mailer Diablo 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Century Christians[edit]

little or no info that is not already covered in Christians --Pboyd04 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm assuming GF on this article. It wasn't until this AfD that I went and added the EC link to the main Christianity article. It hadn't been there...??? — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the contributor was intentionally causing harm by creating the article ... that's not what I'm saying at all ... but when I read statements like "The First Century Christians were different from the Christians of today in many ways" without qualification, it sounds like the start of a POV fork ... just because someone creates a POV fork doesn't mean that they are acting in bad faith. BigDT 18:30, 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. DS 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The River Café (Brooklyn)[edit]

restaurant with no claim of notabily Delete Jaranda wat's sup 00:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Bill (who is cool!) 00:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why isn't there a speedy for articles like these? Aplomado talk 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedy - NN. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete article makes no claim to notability. Speedy per WP:CORP -- Librarianofages 02:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. Businesses are not subject to the speedy deletion criteria. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 05:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. I wondered whether this restaurant could be as notable as its London namesake (no relation), but while the British restaurant is a favourite of the Prime Minister and various celebrities, has had a documentary filmed about it, has the involvement of a world famous architect, has launched a wellknown cookbook series, and is associated with at least two TV celebrity chefs, the Brooklyn version appears to be regarded as something as a charmingly cheesy overpriced tourist trap. Bwithh 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. just a plug. FiftyOneWicked 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Qball6 23:00, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dafna Arad[edit]

Non-notable singer. Was PRODed and deleted, but the author wanted it restored. The Google results don't look very promising, so delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Cited in many works of media, member of notable band. Israeli ska? That makes the subject the prominent representative of both a local area and a notable style. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I live in Israel and I can tell this is a self promotion of NN person. --Haham hanuka 16:39, 16 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete...I think I'm with Haham on this one... --Bill (who is cool!) 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Google results are meaningless for names ordinarily written in non-latin characters - such as Dafna Arad here... - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep NN under WP:MUSIC but Fits in under WP:BIO, cover of train and assualt are highly notable, so much so that they were shown on TV, and printed in Newspapers. -- Librarianofages 02:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of a notable musical group meets WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC somewhat. Yanksox 02:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see no evidence that the ska band is in anyway notable.. but anyway, meets WP:BIO which is good enough for me -- Librarianofages 02:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fails WP:MUSIC but satisfies WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please satisfies bio guideline Yuckfoo 06:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please explain, in what way does it meet WP:BIO? Surviving a train accident (which most of the passengers did) does not make one notable. Even being attacked by a celebrity does not make one notable. She's been involved in notable events, but she herself is not notable. Her band, sorry, I've never heard of it. I live in Israel, I ran a search on her name on Google in Hebrew, and was surprised to discover what I consider to be the most notable fact about her is not even mentioned in the article - that she is the sister of a marginally notable semi-celebrity in the Tel-Aviv scene, Roee "Chiki" Arad. Even that fact does not make her notable. This article smacks to me of self-promotion. --woggly 07:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable enough - appeared several times in the world press regarding the Daniel Barenboim incident and others --Marina T. 11:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Interesting Shmila 09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and woggly. Fail to see notability in either bio or band. Tychocat 11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:BIO, but article needs a cleanup. Scorpiondollprincess 14:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Comes close in several categories. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:52, 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 speedy delete as repost. Kimchi.sg 16:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premodernist paradigm[edit]

Might be original research; more likely comes from the Postmodernism Generator, available at http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo. --OliverTraldi 00:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure non-knowledge. -- Librarianofages 02:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs cleanup and conformity to MoS yet its got citations and there are no real reasons why this should be deleted. SynergeticMaggot 06:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I'd wager hoax via Dada generator. Author who created this article did so anonymously, created this one article in toto, then decamped. I tried Googling a quotes: ""Class is part of the stasis of narrativity," attrib Foucault, Baudrillard, Gilberte. I searched for other phrases, and started getting all kinds of essays all written in the same style & format & with the same vocab, as well as frequent Dada generator hits. --SigPig 08:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax and patent nonsense. I've played with the PoMo generator myself: the generation of "references" where most are published by Loompanics or And/Or Press is diagnostic. Smerdis of Tlön 14:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I smell a pseudo-intellectual hoax here myself. As written, the article is nonsense. Unless a very strong cleanup can be done to prove there's an actual subject in here, this deserves a delete per WP:HOAX. Scorpiondollprincess 14:58, 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 speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 07:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jd era, JD Era[edit]

fails WP:BIO, WP:NOR, and WP:MUSIC; probably written by the article's subject as a vanity article. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:39, 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 by consensus. Kimchi.sg 07:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Studios[edit]

Converting prod to AFD as previously deleted by prod and restored so doesn't qualify. Huon nominated it as "Non-notable, fails WP:WEB, no relevant Google hits". JLaTondre 00:40, 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 speedy delete. Roy A.A. 01:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Stafford[edit]

NN photographer. Also it looks like it's a vanity page, probably created by her boyfriend. Dionyseus 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That is correct, the entry was indeed posted by her boyfriend. With all due respect, is there anyway to reconsider judgement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andreg45 (talk • contribs) .
I doubt it, because the matter at hand is that the page still fails WP:NN. So, I vote for Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. --Bill (who is cool!) 00:46, 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 speedily deleted by Tawker. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Awesome Movie[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Caesura(t) 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI When an actor has a planned movie credit, it is listed in IMDB as such (pre-production, planning, etc...) No entries are available under Ethan Hawke or Cary Elwes, both well-noted actors. If we trust imDB, can we safely declare this a hoax? 216.141.226.190 04:29, 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 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful nightmare[edit]

Prod removed without explanation, I unknowingly added it a second time without checking the file history. Anyway, article does not assert meeting WP:WEB and the comic/site doesn't seem to meet it. --W.marsh 01:00, 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 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aigaion[edit]

Fails WP:WEB DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As the author of the Aigaion page I would like to ask for a reconsideration. I intend to update the page in the (very) near future to give a better description of Aigaion. It will probably look something like the Wikindx page. If pages like these do not fit in the Wikipedia policy, deletion is fine with me.

With kind regards,

Wietse

  • Delete according to WP:WEB. If better notability can be established, this could be resurrected. As written, I fail to see any significant notability. Scorpiondollprincess 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure of WP:WEB WilyD 16:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, We are working on the notability :) We have an ever increasing amount of users and downloads, and I see no reason why this should decrease anywhere soon.. What would be the required notability? What makes the change between aigaion an for example Wikindx? Wietseb 06:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We are working on the notability. Notability first, article later. Those people who do not understand BibTeX are doomed to reinvent it... poorly. -- GWO

OK, that 's clear. By the way: Aigaion is nothing to replace bibtex and we are not reinventing it. Aigaion is a bibliography management system just like Endnote etc and has excellent bibtex im- and export facilities. I have been looking for a program that offers these facilities on the start of my promotion, but failed to find a convenient open-source bibliography management system. Mentioning Aigaion here seemed the right place for me to spread the word. Unfortunately I was wrong there. Kind regards, the Aigaion team, Wietseb.

ps. I have updated the Aigaion page to give you a better impression of Aigaon.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Metroid games[edit]

This was nominated for AfD incorrectly. Fixing this; I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 05:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous game lists

All of these lists were created by User:Touth with the sole intent of simply adding more lists to Lists of video games and computer games. These lists are too small to deserve their own articles, and should either be deleted or merged into the articles for their respective series. -- LGagnon 01:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since, correct me if I'm wrong, there are already cats for all of these. --Bill (who is cool!) 01:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft. Aplomado talk 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve if LGagnon does not like these lists then i strongly recommend that he and the rest of you should improve them. if you do not then you are just wasting my time. Touth 04:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:LtPowers made a point on your talk page (12:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)) that might be relevant here. The goal is to gain consensus on the appropriate course treatment of articles, not to gang up on individual editors or anything of that sort. Please assume our good faith here, and we'll give you the same courtesy. -- H·G (words/works) 05:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since my name has been invoked... =) It should be noted that not everyone has assumed good faith with Touth in the past; he/she has been called a vandal for repeatedly inserting additions to the Lists of video games and computer games article and other behavior. In addition, LGagnon above assumes that the "lists were created... with the sole intent of ... adding more lists to Lists of video games and computer games." LGagnon doesn't know that for sure, although I agree it's a likely interpretation. I've tried to work with Touth on making sure his/her contributions to Wikipedia are appropriate (making these possibly superfluous lists is better than repeatedly adding non-list articles to a list of lists, which he/she did before). So I think Touth can be excused for feeling like LGagnon is out to destroy his/her work. Powers 11:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to note that I only accused Touth of vandalism when he clearly did it. He has blanked parts of the talk page to Lists of video games and computer games, and has often been unwilling to discuss his actions when there is controversy over them on the talk page, instead making edits that he has been asked not to make. And yes, I do know for sure that he was only creating lists to add them to that article; the "What links here" page for those articles link only to the lists article.
And I'd like to point out that editing Wikipedia is for the sake of Wikipedia, not some individual's personal reasons. If Touth wants lists of games he likes, he can put them on his user page. He does not need to fill up Wikipedia's mainspace with listcruft just for the fun of it. -- LGagnon 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, categories already exist (or should) for all of these subjects. Categories serve the same purpose as these lists and work better with Wikipedia's design, so I always prefer keeping those over lists like these. -- H·G (words/works) 05:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and use categories instead. BryanG(talk) 05:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, I'm pretty sure we have categories and templates that are better for these. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all redundant lists if with the cat's already in place hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to game articles and categories already in existence. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant due to catagories and templates already in use. Jibbles 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to their respective series pages. -- Grev 02:52, 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 -- Longhair 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Prodanovic[edit]

WP:NN footballer - 0 ghits for Damir Prodanovic and Newcastle Jets DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Possibly pure conjecture? --Bill (who is cool!) 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We've got a gazillion sub-stubs on NFL players, many of whom are only notable because they play in the NFL, such as Mike Pucillo for example. Isn't it U.S.-centric to delete this article and not delete such NFL players as well? Aplomado talk 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since he doesn't seem to be listed on the team's site, which I think is probably the main clue to his notability. If/when he plays in the A-League, the comment about NFL players being notable because they play in the NFL will become relevant. BigHaz 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails Verifiability at the least. Google has an Australian player of that name for the Sunshine George Cross FC in the Melbourne area. From what I can tell (knowing nothing of Australian leagues) this looks like a lower-level team. Fan-1967 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no mentions of him in the Australian media at all which shows he is not a regular first team player in the A League. The Sunshine George Cross FC are in the Victorian State League which is the next level down. It is probably a semi-professional league. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is some confirmation that he has played a professional game per WP:BIO--Daduzi talk 05:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable and unverifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of verifiability. For all we know this person does not even exist. RFerreira 23:58, 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 15:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive anime[edit]

This seems to just be a list of anime that some group of people like. Granted, it's an excellent list of innovative, high-quality titles, and it would be a shame to lose it entirely, but it's ultimately opinionated criticism, and thus violates all of the central Wikipedia content policies - it is original research, non-verifiable, and has a non-neutral point of view. The article exists to keep down the size of the main article anime, where it's presented as if it were a recognized genre akin to "science fiction" or "romance", which it clearly isn't. Usage of the term "progressive anime" is inconsistent and uncommon at best - the majority of Google matches are copies of this Wikipedia article - and certainly doesn't map to anything that Japanese or non-Japanese viewers would consider to be a genre. inkling 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating progressive animation for the same reasons. inkling 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 02:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they say right in the article it is just anime that is progressive - which says the same mailing list coined THAT term, so don't see how much a subset it could be. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RevRagnarok, since it seems to be the result of a neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is the criteria of "progressive anime", and who is the judge? Voice of Treason 04:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Smacks of original research to me. --Daduzi talk 05:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as likely WP:NEO. SynergeticMaggot 06:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Defining a term used in a subculture is useful (if verified) but this one is both self explanatory and unverified, so we're left with the list of examples, which is nice, but also unverified original research. - Wickning1 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as WP:OR, unless some better external sources can be cited to answer the questions raised by Voice of Treason. A mailing list and two 'blogs inventing a term and then writing an article about it is original research and WP:NEO. Who, other than self-described progressive anime fans, uses the term "progressive anime"? Scorpiondollprincess 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, suggest deletion of Progressive animation as well. Article wholly based on WP:OR, WP:NEO, and the opinionated essay of one individual on USENET. Voice of Treason 22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, Progressive animation should have its own AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I've now bundled it into this one. inkling 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we do that? — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 19:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes; see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, under "How to list multiple related pages for deletion". inkling 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know you can list multiple, I questioned adding another article to the vote 3 days later, which I would think would invalidate any votes before that point in time, since there has been a drastic change in what is being voted on. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 10:44, 21 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sante Fe Desert Dogs[edit]

no evidence of "Desert Dogs" or Pedro, NM Wizmo 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. no evidence of any of the particulars ever existing. --DarkAudit 01:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google search minus Wikipedia = zero. Ifnord 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax, I don't believe the "Boston Red Stockings" are a team either... tmopkisn tlka 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:HOAX. There actually were two teams called the Boston Red Stockings, but both had ceased to exist by the point in time mentioned in the article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 07:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a hoax. It is possible that the Red Stockings was meant to refer to the Boston Red Sox though, as was common way back in the olden days. -- NORTH talk 08:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and bury in the desert. NawlinWiki 12:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V (assuming it's not a hoax). Could be real, but with no sources cited this is too questionable. Scorpiondollprincess 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7 This is a non-notable club, and therefore falls under CSD A7. Jesse Viviano 02:17, 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 speedy A1. Roy A.A. 01:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Leg[edit]

Dictionary definition with no potential for expansion. Is this even a real expression? —Caesura(t) 01:41, 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 15:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crapopolis[edit]

Delete as completely non-notable. There are 41 registered users and the most ever at one time is 9, in Nov 05. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • do not Delete small should not be synonymous with unimportant or "not good enough" Xy54
  • Comment. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for websites that we often refer to in these discussions, WP:WEB. The nomination asserts that this site doesn't meet that set of guidelines, and I'm inclined to agree. -- H·G (words/works) 05:25, 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 15:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Exchange[edit]

Delete as no nobility assurted; not even finished being built. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom, and a mere 21 Google hits. tmopkisn tlka 03:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising --Xrblsnggt 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 03:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 06:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 07:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a big mall that is opening this month. Ramseystreet 12:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Big does not mean notable. If, after opening, it becomes notable, THEN the article can be created. Srose (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a big mall that is opening this month. I appreciate that it certain parts of the world malls fill the societal role usually taken by theatres and art galleries, but even so... -- 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DSAMUN[edit]

Contested prod. Prod reason was "nn student group." Moving it here as a re-prod, no vote from me. Mangojuicetalk 01:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch[edit]

fails WP:NOT, specifically the bit about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information; fancruft hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, could easily meet WP:FICT if more detail on each experiment was provided. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above, it could be fleshed out some more (or just all the empty table rows removed) to become a decent list of minor characters that is allowed. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this page has been around for a very long time (September 2004) and only contains verifiable information. The television series centers specifically around this list of experiments, so removing the page will remove a large chunk of information pertaining to the show. The list is different than the List of Lilo & Stitch: The Series episodes as the episode list contains airdates and shorter experiment appearance lists. As for the claim of fancruft, I and several other editors have strived long and hard to specifically keep it free of speculative list cruft. All the information is from the show and speculative descriptions are removed almost immediately. While some may view the table as incomplete, it will likely always remain incomplete as only a list of names was provided by Disney, not full descriptions. -- Gogo Dodo 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just thought of a good counter example. This page is similar to the Characters in The Smurfs. Both could be viewed as fancruft as they are both long lists of seemingly (from the non-viewer POV) random fancruft. Yet from the viewer POV, they are both valuable information and is encyclopedic in nature. -- Gogo Dodo 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is verifiable, explained, notable to many. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. SynergeticMaggot 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep; it does meet WP:FICT. -- NORTH talk 09:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A perfectly suitible article with intent to document these little monsters. I haven't checked on revisions lately, so I've no clue on the recent edits, but its prose is well-written. I would believe it was intended as as completion article, so we didn't have single articles of the monsters cropping up everywhere. -Randall Brackett 10:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Once more Gogo Dodo has put it beautifully. The page has indeed been around for a while and most of the people working on it (myself included) have been trying hard to make sure that it not only contains all information possible relating to a subject that is acceptable, but that it contains all ACCURATE information. Accurate, reliable information is incredibly important to Wikipedia, and the page contains accurate, reliable information that people have striven to keep accurate and reliable since 2004. It is true that the list is not completely perfect, but this is due to the circumstances created by the Disney company. If we do not know any more than what is on the page it is because nothing else has been revealed by the company. The page meets the standards of WP:FICT and are useful not just to old fans, but to new ones as well. The page should be kept. It is not fancruft, it is in accordance with the standards of Wikipedia, and it is accurate and reliable. --Captain N, 10:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Even though not all the information is there it stil should be kept there... We're trying our hardest to keep it accurate, I am a big fan of the show and the editor for it at tv.com, and the information here is very accurate, if you don't want speculated functions maybe you should make it so that not just anyone could edit your articles... Aa623 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)aa623[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per WP:FICT. This is encyclopedic information about a notable piece of fiction, useful to fans of the series. Scorpiondollprincess 16:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Northenglish. —Caesura(t) 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:FICT and Lists and indexes are very nice to have Bdelisle 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment next we'll have Physics and Lilo & Stitch like the Star Wars/Star Trek fictional series. Carlossuarez46 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but then track down the stubs that are creeping up for individual experiments and merge them to here for the future. None of the stubs are likely to expand, but this list is a good compromise. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is good idea. I've located all of the minor experiment articles and tagged for merge. None of these articles are written paticularly well, they're all minor and they would be better organized in the main article itself. -Randall Brackett 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with everyone who wants this page to stay. Speculative info is better than no info, right?--StitchPedia 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Actually, speculative info doesn't belong in Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I really want this page to stay,it is very useful to me.User:BEN1020:47,17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is what borderline cruft should look like. Concisely put, and restricted to one article. Someone tell the Star Wars people. -- GWO
  • Keep. As stated by Gogo Dodo. -- MightyWarrior 10:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Came across this page by accident and must say: I like the idea. To call for deletion IMHO is a harsh way of saying that the page design could be better. I'd suggest converting it to a sort of an index page and moving the text entries either to a seperate page for each creature or to a page with all creatures from one class (see Smurf-page mentioned above). Also, the manifold use of the cell linking to "Leroy & Stitch" is more than redundant and only adds to the "chaotic" impression one gets. Just my two cents!!! -80.135.192.139 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article contains valuable and useful information for fans of this particular fictional universe, which has become one of Disney's most successful franchises. The only argument to cut it is because it is cruft. Well, if this is sufficiently crufty to warrant deletion, then there are going to be a lot of Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokemon and Simpsons pages that are in danger of the same fate. --Draugen 00:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - See Talk:List_of_experiments_from_Lilo_&_Stitch for more details --Bud0011 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per WP:FICT: "Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."" The Lilo & Stitch franchise is notable and the experiments provided the backstory for the animated series. This was vfd'd before as fancruft. It looks pretty bad now, but it was a lot worse before. A lot of clean up is necessary though and some information about storylines should be placed as episode summaries. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-This is the "everything encyclopedia" anyway!And Besides, its cool!--Fireball93 22:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is not an "everything encyclopedia", see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:30, 22 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 15:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collin D'Cruz[edit]

WP:NN lounge lizard and WP:COPYVIO from here DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 02:06, 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 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SORBS.US[edit]

This article turns up 619 google hits for sorbs.us, one google hit (the site itself) for "Sorry Ole Reverse Blocking Systems" the main header, was prodded and removed without comment Crazynas t 02:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: The original author keeps reverting the page, removing tags and the talk page edits. Ryulong 02:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no grounds for a speedy delete, the blocking of the account should take care of that (perhaps the page should be semi-protected). In any event, there are no sources and there are never going to be any. Jon513 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SORBS is notable. A wannabe is not. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No demonstration of notability ever after one was requested via talk page and page tags. Original author reverted the tags and blanked the talk page instead of responding to the request. With all the energy they wasted blanking, they could have rewritten the article 50 times, if there was really an article to write. = - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 03:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 06:25, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 08:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muhsin Khan[edit]

Delete. The subject is a translator. That is considerably less than an author. The article asserts no other notability.- CrazyRussian talk/email 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of assertion of notability as nominator mentions above hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Translators are alot more notable then you think, and require almost as much work as writing somthing in the first place. This particular translator is notable due to his 18,900 Google hits, his books' listing on Amazon, and his position at the Islamic University of Madinah. tmopkisn tlka 02:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, only 595 unique Ghits for the man, and that's what ultimately counts when referring to Google. -- H·G (words/works) 05:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • only? 595 unique hits is quite good you can never get more than 700 or so on any search. You might want to reread WP:GT. -MrFizyx 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he translated a Sunni Hadith collection and the Qur'an. The author of this page authored the pages on both of those works, the best Amazon.com ranking of which is 251,000. Frankly, I'm not sure if notability is established here--I didn't see anything on his position at a University in the article or any of the links, and the External Link at the bottom is dead; and even that wouldn't necessarily establish notability per WP:BIO or WP:PROF. -- H·G (words/works) 05:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'd just like to suggest that if this is deleted (which seems to be an increasing possibility) then the articles of his two books should probably be nominated as well. tmopkisn tlka 06:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not at all. If a man makes a notable translation of the Qur'an, the book itself may stay even as the translator goes. No necessity here whatsoever. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never said that it was a necessity, just a suggestion. tmopkisn tlka 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep although calling a 1000 page book a Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari seems somewhat of a misnomer, it does suggest the work is non-trivial. Dlyons493 Talk 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Translating the version of the Qur'an that's distributed to pilgrims by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on the Hajj strikes me as a notable accomplishment. Smerdis of Tlön 14:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but needs expansion and cleanup. A translator (or editor) can be notable. Scorpiondollprincess 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. Would be nice if the bio could be expaned to assert notability. I'm hitting a dead end with the exerternally linked bio. -MrFizyx 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Smerdis of Tlön. --Wine Guy Talk 22:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add to a subcat or two of Category:Translators. Being a translator is not in itself an assertion of notability, but this chap seems significant anyway (see the Amazon bio). There are also some accusations of inaccuracy ([2]) which could be added if a reliable source is located. Considering the large numbers of people at Category:Bible translators, it seems unnecessary to remove this Islamic equivalent. Ziggurat 01:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this translator is notable and important Yuckfoo 20:43, 21 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 discounting new users and anons. Jaranda wat's sup 22:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drayner[edit]

The article refers to the "dryaner" dialect spoken in New Jersey, apparently centralized in just one county. The article mentions alot of specific areas, streets, and groups of people, all unsourced, all of that put together makes it sound very unnotable to me. Additionally, none of the 290 unique Google hits seem to have anything to do with the article. I'd say it's a relatively unknown dialect, used by a few people, possibly even as an inside joke? Who knows, whatever it is, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. tmopkisn tlka 02:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 02:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing else to say, even in Draynish. Ifnord 02:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article legitimately documents the way younger people in the area speak. It isn't made up, and it isn't a joke. Despite the small scale of the speech (use by maybe a few hundred young people) it still exists. Surely if people can write about all sorts of intricacies concerning Klingons on wikipedia, the way a sizeable portion of youth speak is something worth giving attention? Speedy Keep per nom. Schway Man Dan 10:59, 17 July 2006 (EST)
    • Note: This user account was created today, first edit is to the article, the second is this AFD. --WinHunter (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I live in Paramus, and the young people of the town do have a very unique way of speaking. There was an article about it in the Town News (unfortunately I cannot find any replication of it online) a few weeks ago. It's quite remarkable how fast this dialect has spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britterz7 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I'd like to note that the last user's only contribution was to this page. Also, in response to your comment, if the only documentation of this dialect was in a local newspaper, it's still not notable enough for wikipedia. tmopkisn tlka 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the user has since added two more contributions, one of which was blanking my userpage. Honestly, it's really hard to build credibility when you go around doing things like that. tmopkisn tlka 07:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concede this article needs to be better documented. I'm new to wikipedia and my intention isn't to hoax anyone or write articles with no purpose. Since I'm from the area I figured that something on the way its residents speak was a good way to start contributing. I will try to document this article in the near future. Schway Man Dan 11:24, 17 July 2006 (EST)
  • Comment - If verifiable sources can be provided for this term, then I expect most people will back keeping this article. Right now, though, the article doesn't provide any sort of sources that make it a verifiable term. -- H·G (words/works) 06:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs references but there are thousands of local dialects in use today. --Brad101 04:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And which of these thousands of local dialects have articles on wikipedia? tmopkisn tlka 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like Original Research that is Unverifiable. -- Fan-1967 04:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible protologism. Only 300 unique Ghits, most of which don't appear to be relevant to this definition of it. -- H·G (words/works) 06:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if WP:V and WP:RS can be provided, as per HumbleGod's comments. Scorpiondollprincess 16:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 19:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep* The dialect is real, and is spoken all around Bergen County.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.13 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete. Unsourced. Smells like a hoax. -- GWO
  • Delete. Unverifiable, unsourced. Fagstein 17:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- As a resident of said Bergen County, I would also like to make vouches for the fact that your fries are sweaty and your cannons are too. We make hoots and fudds and all sorts of other things. This language is as real as your sister's bhosdi. Furthermore it has been confirmed to be real by a Harvard Scholar or two.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.13 (talk • contribs)
    • Err... you can't vote twice... then again, you're an AOL IP, so I guess you can do pretty much whatever you want... tmopkisn tlka 05:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP(MAYBE)It may not be widely spoken now, but as the hundreds of drayner speakers continue to spread the word, going off to college and all, it will become a national trend. When in Washington, DC, some effects of drayner could be heard as a teenager told me he was going to "make fudds" when referencing the restaurant chain. I propose a continuance until we determine whether this is a reasonable dialect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.138 (talk • contribs)
    • We can recreate the article then. Fagstein 03:08, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 10:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discover Intensive Phonics for Yourself[edit]

Self-promotional. Google hits: 247. Lack of references to 3rd party analysis on the Internet. Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability.

  • Keep. Hi, I'm the original creator of the article. I have added some references to third parties on the internet. With regards to the article being self-promotional, I think the article has non-promotional merit. There are other articles about other reading systems, such as Wilson reading system, Hooked on Phonics, Spalding Method, DISTAR, and Reading Recovery. Why not an article about the DIP method, then?

Kowens 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all of the external links are to niche publications by small industry groups. I'm not sure it failsWP:Verifiability, but it certaily doesn't pass WP:CORP. I'm also not convinced all of the other articles mentioned by Kowens belong either. --djrobgordon 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm going to bed now, but I'm willing to second all the above mentioned links for deletion if they don't reference any 3rd party studies. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know about the other ones, but Hooked on Phonics 100% deserves an article. Haven't you ever seen those wildly popular t-shirts (Hookt awn fonix wurkt fur mee)? Delete this one, but don't move HIF. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Regarding WP:CORP, I believe it DOES pass. WP:CORP states that "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Besides those references listed, I'm aware that the DIP method has also been written about in third-party, independent publications including a study by Georgia Southern College, published in Reading Improvement; by Mary Pride in The Teaching Home, a homeschool publication; by Ruth Tiechroeb in the Seattle P-I, a newspaper; it was featured in the Readers' Choice Awards in an issue of eSchool News; and California State University developed a video documentary about it called Keyboarding to Literacy. It is currently being researched by Harvard University, Brigham Young University, and Temple University ([3]). While I know these aren't the New York Times, I firmly believe they are not trivial, either. DIP is certainly notable enough to pass WP:CORP. Kowens 15:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I'm actually satisfied with the references you have provided and I would actually be willing to withdraw my vote for deletion if you shifted the focus in the background section away from Charlotte Lockhart's credentials and instead provided an objective comparison of this reading instruction compared to other systems and note its advantages/disadvantages compared to other reading systems. i.e. answer the question - why should instructors use this method? At the moment, the background section reads a little too much like blurb from a promotional phamplet for comfort. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I've tried to improve the article a little based on your suggestions. Some of the "marketing" feel has been reduced from the "Background" section. (That was originally based primarily on a page on the publisher's website, which probably explains why it sounded that way.) I have also added some information about how the DIP method "fits" into the market compared to other programs. I'm not very familiar with the specifics of many other programs, so the comparison is probably a little weak--I plan on updating it in the future as I do more research. Kowens 15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Thanks for listening to our concerns Kowens. I now withdraw my vote for deletion based on your willingness to improve this article. In future, could you also please elaborate what Orton-Gillingham means? Thanks,  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:47, 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment Sounds like an informercial. Maybe you could do something about that --Xrblsnggt 03:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, doesn't seem to be self-promotional the way I'm reading it, has sources establishing notability. Needs a tiny bit of clean-up/wikification, but not much. -- NORTH talk 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a tough call since the content reads reasonably well now. My concern is the notability criteria. ALexa ranks the project's site at 1,606,392. Compare that to hooked on phonics at 123,789. This is a big difference in web traffic. DIP certainly seem to be the litte guys. So what is the claim for them to meet WP:CORP? -MrFizyx 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content is better but still not notable. --Pboyd04 00:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep reviews were in small pubs, but this passes the "multiple, independently published reviews" requirement for products. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - still essentially a promo for a commercial method. I find the Alexa ratings telling. BlueValour 04:49, 23 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 Speedied --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonjuice Records[edit]

Month-old British record label; not notable yet. NawlinWiki 02:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually seeing that the owner is a notable person with credits in IMDB and not some "twenty-something" I think I'm all that, maybe a merge and redirect with Rob Cohen is also appropriate. 216.141.226.190 04:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Following the links from the label's official page, it's apparent that the Rob Cohen on Wikipedia is not the same Rob Cohen involved with this label. I'll edit the article to reflect this. -- H·G (words/works) 07:48, 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 was keep as translated. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duong Trieu Vu[edit]

Listed at WP:PNT for over two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote from me. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language of this article is unknown. --12.29.175.2 15:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese. Kusma (討論) 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google tells me he's a singer. Kimchi.sg 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, only the last paragraph is relevant to the analysis. The other stuff is mainly about his upbringing, how he is a good boy, a parent's dream, apparently he did the International Baccalaureate (so did I and I'm not a notable academic, heh), then he auditioned successfully for Paris by Night (which is an iconic music-video show which releases 5-6 new 3hr DVDs each year of their assortment of Vietnamese language performers of Vietnamese music/skits/dancing outside of Vietnam, and is very popular - my parents tried to borrow a new release at the library and they started off as #76 in the waiting list and finally got it after 9 months) - however it appears that he won the audition to become a guest artist and has not yet become one the regulars, who typically do three or four items on each recording. Work out if this is good enough for inclusion (I doubt it personally)- if so, I'll translate some day but not now. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've translated the paragraph which is the basis of his claim to notability. Please take a look. Also, I've been doing all these translations, without a dictionary. Should I change my vietnamese userbox to level 2?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indenting) This guy deserves an article, because he seems to satisfy WP:MUSIC criteria 9, "Has won or placed in a major music competition." In addition, I guess his songs may have been aired on at least one Vietnam national radio station too? And Blnguyen, that translation looks readable enough for you to promote your VN fluency userbox, IMO. Kimchi.sg 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it isn't a music competition. It's basically a music variety show, which is accompanied by short interviews resembling notable chat-shows. If he has become a regular performer who appears on each DVD show as a regular cast member, then it hasn't been claimed in the article. The songs wouldn't have gotten on National media in Vietnam as Paris by Night is a diaspora show which is hosted by Nguyen Cao Ky Duyen, the daughter of ex South-Vietnam Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was censored in Vietnam. It is very popular outside of Vietnam, so I wouldn't be surprised if the artists got regular airtime on 24hr Vietnamese stations in the United States - mainly in California, esp San Jose, Orange County, as well as Houston. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
OK, It's not stated in the actual article, but he is a regular cast member for at least a year now. I'd lean towards keeping it now, as I looked on the DVD cover of the last one that I was talking about, and this product has distribution offices in USA, AUS, Canada and France. This is also the largest Vietnamese music-show/troupe outside Vietnam ([citation needed]).Blnguyen | rant-line 02:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a copyvio of his official site, although if I translated and NPOV-ed it, it wouldn't be anymore.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think direct translation is enough to avoid copyright. If it is a direct copyover, it would need a lot of work to be keepable under copyright laws. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Paris by Night is very notable. I question his notablility. GIven that it has been two weeks on the tag, this article will need to be cleaned up quick to survive AfD.--Nick Y. 18:03, 11 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete unless someone takes the time to translate it into English, in which case another review is warranted. -- H·G (words/works) 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough. although he only has one single album, he is a regular cast member in a notable long running show - and I see that regulars in Young and the Restless, Home and Away, etc get their own articles. It is in English now. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what I said at WP:PNT and Blnguyen. Kimchi.sg 08:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please paris by night is very notable help remove systemic bias Yuckfoo 08:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Blnguyen, plus the article is in English now. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and suggest early closure: this is not the nominated article any more. Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice job cleaning up and translating the article. Perhaps there could be more about his on going involvement in Paris by night, such as which DVDs he's one etc. That would be the best evidence of notability.--Nick Y. 16:23, 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 Redirected to Paca Ifnord 14:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibnot[edit]

14 Google results. This article depicts what is probably just a local legend at most, it contains hyperbole, and it has no sources. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding. Our family has encountered these and have pics to post but do not know how. This is not a local ledgend but an animal that is exclusivly known as a Gibnot. Please advise how to add the picture to the artice start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.194.170 (talk • contribs)

  • Weak keep. Google searches help but I saw a family's web page listing it as something they saw in a zoo. Maybe this has a more common name and should end up as a redirect but I wouldn't toss it without looking deeper. Ifnord 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Paca, per this page, which states "Ramon knew it to be a "gibnot", (aka paca) a beaver sized rodent that runs around in the brush." I realize that this isn't the most notable of all sources, but judging by the pictures and descriptions in the "paca" article, it seems very likely that they are one in the same. tmopkisn tlka 03:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tmopkisn. --Metropolitan90 03:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, nice catch tmopkisn. -- H·G (words/works) 05:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, worth mention that this paper refers to a gibnot as a "local bird." -- H·G (words/works) 05:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I noticed that, actually, or if not that then something else similar to it. However, there seem to be more links describing it as a rodent, and those that describe it as bird don't mention any specifics in regard to species or other common names. tmopkisn tlka 06:33, 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 15:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conquerors of dominaria[edit]

Non-notable unreleased board game mod. Zero hits in Google. John Nagle 03:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and send to a land where multiple planes intersect, and great battles are fought. —Caesura(t) 03:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be plagiarized, judging by phrases like "We are not affiliated..." and "This site is still under construction..." but I can't find from where. Coincidentally, it's those exact same lines that render this article unencyclopedic, and therefore merit its deletion. tmopkisn tlka 04:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until someone convinces me that the Independent Kansas Games Award is a major accomplishment in the game industry. -- H·G (words/works) 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be a horrible attempt at creating a Magic: the Gathering variant. Not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tap: 4UU Summon - Delete Wizard, Tap: Remove Target Article from game. 6/9 Illustration User:Cloveious
  • Tap 1BU and cast Delete unverified M:TG variant per WP:NFT as an Instant (ROFL User:Cloveious, you beat me to it)...--Isotope23 15:07, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 22:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Waldman[edit]

Seems to have been created by the subject. Userfy? Brad101 04:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Perfectly notable artist and designer, and creator "Nooka" watches. He also receives 1,170 Google hits, and I see no indication that the article was created by the subject himself. tmopkisn tlka 04:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the username credited with making the article in the first place could be his, but there's no real proof either way beyond the fact that both subject and user have "Matt" in their names. BigHaz 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, fails WP:BIO for lacking substantial third-party articles, only 608 Ghits that consist of catalog listings. Nice watches, though. Tychocat 11:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far as I can determine, subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according with WP:BIO. Scorpiondollprincess 16:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep his watches are fairly clever 216.141.226.190 12:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Article links are irrelevant. Fails WP:BIO. KarenAnn 18:54, 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 09:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ulwick[edit]

Businessman of dubious notability. Was tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion, contested at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions#Anthony Ulwick, then tagged for proposed deletion, which was removed without moving the article here. So, now, listing for a proper deletion consideration. Stormie 04:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. CEO of a well-established company, and author of two books - both which appear on Amazon.com. A simple Google search of his name receives 11,300 hits, and a similar search of his company turns up about 5,000 more. tmopkisn tlka 04:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but only 163 unique Google hits on him and 358 on Strategyn. The Amazon sales ranking for the book mentioned in the article is 14,359. -- H·G (words/works) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No one said that voting had to be completetely unbiased =] tmopkisn tlka 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This book is ranked 5,168. This is actually really high; even 14,359 is pretty high. —Centrx→talk • 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:BIO, "published authors ... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." According to amazon, his book has been favorably reviewed by other authors as well as executives at Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Motorola, etc. Scorpiondollprincess 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current article is just an ad - look at the number of tags on it! Best to delete and start again. Dlyons493 Talk 00:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious ad. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - WP:BIO is satisfied, but the content is really light. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the popular book(s) and the company, he apparently has been a speaker at a few conferences and him and his book are mentioned in third-party sources. —Centrx→talk • 00:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the guy's book is notable but he is not. BlueValour 04:44, 23 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 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wersi[edit]

Apparantly a fragment of a press release. Tom S. 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Per CSD A8, as a blatant copy of this page. tmopkisn tlka 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't look like a commercial content provider to me. This should have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, if you ask me. But I suppose I'll vote delete anyway. —Caesura(t) 04:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. You're probably right, but there is a notice at the bottom of the page, stating that all material is copyrighted, and the author made no assertion that it was taken from another page. tmopkisn tlka 05:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I sort of wish that the "commercial content provider" provision of the criterion weren't there, although I can understand the reason for it. The provision makes the criterion nearly useless. Oh, well. —Caesura(t) 14:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rob 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. NawlinWiki 12:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as copyvio. Also fails WP:SPAM. wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 16:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not speedy candidate due to time constraints, but still a copyvio. --DarkAudit 16:42, 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 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of WWE Title Changes Per Show[edit]

Trivia. No reason this can't be included on all the individual show pages. No reason given for having all this information collected in one place nor an assertion of how that could possibly be useful, at the most it should be merged if this information isn't contained on the articles, if it already is it should be removed. Crossmr 04:33, 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 speedy delete CSD G7 - author's request. Kimchi.sg 16:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PinStack[edit]

Delete - Advertisement. Article was deprodded by author without explanation, so bringing it to AFD. Also, author has moved link to pinstack up the list at BlackBerry, which seems to reinforce to me that this is advertising since the author has no other edits. Brian G 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How you you delete it? I've BEEN trying. I figured since there are pages like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fark and MANY more that simply explains company and what's it about etc. I would start one also. Seems it offends. Also I noticed other links were moved up in the blackberry page so figured it was practice. I wanted to replace the current about site page to use wikipedia. I guess my bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackberry (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Crackberry, please do not take offense. 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." The way that your article is formatted and the way that you promoted the link on the Blackberry page, and since you mentioned on my talk page that you were modifying the About page at the website to point to Wikipedia all adds up to me as advertising. But, remember that the way this works is that I only nominate the article, that does not automatically mean it will be deleted. Other members of the community will come here and give their opinions on the matter before an administrator makes a decision. --Brian G 19:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, and the fact that the article seems to be plagiarized. tmopkisn tlka 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Crackberry deleted this entry from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 16[4] and marked it as a minor edit. I have re-added it to today's page --Brian G 04:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Are you saying that because i'm trying to replace the 'About Pinstack' page on our site by sending visitors to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinstack that i'm advertising? Plagiarized??? I own everything on pinstack i'm really confused now about this service.

