Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 21 July 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 22, '06 [18:06] <freak|talk>

The Silence Kit[edit]

Not notable band. No tour info, no media cites in article. Only one album relesed. Mikeblas 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Silence this article So, so, soooo non-notable. I would argue for speedying, but the article does have claims of significance- of course, these claims are completely POV. -- Kicking222 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 48 ghits for "The Silence Kit" "new jersey". Ours is #2 on the list. Fails WP:BAND. Alphachimp talk 01:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:MUSIC -- Alias Flood 03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One album on a non-notable label, touring is all PA and NJ (home states of the band members). --Joelmills 04:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 08:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Michael 09:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Nuttah68 09:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wonderful song by Pavement from their biggest selling record, but most bands that name themselves after a song are already in some difficulty (except maybe Radiohead). Geogre 11:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 11:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn and reads like a vanity article and/or advertisement. Voice of Treason 14:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ↑ AdamBiswanger1 14:46, 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 --Pilotguy (roger that) 01:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crakon[edit]

Appears to be complete nonsense, but it's not clear enough for me to just speedy this. Prod tag was removed Xyzzyplugh 00:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. It is absolutely patent nonsense. "Litecoverians"? "Croboysteinians"? The reference to "AAH/BSW" looks familiar, like a vandal we've seen before, though I can't remember the specifics. Fan-1967 01:06, 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) 03:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Ann Cahn[edit]

Not notable. Buckner 1986 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Pressure Thirteen (talk · contribs) has created articles for countless obscure local TV personnalities. Some of which are weekend traffic reporters... I'll prod a few of these. Do they meet the speedy deletion criteria? Pascal.Tesson 06:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there's no assertion of notability, then these are A7-able. This one might be, actually. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Wrath of Roth 14:08, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Rawlins (reporter)[edit]

Not notable Buckner 1986 00:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Wrath of Roth 14:07, 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 speedy delete all as vandalism. The sockpuppets made me do it. Kimchi.sg 06:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lentil (slur), Lentil (Slur), Lentil (ethnic slur), Lentil (racial slur), Lentil (term) and Lentil (word)[edit]

Non-existent expression. Protologism or hoax, I believe Xyzzyplugh 00:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One can't help but admire such an impressive display of Sock puppetry. Note that some of them have signed the wrong names to their comments. --Xyzzyplugh 02:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both all three six articles, and all the sockpuppets who are so keen on keeping them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax -- Alias Flood 03:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i see nothing wrong.Spively 03:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that this is the same person responsible for a number of vandalisms on 9 July to Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. Both Scartchov (talk · contribs) and Spively (talk · contribs) were accounts used then. Fan-1967 03:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been a good contributor since June 2004. I have heard this term and thinks its notable, but maybe its just where I live its used. Its locally popular, although I agree Metmore doesn't exist. Probably not notable in other regions.Mr. Starchy 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with most of what's above reguarding delete, its a protologism(an unaccepted neologism in a region) and a bit of a hoax. The neologism comes out of the fact that apparently many of these 'lentil's happen to be in somewhere called "Metmore, GE", (GE is likely Georgia, (one of them) but I can't find a city or town either way) Also, I state that any article of similar terminology which the sockpuppets create should to be deleted as well, they're all the same page anyways. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. Stop using sock puppets! --Xrblsnggt 04:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, born and raised in Alabama, and I heard every slur you could imagine in the South. 433 unique Ghits, absolutely none of which seem to have anything to do with this definition. Even if it's "legit," it's certainly a neologism. -- H·G (words/works) 04:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laugh This sockpuppetry is hilarious! JianLi 04:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, fails WP:NEO and WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:08, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simcountry[edit]

Basically an ad, plus it is gamecruft Buckner 1986 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. SynergeticMaggot 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spamtastic! --Xrblsnggt 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -- Alias Flood 03:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've played this game, and it's fun if you're into this kind of thing. That said, this definitely fails WP:WEB (which I think applies more than WP:CORP in this case), and doesn't have an outstanding Alexa ranking or Ghit count (200 unique). -- H·G (words/works) 05:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pick a category. However, how can it be gamecruft when it's only one line long? Yes, I know, one line is too many. However, I always though cruft was generally used to refer to things that are in popular articles, but obscure. This is unpopular _and_ obscure. --ColourBurst 06:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:WEB, WP:CORP, and WP:NOT (since it's not a soapbox). -- Grinnblade 07:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, Unless I'm missing something in the page history, this does not seem to qualify as an advertisement. However, it also does not seem to notable enough to bother with an article. --Topkai22 11:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:How many should i name?? Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Voice of Treason 14:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Geofiction article. — Michael J 15:52, 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) 03:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire emblem sanctuary of strategy[edit]