As i was explaining earlier I notice a few sites link to wiki for their about page as its a limitless Encyclopedia. It seemed very cool to have the site defined here. However, the LAST thing I want to do is break rules or for Pinstack to be viewed as if are trying to advertise. We use google's adwords for that. With that said how many people do you think will be searching for the term PinStack? :S The point of adding it was for users who already know know of pinstack. Please if it MUST be removed please do so asap! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackberry (talk • contribs) 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rob 11:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and apparent author request to delete. NawlinWiki 12:30, 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 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addicted Tour[edit]

Fancruft, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. Doubley so for current event tour dates. Teke 04:38, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prosportsnation[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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Dagenais[edit]

Listed for speedy deletion, but I don't think an article about a man who allegedly murdered two police officers has "no assertion of notability." I don't know our precedents on criminal articles very well, so whether he's notable or not I'll leave to others. No vote. -- SCZenz 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I realize such events are less common in Canada than the US, but even so, a criminal killing police officers is not really that notable. Wikipedia is not Canada's Most Wanted. Fan-1967 04:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable killer still on the loose, his name recieves 12,600 Google hits and scores of news stories. tmopkisn tlka 05:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." -- H·G (words/works) 06:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the killer is notable and verifiable Yuckfoo 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO per HumbleGod's explanation. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:BIO and HumbleGod's comments. Article may need some some cleanup though. We should use caution dealing with ongoing events involving accused but not-yet-convicted criminal suspects. Scorpiondollprincess 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HumbleGod's quoting of the WP:BIO criteria. RFerreira 00:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is going to be a big deal for a long while, he just turned himself in and there is going to be a trial that will probably be followed nation-wide. Also, WP:BIO. DMighton 23:10, 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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Thunder Power Rangers[edit]

This page is now redundant due to the separate articles for each of the characters briefly described within. Ryulong 04:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, likely search/link term. Kappa 04:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'd like to rescind my nomination, if that's in any way possible. Ryulong 04:56, 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 merge with Mrs. Since that article already contains a reference to this phenomenon, I'm just going to redirect. People are, of course, free to add or remove or spin around whilst singing anything related to this article. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. degree[edit]

unencyclopaedic fancruft neologism, possibly protologism. Stanfordandson 05:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of "fancruft" here gave us all a nice little chuckle, but you should probably think about what motivated you to say it, and why you were such a silly sausage. Not only is the word "fancruft" scientifically proven to be offensive 95% of the time, but it's not even remotely applicable here. As a wise man once said, "Dude! WTF?" fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, would like to see this improved or merged somewhere else this sociological phenomenon is discussed. fancruft?? neologism?? Not hardly, this is a well-known term. I suspect it is treated somewhere else, though. fancruft??!!?? Shenme 05:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep in that it can probably be moved or merged without causing too many problems. Not totally sure about the nominator's reasons per above, although I think it's a worthwhile AfD to have discussion of. BigHaz 05:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the insulting patriarchal anti-women's education slang/stereotype. Apparently common in 1950s USA. But still cheerfully used by conservative Christians[5] and happily recognizable/applicable to Ivy League professional graduates[6] in the 21st century apparently. Bwithh 07:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a one-liner for Mrs. and not worth keeping as a redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 08:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It's definitely not a neologism and it is widely used, but the current article doesn't provide too much. For now the line now present at Mrs. is sufficient, though I don't know that I agree that the current page has no use as a redirect. Regardless, unless somebody has some new major info to the current article, I think it is adequately covered per trialsanderrors. GassyGuy 08:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah possibly a redirect, but then we would have to set redirects for the various spellings: MRS, M-R-S, M.R.S., etc. ~ trialsanderrors 08:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mrs. There's nothing crucial said in this article that isn't said there, and I question the possibility of expansion. If someone proves me wrong on that, I'd happily change my "vote." -- NORTH talk 09:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to misogyny (somewhere under the Misogyny in language heading) --SJK 09:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing against mentioning under misogyny, but the redirect should probably go to Mrs., since that's where the term is being put in context. For a non-native speaker the wordplay with MS is pretty tricky. ~ trialsanderrors 09:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect at Mrs. - this is a quite old and well known joke, refererenced by PBS. [7] Needs context, references, and other expansion, but the content should be preserved. Smerdis of Tlön 14:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mrs. for reasons referenced above. Scorpiondollprincess 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's not much to be said about it. It's just a slang term. -- Whpq 18:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Mrs.; I'm not sure this is the most common name for the term. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect This is a common term, but I'm not convinced that there's enough for an article. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sad as it is, it is encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted Antares33712 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (if necessary) and Redirect to Mrs.. Seems a bit obvious, really. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect also I can see this page becoming troll bait if kept. Whispering 19:11, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 10:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clefting Prevalence in Different Cultures[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colletion of information. The article is a collection of statistics relating to incidence of cleft at a technical level with minimal discussion on the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I see no use in deleting this as a branch off of "Cleft palate". While it's probably someone's research paper, it is academic in nature and therefore gets a free pass by me. The page was prod'd with the editor citing it as "nonsense". With all due respect, I suppose I would call a physics textbook nonsense if I read it, also. Also keep in mind that deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. AdamBiswanger1 05:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is the point of the article? That the incidence of "Cleft palate" might vary by population origin? Well that should be dealt with in that article. That the medical field may not be ready to respond to the needs of different cultures or native languages that are present within the US? Well, deal with that topic within some article about providing medical services. This article is a mash-up of data and mis-directed good intentions. Shenme 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment delete because it's abstruse? delete because it can be merged? It simply cannot--look at its size and look at the amount of references. Admittedly this is an obscure branch of human knowledge, but that is certainly not a grounds for deletion, especially for something of such an intellectual merit. What we need here is a paragraph dealing with this on the Cleft page and then a Main article: Clefting Prevalence in Different Cultures. AdamBiswanger1 05:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Adam. Sourced research and probably too long to keep in the main article. ~ trialsanderrors 05:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Adambiswanger1, but I do agree that it needs a cleanup. tmopkisn tlka 05:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cleft. If cleaned up and verbiage removed, this would add only a few paragraphs, and they would fit in very well in the larger article. bikeable (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that's assuming that everything outside of those "few paragraphs" is useless or unnecessary. It's a very good article, and to remove any information would be, well, removing information. AdamBiswanger1 15:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested removing verbiage, not information! The article is quite short, and I think it could be converted into a couple of paragraphs and a table or two without losing any information at all. bikeable (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I really don't think that it has so much verbiage, and much of it is references which would be cumbersome to merge over. AdamBiswanger1 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as per bikeable -- Whpq

In our advance towards a larger and more comprehensive encyclopedia, what can we hope becomes of the Clefting article? We can hope that each section expands, ideally to the point where it requires its own article. That has happened already, so why retard the advance of this article because there is too much information? Can anyone actually look through the article and say in truth that what is being purged in the merger is "verbiage"? AdamBiswanger1 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IMHO, what is being purged is useless statistics. I see a bunch of statistics about cleft palate without any context about what the statistics mean. Of course, that would require summarising other authors' articles about cleft palate and how the statistics can be interpreted. Also, the clefting article is another matter entirely, very properly split out because it is a separate subject (linguistics v. anatomy). —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article, and put on your thinking cap and try to understand, you can make out the underlying theory. Some sentences are clear as day, though. "African Americans have a lower prevalence rate of CL +/- P when compared to Caucasians." Is there some clarification that could be done here? certainly. But what is needed is more content to show the said underlying theory. AdamBiswanger1 23:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up well-sourced, specific and informative. I don't find the info all that fascinating, but this is still useful and encyclopedic. JChap (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Cleftcruft. The subject would be a suitable review article for The Journal of Stuff To Do With Cleft Palates, but not for a general encyclopedia. A sentence or two could go in the Cleft palate page.-- GWO
  • Keep per Adam. Possible merge. The nominator quotes WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information as a reason for this deletion, but I fail to see which of the listed subsections are applicable to the article. This is a well reference, if poory wikified, detailed expantion of the cleft article. While currently it may look more detailed then the cleft entry, in time I expect the articles will evolve into this level of detail - and beyond.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adam. This article does need wikifying, however, that is no merit for deletion. The statistics are important and help to clarify the underlying need for more research in prevalence rates of cleft palate. As the first author of this article, I appreciate suggestions for change and not deletion. I am new to wikipedia and am trying to revise and clean up the page as best as I can as a new user. Please contact me with suggestions. This article should no way be deleted --Chm33 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. "The statistics are important and help to clarify the underlying need for more research." That's part of the underlying problem with the article. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform rather than persuade; persuasive writing starts to enter the realm of point of view. Further, the information presented in articles is supposed to be verifiable from published sources; a shortage of sources creates the problem of either a small article with minimal content (which winds up in AfD) or an article with original research (which, if not cleaned up, also brings it back to AfD). —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Fred that the article needs some NPOVing, some parts of it indeed read more like an essay (consider the first sentence, which states, without any citation, that the topic "...is an area in a need for rigorous research"). Similar problem applies to the last sentence in third para ("Research on clefting in different countries will help in the health care professional’s pursuit to understand different cultures." - WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball). I suspect it is setences like those that Fred finds objectionable. But the article is not an essay, and after some style adjustments it will be quite encyclopedic - the two examples I quote above are exceptions rather then the rule in this article, and I mention them per Chm33 request for suggestions as to what should be improved. Again, the need to NPOV and adjust the style is not a reason to delete an article. As for statistics, Fred, I don't see your point: they are referenced with academic sources (Harvard style) (thus fullfilling both WP:V and WP:RS) and I have never heard an argument that statistics are unencyclopedic or go against WP:NPOV.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article may indeed need to be revised and edited of possible essay format per Piotrus comment. I appreciate the response to my need for suggestions of improvement. After improvements and style adjustments are made, there appears to be no justifiable reason for deletion. Information is backed by published sources and there is no persuasion involved. I still appreciate all suggestions for improvement during this process. --Chm33 01:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adam. I think this article has a lot of information and value to Wikipedia. It's not the most common of topics but that only enhances the need for articles like this. The clean up has already started. Let's give the article time to grow. Agne 05:56, 21 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 Speedily deleted as non-notable, unverifiable crystal ball statements and possible hoax.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

APE SH!T[edit]

Seems non-notable. The website didn't help, and if anything it clashes with the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy. Crystallina 05:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. "being developed"? Shenme 05:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's great, and when it comes out, I'll be sure to watch it. tmopkisn tlka 05:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, definitely crystal-ballism right now. -- H·G (words/works) 06:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystal-ballism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ape... er, per above. NawlinWiki 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 16:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7 as no assertion of notability has been established. --DarkAudit 16:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Whpq 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. -- Steel 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, I placed the tag, hopefully the administrator will do the right thing Antares33712 15:06, 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 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didier the viral rabbit[edit]

This article keeps getting vandalized by User:Rory Carrol and was up for a 1st AfD in a vandalized state. The AfD was withdrawn after reverting, but the actual content seems pretty non-notable to me. A rabbit that appeared in a viral marketing campaign for Microsoft?!? ~ trialsanderrors 05:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails any importance test I can name - --Peripitus (Talk) 06:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. gameadvertisingcruft. A detailed account of the site's original contents and purpose can be found here. Apparently a kind of anticlimax for target audience even when originally revealed for its primary purposeBwithh 07:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Punkmorten 08:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom -- Whpq 18:14, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kelly[edit]

This is not an appropriate encyclopedia entry--it is devoted to a minor and insignificant television character, apparently mostly to advertise the little-known actress who plays her, and secondarily to advertise the television show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentinmatsys (talk • contribs) 10 July 2006

  • Merge (a short mention) into The O.C. and Delete. On a sidenote, the photograph is not fair use I think, as the article is not about the arctress but about the character.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Character was part of an important and highly publicized arc in the show's second season which involved her relationship with Marissa, and is referenced plenty outside the show as part of a 'lesbian relationship on TV' hallmark. Could do with more expansion and fair use photograph. Nominator also thinks that a convicted rapist of the same name with no current article should take preference over this character in the Alex Kelly namespace. However this is easily solved with a redirect between Alex the OC character (a redirect at Alex Kelly (The OC) already exists which would work for this) and Alex Kelly the criminal. Nate 06:43, 11 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, 71.192.168.140 05:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's definitely not advertising the character or the actress, and she did play a significant role during her time. If someone were to find appropriate ways to combine character descriptions of the actors in important but less significant OC roles, like, say, Alex and Lindsay Gardner and Charlote... um... I forget her last name... in a few pages, I might support that, but barring that, I can't see deleting this. GassyGuy 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uh, she had a thing with Mischa-Marissa. Can't be that unnotable. (Ignoring the voice that tells me all of this is unencyclopedic.) ~ trialsanderrors 09:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant The O.C. character. Also Marissa-Alex is notable as representation of homosexuality in a very popular TV show. --SJK 10:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable character in significant TV series. Scorpiondollprincess 16:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to see many of these condensed into Supporting characters in The OC, but I imagine that ship has sailed. -- GWO
  • Keep, but I agree with Gareth Owen 216.141.226.190 04:13, 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 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeborn (intended movie)[edit]

This is a film proposal. Jonathan F 05:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Umm... if you don't mind me asking, WTF!? tmopkisn tlka 06:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't mind actually. Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with rotten tomatoes, because that link goes to a forum. ~ trialsanderrors 06:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intend to Delete guess what's not a crystal ball? Danny Lilithborne 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (A werewolf movie made right, as designed by guys on the internet? Yeah, that'll be great.) -- Captain Disdain 07:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WTF?. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comment: - Its notability isnt that its a possible movie. Its notability is its unusual nature within film-making, and its unusual community, which is fact and notable at this point in time. That's the issue. Citing "crystal ball" as a reason shows a slight misunderstanding why the article exists. The project (whether or not a movie comes of it) is already notable. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above, WP:CIVIL. --Jonathan F 09:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can find verifiable documentation in a major source that the movement per FT2 has garnered some attention beyond simply its own community. 09:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serpent's Choice (talk • contribs) 09:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Which is the correct standard and if it is, will be supported by sources (with the minor caveat that the source/s need to be sufficiently reputable to be credible, and must show significant notability in the world beyond its own fan base). Agreed this would then be the appropriate basis for forming a view. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No credible sources, in the future. The fact that maybe someday, in the future, this film might be made in an interesting way doesn't make it good enough. --PresN 15:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone re: crystal-ballism. Also, I don't see the viral marketing as that unique these days, if I were inclined to try hang notability on that issue. Tychocat 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal-ballism and no outside citations. --DarkAudit 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as 'provisional name given to an upcoming proposed werewolf film'. --Nydas 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- Whpq 18:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Writing a film that actually gets made and released in collaboration with a web forum may be notable, but just writing the outline of the script in collaboration with a web forum is not. --Metropolitan90 03:01, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taj, An Object Oriented Operating System[edit]

Insignificant toy operating system that no one except its author uses. Also most of the text (written in unencyclopedic style) is taken verbatim from author's website [8] with unknown copyright status. Delete. jni 06:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All external links point to one site, most likely operated by the author of the article (the names are identical.) Furthermore, the only content on the site the links point to is the exact same as that in the article. tmopkisn tlka 06:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Seems to be an advertisement as well. Kalani [talk] 07:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:COPYVIO potential, WP:NOT an ad service, not encyclopaedic, WP:PROD and WP:NN. Did I miss anything? Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above, this is non-notable in every sense of the term and it reads exactly like an advertisement. (Probably because the text of it was taken directly from the author's site that promotes the OS.) The technical explanation is poor as well, and makes unfounded claims about Linux. I'm pretty sure this is WP:POV too. Going for a record, I guess. syphonbyte 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd even toss in WP:V to make the complete package. :-p Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )

Its of good use.It gives an insight of Object Oriented Operating System.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 orphaned talk page. Kimchi.sg 06:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kay hill[edit]

This is obvious spam. The only word herein is "EX", and it is written on the talk page. I don't think there is an article for this, nor is this of any importance at all. There is no article, explaining the red link, but there is a talk page. Michael 06:50, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerpulse[edit]

Was prodded, deprodded, and improperly reprodded with the concern: fantasy games on a forum are completely non-notable. This article is simply for promotion of a forum, that likes to promote itself by spamming. Delete per original prod. Kimchi.sg 06:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Proto::type 08:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the fantasy league information can go, but the forum is notable for football videos Thevmail 13:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Revolutionfan 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like advertising. As a side note, I'm surprised there isn't a BigSoccer article, given its prominence and influence on soccer in the US. Ytny 15:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious ad. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not complete as clearly seen, there is plenty of notable information to be added inculding issues with the English FA and Adidas over copyright, a very controversial issue in the present day and time and more than enough to warrant a page on wikipedia about the forum. The SPPL part is fleshing out the article and what is the rubbish about the forum promoting itself by spamming, SP has never spammed nor never will and has had forums reported for spamming itself, it persues a hard line anti-spamming stance and for it to be accused of such without any evidence is slanderous at best, really think about what you say before you say it.

The forum is also notable for the sharing of videos of football, with it recieving over 300,000 hits for videos during the world cup and such file sharing is also big in the news making it a notable forum. Finally if BigSoccer is worthy of a wikipedia article as claimed by an above poster who wants to delete SP's article, then why is SP not, it's the second biggest soccer forum compared to BS and is grower at a faster rate than BS has been for some time.

The forum is notable in various ways then, and is listed as within the 60 most popular soccer site on Alexa (outranking 90% of Official English Premier League Clubs Official Sites in terms of traffic), and within Alexa's top 11,000 over the past few weeks average, it's a major site that deserves a wikipedia article and if you let the article be finished then you will see it's notability and stop being so aggressive and making misinformed comments .

Also I notice some of you are BS members, I believe that ruins your supposed neutrality and thus shouldn't be making a move to delete this article, as it's clearly biased. Ajp100688 22:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - For what it's worth, I am not an active BigSoccer member (I stopped posting a couple of years ago). And I never said BS was worthy of a Wiki article, but rather, that I was surprised that there isn't one. Big difference.
I don't know if a message board even warrants an article and I won't be starting a BS article any time soon, but I can see a case being made for BS. Not so much for its size, but its influence and access to people and information that other sites of the type usually don't have.
But I'm not going to write it because there just isn't enough third-party information out there. And whatever information is available will make it read like to this article; the introduction reads just like a press release, even if that wasn't the intent (and btw, "outranking 90% of Official English Premier League Clubs Official Sites in terms of traffic" isn't all that special when you put the number into perspective and is pure PR-speak).
Out of curiosity, how do you know which editors are BigSoccer members? Ytny 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I had a forum spammed with soccerpulse links, don't talk to me about evidence. And why should illegally sharing videos make a forum notable? Why should being a BS member matter? If one were an admin or moderator a case could certainly be made for them being biased. But I have no connection to BS other than going there for information. I don't see how this would make someone biased. Revolutionfan 03:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Well the original "rod" by you says "article that only promotes itself by spamming" - not exactly a fact is it?, just your opinion, and i believe that you do not realise the scale of football videos and compilation that is available from the site, it certainly has affected the way that fans view football. Not only are the videos only accessed by the 50000 members of the forum, but videos made available by members are uploaded to websites such as youtube, metacafe, etc. where it is being made available for a very large audience. Thevmail 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Response' Finding out if someone is a BS member is pretty easy, just use their forum search to find the members username, as it'd be pretty uncommon for two different people to be using that username on different sites, it's likely to be the same person.

As for the information Alexa is a verifiable third party source that everyone recognises as being unbiased and useful, it backs up any statements made on the article in every way. If you wish for the article to come across as more neutral then it can be subject to a rewrite, thats not what Im arguing, what I'm arguing is it's right to exist, especially in the light of it's connections to Adidas and the English FA.

The outranking of official websites is very impressive I feel as they have an established brand name and userbase and should attract high rates of traffic and for an independent and largely unknown to the world website to be drawing traffic greater than them is a great achievement.

As for Revolutionfan, your bias shows through by just how agressive you are, firstly as for your accusation that your forum was spammed by SP, you should have reported it to the SP admins and they'd have dealt with it, they are hugely against spamming and as I have said have had forums closed for continued nonsense, secondly it depends what you consider spamming, if one of your members posted a link to sp saying come here and see such and such video, and it was a long standing memeber that was just generally trying to help someone, thats far from spamming, it's just linking.

Whatever spamming issue you had, and indeed if it was spam, it has nothing to do with SP as a site, as I've said many times it persues a hardline anti-spam stance. And the sharing of videos is not illegal, no one is making any money off the videos, none of them have been ripped from copyrighted sources such as DVDs (the forum even has a note saying any ripped DVDs posted will result in a ban for the user) and the actual content is not subject to licensing regarding it's distibution, only it's broadcast on TV stations.

Essentially I have given many good reasons why this site is NOTABLE and why it should exist on wikipedia, and you guys have given no real reason as to remove it, other than it sounds somewhat un-neutral, if thats the case then it requires a rewrite not a removal. Ajp100688 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Response' Yes, I am biased, because I WAS spammed (not linking, I'm not a moron so stop being so patronizing). I'm sure you'd be biased too if I had spammed your site. I run several forums and have not put any, nor plan to put any on wikipedia. I don't see how forums are encyclopedia worthy, especially the results of fantasy games (and its teams' logos) on them, which is just about the only thing in this article. Revolutionfan 17:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Well for your information there are 210 forums which have articles on wikipedia, maybe you do not feel that internet phenomena are worthy of articles on wikipedia (how ironic since wikipedia is an internet phenomenon itself) but others maybe do feel so, i believe the article is in need of editing, not deletion. Thevmail 18:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Once again revolutionfan, read what I'm typing. The...article...is...not finished, the prediction league stuff was only added to flesh out the article as it was the first information available, the rest of the article is awaiting a write up, and scans of the official letters sent by the FA and Adidas etc. If you deleted every article before it was finished, wikipedia would be empty.

As for your supposed spammed forum, whats it's name ? Ajp100688 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ajp100688 A few things worth pointing out, not necessarily in favor of or opposition to the delete:
  • I searched the user names found here in the BigSoccer search engine and Revolutionfan was the only match. So I'm either doing something wrong or we disagree on the definition of "some".
  • I never questioned the validity of Alexa results.
  • I did, however, suggest that you put the 90% number into perspective. So that's 18 clubs out of 20, which sounds impressive on the surface. But you have to consider the following:
  • Most of the remaining 18 clubs have limited appeal beyond their own fan base. The majority of soccer fans in the world have little interest in West Brom, let alone its official website.
  • Even if a club has widespread appeal, its fans can find out everything they need to know without ever visiting the official site. There are newspapers, rumor sites and message boards that offer the same, if not more, information than official sites.
  • A message board, by its nature, attracts more traffic than a typical club site. People visit club sites for specific information or transaction (say, tickets or official merch). People return to message board to post and read responses. The act of composing and posting a single message probably requires just as many page views (which is what Alexa rankings are based on) as a typical visit to an official club site. When you factor in the return visit, browsing through forums and threads, there's no competition.
So outranking 18 official websites isn't a meaningless feat by any standard, but it's not as impressive as you might think. I'm not saying Soccerpulse isn't a major site. I'm just saying that outranking official club sites doesn't tell us much one way or the other because it's not an even comparison.
  • FWIW, TV broadcasts are copyrighted sources and posting them on the internet is just as illegal as ripping footage from a DVD. Any video posted in a forum without the expressed written consent of the copyright holder is "illegal video". I don't think it matters for the sake of this discussion, but it's worth pointing out. Ytny 18:30, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Rockefeller V[edit]

Was prodded prod was removed by a annon listing here. Being the son of a US senator or being a member of the Rockefeller family does not by default merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Whispering 07:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being the descendant of a notable figure doesn't automatically make you notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my initial prod tag. No notability beyond having the last name "Rockefeller." youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable in his home state, at least not in the north. --DarkAudit 13:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:BIO. Scorpiondollprincess 16:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. You're absolutely right. RFerreira 00:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had put a prod2 on it, and continue to believe that there is no assertion of notability. GRBerry 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. --A. B. 03:58, 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 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SumTotal Systems[edit]

Advertisement. Improperly reprodded. Kimchi.sg 07:08, 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 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Rockefeller Wayne[edit]

Was prodded prod was removed by a annon listing here. Being the daughter of a US senator or being a member of the Rockefeller family does not by default merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Whispering 07:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being the descendant of a notable figure doesn't automatically make you notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my initial prod. Being a "Rockefeller" does not alone merit inclusion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even notable in WV. --DarkAudit 13:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had put a prod 2 on it. I continue to believe that there is no assertion of notability. GRBerry 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable.--A. B. 03:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - It is better to know a thing than not to know it. It seems silly to restrict knowledge on the basis that some users don't particularly appreciate the subject's importance. And the number of entries praying for deletion (six in just two days) seems to indicate a bias against Valeire Rockefeller Wayne rather than advocacy for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.189.8 (talk • contribs)
Note: new editor with just 5 edits, all to Rockefeller-related articles.
I don't know Ms. Rockefeller and have no particular bias against her. Wikipedia has standards for notability (see WP:N) -- either change these standards (pretty unlikely) or prove Ms. Rockefeller's notability per these standards. In the meantime, I'm just voting by the rules. I suspect most, if not all of the other 5 are driven by the same motives. --A. B. 15:44, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ormson[edit]

Non-notable actor. Was prodded, deprodded, and re-prodded by another editor. Kimchi.sg 07:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I deprodded another couple of articles (Aaron Livesy, Danny Webb) which had been prodded by the same user without an edit comment. I think that is rather bad form, and it shouldn't even be considered a valid prodding. Those were for another English soap opera character and the actor playing that role (on Emmerdale). up+land 08:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that prods should all include comments. You could mention this to the user on his/her talk page. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency: This actor apparently played a character for which there is an article, David Platt in Coronation Street for ten years. I'm not convinced that we don't already have too much TV cruft, but as long as we keep any Star Trek actor or character (and there is no realistic chance we will get those deleted), it would be a case of systemic bias to treat material concerning popular series like these ones differently. The only difference I can see is that Star Trek has a geek appeal that long-running (and exported) English soap operas like Emmerdale or Coronation Street do not have. up+land 08:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland Jcuk 11:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable non-Romulan. 205.157.110.11 15:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Uppland's comments. Scorpiondollprincess 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:30, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow and flame[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 07:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - way non-notable -- Whpq 18:18, 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 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey James[edit]

WP:NN session musician to a bunch of WP:NN bands - Only LRB is worthy of an entry - and partial patent nonsense (due to vandalism) DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 07:43, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Shell[edit]

Plot and setting summary for a single game. It's written from an in-universe perspective, and is yet more plot summary of Metal Gear Solid 2, which already has a length, detailed plot summary on that page. Too much to merge, no encyclopedic value, and it goes without saying that it isn't independently notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, this entry helped me clean up a problem over on 43places: Big Shell http://www.43places.com/places/view/862683 was originally created in Manhattan, as if it were a real place. I don't know if that helps you decide its fate, but it was useful to me. I agree that it's not a very encyclopedia-like page, but I'd like it if you kept pages like this in some form. I definitely use you guys as a definitive source when I hit problems on places that I've never been...

Thanks! Mary http://www.43places.com/person/maryhawkins

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skater Vision[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM and probably WP:VAIN DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 08:06, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing (Counter-Strike)[edit]

This is one of the articles that was group listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps, which was closed yesterday as 'no consensus, but with no prejudice against the immediate renomination of individual articles' (as the previous AFD was so mixed, with many different 'keep these, delete those' opinions). This one is clearly a game guide about a technique used in Counter Strike, and fails WP:NOT and WP:V. Delete. Proto::type 08:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a game-guide. I'd also like to be the first to accuse Proto of being a Nazi Zionist tool of the Deletionist Cabal. ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sounds like a very specialized, uncommonly played type of CS. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proto and accuse per MiB. bikeable (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is not a game guide about a technique used in Counter-Strike. It is an article describing a popular type of Counter-Strike level. It gives a general summary of the concept with a screenshot. It doesn't tell you how to play and in no way attempts to be a strategy guide. Google test comes up with tons of hits for searches like surfing "counter-strike" and surfing counterstrike. No, you cannot go down to the library find published sources about surfing in Counter-Strike, but you can find thousands of Internet sites about it to establish verifiability. TomTheHand 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm seeing a discussion of a game technique, and a discussion of a type of game-level, all-righty. Confirm the "tons" of Ghits per TomTheHand; however, they appear to be fan forums and download sites, nothing to show notability. Verifiable, yes, but this is not the point. Tychocat 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gamecruft. Artw 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom despite obvious Nazi-cabal ties. Wickethewok 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd be interested to hear a more detailed description of the nominator's reasons for wanting to delete the article; WP:NOT and WP:V don't tell me much. What part of WP:NOT does the article violate? I can see WP:V to a certain extent, since the information from the article is not found in reliable, published sources, but I'm sort of surprised that this article has been singled out in that way. Thousands of articles on Wikipedia do not cite published sources but are not nominated for violating WP:V. I've read the nominator's general response to this, which is something along the lines of "I'll get to those eventually," but I somehow doubt the nom intends to nominate Something Awful for not citing published sources, or perhaps Slashdot. The sources that the article cites should be considered reliable in the proper context (talking about the Counter-Strike mod in question). This is not a vote, so unless the nom can actually describe how WP:NOT and WP:V apply here, I don't see how a bunch of "delete per nom, gamecruft" responses represent an adequate debate on the issue. TomTheHand 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at WP:NOT now, I see that you're trying to use the reference to "game guide." Step back and look at the context, please. The policy is "while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction." The phrase "game guide," in this context, means "guide to playing a game." This article is not a guide to playing a game, but rather a description of a popular mod; therefore, WP:NOT does not apply. You're using the words of an official policy out of context as part of your personal mission against "cruft." TomTheHand 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear violation of WP:NOT--Nick Y. 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How? I'm looking at WP:NOT right now and I'm not seeing anything applies. I'm not trying to be difficult, but WP:NOT does not say anything about "Wikipedia is not a place to write about popular mods to a game which 19.5 million people own." TomTheHand 21:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The game is notable. Every little thing associated with the game? Not so much. Violates WP:NOT by my reading of it (and yes, we already know not everyone agrees with that) but even if it didn't it's not notable in the context of a general encyclopaedia. GassyGuy 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is NOT a "game guide"--Nick Y. 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the context of "game guide." It is in the context of "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual." Do you contend that the article is an instruction manual, or did you misunderstand WP:NOT? This applies to everyone who has said that the article violates WP:NOT. Do you contend that the article is written as an instruction manual? If not, WP:NOT does not apply. TomTheHand 22:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your reading of NOT to begin with (instruction manual is not ment to limit, but game guide is ment ot expand the concept of not being instructive in general by citing a specific instance); but I also believe that the maps are primarily instructive. They have exceptional utility in assisting game play.--Nick Y. 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you believe "game guide" means? I'd be interested in hearing your personal definition, based off of the following policy:
Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.
Also, the article just contains a list of names of popular maps. I don't see how that is of "exceptional utility". Did you have this AFD confused with another one? This is an article describing a Counter-Strike mod. TomTheHand 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not a game guide or instruction manual, I don't how it could be interpreted that way. It is a descriptive article about a mod and gametype, how it plays, and then a list of maps. There are no instructions. As far as verifiability, the game itself is an acceptable primary source. As far as issues not addressed in the nomination, "counter-strike surfing" results in 1.27 million GHits, so it is at least semi-notable as a mod probably being played by thousands of people. (Of course, that does need verifiability.) --SevereTireDamage 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete counterstrikecruft. If needed merge any useful content into Counter-Strike --Pboyd04 00:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pbody04. -- GWO
  • Delete looks like a game guide to me. Whispering 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --ParalysedBeaver 01:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment rather than delete, I say we consider consolidating this article with a few other Counter-Strike related articles - 24.9.10.235 06:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, I've had difficulty getting a response to this issue. I quoted the relevant part of WP:NOT above. Could someone define "game guide" to me? I've asked here and on the nominator's talk page and the closest thing I got to a response is "I disagree with your reading of NOT." TomTheHand 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some info to Custom Counter-Strike maps; it's a type of map and a type of play, but do not keep as a separate article. Too specialized. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Custom Counter-Strike maps it is a notable type of map and gameplay that people will search here for Yuckfoo 18:15, 21 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 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wieslawa[edit]

I can't really see why this warrants inclusion in an on this site - it was AfDed 2 years ago - result was no consensus DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 08:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a dicdef and an empty list. It's been 2 years, no one's got anything to add. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The nominator may also want to add Cinzia to the nomination. Kimchi.sg 10:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. They are not dicdef but articles on given names. All names common (and not so common) in English have articles, usually with a list of people called 'Steve'. If needed, request help on expanding from Italian and Polish Wiki editors. Nuttah68 14:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. I'm not sure how else to identify two-sentence entries that state that a given word means such and such. Tychocat 15:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being a dicdef, this entry is currently not useful for Wikipedia. Punkmorten 20:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This is not a dicdef, it is the etymology and root of a given name, as is Cinzia. It is no less notable than the articles on Andrew, Brian, Colin, David, Elizabeth........... Nuttah68 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Those other articles are disambiguation pages. (Except David, where we decided that the biblical King David gets the name with a see instead pointing at the disambiguation page.) When we have two articles on someone named "Wieslawa", then we will need this as a disambiguation page. Until then, we have no need for this. As it currently has zero people with that name linked in, we don't need it now.GRBerry 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GRBerry's reasoning (thank you!) Shenme 03:45, 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 Speedy delete as a repost - It had even less info than the first.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Wrestling Federation (Australia)[edit]

Deleted earlier after Afd discussion. Not exactly a repost as now someone has set up a MySpace page and a couple of yahoo pages. Still nothing in the reliable sources range I think. I can't find evidence in the article or by googling that this is anything more than someone's fantasy role playing. Deprodded with message in talk. Weregerbil 09:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless more sources (preferably those which aren't self-published and hosted through Yahoo/MySpace) appear. BigHaz 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and no vote for now since this is a difficult one. It sure looks like an elaborate hoax, but references to the UWF of Australia can also be found on these (independent) pages (all though they all deal with this one event, the Bankstown Bash) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC):[reply]
    • March 4, 2006--United Wrestling Federation - Bankstown Bash in Sydney, Australia at Bankstown PCYC:... [9] (www.onlineworldofwrestling.com).
    • The United Wrestling Federation of Australia has announced that... [10] (www.prowrestling.com).
      • Comment Yeah, the obsessedwithwrestling page is exactly why I couldn't bring myself to {{db-repost}}ing the article; I'm still hoping for reliable sources. OTOH there is a "send results to..." mail link at the top of that page; how does obsessedwithwrestling check that emailed results are real? And the prowrestling.com page: there is an identically named wrestling federation in the USA; www.uwfusa.com mentioned just above the Bankstown Bash bit. Which UWF is it talking about? Blind me: it does say ...of Australia. One point for this being actually real. Weregerbil 10:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible speedy. Still no reliable sources for the article since the last article for deletion so it fails under verifiability. Still no Australian newspaper or other media results or other information to verify this. It should have been speedied.Capitalistroadster 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Page has essentially not gained any suitable source information from the last discussion, therefore, this is in essence a Reposting under the guidelines. Suggest the user develop a page in user space with reliable sources and then put in a proposal to move instead of reposting in article space in the future. Ansell 00:00, 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 keep. I ignored any silly sausage too silly to give any sort of reasoning for his point of view; I took into account the views of everyone else. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Green[edit]

Advertising; fails WP:CORP. Maybe redirect to Ed Green? -- MightyWarrior 09:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Edward Green is well known in certain circles as as one of the best bootmakers in England (along with John Lobb, who does have an entry on Wikipedia).--24.6.38.102 06:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs a lot of improvement, but might very well suit WP:CORP, a search for '"Edward Green" Shoes' on Google gives over 30.000 hits [11] and its not just the number of shops (2 in this case) or their location (London) that can make a company notable. If they sell something really exclusive that is well-known in specific groups (like millionaires [12]), it might be notable enough for wikipedia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete corporate vanity. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Ed Green. Fails WP:CORP. At least 500 unique Google hits, but over half of them seem to be irrelevant. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:46, 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 09:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balfour's Law[edit]

Article is unsourced, reporting on something that was just VERY recently made up (cf. this proof), ergo it is not an adage at all as it claims to be, it is original research and is a vanity/autobiography pseudo-article, in this case for the purpose of non-encyclopedic soapboxing. [Note: I do not make "non-noteworthy" claims; I don't believe in their relevance because WP:NN is neither Policy nor a Guideline, and thus not actionable.] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Cf. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The Ralakan Corollary, which is pretty much the same thing.

  • Delete Nonsense. 0 g-hits. Balfour was for Israel, not against it. --Xrblsnggt 11:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO as one of the endless Godwin's varieties.--Isotope23 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another Godwin's Law "corollary" neologism with no verifiability or support. This ought to be a criterion for speedy deletion.--Grouse 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete protologism. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism with zero Google hits. --Metropolitan90 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Attempt to cement idea come up with in Fark thread as some sort of neologism. Spurious social commentary and soapboxing, and nonsense "history of the term". Exo314 00:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism; salt the earth for being a Fark neologism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:02, 21 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 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ralakan Corollary[edit]

Article is unsourced, and is reporting on something that was just recently made up, ergo it is not an adage at all as it claims to be, it is original research and is a vanity/autobiography pseudo-article, in this case for the purpose of non-encyclopedic soapboxing [Note: I do not make "non-noteworthy" claims; I don't believe in their relevance because WP:NN is neither Policy nor a Guideline, and thus not actionable.] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Cf. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balfour's Law, which is pretty much the same thing.

  • Delete You're no Godwin. (The last paragraph contradicts itself.) --Xrblsnggt 11:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No hits on Google, nn. Mo-Al 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please use actionable criteria (i.e. Policies or Guidelines), not NN, which has been sorely abused with regard to AfDs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ
  • Delete. Yet another Godwin's Law "corollary" neologism with no verifiability or support. This ought to be a criterion for speedy deletion.--Grouse 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As author's name is Ralakan, this seems like WP:NFT (which isn't a policy either, really). JChap (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Though as the original AfD reasons on this note (via its wikilinks) indicate, the same reasoning also qualifies it for WP:Vanity and WP:AUTO, which are actionable. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ
  • Delete, unverifiable, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Protologism, unverifiable and unencyclopedic soapboxing. Exo314 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as previous, recreate if/when it's as well known as TINC or Godwin's Law. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. SMcCandlish, why did you remove the {{prod}} that was on the article when posting it to AfD? The article could possibly have been removed by now without the need to take our time on discussing and whatnot. --Grouse 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, see my edit summary for that deletion. As it explains, the WP:-namespace articles on the deletion process say not to use both, that AfD supercedes prod, and that prod should be removed if both occur on same page. You're really asking two question, though. The answer to the latent one is that I made this (and the related "Balfour's Law" wannabe-article) an official AfD instead of just a prod specifically to create a vote history that can be referred to later, both tactically, so that we can nominate for Speedy Deletion if the proponents of these "articles" simply recreate them later, and more strategically, to create a better body of precedent (on Policy/Guideline-actionable grounds - note my discouragement of relying upon NN for voting "Delete") for the removal of such bogus "adages" in the future, of which we are likely to see an increasing number in the months and years to come. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:05, 21 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 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando A. Rios[edit]

not notable enough Yiyun 10:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's released two albums - surely that's enough? Stui 10:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on having released two albums Jcuk 11:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:MUSIC on three key points: No evidence of inter/national tours, no charted hits, no substantive third-party articles. I get five Ghits for "Fernando A. Rios", and two of those are this article. Granted, Google should not necessarily be the final arbiter of notability, but at this level I think the Ghits are entirely symptomatic. I also can't find any listings for the albums beyond this article, suggesting they're self-published, which is why just having albums out isn't necessarily notable. Tychocat 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:MUSIC states quite clearly a musician is notable if s/he meets ANY ONE of the criteria. This guy has apparently released two albums, if verifiable, he's notable. Jcuk 19:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost, but it states that the albums must have been released (...) on a major label or one of the more important indie labels - there is no indication these albums have been released on any label, and 2 Google hits for each album name doesn't help. So delete. Punkmorten 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per punkmortem. Literally anyone can put out albums on self-financed labels. -- GWO
  • Delete. This article looks more like a self-advertisment to me. The artist is irrelevant for the genre scene. --ha-core 09:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I've met the guy personally I'm not going to vote either way. He is reasonably notable on the local scale... local being East Coast USA. As for international/whole country... i highly doubt anyone west of the mississippi has heard of him. He's certainly not as famous as say DJ Venom or Rob Gee who spin/perform comparable styles of music. I'm 100% certain he does not pass WP:Music... vote as you see fit.  ALKIVAR™ 19:35, 21 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 nonsense, and probable hoax - the article steadfastly refuses to name the "online forum" on which all the events supposedly occurred. Kimchi.sg 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDF[edit]

Not even sure what this is. No shred of notability. Prodded and the link was removed without comment. --Xrblsnggt 11:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per Patent Nonsense Yomangani 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete if possible, per Yomangani --Xyzzyplugh 13:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong (but not speedy) delete, not sure that this is patent nonsense, but this is apparently about a non-notable person named Kalani who got into some kind of trouble online. May be a hoax or an attack page, but I have no idea. Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as attack page. --DarkAudit 16:49, 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. The article inherently cannot be neutral. There is no metric for what constitutes a "common" misconception about Iran. The page has already been userfied at User:Khorshid/Misconceptions; any factual information not already present in our Iran-related articles can be gathered from there. JDoorjam Talk 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{afdanons}}

Misconceptions about Iran[edit]

A listing of alleged misconceptions about Iran, consists of a combination of trivial facts (which would best go to Iran and related articles), and claims which could hardly be called neutral. Not an encyclopedia article - delete (possibly merge salvageable content to other articles). - Mike Rosoft 11:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - apparently trying to fail every WP policy and guideline (although could do with some vanity and advertising to round it out!). Yomangani 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to change my opinion to Weak Keep - while I still think this would be better embedded in various Iran related articles, there is work being put in to reference and NPOV it, and having stumbled across List of catch phrases I think there are considerably worse lists out there which could do with attention. Yomangani 08:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If your argument is that since there is already an article that has the word 'misconceptions' in the title it would be hypocritical to delete this one, then that's a novel approach and I wish you all the best with it. I'd say the the HIV and AIDs article is unencyclopedic too, but at least for the most part it cites sources for where the misconceptions arose. - Yomangani 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion drive is nothing but an attempt to censor some certain facts about Iran. And besides, it doesnt follow WP rules. There is no good reason for deleting this article. "Not encyclopedic" according to whom?--Zereshk 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this discussion is to see whether there is a consensus to delete it, not to censor anything. If it follows all the Wikipedia guidelines then nobody reasonable is going to vote to delete it. At the moment it is is failing WP:V and WP:OR explicitly and WP:RS and WP:POV by extension. As to the unencyclopedic nature, that is up for debate, but I'd say it comes under WP:NOT. Lots of the info would as Mike Rosoft says be better in Iran (and likely to have a wider audience). If you can make it meet all the guidelines I'll gladly change my opinion to 'Keep'. Yomangani 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1) Your first point is not true - many people choose to delete articles for many reasons, including spite, animosity towards subject matter, POV, etc. even if said article is 100% valid, sourced, and true. #2) There is no way that anyone would allow this information in the main Iran article - that article is already very long and this information requires a separate article. #3) All the information here is valid and true. Find me one instance of falsity or POV or OR. Khorshid 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said nobody reasonable is going to vote to delete it, not quite the same thing. I'll make some comments on the discussion page about sources.Yomangani 22:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with another Iran-related article. I'm sure sure which though. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. The information and method of presentation in the article is highly informative and useful, provided adequate sourcing is added.--Nightryder84 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to fail WP:NOR. - FrancisTyers · 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unencyclopedic and a POV magnet.--Jersey Devil 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete factual information is presented in a manner which is not neutral. Case in point - the conclusion that Iran does not support terror and that allegations to the contrary fall under "myth." Such is an ongoing debate and cannot be claimed to be 'myth.' The entire structure of the page lends itself towards bias, because anything can be claimed to be myth and then refuted with a source without having to present all opinions. The verifiable content of this article authors deem worthy of preserving can be better presented without the biased structure of this page, which can be used to conceal political opinion. Matic3d 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article cannot possibly be neutral; its intention is quite plainly to speak in favor of Iran. Factual information in it can be moved with no loss to (or is already placed in) other, good articles about Iran. Belongs in a pro-Iranian forum's FAQ, not in Wikipedia. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I really do not know ... maybe a weak keep, as long as the article get's cleaned up and copyedited. Tājik 00:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is necessary and infact it needs to be added on to. there is a lot of misinformation out in the world, and this page was made in an effort to correct atleast some of those misconceptions.Khosrow II 00:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps not an encyclopedia article, but thinking of the growing hatred against Iranians, this article could be very usefull. --Spahbod 01:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- what clearer proof could there be of the inherently POV-pushing nature of this article... --Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Zereshk above, then you might as well delete that article too. --Spahbod 13:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A little of it could be salvaged and added to other articles (where appropriate), but the "Ayatollah Regime Frequently Asked Questions" format is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, and some of it (such as the tendentiously special-pleading terrorism apologia nonsense) should be deleted with extreme prejudice at the earliest opportunity. AnonMoos 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Closing Admin The user, User:Zereshk, has been internally spamming to try and get a favorable outcome on this afd. Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. (Wikipedia:Spam) [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27][28] [29] [30] [31]--Jersey Devil 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not only internal spam, but also external meatpuppet campaigning, on the Persian Wikipedia's Village Pump: "Please vote and save the following article from deletion!" [32] Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed, as above, Closing Admin, please take note that Zereshk launched two seperate spamming campaigns for this AfD, which account for over half of the 'keep' votes. --InShaneee 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename to Views of Iran in media. Within that article, we can have a section titled "Negative considerations". I think it should be easy to find support for these claims within the media. --Aminz 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pablo D. Flores above Tom Harrison Talk 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep contents (HIGHLY INFORMATIVE!) but not article by itself! Should be linked as reference to IRAN article!--Pantherarosa 02:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced POV. --InShaneee 02:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly merge and clean up. This article does not have much POV problem contrary to what many people want us to believe. Most of it consists of simple facts that are NOT DISPUTED by ANY RELIABLE source and for the record, by "reliable" I don't mean Iranian. Calling something misconception does not necessarily make it POV. Behaafarid 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is indeed the case! --Pantherarosa 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aminz above, or something similar. Having seen Views on Shi'a Islam, I think material in the article could be informative if presented in the right context. Tom Harrison Talk 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep Delete' Actually this article is badly POV. It is not an encyclopedia entry, but rather a lecture to the readers. "You think Iran is _____, but you have no idea". Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. His Excellency... 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs some work, but it is a legit article! Also User:InShaneee is erasing my messages on my talk page regarding this, so sabotage its chances of survival. Sad move...--(Aytakin) | Talk 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment he is removing those comments because it is against Wikipedia policy to send such comments to get keep votes in afds (see WP:Spam), in the past people have recieved temporary blocks for doing what he did. It is also standard procedure by administrators to remove spam comments.--Jersey Devil 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, and unsourced. I would reconsider my vote if I saw sources, and inclusion of the 'other side' in this, but I fail to understand how it would still be called "Misconceptions..." if we also included the other side.:NikoSilver: 10:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS has no "other side" for the very reason you explained. --Striver 10:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Yes, Zereshk informed me of this afd, and i am gratfull for it, i am intrerested in the topic. The article has already a precedence in Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS. The first case, the "Misconception: Iran used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war." and the second "Misconception: The word Iran and Iraq are related." are both very informative and well sourced, i see no original research, but a comendeble atempt at presenting sourced information. It is possible that a single or a few of the point in the article are OR or badly sourced, but that is a editing issue that needs to be fixed or removed from the article. It happens that people use a editing issue like "OR" to argue for the deletion of the entire article, when in fact, it is only a small part of the article that is OR. For those who regard the article as badly writen or pov, or anything else, i would like them to give a quote to demostrated the sweeping alegations. A small part of the article possibly being objectionable is nothing to worry about when the article is newly created (17 july). In fact, the articles 2nd (second!) edit is a afd, and in my view, that is a clear sign of the nominator not even bothering to improve the article, making me question if improving wikipedia is his real objective behind this nominations. Its worth repeating: the article itself has a precedence in Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS, rendeing "Unencyclopedic" claims voided. Thus, Strong keep. Lets not forget Irans role in todays politic, rendering this issue prone to emotive bias. --Striver 10:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also worth repeating that citing the survival of one article with Misconceptions in the title isn't a basis for keeping this one. Articles with similar titles have already been deleted [33] (which seems to have risen again as List of misconceptions),[34]. I think a better precendent is the multiple AFD survival of Misconceptions about the Shi'a (albeit renamed several times)...and of course precedent is only a guideline in AFDs anyway. Yomangani 11:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no such thing as binding precedent on Wikipedia (see WP:NBD), so all "keep because article x exists" arguments are null (nominate article x for deletion as well if you like) and I suggest to the closing admin that he takes that into account. This is a vaguely interesting essay that is completely unsuitable for an encyclopaedia, per WP:NOR. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge anything verifiably sourced and not already in appropriate article. Inherently POV ("common"???), cruft-like. If a false story, or urban legend, or any other type of misinformation has gained widespread currency, this should be addressed in Iran or other appropriate article (some of the items are about the Iran-Iraq war) not forked off to this trivia-like FAQ. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Tom Harrison --Joe Dynue12:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename, per Aminz.Itsmejudith 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – I believe it is a very useful and informative article and a summary that rounds up lots of things that cannot be found easily in other articles (or it takes ages to find and summaries). I find this kind of summary pages very useful and informative myself, and they encourage me to learn more about the subject by visiting other related articles. I don’t understand why some people object to them, are we running out of space on Wiki? Is there any harm in providing this kind of information to people? Is there such a thing as too much knowledge? Is knowledge harmful? Is there only one book on every subject in the libraries? Kiumars 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced POV. TomTheHand 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete big time POV, begs the question, unencyclopedic, misconceived by who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karwynn (talk • contribs)
  • Delete POV trash and quit spamming talk pages BigDT 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very Christian-like attitude. Please adhere to WP:NPA. Thank you. DragonRouge 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe un-Christian, but it isn't a personal attack. The policy you are looking for is WP:CIVIL. - FrancisTyers · 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the link. Thank you much. DragonRouge 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per Tom Harrison and Kiumars. DragonRouge 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong delete. The title is not a useful one, and the article is clearly an attempt to write an article with particular POV and avoid having to go to the trouble of integrating it with the main page. Many of the statements would have to be sourced and neutralized to conform to NPOV. Once that's been done any statements that remain can go into the main article. Anyway, whose misunderstandings are we talking about here? Many of these I didn't believe in the first place. DJ Clayworth 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. --Tēlex 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, despite agreeing with most of the content I find it unencyclopedic. There are missconceptions about all countries. The information should be kept and incorporated within other article(s).--Eupator 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the topic is interesting and contains many references Yuckfoo 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, however it needs to be NPOVed. --ManiF 21:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia... --Hectorian 00:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per Zereshk,, this article is one of the most informative ones around. The range of misconceptions explained here is completely true. I am confronted with it on daily basis.

--Mani1 11:46, 22 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 09:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Aable[edit]

Copied promotional material. (The article contaided the comment: "The following is from a booklet about Chris Aable's book due to be released in 2007, entitled What is Self-Evolution - and Why is it Our New Greatest Priority?" - which the author conveniently removed after I proposed the article for deletion.) Fails to establish notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Smug, vain, nn-bio. -- RHaworth 12:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. (Sorry, RH, but smugness is not a deletion criterion, tempting though the idea may be.) Fan-1967 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan-1967 -Harmil 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- Whpq 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apppeal as per AableFan 10:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Bare with me, as we (The Chris Aable Fan Club) are new to this. I'm Paul Johnson, the president. I assume we delete the "scheduled for deletion" template if we appeal or vote? If not, forgive me, I'm still learning. This biography is useful, and many "smug" details have thus far been left out, but we will work on this so as to minimize offending anyone as best we can. I think Chris' philosophy of Self-Evolution is quite the contrary of being "smug" in that his lectures and speeches at CSULA, LACC, SMC, etc. emphasis that everyone is equal at least in the respect that we all have unique accomplishments that we should share in the spirit of "I can do this, and so can you". Black and white words in a few biographical paragraphs cannot completely capture true motivations, behavior and attitudes, so I would never jump to the worse possible negative conclusions based on a list of accomplishments or work history of any person posted. Please keep in mind that Aable was away from Hollywood during the mid 90s when much information about actors was being placed on the web by publicist. He was teaching sociology, philosophy and psychology at CSULA in the late 1990s and his actual letters of references (with phone numbers) from other professors can be viewed on the reference link of self-evolution.org He may be "nn" partly because he was born as Chris Brown, he had to use the screen name Chris Aable when he joined the Screen Actors Guild in 1988, as there cannot be two people with the same name, in this case, "Chris Brown" for the purposes of Television and Screenplay credits. He authored the book "Life Songs" and "A Value Guide to U.S. Coins" as Christopher Willis Brown in 1981 and the ISBN and copies can be found at the Library of Congress. Aable interviewed over a hundred celebrities when he hosted "Hollywood Today" - a TV show aired in over twenty cities, including most of Los Angeles and New York City. This can be varified through his guest's contacts or their agents, which included newsmakers such as Marc Christian, Gedde Wattanabe, comedians Gilbert Godfrey, The Lovely Carol, etc....Should we list all hundred of them? SYR Productions will be promoting and distributing these historical shows on the internet and DVD in 2007, this part sounds commericial so was purposedly left out along with many other associated facts. We have a fan club committee gathering this information. Board members are Paul Johnson, Steve Torpin, Terry Mills, Jose Silva, Mary Sutton and Barbara Mosher. We don't know how else to write these things without soundinig like a commercial, but we see actor's and producer's upcoming projects throughout Wikipedia. But more importantly, a little known but significant fact is that Aable was the original producer/writer of "America's Craziest Home Videos" long before "America's Funniest..." was known, and this can be varified by Mark Justin, who was a Project Developer at Fox Television back in 1987 and a guest on Aable's show. It can also be verified by John Cedar, Stephen Valentino, David Thursdale, casting director Steve Fugi and dozens of others, names listed upon request. Thanks for listening, and my apologies for the length - there's much to explain. I'm not saying he's Ayn Rand, Aristotle or Jefferson, but nevertheless everyone deserves to have some of their work mentioned when it has effected tens of thousands of people over the years, and will perhaps continue to do so. We could not locate any "copyright violations". If there are any copyright violations or other objections, please be case-specific and wewill be happy to delete or edit to meet all guidelines.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

Holocarpha Imbecilus[edit]

I've read it, it's not even BJAODN material. DS 12:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, delete. Lupo 11:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, so tagged, patent nonsense (look at the image the author has uploaded). NawlinWiki 11:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Obvious and notable scientific value for Wikipedia, probably a bad-faith AFD nomination. 71.101.136.70 12:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note can't be that valuable -- author has now blanked it, I've added db-author tag. NawlinWiki 12:11, 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 keep. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merrill Keiser[edit]

Non-notable candidate who lost in primary John Broughton 12:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. -- H·G (words/works) 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As the creator of WP:C&E, I would ordinarily call for a merger into an article about this year's important U.S. Senate race in Ohio. However, since this guy got a fair bit of attention for being such a nutball, I think we ought to keep the article. -- Mwalcoff 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mwalcoff. Yes, he lost in primary, but he was also an unusual candidate (running as a Democrat while being to the right of the average Republican candidate), and got a substantial amount of notice. For uniqueness and for fame, I say it should stay. Captainktainer * Talk 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Big Gig[edit]

Nonnotable local high school band competition. NawlinWiki 12:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My Big Delete --PresN 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. Nuttah68 18:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Come on people, seriously, don't you want to know what I stuck up my butt today??? 72.77.152.156 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk article. User at 72.77.152.156, please do not abuse edit privlages. St.isaac 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable event. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:52, 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 all. Proto::type 08:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmines[edit]

Apparently every "instance" in World of Warcraft has its own article. Each one of these is written as gameguide complete with helpful information such as which weapons are "must have" and which is a "popular twink weapon" and which monsters "drop some very sweet loot for your raid" (Onyxia's Lair). These articles have no references and can be deleted as unencyclopedic as well. Wikipedia is not a game-guide. Also nominating:

Wickethewok 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable WoW instances. There may be scope for a merge but I'll leave that to those who could cope with WoW for more than a couple of weeks. MLA 13:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not unknown for all the zones of a world such as LOTR to have articles here, in fact LOTR has pages for each of it's areas most of them shorter then the smallest WoW instance page. PPGMD 15:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it alone!! It is Helpful information. You wouldnt condone burning books would you? Then why delete these pages?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.7.251.200 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-17 11:24:04 (UTC)
    Comment: 131.7.251.200 (talk · contribs) has voted keep below. The above should be taken as a comment. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see places of Morrowind for a possible precedent. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are instances in WoW - that is analogous to having articles for each level of Super Mario Bros. 3. Having an article on something is not precedent for keeping another - perhaps if it was nominated for an AFD and voted to keep, then maybe. Wickethewok 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The term 'instance' means nothing to me, sorry. Not a Warcraft player. I see both groups of articles as essentially articles on game locations/maps/whatever. Delete the whole lot, or keep the whole lot. There is no need for haphazard application of standards. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps for a recent related AfD discussion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the CS maps AfD discussion page specifically warns that that discussion is not to be referred to as precedent in future decisions. -- Super Aardvark 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am well aware of that warning, and haven't cited that AfD as precedent. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Instance essentially means "level" or whatever. As for the application of standards, I don't know of any other way to go through this other than on a case-to-case basis. If you have any ideas on a broader application of standards, I'd love hear them. A single AFD for all maps/levels/instances listed on Wikipedia would be a massive and confusing ordeal imo. Drop me a message if you have any ideas on such things unless they're specifically related to this AFD. Wickethewok 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I cared enough about it, I would propose purging all game map articles from WP wholesale. But, being not a gamer myself, I can't mount a vigorous defence of that position, so I haven't suggested it. If you do the honours I will chime up in support. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not have an article for each level of SMB3, in principle? In practice, I don't think there's enough to say about each of those to warrant an article, but there's plenty to say about these areas of WoW (lore, individual NPCs, impact on the game as a whole, etc.) -- Super Aardvark 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because there is information on such things does not make them encyclopedic (not an indescriminate collection of information). Wickethewok 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment here, a better analogy than having articles for each level of SMB3 would be having articles for each boss of SMB3. I know it seems like I'm nitpicking, but I just think it's important to clarify this for the non-WoW players. An instance is more of a special area where the major bosses of WoW are encountered. Sorry to be anal, but, well, I'm anal... --Polkapunk
  • Keep: These are all notable to the substantial number of people who play WoW. Given the notabililty of WoW (the most popular MMOG ever, by a factor of two[35]), and that Wikipedia is not paper, these articles should be kept. -- Super Aardvark 16:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not stating whether these are notable or not. My reasons for deletion are given above, you may address those if you wish. Things can be of interest to a large community but still be unencyclopedic, such as recipes, game guides, and such. Those things are "all notable to the substantial number of people", but are certainly not encyclopedic. The main purposes of these articles seems to be to provide information on "bosses", what items they drop, level recommendations, listing mission objectives, etc, which definitely falls under a game-guide, which WP is specifically not. Several of them even have "Strategy" sections, which is quite blatantly unencyclopedic. Wickethewok 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have placed my argument for notability as a response to the first Delete vote; sorry. After reviewing a majority of the articles in greater detail, I agree that their main purpose as they now stand is to be a game guide. However, most have some background story-line information that should be merged with another article or should be expanded to warrant its own article. Game guide material (essentially the Instance section of each article) should be removed. -- Super Aardvark 17:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Per Wickethewok, the issue is not whether fans like it, or that lots of people play the game. WP is not a game guide. Tychocat 16:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the articles are referenced (to a WoW Wiki), and I would not consider areas in the most popular fictional world non-notable, per WP:FICT Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are they referenced? Wikis can't be used as reliable sources of information, so WoWWiki is not any sort of reference. Wickethewok 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability. --Abu Badali 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above for my refutation of the "not notable" argument. Do you have a counter argument? Do you agree with the grounds stated by the nominator? -- Super Aardvark 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about the late additions. These are all redirects to the same article. This article contains no strategy or game-guide material. Are you requesting the redirects be deleted, or the article? On what grounds? Your original reasoning doesn't hold for this article. -- Super Aardvark 17:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: half are such redirects (to Caverns of Time), half should be made redirects to Outland (Warcraft). -- Super Aardvark 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article specifically, though of course the redirects as well. I removed the redundant article listings above. How does my reason for deletion not hold? Material that is unencyclopedic can most certainly be deleted. I have elaborated on these reasons including original research, WP:NOT a gameguide/how-to, and unencyclopedic in general. Wickethewok 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "unencyclopedic in general" I imagine you're referring to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't see how Caverns of Time falls under any of the stated categories of articles for which concensus has been established, and I argue that it is encyclopedic. It explains what this new, in-development feature of the game is, how to access it, and the lore behind each aspect. The article will continue to evolve as more information is made available, but it doesn't contain any speculation. -- Super Aardvark 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large percentage of the information should probably be moved to a Wikibooks gameguide. Other information contributes to game lore, which account for a large percentage of game-related articles. --Smithra 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Your main arguement to delete these articles is, one they are not notable (that has been refuted by Super Aardvark), two they are unencyclopedic (how many other things on wikapedia are unencyclopedic?) and three, that it is more of a game guide, (this has also been refuted by stating that there is lots of pertinent background information on the pages too that coincides with the helpful hints.) Pretty much the only thing the guy who wrote this did wrong was go above and beyond. Now you want to delete ALL these articles because someone (who doesnt play WoW) thinks they are unencyclopedic. Well try looking up "Toilet humour" on wikapedia...Now THATS encyclopedic!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.7.251.200 (talk • contribs)
    • Keep: I agree with the person above here. If i have a question about almost anything I come to wikipedia. Plus, like reading about the lore of the dungeons. Wikipedia has information on almost all topics. Why isn't any true knowledge encyclopedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.231.52 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-17 20:01:20 (UTC-4)
      Comment: User 75.4.231.52 (talk · contribs)'s sole contributions are to this AfD. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted. Here's my opinion on that: Assuming good faith re this person's frequent use of Wikipedia, you now have the opinion of a member of your target audience. This should count at least as much as a seasoned Wikipedian who may have no interest in video games. -- Super Aardvark 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just to let everyone know, instances are not a "level" in the game. They are specific "dungeons-type areas" that are completely unique to your group. For example, when you enter an instance, it is completely empty except for you and your group (and of course the bad guys). This is to prevent people from attempting an instance and having all of the "mobs" cleared already. Instances are a HUGE part of WoW and are not there simply for level advancement, but the instances coincide with the history and the story of the game. For example, a lot of the instances are where you and your group/raid can relive some of the stories and legends that many of the players read about on the pages of Wik. It would just be a shame to see them go. WoWPlayer131.7.251.200 19:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: vote struck out. You cannot vote more than once. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay Mr. Chaudhuri, I want to direct your attention to the part of the page that states very clearly that this is NOT a vote. Let me copy and paste that part for you in case you misunderstood. "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" My last comment was furthering the discussion and informing the editors. I put "Keep" down when I wrote my comments to restate my position. And furthermore, I dont appreciate you being a forum "Taskmaster". I can put more than one comment up if I want, because as the editors say, its not a vote.--131.7.251.200 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Please review WP:NPA. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Calm down. Your comment wasn't struck out, just the second vote. From what I understand, while AfD is not decided by vote, it is helpful to the admins to have a general idea of roughly how many users are on each side of an AfD. Feel free to comment, but only vote once for clarity's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.61.46.16 (talk • contribs)
    • IP addresses should not "vote" in AFDsI think it would be best if you acquired an account, as its hard to keep track of who you are, which seems especially important for the purposes of AFD. If you wish to participate, I suggest you get register with a username. Wickethewok 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All per nom and WP:NOT--Nick Y. 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. I suppose the background/history information could potentially be useful, but the walkthrough sections are absolutely unencylopedic and must go. Perhaps a merge somewhere of the background sections is in order, but I have no clue where that should be to. BryanG(talk) 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwikify to wikibook or another project. An encyclopedia is not a gaming guide. Regardless how "useful" this information may be to players, I feel strongly that this is the wrong project to publish that information. Don't take it personal.--Andrew c 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are so many articles nominated here that I'm not sure which way to vote, because I'd have to lump them all in one decision. A page like Maraudon is primarily game-guide material, while an article like The Scarlet Monastery isn't. Similarly, if you trimmed out most of the Instance info from articles like Blackrock Spire, it would be worth keeping, or at least trimming down and merging into a list article. To delete them all would surely be overzealous, but not to edit these at all would be ill-advised.