The self-proclaimed "#1 English Fire Emblem Resource" says it all really!!! Fails WP:WEB DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 00:38, 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) 03:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo-Faust[edit]

It's a page about random type of group copied from some random text file on the internet.
 :: contact ::
00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as totally unverifiable. --DarkAudit 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as totally pointless and unverifiable. Shadow1 01:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... no If it's "copied from some random text file on the internet", it may be copyvio. Show us the text file. I wont say delete till I see proof. But the page certainly is unverifiable, just as much as the nominator's reason. MichaelBillington 01:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You misunderstand: The article says it was copied from some random text file. Fan-1967 01:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry about the confusion. Fan-1967 is correct.
     :: contact ::
    01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradiction[edit]

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - This seems to be a personal essay Neilajh 00:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • AI created the article in view of apparent need for it to exist - there was a link to it AI noticed while browsing semiotics related articles (IIRC) and it was marked red (a double bracketed term leading to non-existing article). It can surely be improved and various terms might need further explanation or maybe I lack proper scientific vocabulary for some concepts and therefore you think these are some invented or taken out of the hat terms. You stated it well - it seems to be a personal essay, just like you seem to me to be a newbie who recently read the deletion policy and is in overzealous stage. Oh,BTW - your sentence is self-contradictory - every article on Wikipedia written by a single person is a personal essay on some subject. There are new technologies appearing every day - are you going to delete articles aboot them on a notion that they constitute a description of original thought? Again, self-contradiction. Fortunately, I managed to define it, although it should be impossible by definition to define self-contradiction. I guess there is more in me than it seems to. Listen to the song "As A Child" by "Suzanne Vega" (or read the lyrics on vega.net) to get my point even harder. Milk and kisses! 01:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agquarx (talk • contribs)
    • Please read Wikipedia:No_original_research. We can have articles on new technologies, once they have been written about elsewhere in reliable sources. Wikipedia summarizes knowledge available elsewhere, we don't create anything new as that is not the purpose of an encylopedia. --Xyzzyplugh 02:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Nom is right. Fan-1967 01:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can almost hear Geogre saying "Deep Thoughts". This article cites no sources, and presents a completely idiosyncratic view of the topic. There's probably an encyclopaedia article to be had on this subject, but this most certainly is not it. Nor is it a decent stub that can be expanded. Delete and let the redlinks stand. Uncle G 01:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates Wikipedia:No_original_research --Xyzzyplugh 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now at least I know there are some people who personally cannot stand me here and will do anything to delete any content I enter - even if they are too stupid to notice that the joke is on them. There is only one way to deal with bullies - a gun. If you are collecting my articles, you must to be shot to save humanity, per your own definition - a Darwin Award. I just won't contribute and stop funding. I wonder if you will still be unable to comprehend what I wrote in ten years of technological development... Just to make you less sure of yourself, I advice you to read Antinomy and Self-reference. Oh, I have no idea to whom you are refering by "Deep Thoughts" producer, but being a jackass for no reason (yes, I do know you mean to insult me by comparing with some scape-goat, call that mind-reading. Go fuck yourself and meditate for an hour on the nature of Self-Esteem in context of In-Joke. Because I said so, simpleton. No, I don't care if you delete - I have backup and don't give a damn, except the article does explain what the term means in self-explanatory terms. I wasted too much time arguing with idiots and will now stop as you seem to me have a great experience in grabbing people to your level. When I was still playing Magic:the Gathering we called such people rules-lawyers - players who were to devote all the time in the world to argue some nonsensical ruling instead of simply playing the game. By your misguided interpretation, adding articles to Wikipedia is meant to be based on typing them out word by word from some encyclopedia printed on dead trees. And to think a British friend warned me not expect much from a thing run mostly by Americans... One more thing - how can one gather any certainty without Self-Reflexion is not it either OR. I'm going to lookup some more Self-Nomenclature as they seem to be amusing and then return to choking the bishop to a bukkake movie my lass Miranda McKennitt and John Thompson team made. You should try some Ego-Surfing sometimes - I guess it is still a dead link? How exciting! --{ A.A } 02:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. Your wikilawyering fails, so you resort to personal attacks. That'll show us. Delete and ban user. Danny Lilithborne 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article should be kept. --Xrblsnggt 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G (with an "it had to be done" nod of appreciation to Xrblsnggt). -- H·G (words/works) 05:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and POV essay, bordering on patent nonsense. --MCB 06:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- GWO
  • Keep -- GWO
My initial reaction: "What? Did he vote, and then someone else put his username?" My reaction a minute later: "Bwahahaha! That's awesome!" -- Kicking222 19:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it does look like an essay Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think we have a policy for AI-created articles, but this one is apparently OR. -- Mikeblas 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clubmarx 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, because patent nonsense contains too much information to be encyclopedic. Smerdis of Tlön 19:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this thoroughly incomprehensible lengthy turgid paragraph, without prejudice toward the future creation of a sensible article on the topic of self-contradiction, which might well be capable of supporting an encyclopedic, notable article... this just isn't one. *Dan T.* 23:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as word salad. NawlinWiki 00:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a near perfect example of word salad. I wish the author could see it for what it is. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: nonsensical word salad. — getcrunk what?! 23:52, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Voice Commands in NASCAR 06: Total Team Control[edit]