    But I suppose that point is moot if you don't believe any of it should be here at all. This AfD's primary reasons for deletion are that it is a gameguide and that they have no references. For the game guide claim, I would argue that these are fictional elements in a notable video game, notable in regards to the game's design as well as to the greater Warcraft universe - not necessarily a gameguide. Inherently, some instancing and gameplay information should be there. For references, the game itself can be cited as a primary source, as well as other how-to guides, FAQs, and reviews as secondary sources, if it goes that far. --SevereTireDamage 22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another Comment: Why aren't Instance walkthroughs encyclopedic information? They are just as helpful as an article about the Revolutionary lore. I thought that the purpose of wikipedia was to document the entire knowledge of the human race. Yet you want to delete all these pages of useful information?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.231.52 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-17 20:01:20 (UTC-4)
  • Delete or transwiki all, game guide cruft. Dungeons in a game are not proper topics for an encyclopedia. Recury 00:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a game guide. Put it in some kind of WoW wiki. --Pboyd04 00:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or perhaps merge. I think these articles would be okay if all of the game guide information was removed (including all references to levels, questss, etc.) and leaving much shorter articles regarding solely backstory within the Warcraft mythos would be sensible. Game guides are good for those things, but providing the history of the game world and how these locations fit into that seems possibly within Wikipedia's bailiwick. Sertrel 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think these articles belong on the WoW Wiki, not here. --Coagmano 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All WP is not a game guide. If this material is not on the WoW Wiki, why not? It should be there and not here. Shenme 03:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki to WoW Wiki. -- H·G (words/works) 07:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete because this is not a game guide true, but not because they do not have quoted sources... the majority of it is common knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.185.185 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete all. Gameguide/gamecruft. Transwiki to any WoW site willing to take them, then disinfect with immediate effect. -- GWO
  • Delete all. per everyone above Wikipeda doesn't need gamecruft. Whispering 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The parts that are not gamecruft are strictly in-universe information. Nifboy 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: Trim out the game guide info and focus on the encyclopedic content. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per above recommendation: "[Leave] much shorter articles regarding solely backstory within the Warcraft mythos." As a former WoW player, I can say that Blizzard actually did put a fair amount of backstory into most of the instances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewolf34 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep: Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, period. Just because some people may or may not agree with the content doesn't mean that the content should be removed. On the contrary - if anything the content should remain and should be enhanced with links, images (without violating copyright), etc. Seansquared 15:47, 19, July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.162.143 (talk • contribs)
  • Note - the above user changed my comments on this AFD intentionally (I have reverted them). If you do so again, I will not hesitate to recommend you be blocked. Wickethewok 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - my apologies, I was unaware of, and have since become aware of, the policies on the AFD. I will, however, state that it is painfully obvious that the above user is biased towards his own deletion recommendations (due to the way in which he defended this AFD entry) and may also be biased against World of Warcraft for some unknown reason (as he has contributed to at least one other game entry in Wikipedia that could be construed as a "game guide", that game being Halo). Seansquared
  • Note - also, please don't attempt to threaten me or any user with such phrases as "Don't do it again". You do not own Wikipedia, you are merely a contributor like everyone else. Furthermore I have suddenly received a huge influx of spam on my gmail account for no reason; I can only assume that you have contributed to this and as such have reported you to both Wikipedia and Google for possible service violations. Seansquared 16:42, 19 July 2006
  • Note - Adding to my original recommendation of Strong Keep I would like to say that World of Warcraft is very notable (6.5M+ players worldwide), has a rich lore and history, etc. Again I recommend that the above articles be edited, not removed, to better fit with Wikipedia's standards. I would not, however, merge the entries, as that unified page could possibly contain hundreds of pages worth of scrolling. Seansquared 16:47, 19 July 2006
  • I enjoy being accused of being biased towards my own recommendations. I cannot deny that - my opinions are indeed biased by my opinions. I assure you I don't have anything against WoW. Also, I'm glad to see you signed up for an account. I hope this AFD does not deter you from making future contributions to Wikipedia. I apologize if I was a little rough with my "Do not do it again" comment. Wickethewok 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Wikipedia is a collection of human knowledge, and I fail to see that why you can have an article on specific episodes of Star Trek, World of Warcraft instances need to be removed. This is the reason I come to Wikipedia, it has information on absolutely everything. Simply because you do not find interest in it does not mean it should disappear. Tapo 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I came to this site looking for meaningful information about what Molten Core is, which I found in the article about the instance. I would have been very surprised not to find an article on the subject in an encyclopedia as big as WP, as I have come to rely on it for information on a great many subjects. Some of the instance articles could perhaps use a cleanup to make them more like information and less like a guide, but as they are now I don't see it being a great problem. Merging all the instance articles won't be possible without removing a vast amount of information, or making an enourmous article. I also join the poster further up, in saying that the person suggesting this deletion seems strongly biased against World of Warcraft for some reason, as evidenced by him mockingly mentioning "sweet loot for your raid" (which seems to be a quote from nowhere in the Deadmines article). Sphinxer 22:59, July 19 2006
  • That line is from Onyxia's Lair. Wickethewok 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Your primary argument seems to be that these articles deserve to be included in WP merely because WP is "big" and has articles on a "great many subjects". However, WP aims to be a encyclopedia, which is not necessarily the same as being big and having many articles. The argument for inclusion of an article must involve the properties of the article itself, rather than the properties of WP. As far as opinions go, I disagree with the expectation that one should find detailed articles on game maps in a general encyclopedia. I have no objection to pointing interested people to more specialised resources out there (which can be wiki-based even!), but we don't ourselves have to be such a resource. However, I would recommend people who have strong opinions on this matter (i.e., people who have voted strongly for or against in this AfD) to try and draw up some notability criteria for video game information. In this instance a little bit of instruction creep is preferable to a deluge of AfDs if it will establish clear consensus standards. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I'd like to help out with that. It seems to be one of the more debated items on AFD as of late, so it'd be nice to establish some guidelines which would help streamline future AFDs on video game material. I'll try to start thinking of some general guidelines - feel free to message me if anyone here is interested as well (regardless of which way you voted of course). Wickethewok 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:if anyone giving their opinion about move/delete this info played WOW, they would realize that ALL info on the pages are so sumarized that can only be used for lore/information needs. nobody kill a mob in a dungeaon by reading wikipedia stuff. its just silly to base your arguments on "game guides" maybe wikipedia is not a place for game info huh?--Santosusaf 10:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Cannot anyone edit articles for clarity and to fit the guidelines? Why don't you just edit the articles to remove the "guide" data and leave the lore data and other non-"game guide" information (which, arguably, constitutes the majority of the articles, as there is little actual "guide" content within them) if you have such a problem with them? I still cannot help but believe that, for some reason, you are biased against either World of Warcraft or Blizzard in general. Perhaps you're an EQ2 player or something. Seansquared 11:42, 20 July 2006
  • Assuming you're addressing me (if you're not, ignore me ;) ), I love Blizzard. Played D2, SC, WC2 for a loooong time. Wickethewok 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you did post the AfB and so the majority of comments must be directed at you, eh? Poking aside, I've begun editing some of the articles for clarity and removing the "guide" information. I will update with lore and non-guide information (to maintain a level of "encyclopedic-worthy content. I would request a minimum period of 5 to 10 weeks to thoroughly update and modify the above noted articles so as to avoid their deletion. I do believe that World of Warcraft, it's lore and fantasy, and all non-guide information related to it, certainly meets or exceeds any notoriety standards that Wikipedia holds itself to, and that the articles are merely under scrutiny due to the excessive (though not IMO) amount of "guide" content. I hope to rectify this as soon as humanly possible. Note that I am not the original contributor nor editor. Seansquared 12:08, 20 July 2006
  • merge - Move lore and general information to a World of Warcraft: Instanced Dungeons page and remove most 'gameguide' information about phat lootz or strategy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.56.147 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete all. Repetitive, yes, but WP:NOT a game guide. As noted, there's a WoW wiki where these would (presumably) be right at home. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- These kinds of articles and details are useful in another wiki, but definitely WP:NOT -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE KEEP- My boyfriend plays World of Warcraft or WoW as he calls it..and he and his friends are always talking about the dungeons..Wiki lets me understand at least a little bit of what he is talking about..BTW I hate that game! -Welchsta1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Welchsta1 (talk • contribs) .
  • Merge - There is way too much game info in most of these, but I think if everything were to be pared down it could make a good "Instances in WoW" article. --Polkapunk 18:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- As mentioned above, precedent supports keeping this kind of information, although I think it is more appropriate in WoWiki --circuitloss 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -this is a legendary world that also has numerous novels based on these locations- if deleted may also infer that any fictional region should be deleted i.e. The Shire (which is also used in a video game). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.21.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I find the idea alone of deleting valueable information from Wikipedia disturbing. Even if it were a game guide (which in my opinion it is not) why delete it? Many people visit this page exactly for the information given here. The reason I visit WikiPedia is not because I expect only encyclopedia material; it is because I expect to find NPV information on a subject which is written and reviewed by a group of people that figured it was worth the effort to put it out here. Sure, there are areas in the article that aren't very encyclopia 'worthy' (I have my own ideas on HOW to approach a fight) but if that would be a reason to delete an article, WP would be a very different place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.171.224.124 (talk • contribs)
  • You, like many other new users posting here, should really learn some basic Wikipedia policies before posting comments here. You have come here in search of unencyclopedic content. Until that picture in the upper left hand corner says "Wikipedia: The Free Place-to-Add-Whatever-You-Like", this is still an encyclopedia, regardless of what you would prefer it to be. Though this may not be your point exactly, the argument alone for keeping this information because it does not exist elsewhere should ring warning bells of original research and lack of verifiability. Wickethewok 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just something I've noticed since the AFD started is articles such as these seem to get worse over time. Judging by article histories and even just the activity on them in the past few days, most content is filled out by IP users with no interest in Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. Unlike other articles, these unreferenced level guides seem to get worse over time, rather than improve. During my time cleaning up/watching "List of Weapons in Halo 2", I found this to be the case as well, so this phenomenon is certainly not limited to any particular game. While this is not a reason for deletion by any means, it seems relevant to those who feel these articles can and will be cleaned up over time. Wickethewok 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but excise game-guide content. The background information and "lore" regarding the instances are appropriate for WP, at least so long as detailed information about many other fictional worlds remains. SS451 04:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Same reasons as mentioned above, their existence is justified, just replace the junk with more factual content. The Cruel Barb comment, for example, can be changed to mention that Thottbot doesn't report the existence of any other one-handed weapons acquirable at level 19 with a higher damage-per-second rating. There are TONS of factual, verifiable, and citable information tidbits like that you can grab off of index sites like WoW Guru, Thottbot, and Allakhazam. Riotgear 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete nonsense and totally useless. -- 83.236.79.246 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all these articles are completely inward-looking, and without significance in the real world. Zargulon 10:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I offer the following arguements: (1) These articles represent real knowledge about a long standing fantasy universe. This fantasy universe has been worked on for more than a decade by one of the most successful game companies in the world today Blizzard and it seems likely that this information will be of interest for many years to come. The information about the WoW instances is directly comparable to detailed information currently in the Wikipedia about such unreal locations as Lórien and many other fictional locations such as: Westeros, Galactic quadrants (Star Trek), etc.). (2) These articles are not game guides in that they do not provide detailed maps showing the locations of monsters or detailed strategies for defeating said monsters. Instead they by-and-large fit the idea of an encyclopdia entry so that when someone says to you "Have you ever heard of the Motlen Core in WoW?" you can say "No... but give me 5 minutes on Wikipedia and I'll have some idea what you are talking about". (3) Any attempt at merging would result in an article which was too large as there are a great many instances in WoW and more are added as the game continues. (4) There are a number of works of fiction that have been published set in the "Warcraft Universe". If all these instance articles are deleted because they describe (some) things only found in the game WoW, what logic would justify keeping the other articles in Wikipedia which describe places that also don't exist except in works of popular fiction? Should the Wikipedia be biased against unreal game locations vs. unreal published fictional locations? Note also that there are plans (which may come to nothing) to release a big-budget movie set in the World of Warcraft universe. I'm not willing to ague which article about which minor feature of a minor game should be deleted but WoW is (a) the most popular game in the world for a year now (b) part of an established fictional landscape which exists beyond WoW and into other fields of art. Wikipedia clearly has room for articles which describe fictional locations. WoW's fictional locations are, in my opinion, important enough to maintain their existance in the Wikipedia. Cglassey 20:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these pages due to their extreme notability and encyclopedic use. The history and background information of these locations are fit to be on Wikipedia, but any so-called "strategy guides" should be sent to WoWWiki. Also instead of "game guide" section here could be short descriptions of the instance itself such as the names of the bosses found within and what kind of creatures inhabit this instance/location. Not to mention the ideas that people who wish to delete are suggesting could result in a somewhat worse situation than that which you sought to prevent. Tacitus666 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. Stuff with encyclopedic value is already at Instance (World of Warcraft). The game guides belong on wowwiki, which is an excellent resource that many World of Warcraft players already know about. Resolute 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the names but remove guide-like content. As some previous editors have said, some locations of the game have become sufficiently notable to merit inclussion, but game guides don't belong here. Sarg 07:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All these pages due to their extreme notability and encyclopedic use.Based on the information here million find very useful why would you want to delete the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huylyn (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep All These pages should be here as reference to fictional places inserted in a fantasy world. Their interest is not only for players of a particular game but also encyclopedic for the common fantasy novel lover, as they are becoming part of popular culture. SirM 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All These pages conatin more Lore of the series and more encyclopedic material then they do game guide information, if the problem lies with that information, please by all means fix it. I would like to note Wickethewok has been actively attempting to delete all information and articles pertaining to the game in general and in fact, if I'm not correct, the behavior is considered a violation of the terms of abuse for this website. This is an open encyclopedia and Wikipedia has been for a long time, well known as the place to get your offbeat, net-culture information, several people recently have been attempting to remove that and it needs to stop. So noting, people who are not a part of the communities, nor experienced in the information they are trying to dictate as notable, non-notable, encyclopedic, or non-encyclopedic really shouldn't be considered the authorities on what is and is not fact. These pages contain valuable information that is in fact, quite a notable contribution to the current days culture, at least in the realm of gaming (considering nearly 7 million active subscribers to the game). Deleting this would be ignoring such a strong sentiment and completely against the purpose of an active content, online encyclopedia. Seraphna 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: You may want to also check out Wickethewok's user page and note that several of his articles, particularly those on widely unheard of electronic music creators, fail to live up to WP:NOT standards. It's a nice double-standard that he follows. Seansquared 12:32, 24 July 2006
  • Which articles are you referring to specifically? I'd be more than happy to fix them. Though, I'd like to point out this is not necessarily relevant to this AFD. Also, what part of WP:NOT are you saying they violate? I'm not sure what part of WP:NOT you could apply to a musician/producer. Wickethewok 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, nothing really jumped out at me on Wickethewok's page as WP:VSCA or WP:NOT. But, since WP is a collaborative effort, keep in mind that WP:DEL can be used by any editor, yourself included, to help improve WP. -- MrDolomite | Talk 02:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All The "Wikipedia is not a game guide" argument smacks of smugness, ignorance, elitism and nazi-like desire for control over content. You don't burn books in the 21st century. Those pages containt helpful information, are referenced and have nothing to with game guides, it can't be helped that the majority of the audience for said articles will be made out of game users. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. daflipman 02:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impressive! Most new editors usually make it to at least double digit edits before comparing other editors to Nazis. While I understand how you can feel frustrated, its usually not in your best interest to appear uncivil. I hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing verifiable information to Wikipedia in the future. Wickethewok 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly you are passionate about the AfD discussion, daflipman. Please remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and not to jump to conclusions about other contributors' possible motivations. Having that kind of discussion quickly moves away from Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, detracts from the original point, which is discussing the possible deletion of the article. Thanks for participating. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't speak for everyone, but I have not said I "don't like it." I do feel, that while it shouldn't be "here" (as in wikipedia), it is definitely worthy of being "there" (as in another gaming wiki). Personal POV about WP content: if WP becomes a majority of articles about new bands, non-notable school, StarTrek, computer games and weaselly company ad-spam, then people will go elsewhere. All those things can be online, and maybe one solution is to have WP become the #REDIRECT jumping off point to other topic's wikis. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too specialized and gamecrufty for a general encyclopedia. I know that adding whatever you want makes editors feel valued and be able to take a break, but there has to be a line in the sand somewhere. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:28, 25 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 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hairy H. Man[edit]

Snakes in a pig and stuff. More fiction from our prolific German organized crime contributor. Deprodded. Weregerbil 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that this nomination was made in good faith. User: SuperJoe47

  • Delete with extreme prejudice: hoax, hoax, hoax. There's not much room for good faith here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:06, 21 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 Airbus A350.. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A370[edit]

Redesign was announced and the name was kept at A350[36]. Information on the redesign is already being merged into the A350 article to this stub is no longer needed. StuffOfInterest 13:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and please also delete corresponding redirect, A370. If Airbus A370 is used as a redirect, A370 should be reserved for use by the article related to the U.K. road. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be reserved for the UK road only? It looks like several European countries use "A" routes, which means there could be other instances of A370 out there. Perhaps "A370" should be a disambiguation page referencing both the road and postulated aircraft design for now which would allow adding other roads in later. --StuffOfInterest 18:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airbus A350. Andros 1337 15:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Dtcdthingy 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- There will eventually be an Airbus A370 (A320 replacement or something else), so reserving it to a British road seems to me short-sighted. Hektor 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We may not see an Airbus A370 for decades, at which point the A370 article could be converted to a disambig. Why plan for a contingency ten years or more away when it is trivial to convert it back? 20:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N328KF (talk • contribs) .
Merge with A350 and alter A370 redirect to target the A350 article. Ingoolemo talk 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airbus A350, per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:32, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retail performance[edit]

A contested prod. Original rationale for deletion was "WP:OR", unprodded with edit summary "Retail Performance is an important reasearch topic in the ever increasing competitive retail market space" (Liberatore, 2006). 13:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:OR and checking the history looks like it could be advertising (several attempts to insert retail performance software). Yomangani 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. Not up to Wiki standards. Looks like something out of a retail management tutorial for some kind of proprietary program. Not generally accepted information.
  • Delete as all above. Nuttah68 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR, seems to be a spam magnet. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed w/ all of the above. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:17, 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 merge and redirect to Thomas Pytel. – Avi 01:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless (demo)[edit]

Delete, extremely NN software. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. One of the defining demos of the PC era. A quintessential piece of code. // Gargaj 22:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Thomas Pytel. As a demoscener, I hate to vote something else than keep when a demo regarded as classic by some has been nominated for deletion by an outsider. However, in this case, even subculture-specific criteria don't seem to provide enough proof of the notability. I think there's room for maybe fifty demos in Wikipedia (we currently have 12), but it's questionable whether Timeless could be one of them. Let's see:
    • Awards: not applicable, since this demo never participated in a competition. (Americans didn't have their own demoparties yet in 1994)
    • Google web test: "Timeless by Tran" 11 hits, "Timeless Tran" 17 hits, "Tran Timeless" 34. The Linux port is called "SDL_Timeless"; the search with this keyword gives 25 hits. I would say that the infamous Google notability test failed.
    • Hornet charts final (1998, a ranking of PC demoscene productions based on public vote): not included in the "top 40 demos" list. Note that most demos in this list were rather new at the time, and the slightly older ones seem to be those who have a more lasting value (e.g. Second Reality and Dope).
    • MindCandy volume 1 is a famous 2002 DVD compilation containing 42 PC demos, 20 of which are supposed to be "oldskool" classics. Timeless is not included.
    • History of demoscene by year from Spaceballs' Scenery project mentions Timeless as one of the 12 significant PC-based releases of 1994. However, this doesn't rise it to the all-time top fifty.
    • In Talk:List of demos by year we were trying to establish some criteria for including demos in the list of demos by year. Timeless seems to have hard time even with the initial criteria suggested by Vossanova for the list (only ***+ rating in Hornet Archive; just barely passes 30 votes in Pouet; monostep and scene.org listings are not applicable because 1994 is too old for their coverage)
    • Google groups search limited to comp.sys.ibm.pc.demos, a major discussion forum for the PC demoscene in the 1990s. The search group:comp.sys.ibm.pc.demos timeless tran gives 38 hits. Comparison with some "definitely notable" PC demos of the same era: Second Reality by Future Crew 228 hits, Unreal by Future Crew 189 hits, Dope by Complex 90 hits, Crystal Dream by Triton 85 hits.
    • Conclusion: not "top-fifty" material even in the demoscene context, so I'm not going to vote for keep. --Viznut 09:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Thomas Pytel. I still believe WP:SOFTWARE can be proven, but as Viznut pointed out, it's difficult to justify keeping this article when there are still many demos, much more notable, without articles. The lack of articles linking to Timeless (other than the defunct List of demos by year) doesn't help either. Besides, the Tran article could use some more material. --Vossanova o< 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thomas Pytel. Doesn't seem "notable" enough for own article but possibly enough so for the subject. Yanksox 00:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (to Thomas Pytel), seems a good optio to me Muzzle 15:58, 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 delete after relisting. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Greenhouse Cafe[edit]

Although a chain, it is not a resturant that readers around the country would know, therefore non notable 11kowrom 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Readers around the country? What country would that be, mate? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Resturant chains are always notable. Lorty 21:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. Also, there's plenty on Wiki that isn't stuff "readers around the country would know," so I think the nomination should be withdrawn. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's nothing helpful on their website. I couldn't find any news coverage on Lexis either, but I don't know if it would have local papers and such. 7 locations? My inclination is to delete, but no vote yet.--Chaser T 22:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it only has 7 locations. -- Kjkolb 00:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded, in particular with evidence of notability and some sources. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please restaurant chains are notable Yuckfoo 06:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The best guidance I can think of here is WP:CORP, and it fails that right now. Ignoring CORP, there are only seven locations, so I say delete.--Chaser T 06:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is being relisdted in order to establish a consensus. - brenneman {L} 13:52, 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 16:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAF Ice Cup[edit]

  • Delete: This says that these countries have played each other, and some of the islands are uninhabited or have populations under 300. Antarctica national football team has been deleted already. No proof of existance or wheater Argentina, Chile, Australia and New Zealand played in this "tournament" --DCUnitedFan2011 11:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless the author comes forward with some evidence this must go down as an inventive hoax. BlueValour 16:27, 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 Speedy close bad faith nom from repeat offender. Nothing new presented. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Libsker[edit]

1st nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Libsker.

I live is Israel and I'm sure that 99.99% of the Israelis don't know him. As I've said in first nom, this is a self promotion of Avriri staff. Which is also NN. He even doesn't have an IMDb entery. --Haham hanuka 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the result was keep in June, was did you nominate him again? What has changed over the last month??? gidonb 17:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - --Haham hanuka 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last discussion. If he had a documentary that was shown on Israeli national television, then he is notable. Ryulong 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No he is not, this probably was broadcasted in a very late hour the nobody is watching. You can use Google if you don't believe me to be sure that he is NN. --Haham hanuka 20:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still, he has content that was broadcast on an Israeli national television station and that documentary was critically acclaimed, even if it was shown at a late hour. There are plenty of television programs in the states that are notable and are broadcast late at night. Even the fact that his movie caused scandals in Israel makes him notable. Just because you don't think such a person is notable, as evident from your two attempts to get this article deleted, doesn't mean others think the same, and they obviously do not as seen in the first deletion discussion. While he does not currently have a page on the Hebrew Wikipedia, if he has critical acclaim somewhere, he is notable for mention in the English language Wikipedia. Ryulong 22:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article was created by Nimrod Kamer [37] who abuse Wikipedia to promote himself, his nn friends and his nn films by creating articles about them. Don't let him fool you, this person is nn. --Haham hanuka 08:04, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children's television series[edit]

I retract my Delete nowFancyPants 08:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful list and additional information is included. Jonathan Bowen 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. Delete the unwieldy and indiscriminate list and include links to appropriate categories. Nuttah68 14:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The intro establishes the articles. I agree that the listing could be trimmed. 205.157.110.11 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Go look at what a category is for and what a list is for. Categories most certainly were NOT invented to replace lists but to stand side by side with them. Jcuk 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • In that case it really should be Renamedd to List of children's television series, perhaps. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nope this is exactly what categories are for. --Pboyd04 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the discussion part of the article but delete the lists per Nuttah68. --Metropolitan90 02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remove the list and put it in a list article (such as List of children's television series). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • changing vote to Keep and move list per coredesat. Jcuk 10:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment have been wiki:bold and moved the list part to List of Childrens Television Series. If this is out of order during an afd, 1)apologies 2)feel free to move it back. Jcuk 10:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've not problem with moving the list, but still feel it is indiscriminate. Sorting by country, considering most series on the list are shown around the world, seems a poor way of breaking the list up. IMO, it would be better suited if the list was broken down by target age demographic and then format(informative, drama, animation, sport and so on). Nuttah68 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To an extent, but I still feel the list needs to capture the obvious difference in programming aimed at three year olds compared with that aimed at fifteen year olds. Nuttah68 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as current version no longer has the list and instead is the start of an actual article on the subtect of children's television. 23skidoo 14:13, 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 was keep. Well done to Kwekubo (talk · contribs) for riding down in the nick of time to save the day with a vital message! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dobedo[edit]

Notability of this unreferenced article is not established. Olessi 04:05, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Tassone (2nd nomination)[edit]

DELETE: article is STILL vanity. There is STILL a pitful google return for this name. Bulid your rep and THEN do a wiki article. Jackbox1971 07:12, 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 Deleted as POV fork. --Cyde↔Weys 03:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli war crimes[edit]

It's too early to decide whether Israel committed war crimes in the ongoing conflict with Lebanon. Therefore this page should be deleted. If in time it would become obvious Israel committed such crimes, this page can be remade. Sijo Ripa 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to reapeat myself? This is not only about the current Lebanese conflict, but what happens on a regular basis in Gaza and other occupied territories. Either keep the article, either move it the Israeli army terrorism. 22:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greier (talk • contribs)
  • Delete — Personal essay; inherent PoV bias. Undoubtedly intended as another Israeli-bashing propaganda piece. There's enough hate sites on the web already, thank you. :-P — RJH (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete POV fork - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per POV 205.157.110.11 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete POV. This is a current event and little is known about it Lurker 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete if there were any real content it would be POV. MLA 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile on delete POV fork BigDT 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete POV bias. JungleCat File:Texasflaginstate.png 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV. hateless 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV and unsaveable. Carlossuarez46 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a redirect per above. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: There have been accusations of Israeli war crimes for decades, against the Palestinians particularly. The article as it is needs a NPOV rewrite and to be more encompassing to match the article name, but has potential. Perhaps though, it should be renamed to Accusations of Israeli war crimes? --Kickstart70-T-C 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Protect until such time as Isreal has been accused of war crimes by the The Hague. --Pboyd04 00:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and early close per WP:SNOW, not only is this a POV fork, but there is an overwhelming consensus to close. Israel hasn't been indicted for war crimes by the Hague, so unless that happens, this article can only be POV. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing can legitimately be closed per WP:SNOW, and this has barely been here 24 hours, there's plenty that may happen between now and the end of the week. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - UN warning on Mid-East war crimes. War crimes could have been committed in Lebanon, Israel and Gaza, a senior UN official has said.[38]. I fail to see how a pool could have any significance to wheter the article should stay or be deleted. Leaving aside the insults and names I`ve been called, I can say that judging by the most of the anti- reasons given, it shows that those users can actually contribute to the NOPV of the article, rather than call it POV, ignore it and delete it. The other reason given for deletion is that "This is a current event and little is known about it". This is like the third time I repeat: this is not only about the current situation, but about the history of proven or alleged Israeli war crimes, including this episode. Anyway, if it is deleted, I will make it again... either imediatelly, either as soon as U.N. issues a press release. Greier 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete inherently POV --PiMaster3 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Than make it NPOV Greier 15:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete POV fork --TewfikTalk 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV fork GabrielF 15:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --HarisM 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete-Why isnt there an article on Hezbolla War Crimes? They are shooting rockets at Israeli civilians and kidnapping soldiers to use in negotiations, against the Geneva Conventions. Having an Israeli War Crimes article without a Hezbolla one is anti-semetic and wrong! XtoZ 15:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete inherently POV, factual basis questionable, no content -Preposterous 16:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An article with this name would be legitimate, but in its current condition it's POVed beyond recognition, not to mention the fact it only states one alleged war crime, pertaining to an event on which you can find a more comprehensive and balanced information in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Tamuz (Talk) 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - If there is concern about objectivity, edit the page (add counter argument)! Deleting this article would only discredit Wikipedia's already tarnished credibility. Sohailstyle 23:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This article violates NPOV (no mention of Hezbollah atrocities).
  • Strong Keep Article has many valid points and references UN findings. Those claiming POV seem to not to like the statements made by official members of the UN. Supersean
  • Delete Quite the POV fork! I think an article called, say, Accusations of war crimes in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict might be more NPOV and could explore both sides with actual cited material! Fishhead64 06:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something with "alligations of" and "in the Israel-Lebanon conflict" in it, balance out alligations between both sides. Deleting it will only have partisens creating it later on. NPOVing it will preemtivly create a merge target, just like the Movement to impeach George W. Bush page does.--Rayc 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extreme POV ObsidianOrder 02:44, 22 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 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon by name[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft. All the article contains is an alphabetical list of Pokemon (Pokemen?) in both the English and Japanese languages. There is no encyclopedic nature to the article hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for reasons stated above, though I agree that some consensus should be made regarding all of the lists mentioned above. --Sonic Mew 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And while not relevant to the discussion, I had to smile at "Pokemen". ;-) --Sonic Mew 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. Sadly, we have articles on all the Pokémon, so this would technically be a useful list. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now, but there really needs to be a discussion about the future of these lists; I suspect several of them are redundant and could be merged together. BryanG(talk) 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No different from any other list of characters from a game. Plus, this is long enough, isn't it? Toastypk 18:14, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OSRIC[edit]

Appears to be documenting a personal project which was recently completed. Google search for "Old School Reference Index Compilation" (with or without capitalization) returns nothing. FreplySpang 18:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Searching for "osric" turns up lots of results - because it has other meanings. But it only turns up one result - the creator's site - that is relevant to this usage of "OSRIC". If this were a notable development, other people would be writing about it too. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if and when OSRIC becomes well-known or an industry standard, then it would be appropriate to have a Wikipedia article. FreplySpang 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OSRIC is becoming well known among the online gaming community and needs to be documented. It will provide a new avenue for RPG publishing and new material for gamers. Additionally, try Googling OSRIC...you'll see it there. Please don't delete this entry. ---the author.
  • Delete. Article does not attempt to demonstrate notability per nom. Appears vanispamvertisement. Alphachimp talk 18:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Satisfied now? Added a little history to make it more relevant. ---the author.
  • OSRIC is quickly becoming a new standard to permit old school gaming. The materials that it put into the public domain are allowing publishers access to materials they have been denied for the last 20 years, I would call it highly relevant and discourage its removal. - strangerAD&D
  • Apparently, the chap above who did the Google search for "Old School Reference Index Compilation" didn't bother to Google for "OSRIC," as I found the OSRIC RPG right on the first page of my Google search using that search term. OSRIC is a ground breaking RPG platform based upon Wizard of the Coast's Open Gaming Liscence that allows for authors and publishers to create material for games that have been out of print for decades. Its truly becoming a phenomena that is rejuvenating "old school gaming," particularly given the ingenius way that the author(s) used the OGL to make certain old school game rules available for those who want to publish using them. OSRIC has its own website, and professional game publishers are even now in the process of publishig OSRIC-compatible gaming materials. It'd be a shame to see Wikipedia delete an entry for something that may well become the industry standard for publishing old school rpg gaming products. -John Stark
  • OSRIC does need and merit a Wikipedia entry, but the article should be more neutral and factual. Castles_and_Crusades is a good example of content which would be appropriate. Suggest leaving this as a placeholder until edits can be made. S Marshall 20:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's important about OSRIC is that it's got an open source license and that it creates a platform for any publisher to use it. It has already begun to create a market for this type of publication, with one independent publisher, Expeditious Retreat Press, announcing that they're going to publish under the system. So, while I agree that the entry should stay, I think that the entry as it stands doesn't really hit on the most significant aspect of what's been done. I imagine that as more is added over time, it will hit the more significant information. --Mythmere
  • FreplySpang wrote: "Note: Searching for "osric" turns up lots of results - because it has other meanings. But it only turns up one result - the creator's site - that is relevant to this usage of "OSRIC". If this were a notable development, other people would be writing about it too. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if and when OSRIC becomes well-known or an industry standard, then it would be appropriate to have a Wikipedia article."

    This doesn't make much sense, given that your first complaint was that a Google search didn't yield even a single hit for "Old School Reference Index Compilation." When I pointed out that doing a Google for "OSRIC" brings back a hit on the first page, you now seem to want to change the deletion standard from "no hits on Google" to "the only Google hit is OSRIC's own home page." Further, you assert another new deletion standard with your "when OSRIC becomes well known or an industry standard" comment, but that makes no sense at all. Wikipedia is FILLED with information and articles about subjects that are neither well known nor an industry standard. Indeed, isn't one of the points of having an encyclopedia to preserve and elucidate knowledge about obscure and little-known pieces of information for the general interest and edification of its readers? Your deletion standards are not very consistent.*** John Stark 19:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I use wikipedia for RPG hobby related searches all the time. It's a great resource for learning about new games I'd like to try and old games whose history and trivia I'm interested in. I think the OSRIC article may need some work (that's why wikipedia is editable, right?) but in my opinion it's definitely a worthwhile article to have and shouldn't be deleted. If wikipedia's goal is to offer comprehensive information on subjects people are interested in, then excluding OSRIC makes no sense. OSRIC has averaged 40 unique IP downloads a day since it was released two weeks ago. To me, that says people are interested in it. Having a wikipedia entry provides a centralized (well known) place for people to get information about the game's history, goals, availability and ongoing projects related to it. I understand that wikipedia doesn't want to become a host for commercial advertisements, but seeing as OSRIC is completely free, I don't see how it would qualify as a commercial venture. Nobody is attempting to use wikipedia as a means to financial gain. I sincerely hope the administrators at wikipedia will leave this article in place and suggest that people who find the current form of the entry unsatisfactory make suggestions for improving it rather than just asking for it to go away. Thanks! 68.187.143.186 20:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Doug Sanders[reply]
  • Okay, that was strange. I wasn't able to edit the article itself, but now am able to.John Stark 20:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My apologies for writing in a way that was more appropriate for Wikipedia regulars than Wikipedia newcomers. I certainly was not attempting to outline the entirety of Wikipedia's standards for articles in my comments. Probably the most important policy that relates to this article is Wikipedia:Verifiability, and the related Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Newcomers to Wikipedia may also find the suggestions at Wikipedia:Your first article to be helpful in understanding what kind of articles we are looking for. FreplySpang 21:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FreplySpang, the OSRIC entry passes the test for all three content guiding policies. It is verifiable, as I've posted links not only to OSRIC itself but discussion fora where it was announced; it is not original research in that it doesn't postulate anything; and finally, I gave it from a neutral point of view since a) I'm not the author, and b) no unverifiable claims promoting it are made. Given also that I've edited the article to include it's recent history, I see no real reason for the OSRIC article to be in the delete pile. SemajTheSilent
  • Delete, per nom -- The only publication of this program has been on forums, and was only released two weeks ago. The fact of the matter is that this is barely notable even within RPG circles, and is certainly not significant enough for inclusion in a general encyclopedia. Now, it could easily obtain significance or notability in the future; it is rather new, as stated. Another thing - the concern here is not really with articles being used for commercial purposes, but with having articles on subjects that simply are not important.--SB | T 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify. Am I to understand that the two main reasons for deleting the OSRIC entry are: 1) It's new and 2) it's not important? If these are indeed the reasons then 1) how long does something have to exist and 2) how few, or many, people get to decide what is important before an entry is allowed to live? Thanks in advance for any info. Frnchqrtr 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. The reasons for deleting it are that it is a mis-use of Wikipedia to provide primary source material (Wikipedia is not a primary source.) and that it is original research. If you want to counter those reasons, what you must to is cite sources. Cite journal articles, magazine features, or books that have been written about OSRIC. Uncle G 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NN, WP:NOT, etc. Also, since no one's mentioned it, this isn't a vote, it has no0thing to do with how many people are for or against it. It's a discussion- if there's disagreement about deleting an article, it probably wont' be deleted, unless the only people for it are the same ones who wrote it, obviously. I feel that a month-old, minor program that no one outside of a small forum have heard of is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. --PresN 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not concur with the words "minor" or "small forum" in this comment. S Marshall 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dragonsfoot.org- 2586 forum users (over the course of its lifetime). Alexa rating- 471,092. I feel that that is small. While I'm at it, the other forum linked- knights-n-knaves.com - 186 users over the course of its lifetime, Alexa rating of 2,713,432. Small. Not bashing either one, I'm sure they're great places, but I don't feel that they are large/notable enough to lend any notablility to OSRIC itself. --PresN 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to the Wikipedia:Search_engine_test Alexa ratings should be disregarded for notability criteria. S Marshall 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - You're right, it's not a standard used to determine notability. in the 400k and 2.7 million areas is really low though, so even though it can't be used as a sole means of determination, it is relevant. --PresN 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Pboyd04 00:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NN, WP:NOT, WP:V. Did I miss anything? --Wine Guy Talk 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Wine Guy. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability first, article later. -- GWO
  • Delete. I run games for SJGames at conventions; I read the trade newsletters, I keep my ear to the ground. I've never heard of it, and the provided sources provide me with no evidence to believe that it is notable in any way. There are thousands of d20 products released every year; most are fairly worthless retreads of previously published material, and of those that have worth even fewer make a significant impact. I see no mention of significant sales, of being used as a source in other gamebooks, of winning substantial awards. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of barely-or-unpublished d20 books. Get rid of it, and when/if it becomes popular again, we'll recreate it. Captainktainer * Talk 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. OSRIC isn't a d20 book at all, and it hasn't achieved significant sales because it's free. Above user may need to re-read with more attention.
      • Comment The point is even stronger for games without a core system; if d20 books aren't inherently notable, how much more so books published without support from a major publisher/licensing scheme. And without a sales metric it's even harder to establish impact. All of my points stand, and have now been strengthened. Captainktainer * Talk 22:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment'. OSRIC isn't a game without a core system. It does have a licensing scheme (the OGL, which is not the same as d20).
          • Comment Fair enough that it has a license, but the OGL imparts no real accountability or business relationship between the product and a major publisher (nor is the OGL actually a system; it's a license vaguely akin to the GFDL). Without a substantial and active relationship with an important figure in the industry, heavy sales/downloads, earth-shattering importance for the evolution of roleplaying games, substantial coverage from the trade press or newspapers with national circulation, or historical importance, it doesn't meet the lowest notability threshold. Captainktainer * Talk 10:35, 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 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shenmue Dojo[edit]

I don't deny the Shenmue Dojo may be a useful resource to many, but an entry here on Wikipedia is unnecessary - the article does not, and will never be able to due to it's subject - provide information that is relevant to readers. This article also relies heavily on dubious sources with no factual base. The majority of this article appears to be about Shenmue Dojo's web forum - this is not a solid enough base on which to build an article on Wikipedia. Translucid2k4 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Shenmue Dojo is one of the biggest and well known sites dedicated to the game series Shenmue. It is well known amongst alot of web borwsers and having a article on it is not unnecessary as fans of shenmue could find there way to the websites through wikipedia.com. Also the site already exsist as an eternal link on the Shenmue article. The article does not rely on dubios sources nor does it lack a factual base as there are multiple external links linking viewers to specefic websites and topic in the Shenmue Dojo forum. Also keep in mind that this article has major room for expansion and also there are many other topics which are poorly structured (Lolly Badcock), biasly written (Joe Budden) and highly innacurate (many of the football players have there goal tally and APPS inncorectly written) yet none of these are never put up for any case of review. Dominus hp 21:16, 14 July 2006
  • Delete: fails WP:WEB. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. If it is as well-known in the Shenmue community then why isn't it linked from that article? And since it is so tied to that topic, anything vitally important here could be mentioned concisely there, and done. Shenme 04:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and vanispamcruftisement. --Wine Guy Talk 04:21, 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 16:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shufeng Bai[edit]

Shufeng Bai is autobiography—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yongxinge (talk • contribs) 2006-07-14 01:09:51 (UTC)

Yes. It is autobiography. However, I think it should be kept because the following reasons:

  1. the Wikipedia Verifiability policy states: Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources.(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography")
  2. One thing which you can do to assist other Wikipedia editors is, if you already maintain a personal website, please ensure that any information that you want in your Wikipedia article is already on your own website. As long as it's not involving grandiose claims like, "I was the first to create this widget," or "My book was the biggest seller that year," a personal website can be used as a reference for general biographical information. (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography")
  3. All the information in the Shufeng Bai can be found in the personal website listed as external link of the article. The research part is backed by publications and US Patent which are published by the third parties.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shufengbai (talk • contribs) 2006-07-16 15:33:09 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX minor characters[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft/gamecruft and unencyclopedic. This article is unsourced and full of original research . The list is also rendundant, as there is already a category for Yu-Gi-Oh! characters hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Yu-Gi-Oh! GX is a spinoff, therefore has its own sections. Character pages, etc. already exist on Wikipedia, and plot summaries detailing each minor character are written based on what has occured throughout the series. Links to appropriate pages in regards to trivia are made, and confirmation by outside sources is unnecesary as such references are made within the episodes themselves (such as Kabukid announcing Shizuka Gozen's name in full, despite her card not having that proper title). Calling the information redundant does not make any sense at all, as the minor character page for the regular Yu-Gi-Oh! series contains no indications whatsoever of the characters appearing in GX; there is no connection between the character groups at all. Furthermore, the characters listed in this article do not have their own seperate articles; they are merely minor, which is the entire point of this article being here in the first place. There is absolutely no overlap with any other articles, and information on these characters is listed nowhere else. Flagging this article for deletion is highly unnecesary when every other page follows the same format. 14 July 2006. -Benten


  • Keep it is has alot of good information. (70.113.5.108 18:32, 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 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPARanormal[edit]

Nonnotable group/Internet radio show; 85 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 14:02, 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 speedy delete as CSD A1 - short article with no context. Kimchi.sg 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free bets[edit]

Pure spam. Author has been spamming a gambling site in other articles as well. The concept of signup bonuses is covered in other gambling articles, anyway. SmartGuy 14:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not an encyclopedic topic. JPD (talk) 15:11, 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 and protect it is. Mangojuicetalk 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Glove Entertainment (second nomination)[edit]

Previously deleted on Feb 26, 2006 see discussion.

Article was recreated July 1st. This article is sufficiently different than the original, so a speedy deletion for recreated material is not applicable in my opinion. Still, this article is not verifiably sourced and makes some rather dubious claims ($14 million made off a cable access show?) Artist roster list contains only one somewhat notable artist: Blade Icewood. He already has an article and I don't believe he confers any notability back to this particular label. My opinion is Delete and WP:SALT against further recreation. (note, I was going to invite the creator here to participate in the discussion, but he is blocked, apparently for violating WP:NPA)--Isotope23 14:39, 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 withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samrat Upadhyay[edit]

Procedural nom. Found the article in a substub state on Special:Shortpages. Not sure if it should be deleted or could be rescued, and not sure if the writer is notable.- CrazyRussian talk/email 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. That's really funny to see this up on Wikipedia. I know the guy, which would normally keep me from voting, but he has > 25,000 google hits and a number of books on Amazon, as well as being a notable academic at a major university. I think my vote is without too much bias. Article does need some major cleanup, wikifying and even a little NPOV work though. Irongargoyle 16:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs cleaning, but meets notability requirements easily. Nuttah68 19:59, 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, per Phr (talk · contribs). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William p. o'neill[edit]

318 google hits (for "William P. O'Neill" -- William O'Neill brings up other unrelated people), non-notable head of a minor organization plugging quack cancer cures. The article was created by someone using the username User:Woneill. Catamorphism 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral-An article on the organization might be better or at least more notable. The current article has a POV slant that would need to be corrected. 205.157.110.11 15:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally placed a prod notice on the page, as the article is about a nn. individual. --Wisden17 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. Nuttah68 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Author User:Woneill blanked page [39]. Blanking was reverted by a bot [40], and all other edits have been related to deletion processes, except for the edit by User:Pbowditch which was Pbowditch's first and only edit, and arguably vandalism. Nom for WP:CSD G7. --Wine Guy Talk 05:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Note User:Pbowditch has never needed to edit anything before, so there has to be a first time. Providing additional information about Mr O'Neill is only vandalism in the mind of someone who doesn't understand the word. I don't want to see Mr O'Neill's entry deleted - I want it to provide information about Mr O'Neill which might be of use to someone wanting to find out about him. He is a significant medical quack, and warning people about him (by using his very own words) provides a useful service. - Pbowditch 12:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He is a notable enough quack to have been mentioned by James Randi: [41]. JoshuaZ 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He shouldn't be allowed to start and edit his own page. He is attempting to use it as self-glorifying advertising. -- Fyslee 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, verifiability, poor spelling, et cetera. Article can be restarted by a neutral Wikipedian sometime if appropriate (i.e. if some more solid info from the TV report makes it online or into print). The Randi mention is a red flag but I think is not solid enough to cite for negative info per WP:BLP, and we certainly shouldn't retain a one-sided positive article for someone like this. Phr (talk) 11:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Londonindie[edit]

Non-notable website according to standards set out in WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 4,890,240 makes this a minor website. Previously deleted - recreated by author despite message on Talk page.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Qualifies for speedy delete as repost if the content is the same as the earlier version. Even if not, strongly non-notable. ~ Matticus78 15:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a contribution in helping chronical the music scene in Ontario, Canada. The website referenced has had a rich history and is quite notable in it's own right. Referenced in Montreal, Toronto and London print rags regarding it's involvment in the 20hz debacle. Needs more content to illustrate ties to the media and it's place in Canadian music history.~ Variables 11:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; fails WP:WEB and perhaps a whiff of WP:Vanity. --Wine Guy Talk 05:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB indeed. 97 unique Ghits (most of which are blog/myspace-type pages, it seems), which combined with the extremely low Alexa rank makes it hard to see how the site is notable per WP:WEB. Apropos of nothing the article lists a link to thevariables.com, which is apparently only related to this subject because the two sites share contributors. And as the author of this article is User:Variables, I expect we have a vanity page on our hands, too. If this is a repost of previously-deleted material, then definitely speedy this. -- H·G (words/works) 06:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the same editor contributed the page on Valery Gore, who from what I can see is an undeniably hot but otherwise non-notable artist who hasn't released an album yet. It has assertions of notability (says a song has hit college charts), but no verifiable sources for this claim. This might be worth considering for AfD as well. -- H·G (words/works) 06:51, 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 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man-Faye[edit]

The article is about someone whose notability is that he was banned from anime conventions for inappropriate behavior. Fails WP:BIO and the article fails the greatest of all WP essays - WP:HOLE. Some of this probably crosses into original research, or, at least, you would have to go digging through the guy's blog to verify the statements of the article ... not that a blog is particularly a verifiable source. BigDT 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/delete. If this guy is a "hero", someone might try to recreate this article, so it should probably be redirected somewhere. On the whole, it's just a... bad... article, for lack of a better word. It's unlikely to be more than a paragraph/stub or original research which doesn't befit a general encyclopedia. Right now it's heavily biased and I don't know if it even could be cleaned up... --Keitei (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tagged-He is notable enough to be featured on several television shows. The article does need to be clean up though. 205.157.110.11 15:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this just doesn't meet biography notability criteria. And I really don't think appearing on a late night television show as a kind of sideshow amusement makes you encyclopedic. --Cyde↔Weys 15:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm surprised this article is up for AfD. Man-Faye is very well known within anime convention and cosplaying circles, but mostly as the prime example, along with Sailor Bubba, of frighteningly bad cosplaying tastes. O_o --TheFarix (Talk) 16:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Hasn't this article been up for deletion before? In any case, Man-Faye possess enough of a degree of Infamy to have an article. He's even been interviewed for television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijya (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - notable enough, but the article quality is dodgy and needs a serious rewrite. -- Whpq 18:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Cyde and nom. We have articles about Abraham Lincoln, Caesar Augustus, and Man-Faye!?!? Something doesn't seem right here. Fails WP:BIO and, of course, WP:HOLE. Alphachimp talk 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real media coverage shown (sorry a YouTube of TechTV really does not count as serious media coverage) --Pboyd04 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cosplay, as the subject of the article appears to be only known to a certain group of people, though not notable outside of that group. If anything a short mention could be made on the Cosplay article, but Sean Black's changing of the article into a redirect some time ago is probably for the best. Cowman109Talk 02:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments with neutral net value On a national TV show... That's keep-y, but on the other hand... a guy who got thrown out of a convention, um... not convincing me. Also, page is written rather POV. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep per above. Man-Faye is infamous enough to warrant an article. Get rid of the POV, though. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn, horrible POV article. I've been barred from pubs for behaving like a tosser. Can I have an article? -- GWO
  • Delete per nom, WP:HOLE indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Has notability, but not a lot. Could it be smerged somewhere? Kotepho 17:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please is well known inside anime convention and cosplay circles Yuckfoo 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd say Man-Faye is well-known enough (and interesting enough) to warrant an article. The article itself could benefit from a good rewrite, though. -Rikoshi 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, we could do with fewer articles like this. Recury 00:39, 22 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gametalk.com[edit]

mainly notability. Although I would not have nominated it if the article didn't also have non-deletion criteria problems as well, notability still seems to be an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)

  • comment thanks, i forgot to signIkanreed 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The website does not seem Notable, nor does it seem to be NPOV. To me, this looks like a plain and simple advertisement. Hydrostatics 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:Andre71641 had removed the AfD tag from this article (here). It has been restored, and he has been warned, but it might be prudent to watch for future notice removals. Alphachimp talk 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix Hey here's a wild idea, why don't you people fix it instead? As far as I can tell I see dozens of pages stick around, with a mini parpagraph. I mean if someone puts on a movie page, and the movie is small and not real noticable, I doubt you would put that up for deletion. --ShortShadow 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, non-notable movies do go through the AfD process. All the comments I'm seeing here seem to bring up the site's lack of notability, which "fixing" the article won't alter. - Tapir Terrific 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that depends. If it's a personal movie created for some college class, we would still, the main point is notability and vainity concerns. If you have valid reasons for why this website matters to people who aren't forum members, or evidence that said forum members are a large group, that would be reasonable criteria for keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)


Umm, if you actually visited the forum you could see the amount of members. You could also see how this matters, it's telling people about a help site where you are gettimng help from hundreds of people. (By a Gametalk Regular) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.61.238 (talk • contribs)

"hundreds of people" doesn't get near what's needed for WP:WEB and mattering to some people isn't inherently good enough to justify an entry on wikipedia(as an examplie, my family is extremely important to me, but that doesn't make them encyclopedia material) i kan reed 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. There's a million of these. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FixThe website is notable, the article is just very poorly written. I think it just needs to be an actual article and not an advertisement by some fanboy.--140.192.105.140 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WEB, inheirantly non-notable; page ranks in 2002 mean nothing- especially as the original site folded and a forum is all that's left. Unencyclopedic. Teke 01:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply -The original site didn't fold. The whole family was reworked, and now gamedex is used as the search engine for the many gametalk forums. And, yes, forums is plural. Additionally, considering ign & gamespy are one company, and gamespot and gamefaqs are one company, I'd be willing to guess gametalk is STILL in third. Alexa agrees: http://www.alexa.com/browse/general/?&CategoryID=396350&mode=general&Start=1&SortBy=Popularity . notice that 1 and 2 are the same network (ign is 1, forumplanet/gamespy is 2...same company) --71.235.27.183 02:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article should be deleted because, for one, the article is small and contains no information. 2: The website is non-notable. I agree with Teke when he describes the article as "unencyclopedic."
  • Question - How can ANY forum site be considered notable? You have a category for internet forums, so there must be some criteria. As for "no content", perhaps if you had checked the history, you'd notice someone wiped it down to one line from what it was earlier.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Duberrys[edit]

Fails notability per WP:BAND Crossmr 15:28, 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 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic_of_Theodana[edit]

created by user:theodana (unique edit), is a fictional, joke-ruled, and maybe students-created republic Cantalamessa 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Wasn't this shovelled off of here before? WP:NFT, WP:CB, etc., etc. JChap (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible. (Can you say a micronation has no assertion of notability?) Everybody with a free web page can announce a micronation. Doesn't mean anyone should remotely care. Fan-1967 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular delete, was speedied before, but I don't think this is exactly patent nonsense. Kimchi.sg 16:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was hoping for some version of A7. Couldn't a micronation qualify as "group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject"? Fan-1967 16:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The micronation article says that micronations are "eccentric and ephemeral in nature, and are often created and maintained by a single person or family group" so it seems that calling something a micronation asserts that it isn't notable. Yet WP has some articles on these things, usually if they have received some media coverage because of their connection to a political movement or meme. The ones that tend to show up in AfD have an awful lot of the "Republic of Me and My Cat" feel to them, though, which makes them kind of nonsense. WP:ORG probably applies, but it seems that there should be some standards specifically developed for mns, including csd, as they seem to be showing up in new articles and AfD a lot. JChap (talk • contribs) 17:29, 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 no consensus. Frankly, there is way too much sockery for any kind of clear judgement. I'm going to withdraw this as no consensus, and renominate it for procedure's sake, with semi-protection. Proto::type 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the new, semi-protected AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gnostic_Movement_(second_nomination). Proto::type 16:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic Movement[edit]

unencyclopedic promotion page. Was prodded but tag was removed. See Talk:Gnostic Movement for details. -999 (Talk) 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. -999 (Talk) 15:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear OR. You gave it a chance with the prod. 205.157.110.11 15:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's. SynergeticMaggot 16:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Someone may want to have a look at Samael Aun Weor too. E Asterion u talking to me? 18:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Nick Y. 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ekajati 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect page to Gnosticism. --Pboyd04 00:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See new comment below. This seems like a drive-by POV deletion. Comments:
    • Over 130 edits have been made by over 50 different editors.
    • 3 other articles link to this one.
    • From looking at the history and the talk page, this has been an especially messy, raucous process, nevertheless it has been a process of a sort.
    • The article has 4 footnotes.
    • 999 has not been involved in any editing or discussion of this article until his/her decision to nominate it for deletion with a 3-word explanation.
    • To date, none of the people that have edited this article have voted on it.
    • 999 simultaneously nominated another article, Sexual transmutation, for deletion; it was created by the same author Paul Stone. 999 did not notify Stone of either AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual transmutation.
    • Alternatives to deletion recommended in "Before nominating an AfD" have not been followed -- no attempts made by 999 to improve the article first. For starters, 999 could put {{fact}} tags on the statements not supported by the external links.--A. B. 05:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please see my comments in the sexual transmutation AfD; most of them apply here. And from nom's comments, I'm assuming that he took the time to familiarize himself with the Talk page discussions before nominating, even if he didn't take part himself. While I disagree with the nom's judgment on this article, I don't see any reason to think this was a bad-faith or drive-by nomination. -- H·G (words/works) 06:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless notability not proven by end of AfD: Given the prolieration of modern Gnostic movements, one main article is needed, but not many, many. The overall phenomenon "sounds" notable from what I'm seeing, but "sounds to A. B." is not enough -- this article has yet to verifiably prove its importance to justify retention under WP:NN. That could be fixed simply by citing some numbers (from reliable sources) as to how many people are involved. Notability is key -- fix it or delete the article. Remaining problems can be addressed before end of AfD. WP:OR can be fixed, as the author, Paul Stone, has suggested below, by shrinking it down to a neutral stub until someone has additional verifiable information from reliable sources. As noted, I remain concerned about the dynamics of this AfD, especially the apparent sockpuppet attack. --A. B. 15:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I don't like all these sockpuppets either. As I have no vested interest in the outcome, I've been identifying sockpuppets when I see them whether they agree with me or oppose me, but I'm glad you've been doing such a good job of tagging them yourself - it seems to have become a bit more work than I'd like to deal with!!! -999 (Talk) 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rewrite, and move. An ideal outcome in my eyes would be to have this page point to Gnosticism (since Google indicates that far more people searching for the term are looking for that[42] than for this[43]), move this current article to something like Gnostic Movement (Weor), and have a disamb sentence on Gnosticism pointing to the new page. I'm convinced that this is significant enough in some circles to be worth keeping, but not significant enough to hog the term "Gnostic movement." And while this article is certainly POV right now and might be OR, this can hopefully be fixed. -- H·G (words/works) 06:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Attack pages --Viewmaster 11:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Viewmaster's speedy delete:
I'm off to a meeting and may not have time to fully review this stuff myself for a few days.--A. B. 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect page to Gnosticism. --Ordet 20:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) This user's first and only edit -999 (Talk) 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV --VanessaJ 20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) This user's first and only edit -999 (Talk) 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. This article says the term Gnostic Movement is not associated with contemporary Gnostic organisations - this is a POV only.
    • 2. By placing the word Masters in quotation marks in this sentence 'currently there are a number of different lineages of "Masters"' is to imply that none are actually Masters - this is a POV and not based on factual evidence.
    • 3. Under 'New Order Schools' there are numerous sweeping assumptions. Saying that something happened "most likely" because of such and such a reason is not a factual description of events, but a guess based on biased views and information. There is no evidence given for the numerous assumptions. What is the claim that there is not a Three Chamber system based on? - POV only
    • 4. Why is Gnosticweb the only gnostic organisation identified and selectively highlighted in this section - this is provocation.
    • 5. The section on Pseudo-schools is another section for provocation. Whilst some claims may be true it is generally written based on opinions, hearsay, gossip and rumours.
    • 6. Branding individuals as mistaken mythomaniacs is attacking and another sweeping POV.
    • 7. Generally there is no merit to this article other than to fuel debate and argument.
  • Delete - POV --Jaspers 20:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) This user's first and only edit -999 (Talk) 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect page to Gnosticism. (UTC)--Lemurien 22:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible sockpuppet -- this is user's first and only edit except a brief comment on his user page today.--A. B. 03:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete re Attack pages - --Obianca 23:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible sockpuppet -- this is user's first and only Wikipedia edit--A. B. 03:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator--Osto 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unfortunate that this page was called Gnostic Movement because it did not provide any objectivity about this topic, merely a POV that lacked neutrality and resourceful information. Listing people as "self Proclaimed Masters" and following it with comments eluding to those people being mythomaniacs, especially those still living, could very well be considered defamation of character.
      • Possible sockpuppet -- this is user's first and only Wikipedia edit other than his deletion of much of the article's text today.--A. B. 03:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete re Attack pages. --Jacki123 23:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible sockpuppet -- this is user's first and only Wikipedia edit--A. B. 03:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect page to Gnosticism. --JustinMN 00:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this article violates Netural POV. Despite a surface neutrality, it seems clear that it's been written by a proponent of one of the earlier schools of Samael Aun Weor, and intended to discredit any later developments in modern gnosticism. Examples of this include:
    • use of inverted commas surrounding words like "advanced" and "masters", colours the text with a sense of incredulity or even sarcasm, and seems intended to influence the reader's perception
    • the quoted material (from Zodiacal Course) appears selected less to shed insight into what the Gnostic Movement is then to subtly deride other schools that disagree with the author's POV
    • much explanation of why earlier schools view later offshoots as "only superficially affiliated of the doctrine of Samael Aun Weor" without any attempt to provide the alternative perspective(s)
    • the use of the term "self-proclaimed" master becomes almost derogatory by the article's end, and the implication is that they are generally "mythomaniacs" according to the "source" (footnote 4). Upon investigation, the source appears to be the website of a school that goes to considerable lengths to make clear their disagreement with later offshoots of modern gnosticism -- can we expect this to be a balanced and objective source? Particularily, again, as no efforts are made to offer a countering perspective.
    • from viewing the edit history and the discussion pages, some of which seems almost hysterical, and considering the lack of verifiable sources, it seems that this article will inevitably be hijacked by interested parties, and fails to provide an objective assessment of the subject matter.
    • Possible sockpuppet -- this is user's first and only Wikipedia edit--A. B. 03:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect page to [[Gnosticism] - --Blacker10 01:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Possible sockpuppet -- this is user's first and only Wikipedia edit--A. B. 03:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV --Martius12 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible sockpuppet -- this is user's first and only Wikipedia edit--A. B. 03:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV --PJohn123 03:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible sockpuppet -- this is user's first and only Wikipedia edit--A. B. 03:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV --ChetWesley 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article starts out giving the appearance of being informational, but as it goes on beyond the introduction, it seems that the actual purpose of the article is to persuade the reader that certain schools are legitimate, while others are decidedly not legitimate. It serves little informational purpose beyond the introduction, which contains information already found within other articles.
    • Some statements made later on in the article, including some under, "New Order Schools," are unfounded and without any source of reference. For example, how can it be proven whether or not the new order schools carry a three chamber system? This term refers to a school system (stated by Samael Aun Weor as being a defining point of a true Esoteric institution) structured with an external (public), intermediate, and internal (esoteric) chamber system. By definition, if a school did have an internal chamber, this wouldn't necessarily be something known to those outside the school. The fact that this is used as a defining factor of "new order schools" shows an author interested in promoting something he is familiar with, while dismissing that which he is unfamiliar with.
    • Similar could be said about the "self-proclaimed Masters" section. Samael Aun Weor himself was a "self-proclaimed" Master (literally, he proclaimed himself a Master). There is no way to prove who is and who is not a "true Master" versus a "self-proclaimed Master," so a list of self-proclaimed Masters seems again only to serve the point of view of the author that these "Masters" are illegitimate.
    • There are other statements presented as fact which similarly there is no way to prove. I don't have time to go through all of it, but if you go through it, you will be able to spot others.
    • Finally, the article defines "Gnostic Movement" as something which belongs solely to Samael Aun Weor, when it is clear that there are other schools with the same name. Because of that fact, the whole hierarchical structure of the article is flawed. I suggest deletion because in my opinion, there is no way such an article can exist without being a battleground for an edit war on the part of the disagreeing schools.
      • Possible sockpuppet -- this is user's first and only Wikipedia edit. Must have a weak case for deleting if so many sockpuppets are needed. --A. B. 04:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment:--ChetWesley 14:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) This is actually my second edit, but true first under a username. For what it's worth, I can assert that this is the only comment (well other than this one) I have made on this page. I don't think the number of votes should have merit above the value of the arguments within them. Also, it seems unfair and paranoid to assume that all posting is in bad faith.[reply]
  • Speedy delete contains Attack pages.
Quote wiki: "Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their
subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Citizen is a moron"). This
includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and
unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to."
In looking through the history of this article, changes proposed have been continually
reverted back to a POV. There have been enough edits and posts to have
this article neutral, but it seems the original author and some others
are intransigent. This has become an edit war. It is a pity but it seems
this page may be better off redirected to an alterate. Or at least have
the existing article, discussion and threads permanently deleted so
someone can have another go at producing something neutral that may
assist genuine searchers enquiring about the name gnostic movement.
Regarding all the possible sockpuppet claims, this may be inaccurate if all those people are not the same person. Wiki says "This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith
contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the
decision process." As A.B. has stated these are POSSIBLE, NOT ABSOLUTE, unless wiki admins know for sure they are all the same person?
It is quite plausible that many people who have been interested in the article have never previously made edits to it. It is also plausible that those people have no other articles of interest in wikipedia and therefore not made any other contributions.
Irrespective I think that assertions like "Must have a weak case for deleting if so many sockpuppets are needed" is flawed. It is not a 'Must' at all. This statement may be totally misleading and inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clean2 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 20 July 2006.
Comment: New user Clean2's editing has mostly consisted of creating his new article, The Gnostic Movement Incorporated, and adding links to other articles directing people to that article and/or that organization's web site. Someone more qualified should evaluate Clean2's new article and links for their appropriateness for inclusion in Wikipedia. Their bearing on Clean2's neutrality in this AfD speak for themselves. --A. B. 13:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An important distinction: I made the comment for each of those new users that he/she was a "possible sockpuppet". Possibly one or two unique editors did come here and make their very first edits (and in good faith); that's why I marked no one editor as a definite sockpuppet. I can, however, say with great assurance that the great preponderance absolutely were sockpuppets. I will let their edit patterns speak for themselves. --A. B. 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete contains Attack pages.
This page seems to have been started to do nothing more than debunk particular gnostic schools in favour of another and is littered with POV. Regardless of some users association with these schools the article is negative POV and contains some defamatory comments which the history shows has resulted in an edit war. It is inevitable that some users drawn to comment on this page will probably have a vested interest in the subject matter. Hopefully the admins or moderators can assist with either ensuring the page meets NPOV and other requirements or delete it. --Percevalles 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Percevalles has made about 20 edits, all to Gnosticism-related articles and most ading external likns to the same The Gnostic Movement Incorporated-affiliated sites Clean2 was linking to. --A. B. 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the author of this article, I'm not sure it can be brought out of WP:OR status, as there is just not that much 3rd party information out there, even though thousands of schools exist around the world. Maybe the article should just be reduced to a stub until such information exist, or deleted altogether. --Paul Stone 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

For the average user in userland, ie non wiki geek (no derogation intended) it would seem that nearly everyone has been discredited.

999 who initiated the call for deletion is discredited for making a drive-by nomination, even though no previous history or association can be found.

The early 'voters' who do not appear as sockpuppets are discredited because they are making votes not discussions.

The sockpuppets are discredited because they are seen to jump in solely to ask for deletion or other, when they had no previous contribution history (even though some of their comments are definitely worthy of consideration).

Those who had previously made contributions to the article but have shown some kind of affiliation with the subject matter are deemed bias and therefore discredited. (Why would someone spend time and effort creating a wiki article if they had no involvement or interest in it?)

That leaves only...? Wish I knew how the system worked?

It seems there is more emphasis on who users are then the actual contents of the article!

My opinion now (if it counts for anything?) is I tend to agree with the author - have a NPOV stub or delete the article.

[Sorry A.B. can't get the editing neat?] --Clean2 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. --Dgard000369 12:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page seems to have quite a bias. I stumbled across this page through a google search a little while ago and from other information I've found on this topic it doesn't seem very objective (also it seems to have become an argument). Maybe it would be better to have a clean state so the info can start again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgard000369 (talk • contribs) .
      • New account -- user's only 3 edits have been to this page--A. B. 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect page to Gnosticism. Billson34
  • Delete - POV --CeJay 14:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)CeJay[reply]
    • New account -- CeJay's only edit has been to this page--A. B. 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete re Attack pages. --Green Hornet 14:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong KEEP! and tag for clean-up regarding the NPOV issues. Large movements like this one and prolific authors should have articles. These articles have lasted more than 6 months and are actively being improved upon by several editors. They are not stubs, and provide a lot of detailed and potentially useful information. They seem to me to be no different from the vast majority of contentious issues that have articles on Wikipedia. The movement may not be quite as notable as, say scientology, but in many respects these articles remind me of the articls on that movement, only people have managed to bring that one up to FA status. WP certainly has articles on less notable things. Plus, articles that start out reading like ads can and have in the past been improved to such a point that no one mistakes them for such. ONUnicorn 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for cleanup/npov. POV isn't reason enough for a delete, IMHO. Honestly, the notability of the subject matter should matter a lot more. As noted above, there's a lot of history to this article and the subject matter seems notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. To delete an article because its easier than actually putting in the work to make it a GOOD article is, in my opinion, a less-than-optimal choice. As a matter of full disclosure, this article was prodded a while back and I removed the prod for similiar reasons (POV not sufficient for deletion). However, I have no other investment in this article. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:49, 24 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. I'll be moving it, per HG. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual transmutation[edit]

unsourced original research. Was prodded as such, but tag was removed. -999 (Talk) 15:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. -999 (Talk) 15:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the OR. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to look into other articles tied into this Samael Aun Weor figure. It looks a bit like propaganda OR. 205.157.110.11 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 999, you need only vote once. SynergeticMaggot 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sounds kooky to me, but external links are provided and google yields plenty of sites discussing this (many, but not all in the context of this Samael Aun Weor character). Scorpiondollprincess 19:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ekajati 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I am concerned that this process is bypassing some Wikipedia norms; so far this article smells like a drive-by deletion:
    • The author, Paul Stone has never been notified of the AfD -- that's supposed to be part of the process.
    • There has been no prior discussion of any article flaws on the talk page.
    • 999 identified possible copyright issues in a previous edit -- is that still a concern? If so, what are the specifics?
    • 999 has also just nominated another article associated with Paul Stone, Gnostic Movement, for deletion, again without any involvement in editing the article or commenting on the talk page. Coincidence? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Movement
    • Alternatives to deletion recommended in "Before nominating an AfD" have not been followed -- no attempts made by 999 to improve the article first. For starters, 999 could put {{fact}} tags on the statements not supported by the external links.--A. B. 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm going to nitpick here....Notifying a page's creator that the article is nom for AfD is not necessarily "part of the process," although it's considered a good thing to do. Also, the "Before nominating an AfD" section generally has suggestions, not guidelines that must be followed (most start out like "Consider adding," "Consider making," etc). I can say that I don't always do any of these things when nominating. And in fact, oftentimes if an article seems like an obvious candidate for AfD, I'll track down the author's other contributions to see if other pages are also obvious candidates (this isn't uncommon for vanity pages, for example). My point being that User:999 wasn't necessarily acting in bad faith in nominating this, and it's not fair to him/her to assume that s/he was (WP:AGF). -- H·G (words/works) 06:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make some very good points. At the same time, shouldn't 999 in turn be applying WP:AGF to Paul Stone? (By the way, I never had any contact with the participants or interest in the topic before this AfD -- "I don't have a dog in this fight").--A. B. 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he wasn't, then yes, he certainly should be. I'll assume (and hope) for now that he was, until I see an indication otherwise. To be sure, he could have done more--notifying Paul Stone, for example--but I don't know if he didn't because of a bad faith assumption or what. (And I'll make the same caveat as you did: I've had no previous interaction with any of the key participants in this AfD, including A. B., and I have no personal interest vested in this.) -- H·G (words/works) 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Sexual sublimation, which appears to be the more widely-used term if Google and Amazon are any indication. (Many if not most of the Ghits for "...transmutation" were pornographic, while those for "...sublimation" seemed much more along the lines of this article.) I'm convinced that it's not a new term and is known in certain fields. -- H·G (words/works) 06:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I removed the first tag placed by User:999 when I shortened the article and placed two independent sources as external links that verify the content. Therefore this is not unsourced or original research. The topic of sexual sublimation is found in many books of occultism, such The Mystical Quabbalah by Dion Fortune and The Dayspring of Youth by Master Moria, not to mention works by Samael Aun Weor, and Arnoldo Krumm-Heller. I plan on adding these sources later. I can also represent sources from Swami Sivananda, Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, the Dalai Lama, etc., etc. --Paul Stone 23:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per links and Ghits Antares33712 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the topic is notable and in many books Yuckfoo 18:06, 21 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 17:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Janis[edit]

A DRV consensus endorsed the original deletion of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Janis, but a new rewrite made in the meantime was found to have more merit. This new rewrite is submitted for AfD vetting. Since previous debates concern another version, they are only tangentially relevant; the article should be evaluated here afresh. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Strong, perhaps even speedy, keep. Given the list of awards for her work as a video editor, she appears to be a "professional whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who [is] likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." Further evidence of notability would be available if evidence could be shown that as a published author she "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for [her] work," but I don't see that here. Nevertheless, the first is adequate enough to garner this a keep vote from me. — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Vote' made more emphatic given Jaime234's contribution below. (By the way, if we're not actually voting, what's a better word to call it?) — Mike (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Comment" works nicely. :) Xoloz 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you are looking for "multiple independent reviews" for Janis's books, there are many, including reviews from Publishers Weekly, Village Voice, and the Sacramento Bee on these pages: Reviews for Never to Return (Janis's memoir) and Reviews for Spirituality For Dummies — Jaime234 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion: I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles a situation like this, but I don't think it is appropriate for TheRingess to be editing this article, due to his obvious bias against the subject, related to their shared spiritual path, which was discussed during the previous Afd (one would think this might give him a bias *toward* the person, but that doesn't seem to be the case.) He's also the one who began the original campaign against this article. Perhaps he'll voluntarily agree to focus his efforts elsewhere. — Jaime234 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs long as I add neutral, verifiable material that is not original research as per wikipedia's guidelines to original research, Wikipedia's guielines to verifiability and Wikipedia's guidelines to neutrality, then I can edit any article. Of course, anyone can revert my material if it doesn't meet those criteria. Also, I would also add, that as long as I treat fellow editors with respect, I can continue editing. Perhaps, my initial nomination used language that was not entirely respectful, but I did apologize and everything seems copascetic. To prevent me from editing for any other reason, as I see it, would be censorship, which seems to violate the basic premise that Wikipedia is founded on. My vote is Keep and cleanup to provide dates and categories for the awards and references from sites that list the individual awards. Also, if a fellow editor feels that I am vandalizing articles or in violation of the 3 revert rule then an administrator can block me from editing. If you truly feel that I vandalized this or any other article, then we can sit down and have a cup of tea and discuss it, or if you feel that something stronger is called for you can request arbitration or report me to an admin. Whichever you choose, there are many avenues for resolving conflict.TheRingess 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'can' doesn't mean 'should'; no-one is saying you aren't 'permitted' to (your claims of potential censorship isn't necessary, as no-one has a 'right' to edit Wikipedia Wikipedia:Free speech), just that it may not be the wisest decision. I get the impression that Jaime234 is noting that you may be a bit too close to the subject to see it objectively - I can't comment on that, as I don't know anything about you or the subject of the article, but this is the reason judges recuse themselves, and it's worth considering whether this is worth doing here or not. Ziggurat 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again, my own language seems to fail me. Jaime seems to have legitimate questions regarding policy. I was trying to point out that there are guidelines for when an editor might or might not be blocked. I also provided links to material that might aid in answering those questions. I am also attempting to point out that as with any other editor, my contributions are judged on their own merit. I am fully aware that editing Wikipedia is not a right. I did not "claim potential censorship". To be clear, I was making no claim that I was censored or will be. Speaking generally, not specifically and certainly not about my edits or my contributions, it seems to me that blocking any editor who has violated none of Wikipedia's guidelines, is similar if not the same as censorship. This is not the same as claiming that I am being censored, or that I am accusing a fellow editor of potential censorship. I wished to provide a fellow editor, with legitimate concerns, links to material that might help address those concerns. As long as my edits and contributions conform to the guidelines, they will speak for themselves.TheRingess 03:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be talking policy, but I'm talking pragmatics. As I said, thinking about what is best and not just what is 'allowed', as just because you can do something within the rules doesn't mean that you should do it. Anyway, I didn't notice anyone even suggesting a block, so I'm not sure why you bring that up. Ziggurat 03:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps no one did, however, I interpreted the sentence "I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles a situation like this, but I don't think it is appropriate for TheRingess..." as both a request for information on how to prevent me from editing the article (a block), and as an accusation that I have or will edit the article inappropriately. Perhaps, if the person pointed out in what ways I was inappropriate and why they feel I will be, then I might understand better their concerns. In which case, if both they and I agree that the potential exists for me to make inappropriate edits in the future, I can agree that I should be recused. Right now, I do not think that I have done anything inappropriate. My edits should speak to that. If I am too close, then specific examples would also help me to see that. I hope that someone can point out the inappropriateness of my edits.TheRingess 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should take this off topic discussion to your own talk pages. --Ezeu 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, you're quite right. Just over-explicating again... :) Ziggurat 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I have certainly digressed from the subject of this discussion.TheRingess 04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep She is an editor and author who has received multiple independent reviews and awards for her work, passing WP:BIO. Dionyseus 01:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a fine rewrite, but I don't think we can speedy keep a procedural listing. Ziggurat 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But since I wrote the original article, I would vote thus anyway wouldn't I? As promised I have been making consultations. One of the most significant was with the author herself. A copy of her response is on my talk page. My conclusion is that to my own satisfaction, my own second version of the article describes faithfully factually and without error the summarised significance and history of Sharon Janis. My attitude on verifiability is that every single statement is fully verifiable for anyone who is prepared to make an effort and talk to people. On the advice of the "lady herself" the defence rests has no further comment to add. I will enjoy leaving behind what has been for me a disillusioning and highly upsetting business. Headshaker 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually I've seen authors of articles nominate their own articles for deletion for various reasons, so votes from the creator of the article are always welcomed. I'm glad that it seems like your article will now remain with Wikipedia once this AfD closes on the 22nd, I wish I hadn't voted 'delete' in the first AfD. Dionyseus 05:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a speedy candidate. Looks good! --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve.TheRingess 01:13, 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 redirect to List of Doctor Who serials. There appears to be a consensus for the redirect to eventually exist, and per my understanding of the GFDL, since information has been merged we should keep the history available. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who New Series 3[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the previous keep closure for this article, but was unable to reach a concensus regarding what to do after overturning. There was substantial support for closing as a redirect, but also some support for outright deletion. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, this is relisted for a new AfD debate. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or and redirect to List of Doctor Who serials for the second time, per everybody here. We don't need a separate article on a future series of a television program when each episode will eventually have it's own article. All information on individual series is already sufficiently held in the List of Doctor Who serials, and there is no individual article on any of the other Doctor Who series'. — FireFox 16:13, 17 July '06
    • Please note: A plain redirect may be interpreted to mean "keepish." If there is nothing to merge, a recomendation of "delete and redirect" is unambigious. - brenneman {L} 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete "For the third new series of Doctor Who or the 2007 series no huge spoilers have been given out." Wikipedia is not: A crystal ball, a TV guide, an indiscriminate collection of information. --IslaySolomon 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no content to be merged into List of Doctor Who serials. Eluchil404 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. JYolkowski // talk 22:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or delete and redirect as above. Either way, no information to merge. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect or plain delete. I don't much care which way the deletion per se goes, but I don't see the merits in this being a separate article. Last year the information on the upcoming Doctor Who series was happily retained at List of Doctor Who serials until individual episode names were known, whereupon it was moved to the relevant episode. I see no reason why we can't do that again this year. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect nothing to merge. --Pboyd04 00:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to List of Doctor Who serials. Deletion is unnecessary; in any case I'm merging material so the license wouldn't permit delete and redirect. --Tony Sidaway 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you actually suggesting that all anyone would ever have to do to stop a deletion was to merge information into another article? That's absurd, and fails to understand GFDL. The articles contribtuions list could even simply be pasted into the talk page of the supposed "target." - brenneman {L} 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Does it really matter if it remains as a redirect? Redirects are cheap, aren't they? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Err? Was that question related to my comment? - brenneman {L} 08:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, no — it was more a response to Tony's vote. I suppose I don't really understand the difference between "keep and redirect" and "delete and redirect" in this circumstance — is it just a question of keeping the history? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to List of Doctor Who serials. per reasons by Tony Sidaway. Hardvice 04:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Previous seasons don't have their own articles, so why should this one? 23skidoo 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect No mergeable material, no incoming links, not a search term. ~ trialsanderrors 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, do not keep separately. Implausible search term and speculation. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per previous discussion Percy Snoodle 15:15, 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 redirect. - brenneman {L} 03:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case of English pronouns[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the result of a previous AfD debate. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep perhaps as a harmless redirect to Personal pronouns. Deletion is also acceptable, but certainly not necessary. --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless redirect BigDT 18:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very, very unlikely search term. Dr Zak 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Personal pronouns, nothing is gained by deleting and people type very stange things into search bars all the time. Eluchil404 21:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and keep the Category:Disputes in English grammar cat on the redirect so it remains listed there. It's a good topic, but it's in fact better treated in the Personal pronouns article. I wouldn't mind re-organising the whole set of articles either, refactoring out the English stuff from the Personal pronouns article in an English personal pronouns article, as it is done for other languages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BigDT and Dr Zak. As I said in the previous AfD, the subject is already better-treated elsewhere, and this is a very unlikely search term. Willing to go along with a redirect if that's where everyone's leaning, but it's not my first choice. -- H·G (words/works) 06:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Personal pronouns. Hardvice 08:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Personal pronouns on the grounds that a redirect takes up little space, and some people will put in a search for the term. However unlikely some editors find that, it will happen - and someone felt strongly enough about the matter to create the article in the first place. SilkTork 14:55, 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 speedy delete CSD A7 - author request. Kimchi.sg 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LadyThrills.com[edit]