Useless gamecruft list that does nothing but rattle off a few video game commands. Major typo in the title. The introduction reads like an advertisment as well. Crabapplecove 00:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing encyclopedic about it. -- Mikeblas 01:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic, gameguide. BryanG(talk) 02:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruftabulous! --Xrblsnggt 03:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and, well, everyone else. Joe 05:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge why not?? Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clubmarx 18:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am normally in favor of merging, but I don't think this lends itself to that treatment. Erechtheus 21:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I fixed the spelling error in the name to avoid any undue prejudice. Might I suggest to future nominators that you do so before listing an article for deletion, since a misspelled title is an easy fix and not grounds for deletion. Peyna 03:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't mean to imply that I thought the title's typo was grounds for deletion. I only mentioned it since it helped serve to illustrate how ill-conceived the whole thing is. Crabapplecove 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a potential posterchild for WP:NOT, WP:Fancruft, gameguide, etc. Transwiki if someone can find a home. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I didn't even need to read the content of the article, but I did anyway and was sad. Unencyclopedic articles make Ewoks sad... Wickethewok 12:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What the hell? --Optichan 16:44, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proism[edit]

Apparently made-up "religion" based on teachings of Buddha's brother. Nonsense; very few google hits -- four for "proism budi", including this interesting one [1] which includes, Also I made the Book of Light version 3. Delete. bikeable (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is completely made up. Buddha had a half brother and his name was Nanda (Not Budi). Sounds like a cult. Whatever you do, I would not be drinking the kool aid. --Xrblsnggt 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in a search for "Proism Vancouver," exactly one relevant Ghit. Delete as neologism. -- H·G (words/works) 05:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Also deleted twice before fyi. Wickethewok 05:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a made-up hoax religion. G4 candidate? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's a slightly-modified repost, but I don't think the {{db-club}} placed on it was an appropriate reason for deletion. Let's just kill it formally this time. Kimchi.sg 06:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 09:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone being funny prehaps Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:05, 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) 03:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requiz[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neilajh 01:09, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest ball of twine[edit]