Article is blatant spam for a website which has not even launched. Prod was removed by author. Wildthing61476 16:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think the site would actually need to be launched before it could be deemed notable in any way. DrunkenSmurf 16:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 16:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hi guys, I am the creator of the post. I apologize for removing the initial post for removal. I guess I'm just a little gung ho about the upcoming site and didn't realize what I was doing. Please go ahead and delete it now (you don't have to wait 5 days). I'll repost once the site goes live. Again, sorry for the initial deletion.
  • Comment You might also want to take WP:WEB into consideration when you are creating an article about a website. A website needs to have some notability to be listed on Wikipedia, and the article can't read like an advertisement. Wildthing61476 18:02, 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 Keep. --JoanneB 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber Cartel[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned a previous "Speedy Keep" closure on this article. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To nitpick, Wikipedia:Deletion review does not produce consensus. It's a vote. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To nitpick further, it is only a vote with respect to the question of overturning/relisting, ie. whether further discussion is required. To do anything else, it requires typical consensus. By definition, on the first question only (of overturning vs. endorsing), a DRV consensus does equal a simple majority, and -- in that limited purpose -- the terms are interchangeable. "Consensus" is not incorrect, however. Xoloz 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before. Notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral - Nothing but speculation, conspiracy theory and accusations made on the back of uncredible sources. Not a terribly notable topic and the entry it has in the Jargon File is probably all its worth at this point. 3rd result [44] is this article, the search results contain mostly their websites, copies of the jargon file, mirrors of wikipedia and things like the free online dictionary. Given the removal of unsourced information I'm satisfied that it passes verifiabilty, but I'm not convinced that its at all notable outside a small group on usenet. Find the references outside usenet to be trivial and dubious at best. However so long as the article remains within the realms of verifibility, I'll stay neutral on the matter.--Crossmr 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As before. There are real life articles in reputable sources that refer to the "lumber cartel" in this context [45] [46]. It's reasonable to assume that someone interested in organised anti-spamming efforts in the late 1990s may read the name and wonder what it's all about. This article is what they should come to. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    as we pointed out before. The Wired article isn't credible per their management, and the Salon article isn't an article on the Lumber cartel. Its simply mentioned in passing and other then stating that they spoke out against the DMA, contains no other usable information in relation to this group. Simply establishing existence by a credible source does not give license to use whatever source you want to present facts about that subject.--Crossmr 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Wired article requests information: if there were a real problem the article would surely have been pulled. The Salon article devotes an entire paragraph in a not-particularly-long article to the "Lumber Cartel", hardly a mere "mention-in-passing". Your querulous attempts to forbid the use of Usenet messages as evidence of their own contents (which is the real situation here: we're not using that content as further evidence of anything else; that argument lies elsewhere) is becoming tedious. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      1 paragraph out of 3 pages? There are a total of 32 paragraphs in the article (some are longer some are shoter), which means its got a grand total of about 3% of the article. That is trivial, even if its not trivial, it establishes nothing other than the fact that a group called themselves that and had those opinions. The wired article does ask for information, but doesn't say whether or not that article was one they couldn't find sources for. However the fact that they're asking for sources in relation to that article does indicate they had trouble with the sources on it. They don't specify what they need sources on, or what the problem is, but it does taint the article and make it a dubious source.--Crossmr 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reiterate my keep vote on this one. DS 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. References in Wired and Salon establish notability. Google Groups provides verifiability. (In WP:RS jargon, I assert that Google Groups is a reliable publisher of a primary source.) —Caesura(t) 16:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying google groups provides editorial over-sight?--Crossmr 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he's saying it's a primary source. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of which its not credible, as always, anyone can and does write anything with anonymity which the Vladimir quote attests to. No idea who Vladimir is, the website is no longer there to verify what he claims. You might as have found the information scrawled on a napkin in the ditch.--Crossmr 17:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, and you keep misunderstanding this (which makes one wonder if it's deliberate): Google Groups presents as an accurate archive of the messages which were posted to Usenet. The issue here is whether particular messages contained particular text: whether that text itself contains accurate information is another layer of verifiability altogether. The analogy could be drawn with messages in a foreign language: there's a step between ensuring that you have the correct message in the original language and ensuring that you have an accurate translation. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not questioning the accuracy of the archive. I'm questioning the accuracy of the original posts. Using them from google groups would be no different than using them from usenet. Since google does nothing other than package them up, there is no difference. Prior to this debate WP:RS read that usenet posts were not to be used as primary or secondary sources (the wording has since been changed by someone involved in this debate) and since google groups doesn't do anything to the posts, its no different than usenet. This article does more than say "People talked about the lumber cartel on usenet". It goes on to make accusations against individuals based on "facts" provided in those posts. There is a world of difference there.--Crossmr 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous arguments, both above and on previous nomination. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its present form. I've raised important issues on the talk page which remain unanswered. It is not clear whether this is an article about 1) the Lumber Cartel or 2) about Usenet chitter chatter. If the former, then Usenet is not an acceptable source. If the latter then Usenet can be used as to show Usenet rumour, without any implication that it's fact. At the moment it is claimed that it is about 2) but in fact that material is used to substantiate 1) in complete violation of VERIFY. Thus Duane Patterson is implicated on the basis that someone on a google group said that he was sent something by his General Manager who got it from a wannabe spammer who got it from Duane Patterson. This would be laughable, were it not being used seriously as verification.Tyrenius 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right That's original research based on hearsay. I've removed the reference to Patterson and hope you'll reconsider. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed) as long as my deletion of Sanford Wallace is not reinstated. Again it is a third party mentioned purely on the basis of a Usenet post. They might actually take umbrage over this. Even if not, to say it is "sourced" gives the indication of certain verification, which is not the case. Tyrenius 18:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as in previous nomination and deletion review discussion. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without even reading the article I know this is about Sanford Wallace saying e-mail spam is going to save the forests and therefore the "lumber cartel" is plotting to put him out of business. The term, as used by Sanford Wallace, is a piece of computing history and it is still in common use on a major internet discussion forum (nanae). SchmuckyTheCat 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not 100% confirmed that it was Sanford Wallace. But yeah. DS 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Tony Sidaway's comments above. Scorpiondollprincess 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ESkog and as before. 1ne 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral It's still a non-notable Usenet in joke in my opinion, notable only to those who already know what it is via participation in Usenet. However, the other problems are at least being addressed now, so if someone agrees to watch it and keep it a good article about an unworthy topic, then I suppose that's at least a fair compromise. GassyGuy 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep The coverage in the sources provided is really scraping the bottom of the barrel V-wise, but it still appears marginally valid. Ziggurat 01:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It answers an obvious 'huh?' and meets minimums. Shenme 04:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Lord Delete Wired News has been unable to confirm some sources for a number of stories written by this author. How long has this been under discussion??? And these are all the sources the keepers could come up with??? ~ trialsanderrors 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if you follow that link, you will see that they listed the specific articles by that author with which they had problems [47], and were open to expanding that list if they received any information which would lead them to conclude that any of her other articles were also problematic. The article in question is not one of them, and they continue to employ that writer as of last month [48]. Furthermore, she did name her specific sources in that article (Julian Haight of Spamcop, for instance), and they can be contacted. DS 13:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually my problem is with the fact that this is (among) the best the keepers can come up with. This article has been through process for quite some time, AfD, DRV and now AfD again, with ample keep voters, and all the sources it cites are five scraps? I see 2 homemade websites, 2 articles where LC is "mentioned", i.e. not the central subject of the article, and one article where the magazine itself disclaims reliability. For a subject that has gotten so much scrutiny here this is extremely puny, so much that the closing admin should delete it under WP:V no matter the outcome of the vote if not more sources can be dredged up. We're talking about a supposed internet phenomenon, and this is the full extent of coverage it received? ~ trialsanderrors 16:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to reiterate - the verifiability issues at Wired do not apply to that particular article. DS 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course they do. WP:RS clearly asks us to Find out what other people say about your sources. and Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know. Here even the magazine the article is published in pulls the rug from under the author. How much more blatant of a violation of WP:RS can you get? ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a Usenet phenomenon - and that's just for 2005-2006. People are still talking about it. Although, of course, it does not exist. There is no Lumber Cartel. DS 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    and how many posts were made to usenet in that time? 5,130,000. Which gives a grand total of .6% of posts on usenet referencing the lumber cartel. Not exactly a notable phenomenon.--Crossmr 17:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a line of argument, this seems a little far-fetched. Nearly all international news items do not mention Microsoft. Does this mean Microsoft is not "notable"? The lumber cartel is a "notable" spoof within the anti-spam field. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He put forth how many posts were made as some evidence of notability. I'm well within my right to call that into question. By your own admission this is only notable within a small group. Most notability guidelines read, that regardless of the subject require it to be the subject of multiple non-trivial articles, reports, etc. Its only non-trivial coverage is Wired, and even that is honestly trivial. While its mentioned in the opening its not really covered as the subject of the article. However if we allow for it to be non-trivial, the rest of the coverage is trivial and it wouldn't pass any kind of notability guidelines.--Crossmr 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's barely twice that amount of posts referencing Godwin's Law in that same period. 1.2% of all posts mention Godwin's Law. Is that notable? DS 17:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Godwin's law is also covered extensively outside of Usenet. It gets 340,000 google hits while Lumber Cartel gets 20,400. So yes, it is notable in comparison. Though I'll remind you that we're discussing this article, not Godwin's Law.--Crossmr 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) The argument about lack of verifiability is an absolute one, not a relative one. In absolute numbers (and in quality terms), Microsoft easily jumps verifiability/NPOV hurdles. This one, unless someone comes up with something, not. ~ trialsanderrors 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have we settled on verifiability, then? Are we stuck on notability now? DS 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm neutral on verifiability, though trialsanderrors sees WP:V issues. I certainly don't see notability here from anything you've shown, or I've pulled up on google search.--Crossmr 17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearly a verifiability issue. Notability is a judgment call and established by consensus. Verifiability is a policy that overrides consensus. The test is simply can I, who have heard never of the term before, check the reliable sources in the article and verify that the term is used in the way it is presented? And as it is, the number of reliable sources that help me determine this is zero. ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe that your reasoning correctly reflects Wikipedia policy, you are misreading Wikipedia policy. We do not delete articles about known phenomena simply because someone is able to interpret Wikipedia policy in such a manner as to require an unattainable level of verifiability of those phenomena. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors. I don't have to read any further. My interpretation is perfectly compatible with WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Compatible with Verifiability" is not the same as "reasonable". If you decide to required an unreasonable level of verifiability, your requirement is compatible with the Verifiability policy (or WP:V, as you prefer to cryptically refer to it) but it isn't helpful to Wikipedia. At question here is whether, when you discount well known internet phenomena on the basis of your personally selected criteria, you have set a reasonable level of verifiability. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are still not offering evidence on how my reasoning misinterprets policies. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My evidence is your belief that the Lumber Cartel article must be deleted on the basis of the Verifiability policy. I could understand a "not important enough for an article argument", but that would suggest a merge to News.admin.net-abuse.email. Verifiability policy will not help you here, however. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to understand the meaning of evidence. I don't see a policy WP:What User Tony Sidaway Thinks or a policy WP:General handwaving. If my reasoning misinterprets policy, cite the passus of the policy it misinterprets. Fundamental verifiability issues are not solved by merging. It just moves unverified info somewhere else. ~ trialsanderrors 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remain civil. If you don't recognise when I'm citing Wikipedia's deletion policy, my apologies. "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" has long been a subcategory in the list of "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed" in that policy. If there is a suitable article to merge to (I cited one such above) then we don't delete. The claims of verifiability problems strike me as somewhat shrill. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, no evidence that my comments misinterprets verifiability policy. WP:DP] might recommend merging, but merging does not solve verifiability problems and hence is only for sourced minor articles. Please strike your wholly inappropriate last comment. ~ trialsanderrors 17:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We're obviously seeing things completely differently. I see no verifiability problems; indeed there is ample primary and secondary material to support provenance, period and usage. As I said earlier, if you think Wikipedia needs more verifiability than this then your interpretation of the Verifiability policy can be said, with a high degree of confidence, to be invalid. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case. User:Tony Sidaway has, after third request, still not offered a passus in WP:V that makes my interpretation "invalid". ~ trialsanderrors 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the AfD on TINC. Usenet posts are acceptable as primary sources when referring to the content of Usenet posts themselves. We're discussing an argument on Usenet, about Usenet. Captainktainer * Talk 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor meme unknown outside the confines of antispam activism. Dr Zak 05:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before. I commend WP:DRV for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and question, why is this article about a non-notable-at-all conspiracy theory/usenet joke and not about the almost-but-still-not-quite-notable anti-spam group who adopted the name? Either way I still think delete, but at least the group is a vaguely encyclopedic topic for an article. Recury 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because the Lumber Cartel is pertinent to the history of Usenet, and the sources provided pertain to the Lumber Cartel meme. Captainktainer * Talk 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article doesn't make any claims to that effect. It just says, to paraphrase, "It's a conspiracy theory that spammers came up with and then anti-spammers appropriated it to make fun of them." If it actually is pertinent to the history of Usenet (which, for the record, I don't buy) please update the article explaining why. Recury 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a buzzword and a meme which hasn't seen any use outside of USENET for six years; One article it uses to establish notability has source disclaimers; Another smells of a olden-age scamsite with its flamboyant exclamation, flashing lights, long sidebars, and buzzword usage (Does it meet WP:EL?); And the last is, at most, a passing and aged reference. Applying WP:WEB to this, and just for the heck of it, WP:ORG... It satisifies neither. And, finally, "Who cares about the Lumber Cartel?" Does anyone at all outside of USENET care about the phrase? It hasn't become commonplace in anti-spam efforts, it hasn't been mentioned at all in a published article (Neither the WIRED or SALON articles appear to have been included in the respective print issue.)... It shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read what Wired said about the reliability of articles by that author (who they still employ)? I actually contacted Julian Haight directly and asked him if he said that. He said yes. And yes, it's still common. There are more sources as well; but they've been removed from the article. DS 21:59, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Ph?m Hoàng Long"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

scool[edit]

Looks like a hoax to me. Is it? Helicoptor 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yes, it's a hoax. 0 google hits for both insect name and name of discoverer. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Also possible attack page. --IslaySolomon 18:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax -- Whpq 18:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:HOAX and WP:V. Scorpiondollprincess 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the various aboves. -- Steel 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an attack page. From what I can tell, the article creator is trying to disparage his old school. If unspeediable (might be the case because the school isn't named), then delete as a hoax. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:30, 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 speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 17:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+SiN+[edit]

Article is complete vanity page for a clan. Speedy Deletion has been removed, sending to AfD. Wildthing61476 16:39, 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 Speedy Deleted as CSD A7. Xoloz 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Dhruv[edit]

Non-notable. 41 google hits, not all of them the same guy. Cheese Sandwich 16:44, 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 redirect. early closings are possible. Unanimous decission. There's a policy about common sense being valid to ignore the so called "rules" in certain cases -- Drini 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First image on the Web[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the previous AfD closure on this article. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a redirect to Les Horribles Cernettes, where the story had already been duplicated. --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the previous AFD and please, to the closing admin, put redirect in the closing summary so we don't go through this again. BigDT 18:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above comments. Scorpiondollprincess 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tony & BigDT. hateless 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per all of the above. Artw 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per all of the above. Sertrel 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per my argument on the previous AfD. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted a second close by Tony Sidaway. This went to DRv once already, there is no reason to make some kind of point by the same person closing it early, again, without referencing policy. - brenneman {L} 04:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. KWH 06:00, 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 Keep. - Bobet 10:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lie Evolution[edit]

Adds nothing to the debate or controversy - it says nothing not already said. Interested2 16:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if the book has been published. Just because its not a new story doesn't mean the book should be ignored. Links could be tidied to remove POV though. Nuttah68 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Nuttah68. -- Whpq 18:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Nuttah68. With a subject like this, though, care must be taken not to violate WP:NPOV. Scorpiondollprincess 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ken Ham and mention there. Nothing in this book that doesn't slide seemlessly into Ham's article. -- GWO
  • keep please and remove any unneutral points of view Yuckfoo 19:42, 24 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. No votes but there's no point in relisting an obvious hoax, formula 1 drivers aren't exactly obscure enough to go unnoticed by google. - Bobet 10:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ikaash Chatha[edit]

Hoax about a motor racing superstar who has three hits on Google Nuttah68 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • he was a poor driver so it won't have many and he is not famous

if it was a hoax how would i know so much abou his life and championship

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, looks much better now than before the nomination. - Bobet 10:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HSR Layout[edit]

unknown list of places in a maybe small town, created in 2005 by a numeric IP address. Cantalamessa 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. This is nonsense. I have no idea what is going on in the article, and to me at least has zero encyclopedic value.--Andrew c 21:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete in its current form. This may be a notable place in Bangalore. It has a lot of important landmarks (probably making it notable enough), but this article doesn't mention any. Let's see if any Bangalore based Wikipedians can add info and make it notable, when I would support its keeping. I am not saying "keep" now, as I am not very sure whether the notability exists. I have seen far less notable US-based location articles, but let's not apply WP:PTEST here. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Keep. The layout is mentioned as one the top 20 locations of Banglalore. Has important landmarks. I have added wikilinks to elucidate notability. The article had some un-encyclopedic content that I have removed, and now I feel is a keep-worthy article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bangalore is one of the biggest cities in India,having a population of over 6 million. I have copyedited to make the article look more coherent. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve, notable road -- Samir धर्म 08:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This whole AFD is silly. Just because someone hasn't heard of a city or a road within the city dosen't give you the license to stick an AFD tag on the page. If it did, I'd probably end up adding AFD tags for a majority of Wikipedia stubs. I'll try to do what I can to improve the quality of the article, but I maintain that I am astounded by the inaneness of this whole issue. AreJay 19:36, 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 no consensus to delete. - brenneman {L} 04:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of wands in Harry Potter[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unencylopedic nature and no notability to speak of (minor objects in a book/movie franchise) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as CRUFT. Any encyclopedic content can be merged into one of the other googolplex Harry Potter articles. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge individual wands with their respective character articles. The rest should be turned into a general article about wands in the Potterverse. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT - This is trivial information. TheFarix does have a point about taking info about individual wands and incorporating it into their respective character pages, but the article itself should be deleted. Torinir | Ding my phone | My support calls 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge individual wands as per TheFarix's comments. The rest could be summarized in a section of Wizarding world. Scorpiondollprincess 19:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT no objection of merging back to individual characters.--Nick Y. 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artw 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge individual wands back to character articles and then rewrite into a general wand article (Wand (Harry Potter), perhaps?) per TheFarix. BryanG(talk) 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to individual character articles. I'm not sure we need an article on this, so anything else can go in Wizarding world. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Blizzard of One 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'merge wands abck to character articles and redirect to Wizarding world Yuckfoo 19:41, 24 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. - Bobet 10:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Paines[edit]

Non-notable person Whpq 18:23, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Earls of Dublin[edit]

This page provides no sources, and previously a anomous IP address (probably the person who created this page) vandalised the Earl of Dublin page with this 'information' about the Irish Earls. S/he provides no sources for this information, and is clearly biased if you read some comments s/he makes about the real Earls of Dublin Berks105 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Note that this user User:Lorddublin, and the many differant IP addresses he is using, not only keeps attacking other people's remarks on this page, he has also removed the 'This page is up for deletion' templete on the Irish Earls of Dublin page itself. --Berks105 11:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC) --[reply]


  • Weak Delete for WP:V. I tried googling some of the names with dates and titles listed, but couldn't come up with anything. The only 'source' cited here is "the biography by James Kane." If someone can cite some sources, perhaps this article could be merged with Peerage of Ireland or Earl of Dublin -- assuming that's appropriate. Unfortunately, both of those articles also lack sources. I don't fully understand the subject matter, but I can't detect any WP:NPOV bias in this article. Only the lack of verifiable sources bothers me. Scorpiondollprincess 19:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article reads more like opinion or WP:OR, and is unverified. Agent 86 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This page will cite proper sources from the end of the week and is formed under a properly registered address. It is formally verifiable and easy to do so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.217.82 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete per nom. Also, even with citations, the article does a poor job of asserting its own notability. I think it may be, but at the moment, I can't tell why from the article. With a some extensive copyediting and proofreading, sources cited, and a better introduction that establishes why it's noteworthy, I could see keeping it, though. - Tapir Terrific 22:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't - after some effort - verify the info given and have huge doubts that such a title exists to any credible standard of proof. Feels like smoke and mirrors to support a pretender to a title. Lots of the info is misleading. If the title were created by the English/British crown then the it could and would have to be proved which it hasn't. If it is non English/British then the Act of Union provision wouldn't apply. The Irish state doesn't recognise titles included former Irish titles and no Irish court will rule on succession disputes so claiming the 1957 International Recognition and Enforcement Convention is fluff. Alci12 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on one point you are wrong. The Irish state does recognise titles. The Genealogical Office has been involved in doing so for decades, and peers have sat in the Seanad under their full title and have contested seats in the Dáil. And issues of succession have gone before Irish courts in the past. Not too long ago the Oireachtas amended a law to regulate issues concerning the property inheritance of Lord Altimont. The Irish state has never abolished titles. It just does not issue them, an important difference. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, though I can see where you're going but this is not the place - see pm Alci12 10:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


MAJOR POINT References and sources have now been added and quoted from Public Records Office papers, I don't see any of this level of referEncing on any other article in this encyclopeadia!Lorddublin 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page is formed from authorities in published works on public display in the Craigavon Museum and the Dublin Cathedral, it is full of citations namely the Royal Warrant, the Regimental Archives and several others; it does deserve to stand and is authored under a formal membership. The entries below are misleading, the 'real earls of Dublin; this person clearly has no understanding of the subject at all as s/he states; it is therefore not proper for them to enter an opinion which is unfounded on proper authority. This page should stand alone as it has nothing to do with the British creations and the Irish creations are entirely lawful and recognised. To say this page contains no sources is to not read it, every line contains a source which is immediately verifiable and in compliance with the editing rules.

This article is noteworthy as the author James Kane cites "This book charts the long and distinguished history of the Blackers of Carrick Blacker, which the reader will quickly realise was one of the most remarkable and influential families to settle in the province of Ulster."

I intend adding page some fascinating extracts about he civil wars, the Irish famine and the general history of the province through the eyes of one of Ireland’s most noteworthy contemporary writers. I have several pictures, maps and commentaries to add and this page will become a source of material like no other page.

This page should stay.

lorddublin (a member not anonymous)Lorddublin 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



No vandalism occurred, it was the insertion of valid one line remarks such as "This of course does not concern the Irish creations." and suchlike. It was only when offensive 'don’t vandalise my precious page' remarks flowed from that author that things got silly. Leave this work alone, it is self declaring and of inestimable value to the true historian searching for information about this family. Did you know for instance that Kate Blacker was the first person to take aerial shots of Everest? Well I have them to include here; did you know that Latham Blacker was the first person to survey Everest and the mountain is only known as Everest as his assistant finished the work after his murder? No well if you remove this page you will never know about these and many other fascinating things.

  • Delete I think it's a hoax. I searched Google for over an hour and found some of the persons and sources mentioned in the article, but nowhere a link to an Irish Earldom of Dublin [49]. However I found another interesting things over Alan Blacker, the man who should be the 37th earl [50] and [51]. Phoe 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) THIS PAGE WAS EDITED WITH MY CONSENT AND IS ENTIRELY ACCURATE TRUE AND THE AUTHOR IS A PERSONAL FRIEND SO DONT QUOTE WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND YOU NUTTER.[reply]
  • Delete. Bogus. A farrago of nonsense. - Nunh-huh 18:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO COMMENT AS YOU HAVE CITED NO AUTHORITIES.[reply]

IF THIS PAGE IS NOT RIGHT FOR WIKIPEADIA DELETE IT, I AM QUITE CONTENT WITH THE ENTRIES IN WHO'S WHO, ITS JUST THAT YOU WILL LOSE OUT ON SEVERAL FASCINATING ( A WORD USED BY JAMES kANE) PAGES OF INSIGHT INTO DOCUMENTS IN THE PUBLIC AREAN. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR PEOPLE TO COMMENT THAT THE PAGE IS UNWORTHY WHEN I HAVE CITED SVERAL PUBLIC SOURCES. THE OTHER PAGES WRITTEN ABOUT ME ARE WRITTEN BY ME FOR OTHER AUTHORS, LORD BRADFORD ASKED FOR AN ARTICLE SO I PROVIDED ONE, HE AND I FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT AGAINST FALSE TITLE HOLDERS AND SELLERS THE WORLD OVER. SO ITS NO SKIN OFF MYU NOSE I SIMPLY WANTED TO PROVIDE THIS ENCYCLOPEADI WITH LOTS OF USEFUL IFNORMATION IF THE ILLITERAY ABOVE DONT LIKE THIS I'LL CLOSE THE PAGE MYSELF. Lorddublin 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF THIS SILLYNESS CONTINUES I WILL REMOVE THIS PAGE MYSELF AND CLOSE THE LINKS ALTGETHER AND RELY ON MY OWN SITE SO IT REALLY DOESNT BOTHER ME AT ALL, THE LOSS WILL BE YOURS, YOU HAVE SEVENTY TWO HOURS. IT IS INTERESTING THAT THE ONLY PERSON TO WRITE IN FAVOPUR OF THE SITE DOES SO WITH AUTHORITY AND CITATIONS WHEREAS THE NUTTERS WHO WRITE IN DERISION CITE NO AUTHRITIES BUT PERHAPS THIS IS HOW YOU LIKE IT IN THIS UNAUTENTICATED ENCYCLOPEDIA, IT IS NOT CREDITWORTHY IF IT DOESNT HAVE CITATIONS AND MY PAGE HAS THEM BY THE BUCKETLOAD. Lorddublin 16:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you used one of the systems available in Wikipedia to link specific facts to specific references. As things stand, it's not clear which of your heap of references is being used to back up which claim. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for more detail on how they are commonly used. At the moment, I have to say that the article reads as though it is trying to refute some claims elsewhere. User:Alci12's and User:Phoe's efforts to find some corroboration and context have turned up only mentions of legal issues. That isn't reassuring. Nor is your name-calling. It is possible to edit for a long time without reading all the Wikipedia polities, but you can't get too far without knowing about WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Telsa (talk) 17:36, 22 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 and redirect to Angel Pagán. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Pagan[edit]

This article has been considered for deletion.

  • Note. I redirected Angel Pagan to Angel Pagán, since Fan-1967 merged them. User:Clay4president
  • May as well go for a Speedy Close, then. Fan-1967 00:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. Most people searching will not type "á". Fan-1967 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect as per Fan-1967's comments. Subject is notable. WP:BIO allows "athletes who have played in a fully professional league." Scorpiondollprincess 18:44, 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 17:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NSider's Lounge[edit]

Doesn't look notable, and no other articles link to it. JD[don't talk|email] 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:WEB -- Whpq 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:WEB. Fairly new website (less than six months old, and apparently was closed one of those months). Not notable. Scorpiondollprincess 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the first two comments. -- User:Clay4president
  • Delete. Not notable, entry reads like an advertisement. Exo314 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I find no evidence that this meets WP:WEB. At least they have their own domain though, unlike some of the websites that try to pass themselves off on Wikipedia... --Kinu t/c 04:42, 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 textbook case of CSD A7 - no assertion of band's notability. Kimchi.sg 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unidentified Falling Objects[edit]

Article for a band that fails the WP:MUSIC notability test. From the article itself - "Labels: Unsigned, but hopeing (sic) to be signed to 604 Records & Roadrunner Records in the near future." --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:MUSIC. This band is unsigned, still searching for members, and has produced no albums or singles. Not notable. Scorpiondollprincess 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FiftyOneWicked 19:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should not be deleted because it is an actual band and faber and other bands dont show up but they are actual bands from Canada and the United States, i have just changed the label section on the bands information to unsigned instead of the original article section, so can you not delete this page because there are alot of other pages that need deleting more then this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.59.72 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Delete - per CSD:A7. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im not going to nominate any pages if you delete this page.
  • Delete Band has absolutely no notability. Nothing on google. --Joelmills 01:40, 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. - Bobet 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestation[edit]

Obvious advert with company link. Fails WP:CORP. Only first few hits on Google even pertain to it. KarenAnn 18:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Massmato 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC
  • Delete It's advertising pure and simple. Spartaz 14:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How is "Life Alert" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Alert different from Lifestation and is not being considered an advertisement?

  • Comment - Good point. It does get many more hits on Google, but does not meet WP:CORP. Both articles are advertisements for a product, unreferenced, with links to company sites. KarenAnn 20:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it makes you any happier, I just listed Life Alert for deletion. Spartaz 14:57, 23 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. - Bobet 10:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Country[edit]

The article in question is not a notable song, and all of its imoortant content is already listed on the page Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (film) FiftyOneWicked 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Out of all of the Avenged Sevenfold songs with articles, you picked this one? This is probably their most notable song. Peaked at number two on Billboard's Mainstream Rock chart, number six on their Modern Rock chart, and even managed a number sixty showing on the Hot 100. I'd say that's reasonable claim to notability. GassyGuy 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Absolutely stupid move trying to delete this. It's a popular song and a popular single. - JNighthawk 23:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree this should be kept, I also believe that this was a good faith nomination. Please both assume good faith and be civil. GassyGuy 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I understand. It very well may be a good faith nomination, but I am tired of seeing people on Wikipedia nominate articles for deletion for some elitist reason. Extra articles on Wikipedia do not hurt it, and only provide more information that makes people use it much more. For example, while a particular video game may not be considered notable, there is no harm in listing information about the game on Wikipedia. Maybe I just disagree with some of Wikipedia's principles. Regardless, I apologize for not being civil before. - JNighthawk 15:56, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 20:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Swank[edit]

Delete there is no verifiable evidence this person exists or was a member of Frank Zappa's band, may even be a hoax. See the article's talk page for some discussion. Prod removed without comment. Gwernol 18:56, 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 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volta (Tekken)[edit]

This page is full of bogus information, and obviously created as a joke. There is no character called "Volta" in the Tekken series. Its continued existence comprimises the integrity of the encyclopedia. Chandra K. 19:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a rumour at best. The game hasn't come out yet. Not verifiable.--Andrew c 21:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Interesting how it uses the past tense for a future game ("has only appeared in") -- Steel 23:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's obviously bogus, nowhere else can I find anything about this Volta. He's both Hwoarang and Raven's twin?? Lili's best friend? His Tekken 6 story? I don't know who made up this and why but it needs to be deleted. Aeneiden-Rex 08:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatent vandalism and hoax. Hell, speedy it. -Randall Brackett 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth, as the sole contributor appears quite adamant in perpetuating this odd hoax. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:50, 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 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of running gags[edit]

Another case of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Since its first nomination in October 2005 this list is starting to resemble a katamari (sticky ball rolling around) picking up references to every cruft of fiction that's ever employed humour. But after the failure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military organizations I have my doubts sanity will prevail here either. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Guidelines for list membership criteria here are too subjective. Violates WP:OR and WP:V. WP:LIST says, "if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source." How do you cite a reliable, published source that identifies something as a running gag? Inclusion on this list is non-verifiable. Scorpiondollprincess 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, way too indiscriminate. If anywhere, running gags should only be mentioned on each movie/game/whatever's article. BryanG(talk) 21:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as currently completely unsourced. When someone writes the bestseller Running gags in television and film 1909 to present we'll have an article, but this is absolutely indiscriminate (btw, nice analogy - Katamari it is). Ziggurat 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete is funny but i guess it should be deleted.SNAPE KILLS A FLY HAHAHAH PWNED! 06:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous collaboration of nothing in general — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machine Head (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. No one comes looking for this stuff here; if any of this material is relevant, it should be on the pages of the respective TV shows/movies/games etc. -Joshuapaquin 16:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom and Scorpiondollprincess's reasoning. --Spondoolicks 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep: I really, really like it and think it can be really useful, especially for the people who like to research TV series, comics, etc. Ehighkick28c 20:28, 22 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 20:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi Summers[edit]

The actress is a non-notable performer per WP:BIO, as well as the WP:PORN BIO proposal. She has achieved no awards and the crux of her page seems to be about how she overdosed and left porn. Therefore, delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Somehow, I don't think overdosing porn actresses are that uncommon.... —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Misses WP:PORN_BIO by a mile. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one fails WP:PORN BIO guidelines in my opinion. RFerreira 22:58, 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 CSD A7 no assertion of person's notability. Kimchi.sg 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Oxton[edit]

The guy definitely exists but most of the stuff about him is not verifiable. No evidence of notability. 3 Google hits here. Delete. BlueValour 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, NN, vanity, bio. --Andrew c 21:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy--Peta 00:54, 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 all.

The questions here are still complex, but there seems to be a strong consensus for one thing: the bulk of the information in these articles constitutes a "game guide", which Wikipedia explicitly is not. A smaller article listing the maps with a brief description would be allowable under the consensus I'm seeing below; individual articles about each level would not be, even in the case of maps which may be more notable than others.

I read "transwiki" as including both the statements: (1) "these articles don't belong here" and (2) "these articles might be useful to this other wiki". Thus, in my view, the discussion below indicates that there is a strong consensus that the information doesn't belong here. I am definitely willing to temporarily undelete in order to help someone perform the transwiki. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Counter-Strike maps[edit]

This discussion is about whether or not the individual counter-strike maps, as a class, should be wholly deleted. The individual merits or demerits of any single map is not relevant (that would require its own individual AfD). We are talking about the principle of having individual counter-strike maps... whether that principle is in violation of the WP:NOT policy, and whether any individual counter-strike map could be considered notable.

These articles are being considered for deletion because of the following policy:

Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.


Additionally there are two supporting reasons, but not actual wikipedia policy by themselves (as stated clearly on their respectable pages):


Many of these articles also had a discussion in the following AfDs:


Please keep in mind that referring to debates that resulted in "no consensus" is not a sufficient reason for counting either a keep or delete vote. Neither does it count to refer to essays that are not actual policy (like WP:NN or WP:CRUFT). And in this peculiar instance, the nominator is actually opposed to deletion, so "per nom" votes would be ambiguous and also not countable. (You can find my reasoning next to my vote below.)

As nominator, I will be informing all users from the 3 aforementioned AfDs who participated with more than 2 edits, as they will likely be interested in this discussion.

Closing admin, if the result is to delete, take note that many of the articles have screenshots and images of the maps. Fair use may expire on these images. David Bergan 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep as nominator. I am one of the main contributors to the articles in question and the reason I am putting up this AfD is because we have been bombarded by AfD requests that have all resulted in "no consensus". But each of those discussions didn't directly face what I consider to be the main issue: whether or not the principle of individual CS maps is in violation of the policy. Other things were grouped in (like surfing) which muddled the main issue. And as the closing admin stated in the latest AfD, a vote of "no consensus" doesn't mean anything. I feel we need a consensus before I continue working on these articles, because either (A) a delete will be delete them and then I can't work on them or (B) a keep will make them immune from the threat of a future AfD. Since the discussion is still fresh in many people's minds, we should try to settle this once and for all.
So much for my reasons for nominating. Now for my reasons for keeping.
Regarding the "instruction manuals" violation, I maintain simply that these articles do not constitute an instruction manual. Take Cs italy as an example. There is nothing in that article that explains how to play the map. In fact in the game Counter-Strike there never is any one "right" way to play a map. The game is exclusively multiplayer, and because either team can do an infinite number of things to which their opponents have to adjust, there is no possible "walkthrough", or "how-to" beat a map. What the article has is (A) a description/history of the map, (B) an overhead view of the map, (C) some screenshots, (D) professional criticism against the map being balanced for both sides, (E) listing of some trivia regarding the map, including the translation of an opera song that can be heard in one section. None of those five constitute an instruction manual for anything. They are a simple description, much like what we find in the article about the Roman Colosseum... (A) description/history (B) blueprint (C) pictures (D) architectual criticism (E) trivia. The latter article is not an instruction manual, and neither is the former.
Regarding "not notable," I maintain that the article's notability can be plainly ascertained from a count of users daily playing on public servers (something like over 1 million), or the hits from a Google search (de_dust = over 1 million). In the last AfD an argument was presented that this sort of counting doesn't automatically justify an article as notable. He has an office by a street that probably sees more than a million cars a day, but that doesn't make an article on the street notable. My response is that yes an article about that street would be notable... if he put together something like the 5 sections I included in the last paragraph. If he merely described the road, then it might have AfD issues (although I haven't read any policy or guideline that would immediately sink it). But if in addition he researched the local newspaper archives and dug up a history of the road, described the points of its uniqueness, and uploaded a couple pics and map of its location, it would clearly be notable. "Not notable" violations are things like "shirts in David Bergan's closet"... not things that a large part of the public encounters.
Regarding "cruft," I have 2 arguments. First, that cruft is a highly subjective term. Any specialist understands that things related to his specialty are more important to him than the average person. It doesn't matter if your specialty is fishing or quantum physics, there are a certain realm of topics that will be very interesting to you, that wouldn't be interesting to my mom. To accuse another's specialty topic as being mere cruft, shows little more than the obvious fact that you don't have an appreciation for that specialty. Counter-strike, being a world-wide professional sport now, has its realm of specialty, just as baseball or football. My second objection comes from a plain reading of the cruft page. That page defines cruft as "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans," which in the interest of these maps is simply untrue. So many people play these maps that it is impossible to consider it a "small population."
And finally for those considering a merge vote, I respond that there is simply too much content for one article to cover it all. Discussing the uniqueness, history, and trivia of 22 maps (and hopefully screenshots, and overhead maps) would make a convoluted mess. I hope I have persuaded you to keep. Kindly, David Bergan 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Each map should have an AfD. Some maps could be notable, while some may not. Computerjoe's talk 18:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As original research with no reliable secondary sources of information. Wickethewok 19:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're voting on the concept of "individual counter-strike maps, as a class." Sure some of the articles may be riddled with original research, but I don't see how the concept itself can be considered original reseach. Thus, an original research argument could work for an AfD of a specific article or two (or even, hypothetically, for every single one of these maps), but we would have to consider each article separately to do that. It just doesn't seem possible that the class itself could be considered original research. But maybe I'm missing something. Kindly, David Bergan 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research Dr Zak 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per nom. In the previous AfD I said to transwiki them to Wikibooks, but I'm led to believe that Wikibooks will not accept this sort of article. They should then remain in WP. I would recommend an individual article for the major maps such as the dust maps, and a general article for less well known maps, but as far as notability goes I have a hard time believing that these are not notable or that they are game guides. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki to wikia:cs: I just discovered that there is a nice wikia on CS waiting to receive articles such as these with open arms. WP can easily point interested users to the relevant Wikia articles. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep How many of these discussions do we have to have. The Keep has won for 4 or 5 consecutive times already, drop the arguement, I've presented all my points in the previous dicussions. --Rake 19:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, they were "no consesus", which is different from an outright "keep". Wickethewok 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single article or list. While Counterstrike itself is quite notable, in all honesty, how much of that article information isn't just gameplay guide and padding? They are utterly non-notable individually, only as a group can they merit inclusion. --tjstrf 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all of them. I think David Bergan has made rational and reasonable arguments to keep the articles. Claims of original search, while inviting debate, are not valid. No new idea or assertion is being made by these articles, and it is common practice in video game articles (also articles for films, books, TV shows, etc.) to draw directly from the media to write the article. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between taking text or speech directly from a source (such as a novel or TV interview) and the issues discussed here. Conducting original research in real life (like weighing a cubic centimeter of an element or writing about what you see from the top of the Eiffel Tower) is equivalent to original observations and original research in fictional universes ("A Terrorist can easily sit near the hostages.", "The snow provides a lot of resistance to the player's movement"). Wickethewok 19:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per tjstrf Kalani [talk] 19:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previously cited bit of WP:NOT guidance concerning game guides. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep. These aren't (or needn't be) game guides, and some of these maps are very important. I'm quite surprised that people would consider deleting articles about topics with millions of google hits:

Wikipedia is not paper. To be cruft, it must appeal only to a "small population", which is not the case here. — brighterorange (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd also like to note that user:Dbergan seems to be attempting to swing, or at least influence, this vote by contacting "everyone who had more than 2 edits"[52] in these discussions. Which is not exactly normal procedure in AfD's, and frowned upon. --tjstrf 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has done this in good faith and has contacted people on both sides of the argument. While not the usual, I don't think he was trying to swing votes imo. Wickethewok 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did this in accordance with the WP:AFD page. "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." My method of discerning "main contributors" was just to take anyone with 3 or more edits in the previous AfDs... since those people are the most likely to have the strongest feelings on the subject. Also, that method included users from both sides of the debate, so I couldn't be accused of vote stacking. David Bergan 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Bergan is doing this because in the most recent AfD debate for these maps, he notified the significant contributors, and was accused of vote stacking. It should be noted that significant contributors will naturally support the keeping of these articles, since it is their own work. --Varco 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete These maps have no encyclopedic value. Their only use is within the game. Without Counter-strike these maps are meaningless and useless which makes them game guides and nothing more. A clear violation of WP:NOT--Nick Y. 20:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Counterstrike is notable, individual maps are not. Artw 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not the place to go into the last detail of every game. with hundrets of articles per game. At best merge them all into the original article for the game. I see wikipedia as a place for a user that asks himself, 'what the hell is "counterstrike"?' looks it up, and feels satisfied for the knowledge. It isn't for users who ask themself "now playing on map 7, whats the best tactic after house 4, should I pick up weapon 3 or 4?", etc. Jestix 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, come on. If you'd read the articles, which you should if you're commenting in here, there isn't ANY advice on how to play the game in them. Period. There isn't anything about "the best tactic", or "should I pick up weapon 3 or 4". It simply doesn't exist. Whether or not the articles get deleted, I find it offensive that you would comment with a STRONG DELETE, in all bold, without having even glanced at the material in question. Will 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the whole deletion discussion, which you should if you're commenting in here, you'd see that I already after discussion flipped over to merge and transwiki. By the way, at the time I wrote this document there was strategic content in some articles, just look for example in the history of cs_italy! Also Wikipedia is not democracy (to lazy to seek that link out right now), its not the number of votes that count, so you do not need to "fight" about every vote, and you do not need to feel offended. --17:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, and there is still enough stuff that at least very close to be guide-like, e.g.

A common Counter-Terrorist strategy is to rescue two hostages and kill the last one for an immediate win (which works because a majority of the hostages, not all of them, triggers a win). This strategy works very well in Estate. or From the upper level Terrorist spawn point, a Terrorist can snipe at Counter-Terrorists entering through the front or back entrances. .. and so --Jestix 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong merge or delete. If there's no room in the existing CS maps article, make a new one. --Rory096 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list. Barring that, I would support keeping only some. Such as dust. There's no way it is not notable - but some of the others surely are. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As per Jestix, Wikipedia is not a gameguide. A list of the maps on the main CS article is ok, but the maps do NOT need individual pages.--Bschott 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all, possibly transwiki to Counter-Strike wiki on Wikia if they don't have it already. I can live with a list of counter-strike maps, but WP:NOT a game guide and the maps don't need individual pages here. BryanG(talk) 21:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move Transwiki - Per BryanG, Good idea! Looked it up, they don't, I agree to transwiki-move them to Counter-Strike wiki as this is an optimal solution for all! What would special-wikis be good for if such would would already be handeled into the finest detail in wikipedia. -Jestix 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; The policy is "while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction." These are plainly descriptions of levels, and NOT instruction on how to play them. People keep seeing "game guide" and reading it as "if it has to do with a game, it doesn't belong here!" That is not what the policy says. If you read the context of the policy, you see that it refers to a guide to how to play a game, which these are not. TomTheHand 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has not an description for every people, place and thing. No I don't think that every level should be descriped in wikipedia. What comes next, an article for every level of prince of persia? An article about every map from [netrek], xpilot, nethack, not to mention articles for every place you find in games like Ultima Online and so on? -Jestix 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, note that in fact many of these articles do have strategies/general advice listed. Wickethewok 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The maps them selves by their very nature are useful in assisting sucessful gameplay. That is the reason why people are interested in looking at them. That makes them a game guide with or without descriptive text.--Nick Y. 21:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this. I enjoyed reading about the history of the de_dust series and don't think that page assists gameplay at all. More importantly though, a useful reference should not be confused with a how-to (which is what a game guide is and what Wikipedia is not). For example, I frequently use Wikipedia as a reference while programming (e.g. recently DES and cyclic redundancy check), but that doesn't make those articles how-to articles. — brighterorange (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A lot of these articles seem to be good candidates to merge somewhere, but I don't know the topic well enough to suggest exactly where. JYolkowski // talk 22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list and move detail Transwiki - Merge the most important content into a list and also transwiki-move the full articles to Counter-Strike wiki. - Johntex\talk 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please note that the nominator is mistaken with respect to a "Keep" decision solving this once and for all. Nothing is permenant and keep decisions can be revisited, just as delete decisions can be. Johntex\talk 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, game guide/cruft. Recury 22:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list and move detail Transwiki, per Johntex, or just Delete if that's too complicated. In addition to being inappropriate subject matter, the articles contain extensive original research, especially in the "Analysis" sections. -Will Beback 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominating these for deletion is clearly not a productive excercise. While I am opposed to the existance of these as individual articles, I beleive that they are useful redirects. Instead of participating here, I'd strongly urge people to contribute to the editorial process instead. Rather than mess around here, I am going to begin removing all biased and/or unsourced material from the maps. Then I am going to begin merging that material into Counter-Strike maps. Please do join me in doing so. - brenneman {L} 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't merging them getting a bit ahead, since that is what is contested here? --Varco 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into Counter-Strike, Counter-Strike maps, Custom Counter-Strike maps, etc. and delete—skirts OR; too derivative. Though I agree that there is too much information here for a complete merge, the information can and should be drastically cut down with all trivia removed. If this vote ends in no consensus, and given that this afd is specifically tailored to end the debate, I would think WP:POINT, and vote speedy keep in any future afd unless there were extenuating circumstances.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone has done a lot of work, but it does not belong here. This stuff is all effemeral parts of the game that may disappear with the next software update. That CS wiki sounds the proper place for it.--Michael Johnson 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list and transwiki as per Johntex. A list would cover the WP search results for "de_dust" et al and can direct those to Counter-Strike or the CS wiki. WP:NOT wins, as it would if level 1.2 from Super Mario Bros. had an article. -- Scientizzle 23:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awww, and nobody wanted to contact me about this? I guess I'll have to invite myself. Delete again. Fine if some of the information goes into Counter-Strike maps or another major article but, again, just because C-S is notable doesn't make every aspect of C-S worthy of its own article. Oh, and as others have mentioned, put them in the counter-strike wiki. GassyGuy 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cannot be bothered to argue this again. I made 3 fairly hefty contributions to the previous debates, explaining why some of these were notable and encyclopedic, and why comments like "same as Super Mario level 5-2" are incorrect and do not apply to this situation. I cannot be bothered to again. I was considering actually improving the de_dust article using information from the map author's website, but I'm not going to do work on these if they're going to crop up for deletion every bloody week. I seriously suggest participants actually read through the previous nominations and see the comments posed there, I may just copy-paste some over. Right now, the articles aren't in a great state, but AFDing them all the time really isn't going to help. - Hahnchen 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete maybe a list with a brief description, but not this.... --Pboyd04 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, completely unencyclopedic, google test in this case is completly misleading and does not prove any measure of notability. Mabye the counter strike people should start a wiki for this cruft.--Peta 00:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or Merge. No reason for individual maps in a game to each have their own article. TJ Spyke 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Counter-Strike wiki. Delete if this is not a valid option (license incompatibility). These violate WP:NOT and as they mostly aren't written using reliable sources they also need to go as WP:OR. GRBerry 02:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The articles are notable, that has been established enough. Cruft is a moot point; List of Super Bowl champions is rather important, but it's "cruft" to me, because I don't care about American Football all too much. The articles are by no means game guides. As David Bergan said, there is nothing in there that could be considered game guide material. As I stated in the previous debate, "I am adamantly opposed to having strategies and the like in Wikipedia, and I actively remove anything that could be considered strategy guide material [from these articles]." As far as original research policy, in the first debate I stated, quoting WP:OR "'An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments.' These articles propose no ideas or arguments." In opposition to merging, I said: "Counter-Strike maps is already a very long article. While I recognize that some parts of it could be removed, even if they were, the article would be extremely long after all of these map articles (and more, as they're still being written) were merged into it." Since then, Counter-Strike maps has been split into itself and Custom Counter-Strike maps due to its length. Merging is not a good idea, in my opinion; whatever article it was merged into would be too long. --Varco 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's simple not true to say that these did not contain "game guide" material. - brenneman {L} 04:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Varco - if you actually finished quoting the line you took from WP:OR you would see that original research is not just new "ideas" and "arguments", but also unpublished statements and general data, which this material certainly falls under. The FULL quote is that original research "...includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas". Wickethewok 04:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is an article about every episode of Season 5 of 24. Yet we are debating to delete pages that explain _the most played_ maps in computer FPS's. These maps are ones that ALL serious gamers know about/heard of. There is massive ammounts of culture, references, and history behind these maps. They make up the heart of CounterStrike, the most popular first person shooter out there. And you guys want to delete that, yet making a page for _every_ episode of 24 and Simpsons is okay? Just think about what you guys are talking about, this is a ridicoulous arguement, you might as well delete about a 3rd of Wikipedia if you delete these. You have to understand, de_dust is the most recognized computer map of all time. Any serious gamer who sees it can easily say "Counter-Strike". When they reach this kind of popularity, it _IS_ worth keeping. There are articles on wikipedia that are a lot worse and need a lot more attention than this. In no way should these be merged or deleted, it would violate the goal of wikipedia in many ways, because these maps truly do mark a serious spot in computer gaming. Individual maps definately DO have their own cultural impact, ask any serious gamer about dust or aztek. Everyone who here is saying that this is becoming a game guide I guess is not a CounterStrike gamer, because if they were, they would know that each of these maps adds their own bit of tactics, ideas, and culture to Counter Strike. Considering the Google results for these maps, and that there is history about these maps that will be deleted if we merge them, I strongy oppose any deletion. --Rake 05:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You already "voted" or whatever we're calling it above - I slashed it so as not to confused closing admin or other users. Wickethewok 05:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - mention the notable ones in Counter-Strike maps or something, but these individual entries are too much detail for an encyclopedia. Transwiki if there is an appropriate wikia/offsite target. -- nae'blis (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or merge, as the names are fairly unique and would improve search engine results. Do not keep separately as articles, however. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All seriouse gamers? I don't know any Counter-Strike maps, but I am a very serious gamer and have been all my life. Maybe you should say all serious Counter-Strike fans know those maps. Having pages for indivdual maps is like having seperate pages for levels in a game or for different chapters in a book. Just put all those maps on one page with a short description of them, they are not notabel enought to be on thei own. Better yet, just delete them. TJ Spyke 05:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heh, a serious gamer who has _never_ heard of dust? I highly doubt that. --Rake 08:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep I'm a serious gamer never heard of any of these maps. Then again haven't played CS since college... i.e. this isn't notable outside of the counter strike community . --Pboyd04 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete per Nae'blis and similar comments above. Even if maps are "the most played maps in computer FPS," must we go into detail on every one of them? Bringing up individual articles on TV shows like 24 doesn't sway me since I'm not really big on those, either. But maybe we can get something productive out of this--the development of a Wiki site on video games, if one doesn't exist already? These pages would be perfect on that kind of site. -- H·G (words/works) 06:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote change: STRONG Transwiki to CS Wikia. Just finished reading the above comments in full detail, did not notice before that this existed. Get this content off WP servers and onto that one. This solution should satisfy all parties--the information stays, WP servers don't bear the brunt of it. -- H·G (words/works) 06:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm always happy to restore deleted material for the purpose of transwiki, however most closers will read a transwiki as "delete from here first, try to move it somewhere else after." For example, if the desired transwiki target does not want the material it would not then be kept. - brenneman {L} 07:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the discussed pages should be transwikied to CS-Wiki, regardless of the decission here if they stay on wikipedia or not. Since this transaction is quite some work, and since they seem to have a some benefactors, I would wait for one of them to cater for them and to transwiki them, if it does not happen in the next near-future, well then I guess they weren't so important after all. Jestix 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Delete. Take it to the CS wiki. -- GWO
  • Strongest Keep. There is no question that CS is a worldwide sport. This fact puts it on the same footing as baseball, football, etc., and allows us to compare these articles to similar ones for these other sports. The "arena" that CS is played in are all of the above maps. For the same reason you would not delete articles about Arrowhead Stadium or Fenway Park, you should not delete these articles.
    • Comment. Sorry but saying "There is no question that CS is a worldwide sport" is not true, its definitely not an "Olympic Game". I don't say its not a sport, its hard to define, but I do argue that its definitely not indisputed! BTW: Please sign all posts with ~~~~Jestix 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the amount of detail is not needed.--Toffile 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. As someone who just went on Wikipedia to read this stuff. Counterstrike is one of the most popular online games, and these maps have been played by millions. I believe the popularity, the resourceful-and-thoroughness of many of them articles. To me, there's no doubt that de_dust, for example, is notable. Information about maps is not "a indiscriminate collection of information" (football grounds don't get deleted, as a contrast to a "real life" sport - Wembley Stadium gets less Google hits than de_dust2), and these articles don't contain walkthroughs. They contain information on something that is notable. I also don't believe transferring to an external Wiki is the answer either - that's just tantamount to deletion but without any conviction. Halo 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Number of google hits is not an actual answer to the question if its should be included in an encyclopedia. Google has also 331.000 recipies for piña cola, nevertheless a recipie should not be included to wikipedia. Other question if wikipedia would go in ever faintest detail about Counterstrike, what would the Counterstrike wiki be good for? They could then as well shut down their doors.... Jestix 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I realise this (although I only count 19,000 hits for "pina cola" as a term - I believe that maybe if it received 331,000 hits about a craze, it honestly might be worth an article, like drinks such as a Cosmopolitan have an article but no recipe), but it proves that something /is/ notable, is widely known (and, as such, people may search out an article on it) and as such not as fancrufty (Millions of pages really don't imply "cruft" to me). I honestly don't believe this is anymore fancruft or non-notable than an article about a sports stadium, which everyone would agree abnout it's inclusion. Saying that information here is making another Wiki redundant isn't of importance to this debate in the least - it does not add anything to the debate IMO. Halo 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please take a look at: Wikipedia:Search engine test --Jestix 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have done. It basically says that Google can be useful for weeding out spurious topics by dictating some form of notability. Basically, I'm trying to say that
  • Google states that it is not not notable (they exist, they are varifiable and they appear widespread all over the internet). It helps show that these things exist, it's notable, and it's all over the internet. There's several pages about dust2. Maybe you should read it yourself? "It is also used to ascertain whether a topic is of sufficiently broad interest to merit inclusion in the wiki". IMO, it does ascertain this. I mean, I could do the Google groups test too and several of these maps appear hundreds of times (thousands in the case of dust2). These things /are/ talked about, well known and are not fly by nights, and as such /are/ notable topics, and as such do deserve a page. Maybe I'm being stupid, but please quote the section from that Search Engine Test article that I'm missing. Over 120,000 are playing Counterstrike right now [53], primarily on one of these maps. I call this notable.
  • It doesn't fit into any of the WP:NOT categories. These articles are certainly NOT game guides. They don't tell you how to win at the game, which is what the page implies. They are information about the maps.
  • It seems lots of people here are to jump onto cruft for anything non-physical, irrelevent of it's popularity. These maps have been around for 7 years, and are still extremely popular. For the record, I am particularly opposed to the deletion of the de_dust page - there's no doubt about that notability. Halo 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Bergan. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Closing Administrator - If you think there consensus to delete, then could you redirect the articles to the main Counter-Strike maps article instead of deleting them outright. The information in their history will go toward improving the main article up to and above the standards at Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved and List of Battlefield 2 maps - Hahnchen 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge all into whatever article works. While I DO believe that these maps are individually notable, there is really no room to expand them sufficiently on their own. Merging would compile the (IMO) notable content into a sufficiently lengthy article, as well as giving all of the content a lot more context. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Despite the fact that many people see no use for these articles, I don't believe that every article needs to appeal to everyone. These are not game-guides, these are descriptions of popular levels and what is controversial/complained about/unique about them. Sure these maps may provide very little use to people who have never played counterstrike (provoking a call of -cruft) but they provide just as much information as episode articles would to people who have never seen the show. No good comes from deleting these. --Daniel Olsen 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Individual articles about episodes are just as bad ;) To honor encycopedian style, one merged article would be far nicer. And as I like articles that are graphically beautified, I do think for these maps this has been overdone, 1 - max 2 screenshots per map should be enough!... So okay you managed to change my vote to Merge, make them all redirects into one nice article that handles popular CS maps. --Jestix 07:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you're missing my point: these articles provide verifiable, good information to people who seek it, and as such, deserve a place in wikipedia. When server space runs out, then the deletionists can have their fun, but wikipedia is not a better encyclopaedia without them. --Daniel Olsen 07:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you're missing my point: in the last post I agreed that some have a place in wikipedia, the question is only: where? Are individual articles really the best solution, or would be one article about CS Maps, that covers individual maps in section not be nicer? --Jestix 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't comment on the notability of these maps, since I am not a Counter-Strike player. However, I believe in a strong keep for de_dust, not just because that map is unofficially the "face" of Counter-Strike, but also because it clearly doesn't fall into the instruction manual category (screenshots are there for critical commentary and identification, even if it's a bit messy). The history about the various versions and comparisons of the map moving from game to game in the CS series is keep-worthy, though it could use some more sources and cleaning up. So yes, in principle, a noteworthy map should be covered by Wikipedia, but as for the others, they should be individually AfD'd (and if notable enough, given a chance to be edited into proper articles, otherwise merged). --SevereTireDamage 07:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree here. I would take it analogous to fictional characters, while main characters are considered to be wikipedia mention worthy every character of a fiction is not. So keep important maps, but don't make an excessive collection about every CS-map that exists out there. ---Jestix
  • Keep or Merge, although some maps might not be merged into a big article because they are not notable enough. In general, notability is not an issue here and most of the articles are definately not guides. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cs_italy this is e.g. definitly a problem, first it's a guide, secondly its bad written, wikipedia as a lyrik source of songs thats are played in a game? I think this is a definitive No. --Jestix 13:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "critism" section in most of the article is in my opinion cruft, and is somehow close to a "map-writing guide" or game guide , and should be scrapped --Jestix 13:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you scrap the critism sections, leave de_dust as an own article, and cut down the enourmus number of disproportionate screenshots (3-4 screenshots per map, 24 maps -> aprox. 60-80 screenshots of Counterstrike in wikipedia, isn't that a bit much??), then the other maps would all nicely fit in one a bit larger article. --Jestix 13:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:NOT a game guide; there's a counterstrike Wiki, which is where these belong. Anyone who plays this sort of game doesn't need to look on WP for info, anyone who doesn't will never want to know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the "but-stadiums-of-'real life'-sports-have-articles let me give following reasoning. While A stadium might be of importance to an active liga football player, it is also important for a lot of people who don't play football themselfes each day. While a CS-map of absolute non-importance for a non-CS-gamer. --Jestix 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: even the real life stadium article ususally dont have a "critism" section, and not 4 screenshots/photos per stadium not to speak of floorplans like wikipedia has been consecrated for 24 floorplans of CS-maps. Can I have a total-level-view of every level from prince of persia and all its successors also please? --Jestix 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Whereas I have voted keep, I know that these articles are not in the best of states and a unilateral keep for the maps is not the greatest solution. But I just can't be bothered to argue this once every few weeks. If you see on Talk:De_inferno and Talk:Counter-Strike maps, you'll see that I'm not a massive fan of sections like "criticisms". If you look through the previous AFDs you'll also see that I don't think Surfing (Counter-Strike) should be kept at all. But please, stop with the AFDs for a few months at least, there's a lot to work through here. - Hahnchen 01:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hahnchen brings up a very good point. If we are constantly fighting these AfD, it takes away time that we could be using to improve the articles. --Varco 06:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd just like to point out one thing. If you don't like an article, you have the choice to not read it. It's not hurting anybody by existing, and if people are interested, it's there. If I'm not interested in reading an article, I don't read it. As for the arguments for moving it to a CS-specific wiki, I believe that having it in Wikipedia is a better idea. What I stated above, combined with the fact that Wikipedia is a central source of information. People will tend to come to Wikipedia for information before they go to a topic-specific site. This holds true especially if they're just looking for an overview. I stay away from the computer game wikis because I really don't want to read about strategies. These articles provide a decent general overview of the maps, as well as some little-known facts. --Varco 06:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the same argumentation, if you don't like it, don't read it, I could also make an article about my hairdresser around the next corner, an article about the child of my syster and so on, however all this contents are non-encyclopediac and would definitly be deleted. Wikipedia for people looking for an overview... aren't the 24 maps with 3-4 screen shots, map critism and recensions not much too detailied information? For one thing I think its certaintly best to merge at least all de_* ce_* and so on togheter in articles. --06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestix (talk • contribs)
      • Your example does not meet the notability guidelines. I said that assuming guidelines for inclusion were met. There are probably but a hundred people who would know your hairdresser, but millions of people know these maps. People actually look at these. --Varco 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree here, however you are now again arguing with notability, not with "If you don't like it, don't read it", this argument does not help anything to the questions notability/not notablity, and/or encylopedic/not encylopedic. --19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:NOT. These articles stray into game guide and unencyclopedic territory that should be kept to gaming Wikis and the like. JimmyBlackwing 12:46, 22 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Wendel[edit]

Non-notable artist - Google search for "Eric Wendel painting" brings up 27 hits, not all of which are about him (about the same for "Eric Wendel painter" and "Eric Wendel artist.") Tapir Terrific 19:23, 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. - brenneman {L} 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Houston[edit]

non-notable biography, apparent vanity, speedy deletion template has been deleted before. Sertrel 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom--Nick Y. 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Art Houston page is a bona fide explanation of who this actor is. It deals with the historical broadcast fact that he was one of the last of a long line of radio dramatic actors to be broadcast on American radio in the final years of the NBC Radio Network, as it has been known. The biographical explanation of the contribution to the broadcasting business in particular and the acting business in general is notable on this basis.
The page's first major link was to the "mondegreen" page, where an example of a mondegreen told to Art Houston by Todd Hallowell, a childhood friend and motion picture producer. A Page for Todd Hallowell was also created to explain his presence and significance, as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.126.113 (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. Jaranda wat's sup 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of slasher films[edit]

Listcruft. This would be better served as a category, and in fact one for "Horror films" already exists. If "slasher films" are considered distinct from horror films, then maybe categorize this; otherwise, the "horror films" category already covers this article's purpose. -- H·G (words/works) 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, as a distinct subgenre of "Horror films." Not all horror films are slasher films, but all slasher films are horror films. However I would not be opposed to categorizing this info instead of using the list format. Just don't delete it entirely. Scorpiondollprincess 20:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oh I definitely agree, we need to keep this sort of info. I just feel that a category does the job better. -- H·G (words/works) 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is what categories are for. I also wonder if there isn't a bit of POV involved in determining whether or not a film is "horror" or "slasher". Agent 86 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should be replaced by a category. No useful content in list itself. Eluchil404 21:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a category if one doesn't already exist. 23skidoo 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category created and populated from the list. Eluchil404 22:00, 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 09:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dananananaykroyd[edit]

  • Speedy Delete no assertion of notability in the article. Nominated for deletion because speedy deletion was contested. Also, I believe this has been speedy deleted before Dcooper 19:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The talk page asserts notability, claiming play on various radio stations. However the claims aren't verifiable as written. If they were verified and moved to the article I'd be inclined to give this the benefit of the doubt but as it stands now: Delete, fails WP:MUSIC ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per comments above. However this has potential to become notable if the band's singles (to be released in October) chart or generate any media coverage, or if the talk page claims of radio air play can be verified. Scorpiondollprincess 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps userify it to some editor in good standing's userspace till then? I would be happy to do that if it's deleted, just ask. ++Lar: t/c 23:16, 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 Redirect to Actuary. - Bobet 10:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing actuary[edit]

From WP:PROD:

WP:V Unclear what article is about. There is such a thing as a marketing actuary, but it has little to do with "Web 2.0".

Treat that as a nomination for deletion vote from User:Nagle, I guess, who PRODded the article.

  • Redir to actuary if Nagle is right that there is such a thing as a marketing aqctuary.—msh210℠ 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to actuary. A "marketing actuary" seems to be someone who develops new kinds of insurance-related products and figures out what they cost. Here's a job ad: Transamerica. They're real actuaries. The main idea seems to be that marketing actuaries have more of a customer focus than the usual back-office types. --John Nagle 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rediredt per Nagle. --Peta 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- bizarre article verging on nonsense. --A. B. 03:52, 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 speedy deleted. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terah Belle[edit]

Non-notable child actor/model. Speedy deletion removed twice by author. Requesting speedy deletion. Wildthing61476 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find nothing that would lead me to believe this actor is notable. DrunkenSmurf 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; no assertion of notability. Probably vanity. Speedy tag restored. Author has been warned against removing speedy deletion templates. —Caesura(t) 21:19, 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 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message board drama[edit]

Only 200 google hits for this term. Another 200 hits (some overalapping) for the other major term in the article "Message board addiction". Given that these terms supposedly refer to something on the internet, if these were common terms, or a common phenomenon, then one would expect to get a lot of Google hits. The article reads more like a personal essay and should be deleted as a non-notable dicdef or neologism. Force10 20:16, 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 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainz[edit]

Should player-nicks from Online Games have their own article? Even if they are somehow "famous" inside the game? what comes next? each leader of the biggest clan for every MMOG wants also his wikipedia page.. Maybe Rainz wants to do a wikipedia-user-page instead, i don't know if thats okay. Jestix 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with the Ultima Online article--it was a notable event and a notable prodcut. 206.156.242.36 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Lord British assasination is already mentioned in the Ultima Online article, the rest of Rainz is not notable if you ask me (like the attack of the naked army or the morphed chicken stuff). Jestix 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Scorpiondollprincess 20:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, While this entry may belong in an MMO-specific wiki, it is NN here. --EazieCheeze 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft. Artw 22:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete player. --Peta 00:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN/Vanity -- Alias Flood 00:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic gamecruft. --Kinu t/c 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with chainsaw-trimming merge to Lord British where the assassination thingy is already covered to some detail. The event was quite notable, covered in game magazines and all, but I think the assassination's subject is much more notable than the assassin in this case. That's the only modicum of notability here that, I think, justifies its existence as a redirect... but not really much else. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment okay "rescued" the explanation of lord british death, is there anything else mentionworthy left the Rainz article say that isn't covered Lord British? --Jestix 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft (or, alternatively, neither notable nor verifiable from reliable sources). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Ultima Online article - but definitely should be kept User:Murple 22:05, 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 Merge and Redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnabas Cuffe[edit]

So minor that he has only had one passing reference in all six of the Harry Potter books. The only other thing that could be said about him is already covered in Harry Potter newspapers and magazines. --Sonic Mew 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On seeing List of characters in the Harry Potter books (thanks RJH), it could do with some information next to the names. I now agree with the consensus to merge. --Sonic Mew 23:13, 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, as consensus to do so exists and the article is yet to address the concerns raised. I've userfied this to User:O. Pen Sauce/Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP) so that it may be worked on. - brenneman {L} 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP)[edit]

promotional page Ekajati 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. Ekajati 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned, promotional page Dwayne Kirkwood 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find evidence that this is considered to be a proper "branch" of Yoga. A Google search for the phrase "Advanced Yoga Practices" isn't that useful as that phrase is often used more generically. Combining that phrase with the name of the founder, "Yogani," yields only about 730 hits, many related to a few books. The creator of the article immediately set about linking numerous other Yoga-related articles to this one which supports the suspicion that the intention was promotional. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep While there is a still a whiff of promotion about this, and most of the sources would not meet guidelines in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, and the Alexa ranking for the site isnt that impressive (though it is ranked, which is more than many sites can say), the popularity of the books and endorsements by O.Pen Sauce are enough to change my vote to a weak keep. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks, Ohnoitsjamie. But fwiw beware Alexa. It skews very steeply toward underaluing non-huge sites. I have friends running small, medium, and rather large sites who all agree Alexa underrates by a factor of magnitude. They get the super big ones right, though. Just FWIW! (I have no idea what traffic is for the AYP site)--O. Pen Sauce 23:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - relevance... and obvious promotion. Sfacets 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • note: The main contributor user:Yogani also is the main contributor to the Yogani article, and is obviously the founder of AYP - he/she has also been posting links to the AYP website on different articles on WIkipedia. This is obviously some desperate attempt at promoting a book and online group. This obviopusly falls under what Wikipedia is not. Sfacets 01:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • note2: user:Yogani has also started a page on him/herself. Yogani - which I have placed up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogani. More than a "whiff" of self-promotion here. Sfacets
  • Delete per nom. Blatant self-promotion and unverifiable. —Hanuman Das 01:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement from an old-time Wikipedian[edit]

I haven't been doing any work on wikipedia in ages (just busy), so I don't know how much cred I have at this point. However, most of my work dates back to before "Advanced Yoga Practices" came into being, so I'm at least not a new face. This is certainly not a new "branch" of yoga, Ohnoitsjamie. They haven't added any in a few millennia. So that's not a fitting benchmark. However, it's a fresh and innovative approach, it reveals a lot of information previously kept secret (one had to be initiated and stick around for years to get this stuff), and it integrates a lot of obscure, esoteric, and far-flung elements into one very well-written and exceptionally clear system purged of superstition, doctrine, and lots of the other junk that inevitably gets added on over the millenia. It's a brilliant work of integration, IMO. And since Yogani has been called "the first yoga eGuru, having come to prominence on the Internet" on a patently independently web site (http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yyoga.htm), the topic deserves inclusion. Though I agree some work needs to be done on the article to make it a bit less boosterish. --O. Pen Sauce 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the contribution, O.Pen. Other editors please note O.Pen's contribution history: many quality edits in 2003-4 on articles relating to yoga and its schools, and no contributions either recently or to the article up for review. A genuine, expert, outside opinion is rare on AfD. Hornplease 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That was nice, thanks, especially 'cuz I feel like Rip Van Winkle here. Listen, I'll commit to doing a once-over on this article once it goes live to purge the hype. As you can see from my old edits, I'm one of the rare yoga practitioners with a balanced eye toward the different schools. The problem with yoga people is they tend to be dismayingly sectarian. This creates a problem for Wikipedia that I ought to start pitching in to help fix anyway, with respect to some of the other yoga entries.----O. Pen Sauce 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

AYP is a very new approach to Yoga and is catching on very fast among people around the world. It is a guruless system.. wherein you are given all the tools and enough guidance through lessons and a forum to take you ahead in the spiritual path.

All these yoga techniques have been around for ages, however AYP picks the best and most effective tools.. and has come up with a system that is the most efficient for both meditation and pranayam.

The reason for not having many hits when you google is because it is still new.. but catching on very fast. AYP online memberships in the AYP Yahoo groups and the AYP website forums total nearly 10,000 people. The AYP websites have been visited by over 50,000 people during the past few years, and are currently receiving over 20,000 page hits per day.

It may not be at the Wikipedia popularity level.. but it is getting there.. it can only increase with addition of new online lessons and the publishing of the remaining 5 books in the AYP enlightenment series.

Thousands of people who have been following AYP have had very quick progress in their spiritual path.. You can find testimonials of this http://aypsite.com/Testimonials.html

"The creator of the article immediately set about linking numerous other Yoga-related articles to this one which supports the suspicion that the intention was promotional". - The reason for this was because I was told to add link to other Wikipedia articles {{linkless}} template to orphan article). Once I was done with that, I was told to link other Wikipedia articles to mine. "The category and the tag both just mean that links to Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP) </wiki/Advanced_Yoga_Practices_%28AYP%29> need to be created from other articles. You're on the right track, just add Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP) to other articles and that will do the trick." I have been following orders. And now that I have done both way links I have been tagged as trying to promote AYP.

Finally search for "Yogani," yields only about 730 hits, many related to a few books.. is because Yogani wants to remain anonymous.. AYP is not about him.. it is about Yoga and getting the best and most efficient techniques out to everyone who may or may not have a guru.

For other sites that have talked about AYP, please look at http://www.nandhi.com/siddhasana2.htm

http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yyoga.htm#yogani http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yyoga.htm

http://in.geocities.com/gitabykrishna/

http://ayp.zaadz.com

http://raysender.com/2005/07/death-rattles-and-advanced-yoga.html

http://www.nandhi.com/tantirayoga.htm


There are articles from Hindustan Times that I have, which are scanned articles.. but the links to them are not active any more.. they have been archived. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_578621,001100010004.htm

Amazon carries all of Yogani's books and you can check out the review http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0976465507/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-2573561-2247916?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/097646554X/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/102-2895957-6361724?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0976465566/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/102-2895957-6361724?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0976465582/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/102-2895957-6361724?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976465515/sr=1-5/qid=1153235483/ref=sr_1_5/103-4923313-7675054?ie=UTF8&s=books

There are various press releases

http://www.aypsite.com/pressrelease.html

There is more on the founder

http://www.aypsite.org/pressrelease1.html

The lessons are being translated into various languages..

AdvancedYogaPractices -- International Translations

Bulgarian -- http://www.bg-ayp.dir.bg/index.html

French -- http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Pratiquesavanceesdeyoga

German -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AYPdeutsch

Hindi -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AdvancedYogaPractices_Hindi

Spanish -- http://www.namaste.com.mx/practicas


I would really appreciate if you would consider this topic for Wikipedia. If the writing does not fit in with the Wikipedia standard and style I will gladly re-write it. However, this was not meant to be an advertisement or a promotion. I just thought it would be a good topic for people looking for a fresh approach to Yoga and let them know that there is something available for people interested in spirituality who don't have a guru.

Thanks for your time and patience. Shantiayp 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I cant really speak to whether the topic is encyclopaedic or not, because I'm not sure what the notability criteria should be here. I just thought I should share the information that, when I accessed some of the Amazon links to the books provided above, several of them had fairly high ranks. Ranks above 75,000 change frequently over time, but most of the books had ranks (either today or yesterday) below 300,000, and several had ranks well below 200,000, which is a commonly-used cutoff for notabiliity. Hornplease 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit of article -- attempt to achieve NPOV. If not sufficient, please advise. -- Yogani, July 19, 2006 Yogani 19:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ohnoitsjamie, Thank you for adding Wiki format and links to the article. If and when it is approved, I will be happy to add informative articles on the practices you have linked, plus some more. Very few are covered on Wiki so far. Is there more that needs to be done to the article now to meet Wiki standards? Yogani, July 20, 2006 Yogani 19:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the promotion in this article, it is written in a very objective way and I find it useful and informative, what's the big deal? how would I find out about it otherwise? The more yoga information the better! Anthem, 22:31, 23 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 09:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Access america transport[edit]

Absolutely no wikilinks, no meaningful information, your basic WP:SPAM --EazieCheeze 20:42, 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 Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Shleine[edit]

Page is complete nonsense, hard to understand what is being said. If I am reading this correctly, it's a character played by Dakota Fanning in Uptown Girls, however I don't feel the character itself is notable for it's own page in Wikipedia. Speedy tag removed twice by author. Wildthing61476 20:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom. Nonsense and NN. --Andrew c 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G1 or A1. Tagged as such, and original creator warned against removing speedy tags. —Caesura(t) 21:13, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 04:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Custom[edit]

Fails WP:CORP and WP:SPAM Company only started trading May 2006 according to article. Has been listed as for importance since June. --Richhoncho 21:19, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ability Online[edit]

nn website, does not meet criteria of WP:WEB Agent 86 21:20, 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. - brenneman {L} 03:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Heery[edit]

WP:BIO; while the first hit for a Google search is her casting agency[54], I looked up a few other casting directors who have worked on major productions and found nothing. Although I've never seen it explicitly said, I would think that "Wikipedia is not IMDB", and so I'm unsure if we would want to start listing all those affiliated with the motion picture industry. Timebuilder created this page, and he seems to be creating pages for a linked set of lesser-known personages in the entertainment industry (see Art Houston and Todd Hallowell, two of his other new pages. Sertrel 21:23, 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. - brenneman {L} 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timbercon[edit]

Company does not appear notable A. B. 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Additional comments:
    • First see the talk page for the full history of this article. I attempted to fix some of the other problems of what was basically a vanity article, then realized it was likely not notable, so I tagged it for notability issues.
    • When I learned how small the company really was, I tagged it for deletion.
    • I think Timbercon is on the cusp of notability -- if a very low standard is used. Following the letter of the law re: corporate notability requirements, they technically meet the requirements: in this case, a Microsoft ad, a Microsoft small business case study in USA Today and a ranking as 62 out of 100 in a local list published by a non-notable local publication without its own WP article.
      • Re: non-notable media: note that the 3-person decorating business my spouse uses also more than meets the technical requirements since the owner has been written up in the Rome News-Tribune multiple times for his many decorating tips. (BTW, that's Rome, Georgia, not Italy.) I also don't think being the subject of a case study qualifies as notable.
    • Since I'm not very objective at this point (after cleaning up Timbercon link-spam in other articles) and since this article is borderline, I thought it best to get others' views rather than pull the trigger with a PROD or CSD tag.
    • I have notified the other editors who have edited this article in the past.--A. B. 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you for your comments. Based on your input, I made some edits and added more company information. There was a mention about the 2003 article about employee count which is inaccurate today. Is there anything else you feel needs to be modified?
--Fiber-optics 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: -- Interested party: article's author; one of four accounts used by one or more employees to link-spam other articles
  • Keep and cleanup, removing all advertising-like text and photos. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up the article. You may consider removing the AfD now. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:CORP. At best should have a note in Microsoft Office but even that seems questionable. JoshuaZ 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing indicates that the company meets WP:CORP. I get 7 hits on google news, but 6 of them are press releases and one is a passing mention. It just doesn't seem that this company is any more notable than millions of other small companies, and wikipedia isn't a business directory. - Bobet 11:18, 25 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 09:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MM Minimano[edit]

Seems to be a vanity article, subject is not (yet) notable S Sepp 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Nick Y. 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, only 51 unique Ghits, mostly for playlists. Sounds like his stuff might be good, and if he hits it bigger I expect he'll warrant an article, but for now he fails WP:MUSIC. -- H·G (words/works) 23:33, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 22:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Magia[edit]

Local pizzaria, doesn't establish notability Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete a little more than a local chain but still not notable, yet. They seem to be intent on growing to national scale.--Nick Y. 22:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can always be recreated if and when they make it. Dlyons493 Talk 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local eatery of little note. --NMChico24 01:24, 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 09:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Upsilon Chi[edit]

I can't see one iota of evidence from this long, and well-written, article, that suggests that this fraternity is any more notable than the tens of thousands of others in the USA. Stifle (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It seems to me that any repectable fraternity might be notable just for being a national fraternity. Of course we then get into a few people starting a fraternity to get on wikipedia? Perhaps some greater consensus is needed here.--Nick Y. 23:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities page. - Alphachimp talk 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the risk of accusations of wikilawyering, I'll go at this one. First off, there aren't tens of thousands of fraternities in the united states. There may be thousands of chapters, but there aren't thousands of national organizations. BUC has 18 chapters, has external references [55] [56] [57]. It's the nation's largest Christian fraternity, which stands apart from the traditional outlook of a brotherhood. I do think that this article needs to be wikified and significantly shortened. I have tagged it as such. Alphachimp talk 23:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This Atlanta Journal-Constitution article appears to reference the fraternity, but the link is dead. Could someone with Lexis Nexus or another academic search program take a look? Alphachimp talk 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this organization appears to be established at a sufficient number of universities to be notable. However, I would recommend cutting out the lists of founders, board members, and executive directors, which are not really of sufficient significance to be encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I made my point on keeping this article on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororitiespage but i wanted to add here that this organazation merits keeping it is a large fraternity and although the page could use some help it needs not be deleted.--Trey 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why would BUC need to be deleted, but all of the countless other Interfraternity Council, National Panhellenic Council, and other fraternity/sorority entries be allowed to stay? It seems, though from an admittedly biased source, that someone simply does not want this article included. If you delete BUC, why not delete SAE, Sigma Chi, etc? As for Wikification, again, if the standard is other fraternity/sorority pages, I think this article clearly meets Policy. In sum: (1) BUC is the largest of (2) a specific niche type of fraternity whose entry (3) is comparable to peer-institutions. Diezba talk 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AJC article. The article on the UGA chapter of BUC is online here. Diezba talk 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 year old organization with 18 chapters is plenty large enough to be notable, in my view. What's needed is verifiable sourcing for the claim that they are that large, and that would be that as far as this AfD nom goes. Keep but please find some sources. If deleted, will userify on request to allow further work to improve verifiability, just ask. ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source in external links is [58] along with external links to the universities at issue.
  • Keep -- charitable and notable. WBardwin 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn college club. -- GWO
  • Keep. -- by this definition of college club, every fraternity and sorority in America would be considered such. Diezba 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Kappa Upsilon Chi? Diezba 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Decent size National Greek Letter Organization.
  • keep please this organization is notable and keep the founders in too Yuckfoo 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepthis argument was already heard when controversy started about Sigma Phi Lambda's wikipedia entry. Please reference this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sigma_Phi_Lambda and note that it was kept. Jczup 18:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)jczup[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JKCinema.com[edit]

Non-notable humour website. No claims of meeting WP:WEB criteria. Alexa rank of 127,951. Eluchil404 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Peta 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. JKCinema.com (a.k.a. JKC) is a humor website that became famous... WP:WEB seems to disagree. --Kinu t/c 04:39, 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 kept no consensus Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Rho Omicron[edit]

No evidence that this fraternity meets WP:ORG or other notability criteria. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities page. - Alphachimp talk 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has 7 chapters throughout the state of California, annual "national convention". It's mentioned in US News and World report, although I'm not sure this is the best listing [59]. Alphachimp talk 23:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one seems marginal to me. Pretty new and small for a national fraternity. Is there somewhere the info could be merged to? The US News mention is just a mention of it like any other club, not enough to establish notability in my view by itself. Barring better sourcing, Delete. I will userify on request to the pages of any editor in good standing that wants to work on the article to improve it. ++Lar: t/c 03:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its got a decade of history development and 7 chapters in California is pretty good coverage. The page could use some work though i don't suppose any alum or curret memebers are Wikipedians...--Trey 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn college club. -- 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 was kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Sigma Alpha[edit]

No evidence that this group meets WP:ORG or other notability criteria. Additionally, no sources provided, so fails WP:V. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities page. - Alphachimp talk 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to quote WP:ORG (and risk accusations of Wikilawyering, I'm really sorry about that)): "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. Third party source: [60]. There are 1000 chapters, it is international. I can't see this organization meeting the criteria in any way. Alphachimp talk 23:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Generally, I deal with the no sources thing by placing the {{unreferenced}} template at the top of the page. I have appended that tag to the article. Alphachimp talk 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. It was already there. Sorry to keep spamming this AfD. =). Alphachimp talk 00:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -- I am the primary author of this brief article. As above: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. ESA is a long standing, active organization which involves thousands of women. It has long been associated in charitable activities with the Lion's Club. If you want sources to prove its existance, the organization produces a written newletter called the "Jonquil" and has been referenced in newspaper articles in association with St. Jude's hospital and charitable efforts. WBardwin 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1000 chapters? If that's verified, this is an obvious speedy keep once the article is fixed. The article needs sourcing, badly, and cleanup. Keep. I will userify on request to allow editors in good standing to continue work if it is deleted. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn college club. -- GWO
I'm afraid you are mistaken. ESA is not and has never been a college club but is a charitable fundraising organization/service club for adult women. WBardwin 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Appreciate the polite correction. Keep. -- GWO

I say KEEP! This organization is just as real and notable as Girl SCouts, Phi Mu Fraternity, Lions Club or Sigma Chi. Maybe it needs some clean up, but the article is very valuable. Believe it or not there ARE other national/international organizations out there. A simple visit to their website or an email to Annie Greengrass, Director of Expansion would clear all this up. There are many people who like to get rid of any "competition" in the Greek world and do not like others learning about these non-college groups.

Actually I think those who want to delete this group are not aware of (or at least not very involved in)the Greek world and that’s part of the problem. Most Greeks would recognize that this group is in no way even related to them I’m sure quite a few college Greeks are also members of ESA. To compare it to Sigma Chi or Alpha Chi Omega is like comparing the Red Cross to State Farm Insurance In any case ESA does not compete with Fraternities and Sororities and as has been noted is not even a College club. It should be re-classified as a charitable service organization like Key Club or the Rotary Club and then the article cleaned up and laid out according to the templates of those organizations. And once again I must emphatically say Keep this article--Trey 22:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trey-I respectfully disagree with your discrition of the group. But I do agree this article should be kept. While ESA is not a traditional college sorority, it IS an international sorority! It is every bit as active, viable and important as any other fraternity or sorority. Double membership in ESA and a college group does not change this. And while ESA is not a traditional college sorority, they ARE on some college campuses. This can be easily verified on their website as well. I believe it should stay under the category of fraternity and sorority. Just because it doesn't conform to what the media has deemd a stereotypical GLO, that doesn't make it wrong. In Indiana there are over TWENTY groups like this are national sororities, but people do not hear about them all the time because they are not collegiate. They are still sororities. And they ARE in competition on some campuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjackattack (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 speedy A7 delete. Punkmorten 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lindstedt[edit]

Speedy tag removed twice by author, Ryanlindstedt. So also fails WP:VAIN. --DarkAudit 21:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under CSD-A7. Identical info on the author's user page, which is the only place this belongs. ~ Matticus78 21:55, 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 keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viewers Like You[edit]

Surprisingly long article about a phrase used in the underwriting credits of PBS programs. —tregoweth (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge a concise summary of the article into PBS. Fabricationary 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable viewer, who has provided funding for famous and influential television shows like Sesame Street for years. As such, he/she has had an essential role in television history. As the nominator notes, this extends past a dictionary definition, and as everyone has heard the phrase I see no problems here. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's enough information here to merit its own article. Danny Lilithborne 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We might be able to do without the "historical announcements" information but it's a clearly notable phrase in the context of U.S. television - all current PBS-distributed programs are required to use it, and I suspect a lot of viewers would wonder where it came from. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Keep, per all of the above. Czj 05:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per stick Agne 06:03, 21 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 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McManus & Miles[edit]

Article for a boutique investment bank. Google hits for "McManus & Miles" = 46. Fails the Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) test. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable company and article reading like an ad. -Fsotrain09 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN & ad. Themindset 22:49, 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 kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wilkinsons[edit]

technical nomination. this was speedied, and I expanded the article to show its notability. the template clearly does not prohibit those who did not create the article from removing the template. After editing the article and explaining my actions on the article's talk page, Ardenn challenged my edit and posted a {{db-band}} on the article. I don't want to get into some needless edit war, so I bring the article to the community for its input. I for one say keep. Agent 86 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Extremely strong delete for the love of God. Ardenn 22:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It says right at WP:MUSIC#Musicians_and_ensembles: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country". The article contains a verifiable statement to that very effect. I note above on the AfD discussion for Ability Online you say WP:WEB does not apply because it is not policy. Neither is WP:MUSIC. You can't have it both ways. Either a guideline provides criteria for inclusion or deletion or it does not. Agent 86 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow Up. WP:MUSIC also provides, "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award." (Emphasis added.) This band has won one Juno (in addition to many other awards). In total, I'd say they meet at least 6 of the criteria. Agent 86 23:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm surprised this one is problematic, even. As noted, they've had some decent success. "26 Cents" was a top ten country hit (and placed on the Billboard Hot 100 as well). "Fly (The Angel Song)" was a top twenty country hit that placed also on the Hot 100. "Jimmy's Got a Girlfriend" didn't make the Hot 100 but was still a top forty country hit. I'd say these three chart placings show reasonable notability, especially since if I had access to Canadian charts I'd probably be able to demonstrate comparable if not greater success there too. Also, the article also claims they have a reality show, which I suppose would add to notability. GassyGuy 23:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep won a major award, had a #3 charted hit, and we're still debating the deletability of this article? Kimchi.sg 02:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thank Agent86 for expanding this article. Another WP:MUSIC criterion that this article meets is that the band has released two albums under a major record label: both of their first two albums were released under the Warner Music Group startup label Giant Records. Ds093 05:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They're on a major label, as evidenced by the slick production and saccharine songwriting ~ trialsanderrors 05:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the notability criteria. 23skidoo 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong KEEP for the love of God. On a major label, have won a major award, and have charted. This is a no-brainer. --Skeezix1000 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't like it when people quote essays and guidelines without, apparently, reading them. In this case, this group meets every single reasonable standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. Captainktainer * Talk 19:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A band that's signed to a major label, has had chart hits, and has been a winner of several major music awards? Keep, no contest. I'd love to know how exactly Ardenn figures that this fails WP:MUSIC. Bearcat 04:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is stupid to even debate. --SharpkjKevin Sharp 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per others. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per precedent Dl2000 01:09, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike equipment[edit]

Clear violation of WP:NOT as information only useful in the successful execution of a video game. There is no value to this entry beyond the scope of being helpful in playing Counter-Strike. It's a game guide folks! Nick Y. 22:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Delete per nom. Isn't there some counterstrike wiki out there where all this cruft could go? Artw 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although a very quick glance suggests they have equipment articles already. BryanG(talk) 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Peta 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hargle 01:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOR - everything in here is fan-written with absolutely no citations, due to the lack of notable, third-party sources for this information. JimmyBlackwing 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 02:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, maybe transwiki to Counter-Strike wiki on Wikia if there's anything they don't have already (a quick glance suggests they have all this, but I'm throwing in the plug anyway). BryanG(talk) 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gameguide. -- GWO
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline This seems to be one the game guide side of the game guide/encyclopedic coverage of gameplay line, but it could possibly be cleaned up. I'll hold off responding a few days to see if anyone does so. Ace of Sevens 08:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete game guide and WP:NOT for those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:03, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genebase[edit]

prod was removed, nn notable company failed WP:CORP no google hits [61] Avril fan 22:25, 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 speedy delete CSD G7 author's request. Kimchi.sg 03:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loki (PyIM)[edit]

  • NN piece of software still in development. J Milburn 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is 'NN', and why is this page up for deletion after only 3 minutes of life? --Hainesc 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment NN stands for Not Notable, per Wikipedia Guidelines found here: WP:NOT Alphachimp talk 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're not a crystal ball (WP:NOT). Alphachimp talk 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but this is a valid, Existing project that should be known about. IMHO. --Hainesc 23:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Of course it should be heard about, just not here. Wikipedia is not free webhosting. Alphachimp talk 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very well. No projects in planning phase, I guess. So, at what point in development does this project become notable? --Hainesc 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • After (a) is actually exists, and (b) a lot of people know about it. Fan-1967 00:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referencing 'Not a crystal ball' philosophy, last paragraph: "Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising." Therefore I request that a carefull eye examine the page to ensure that it is not advertising (which I think is a pointless effort for a GPL'ed project). However the policy does not prohibit the existance of forward looking pages. --Hainesc 23:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "foward-looking articles" is about notable projects in development that have already attracted widespread interest, like Pirates of the Caribbean 3. This doesn't compare, so it's crystal ball. Fan-1967 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has your software been mentioned elsewhere before, regardless of whether it's still in development? No? Then you don't deserve an article here yet, sorry. Kimchi.sg 02:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean no disrespect to you when I say this, but I am fairly certain this is another mention. Quite credible as it is the proof of its existence. A Primary Source Document from a credible source [62] on this projects existence. --Hainesc 3:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because of it is not a notable piece of software yet. --Hainesc 03:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes it Speedy Delete per author's request. So tagged. Fan-1967 03:26, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Sylvester[edit]

Not notable (per WP:NN), extreme vanity (per WP:VAIN), and extensive copyvio (per WP:COPYVIO). Themindset 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as I am the nominator. Pls note that there are only 110 google hits with the name "Jimmie Sylverster" [63], of which more than half the top ten are other people (including a doctor). Themindset 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NN, Extreme vanity is right and being signed is questionable re copyvio--Nick Y. 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • deeeeelete as per nom--SweetNeo85 23:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Gramscis cousin 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 kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deep-sea gigantism[edit]

Basically I have never heard of this phenomena (as a practising marine biologist) nor have my colleagues...cold water gigantism yes but not deep water gigantism. The examples given are inappropriate as two of the species are pelagic rather than deep water per se. No references are given either Tullimonstrum 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It seems like it ought to be fixed, then, not deleted. The term is out there enough that I went to look it up. Even if the article changes to describe it as a common but inappropriate colloquialism, I think it should stay. --Masamage 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 120 GHits, many Wikipedia or wikipedia derived. I do not beleive this term is in use or represents a widely recognised phenomena. Artw 23:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Weak keep - googling further I find serval references to gigantisism in ocean floor creatures. The term deep-sea gigantism isn't always used but its seeming a lot more like a real phenomena, and if cites and references can be used to back that up I'd be all for keeping the article.
  • Provisional keep. I realize you're an expert and I'm not, but please have a look at this article in the Journal of Biogeography.--Pharos 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see I've contacted the original author requesting references - they're not around much, though. I respect Tullimonstrum's authority on this, but the article Pharos links to suggests that there may be something interesting there. If subsequent searching shows sources, splendid, otherwise deletion is probably appropriate. Also: killer picture! I hope we can use that somewhere. Ziggurat 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve the article. Please see a reference to this and the opposite phenomenon in Sciencedaily. Killer picture indeed!! (two hands to hold that bugger!) Shenme 05:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My first edit to anything wikipedia is a recommendation that this article stay (and expand). I ran across the term in Castro & Huber's college text Marine Biology (McGraw-Hill Higher Education 2005 and 2007).
And a mention in Fundamentals of Aquatic Biology ([64]). Ziggurat 06:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK more convinced now that the concept is out there Tullimonstrum 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) but the article as it stands is in no way evidence. Just goes to show. Mea culpa Ñ--Tullimonstrum 08:48, 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 was kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThouShaltNot[edit]

Lack of notability, appears to be purely promotional SweetNeo85 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the artist has a presence on Allmusic (including three albums, one of which the site reviews) and appears to be reviewed by several music publications per Google search. The label, Dancing Ferret, isn't huge but it's not too small-time either. Meets minimum requirements of WP:MUSIC. -- H·G (words/works) 23:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fair amount of touring across the US according to their website. Three albums on Dancing Ferret Discs, which seems to be a notable indie label for goth bands and electronica. One of the albums is reviewed by Ned Raggett [65]. Here's an interview with Legends Magazine [66]. --Joelmills 02:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Dancing Ferret is basically the big label for goth/industrial, and I would figure that all of their bands are notable. Phil Sandifer 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mentioned in Billboard, broadcast on Schattenreich, and remixed Alphaville. I've seen dozens of less legit band pages. --Amber388 12:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several nationwide tours, club play in the US and Europe, signed to an actual large-scale label. They've also been featured in at least two CDs distributed by the large retail chain Hot Topic. I think they've got enough notoriety to justify a page -- I don't believe this is ego-stroking or self-promo. Sly Soprano 06:07, 21 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotronics[edit]

Psychotronics was nominated for deletion on 2004-12-31. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Psychotronics.

IMHO, cannot be made into an encyclopedia-worthy article -- Writtenonsand 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears to be a longstanding but non-mainstream newage neologism with no real fixed meaning. I'd be for keeping it if it were fixed or a menaing could be nailed down, but like the niminator I doubt that it's possible. Artw
  • Keep based on previous vote for keep, even if only for historical reasons Antares33712 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs watching to keep people from turning it into a promotion of the ideas involved, but I don't agree that it cannot be made into an encyclopedia-worthy article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this doesn't seem to be an encyclopaedic. Byrgenwulf 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a jumble of uncoordinated ideas with vanishingly small encyclopaedic content. Anville 18:18, 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 CSD G7 - author's request. Kimchi.sg 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous, Never on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives[edit]

According to the talk page this page was created to stop people adding people not on the list to the list. Would appear to be entirely subjective and based on OR, delete --Peta 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second the delete, as it's too open ended. With that kind of criteria, you could rationally place Martin Bormann on the list. If you stretch the purview just a little, one could almost justify even placing John Wilkes Booth on the list, and he was a fugitive before the FBI ever existed. Pat Payne 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. -- H·G (words/works) 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote change: Speedy Delete as article's author has requested deletion. -- H·G (words/works) 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Delete as Author. The orginial autor of the data had it on the parent page. I created this page based off his information. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 23:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as deletion requested by this article's creator. -- Alias Flood 00:48, 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 was redirect to McDonald's menu items. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish McDippers[edit]

Delete: A regional dish that has been discontinued at two of the four markets it was originally launched in. It's already covered in the International section of McDonald's menu items --awh (Talk) 23:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to one of the articles where it is covered. Artw 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually, that idea makes the most sense. Didn't even think of it, sorry. I'm the one who nominated this for deletion, any way I can just can the nomination and redirect this instead? --awh (Talk) 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please avoid system bias notable foodstuff in singapore and malaysia too Yuckfoo 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually, it only seems to be Singapore now; I can find no mention of it on MacDonald's Malaysia web page. I'm not saying that this doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia; I just don't think it deserves its own page, as it's already mentioned on the McDonald's Menu Items article. --awh (Talk) 03:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to McDonald's_menu_items per Artw. Sufficiently covered there, with better context. --Kinu t/c 04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Redirect per above. PS - this doesn't need an AFD. Themindset 17:54, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Sabbatini[edit]

Autobiography of User:Msabbatini. Non-notable and only gets 521 google hits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schzmo (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete non-notable on english wikipedia. OSU80 23:30, 17 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, Bobet 23:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity article which is just a CV. Some achievements, in particular a book, but not yet notable enough. Dlyons493 Talk 00:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity and non-notable. The funny thing is that apparently this article was only edited by the subject and his mom and dad! His parents also seem to be very notable persons themselves (both have articles on Wikipedia). How odd. Maclaine 17:11, 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 keep. This AfD is being closed early in order not to feed the trolling sock and meat puppets. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Barrett[edit]

Opinions from Established Editors[edit]

  • Delete I have made my case for deletion already on the Talk page devoted to this biographical article. Kevin Barrett is a proponent of conspiracy theories about 9/11 who makes unsubstatiated claims and seeks media attention and publicity. He has no publications other than letters to the editor. He makes public appearances and appears on radio talk shows, making inflamatory claims about 9/11. The sources he cites are always within a small number of like-minded individuals who make similar claims, or write pseudo academic papers that purport to support the claims. There is nothing noteworthy about Kevin Barrett other than that he generates publicityabout himself. The Wikipedia project does not have the editorial resources to maintain articles on people like this, or to verify the accuracy of the information about them. --Metzenberg 00:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artw
  • Keep. His claims are outrageous enough to gain media attention, and indeed they have[67][68][69]. This is certainly enough to pass WP:BIO. He may be noteworthy mostly for generating publicity about himself, but the same thing could be said about Paris Hilton. -- H·G (words/works) 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep He definitely passes WP:BIO. He has been featured in national radio and national tv such as FOX News and CNN. [70] [71] National news media MSNBC have articles on Kevin Barrett. [72] It is obvious that he passes WP:BIO and this should be speedy kept. Dionyseus 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's in fact true that he has appeared multiple times in national media, the remainder of the nominator's argument is that he disagrees with Barrett's opinion.Senatorpjt 00:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reasons for not deleting are given in the nominator's introduction. All of these facts mark his notability. -- Alias Flood 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: person is notable, nominator's reasoning is orignal research and entirely subjective. --Howrealisreal 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Antares33712 01:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whew. There is alot of crazy random IP and a possible sockpuppet or two dropping in around here. However, the case for deletion is extremely shakey as this appears to be a notable crack pot that meets WP:BIO, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."[73]. Just because he shows trollish behavior does not necessarily merit behavior and it may be feeding the fire, but it seems from all accounts that this is a notable person worthy of inculsion. I disagree with the IPs and new users rationale for the most part, and I know inculsion is not an indicator of notability. However, but it appears extremly bizzarre and odd behavior sometimes merits an article. Yanksox 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure he is a nutjob, but he is a notable nutjob. Buckner 1986 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is notable because he is such a well-publicized nutjob. -- Mwalcoff 03:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My opinion is the man's off his rocker, but he's been front-page and top-story news the last two weeks in local newspapers and newscasts here in Wisconsin. Nate 03:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nutjob and crackpot? No biased labels and a return to neutrality, thanks. Instant character attacks against those whose views differ from yours is dangerous thinking. Check movement to impeach George W. Bush to understand the concerns of those regarding the criminal acts of one member of the Bush Administration. - Shiftchange 08:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't say I have a high opinion of the guy, but he seems to pass WP:BIO pretty well. Take Jack Thompson as another example of a highly controversial subject which nevertheless warrants a full article. It doesn't matter if his research is good or not, and it's not even our place to judge that; we must adhere to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. By all means, include a criticisms section, though. Luna Santin 09:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Unfortunately, I never fail to be amazed by the people who can't seem to differentiate between notability and political disagreement. Kevin Barrett is definitely notable; he has been significantly covered in recent news. Or maybe it's the case that these Orwellian thought-police do understand the difference, but hide under the notability cloak. In any case, if Wikipedia marches down the road of censored thinking, then it has outlived its usefulness. Perhaps its time for a new Wiki-based compendium of knowledge where the hurdle for deletion is much higher. Earpol 10:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable crackpot. -- GWO

Opinions from new users or anonymous users[edit]

  • I disagree with this as being appropriate for deletion. Kevin Barrett is becoming more and more like the "Cindy Sheehan" of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Sheehan started out as just an ordinary person as well, but she certainly deserves her own page now, in spite of similar criticism that she was just after publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.55.129 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep He is an educator trying to teach critical thinking at a time when it seems to be a lost art and his class actually has very little to do with 9/11. The vast majority of "unsubstantiated claims" regarding 9/11 and the War on Terror come from the U.S. government. Go watch the videos of the towers collapse at virtual freefall speed onto their own footprints and explain to me how that is possible. Listen to and read the testimony of hundeds of New Yorkers who heard multiple explosions before and after the planes hitting and explain to me how it wasn't an inside job. Wake up folks, governments lie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.35.13 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.120.8.71 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.255.217 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep it. Why not listen to what he has to say? Are we so afraid to consider the questions he brings up? What are we so afraid of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.120.38.150 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP IT I can't believe you even considered deleting it. If you delete this entry then you may as well shut down this website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.189.131.176 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep He has appeared in national media, and apparently is about to become even higher-profile, since Bill O'Reilly of FOX News was quoted as saying he'd like to see Barrett "murdered and thrown into Boston Harbor". You can agree with Barrett or not--but there is no mistaking that he passes WP:BIO with flying colors. 64.193.3.46 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is a relevant source of information on what has been established as a newsworthy person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.189.126 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep His article promotes discussion. Conspiracy is politics. All governments conspire or "plan in secret". The only real question is to what extent. As Roman judges would ask in all cases, "Qui bono?" or "who profits". Follow the money and the real crimminals will be found. Keep the article and let the truth be found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.163.0.42 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.155.185 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keepit's a keep. greg2m
  • KEEPWhat is the point of being a free encyclopedia if you are not encyclopedic? That is, you take in all viewpoints, and you engage in the free marketplace of ideas. As I read the piece, it seems quite innocuous -- you are simply reporting that he holds "conspiracy theories" and telling who he is. The problem is always, of course, that what one person calls "unsubstantiated" and "inflammatory" (see below), the next person calls "thoughtful" and "substantial." And what the mainstream calls "false" today, it might well call "true" tomorrow. Therefore, simply explaining who this man is and what he claims is definitely adding to a body of knowledge, harms no one, and gives information when someone wants to know. And THAT's a free encyclopedia.--69.85.11.68 02:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before voting, read all the nominator's comments on the discussion page. In my opinion he is unable to objectively argue his nomination. His arguments are fraught with opinion and insults. Kevin Barrett may be a flash-in-the-pan story, but I strongly believe Wikipedia should not fall victim to subjective editing. If this article should be deleted, let someone who can separate their beliefs from the subject matter re-nominate, backed-up with a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.56.150 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is proving again to be nothing but a Zionist propaganda tool. Maybe it's time for people to switch to a censorship free alternative like ZioPedia.org, an online encyclopedia that was specifically created to counter Wikipedias unqualified support for the criminal Zionist regime and its puppet US administration.--Andrew Winkler
    • I am having trouble not violating WP:NPA after reading vile shit such as this, for example, from your censorship-free alternative website. A lot of trouble... - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is not a "Coincidence Theorist", and thus deserves an entry. There are many intelligent, patriotic people , both Democrat, Republican, and Independent, who believe there are other "theories" other than what the US government has purported. I will not give my opinion on whether Wikipedia is Zionist/Neo-Con controlled, but if anything that critisizes the Us or Lsrael government is put into the eletion bin....wellll--Swamp Gas
  • Keep less notable people are in this encyclopedia. See Dwayne Wayans for example? 216.141.226.190 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia should not be used to censor "unpopular" opinion. I note also that 60% of New Yorkers surveyed do not accept the official version of the 9/11 Commission, so this hardly qualifies as unpopular, or crazy. The article is reasonable and does not attempt to make judgements on the merit of his claims, only to acknowledge the fact of it. Let's get rid of the thought police. We have enough of that in Washington and the MSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.137.6 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Contrary to the utterly unsubstantiated opinion of your editor urging deletion, Barrett’s claims are substantiated by voluminous evidentiary facts adduced and/or summarized by Scholars For 9/11 Truth. He raises crucially important issues which need to be rationally considered by citizens of the world, particularly those in the USA where this information has been politically taboo and censored by corporate media. [Ron Rattner, retired attorney] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.45.241 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep it. I haven't read the guy's work, but it seems like he'll become a very small footnote in history, the 21st century incarnation of a long line of American conspiracy theorists. So I think he ought to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honukea (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Until there is someone actually tried and convicted of the attack, ANY question as to who actually ordered (or allowed) the attacks to happen are fair and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Question Authority (talk • contribs)

General Comments[edit]

  • Comment As for your argument that the only newsworthy thing about Kevin Barrett is that he generates publicity about himself, isn't that what Ann Coulter and Paris Hilton does? You may not like Kevin or Ann or Paris, that still doesn't change the fact that they all are notable and pass WP:BIO. Dionyseus 00:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares. No one with any understanding of the way in which Wackypedia is edited and censored would consider it a serious source of information, particularly on a politically sensitive topic. Until Wikipedia names its contributors and editors and published a statement of its accounts with explicit information on all funding sources, it must be taken as a mere propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.227.181 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - I think those of you who see a conspiracy of "censorship" in this AfD nomination should note that almost all established editors here at Wikipedia have supported keeping this article. Even those of us who think very little indeed of this man and his theories believe it should stay. With that in mind, please be less quick to throw around words like "propaganda tool" and "censorship" in reference to this discussion. It doesn't help your position here. -- H·G (words/works) 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with everyone that this subject appears to meet our notability guidelines quite well and is most certainly deserving of inculsion. The only reason for the formatting was to help organize the discussion since a good deal of anon participants were altering other comments and accidently malforming the AfD. I'm glad to see people that are willing to defend the article, now I hope that they can contribute positively to the article. Yanksox 10:49, 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_17&oldid=1081095746"