OK, this article has been around for a while now and so this may prove to be a controversial nomination, but hey-ho it's done now !! Wikipedia is not a list of indescriminate information, nor is it The Guinness Book of Records DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The introduction should be fleshed out a little but the subject is certainly notable. Crabapplecove 01:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it is a compendium of human knowledge. And if the subject of balls of twine has been discussed in multiple published works that are independent of their subjects, such as this, this, this, and this (and indeed this), then it's safe to say that the subject forms part of the corpus of human knowledge. Yes, this article cites no sources at all and that should be fixed. But deletion doesn't do that. This article is a prime example of why one should always cite sources, right from the very first edit. Articles on unusual subjects that cite sources rarely get nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. Keep. Uncle G 01:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems notable to me. HighInBC 03:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We've got the biggest balls of them all. --Xrblsnggt 04:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: They're the ones we like the best. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 05:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G.--Chaser T 05:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the biggest ball of twine thing is well known and I think it is notable enough for inclusion. However, I don't think we should have articles about the largest pie, chocolate bar and such. -- Kjkolb 05:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should if there are multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of their sources that discuss them. A common error of thinking is "If we have article on X then we may have article on Y.". Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, however, imply that Wikipedia should reflect whatever topics are extant in secondary source material. Whether a related topic has secondary source material is irrelevant if the topic at hand has none. Uncle G 08:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and maybe include in WP:UA? --Merovingian (T, C, @) 05:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to it's notability in pop culture (Weird Al Yankovic song, for example) and general notability :D Computerjoe's talk 11:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect weakly: Of all the roadside attractions and follies, this one has the best claim to requiring a solo treatment, but I should still prefer all of these uniquities discussed in a single place. If it's kept, it's not a crime. Geogre 11:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per computerjoe
  • Keep and expand. — Michael J 15:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the big ball of twine concept seems encyclopedic, if anything I have trouble with the title, which IS very "Guiness book of records", though at present I have no better suggestion. Artw 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. Erechtheus 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Uncle G. It's almost physically painful to admit, but this does appear to be encyclopedic. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge marginally noteworthy details with Twine. Not encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Records. Details about the largest ball of twine is not "part of the corpus of human knowledge". It is not really knowledge. Bwithh 06:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. This distinct Guinness Records content is more appropriate as a "see also" link from that article, which it is already.--Chaser T 08:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it is notable. The pretty much universal primary notability criterion (see WP:WEB, WP:CORP, et al.) is that something is notable if it is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works that are from sources independent of the subject itself. This topic clearly is. See the published works that I hyperlinked to earlier. (I carefully omitted works published by the owners and promoters of the various balls of twine for this very reason.) And, whilst you may think that it shouldn't be, this is something that humans know (The very last hyperlink that I gave even comments on the commonality of this knowledge.) and therefore is a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 11:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a general rule, I wouldn't expect roadside attractions to pass notability, but the biggest ball of twine i snot just another roadside attraction. It's a special case as an almost archetypical roadside attraction. -- Whpq 11:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G and Computerjoe. Definitely notable and not just another world record; I'm surprised there don't seem to be more reliable sources than those already listed, too. - makomk 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - pop culture icon. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:38, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical stress[edit]

This article is nebulous and I'm not sure it says anything. To boil it down: Ethical stress is stress from ethical problems. That seems to make "ethical stress" more a poetical term than anything. Solving problems about what is good or bad is called simply "ethics". Stress undergone from that is "stress". It does not explain how ethical stress is an exclusive type of stress, nor why ethical stress cannot be medicated, only that it can't. The article goes on to say, indirectly, that "ethical stress" is the tension of conflicting views one must have to support his well being. I think this is called cognition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel this makes the article redundant and an abstract medley of concepts jumbled together. It also lacks sources. For these reasons I submitted it for deletion. Bordello 01:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reeks of original research. Crabapplecove 01:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is tearing me up inside to have to vote this way. --Xrblsnggt 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether or not the article contains some original research--my question is, is "ethical stress" a specific concept supported by multiple researchers? Looking at some searches, it appears not. Rather, it is one form of stress, like employment stress or poverty stress or... Outriggr 04:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Not because I don't think it deserves an entry, but because it's survived for a year without significant improvement. A google search returns over 500 results, some of which are reputable media entries, and a search of GoogleScholar returns 33 results. This is weak evidence of notability in my opinion, but I'm not convinced that the WP entry for the phrase is accurate. The main subset of entries seems to be in two areas, theology and economics. If I thought there was someone shepherding this article I would change my vote to Weak Keep.--Anchoress 06:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just because it doenst have a million pages on google doesnt mean its not notable, how many new things do researches discover, everything that we know was once "not notable" ie disease and alot of mental conditions. Given time this might be a big problem or become more notable so keep. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't bring up google hits to show its non-notability, but rather its relative notability.--Anchoress 12:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, it isn't 33 ghits, it's over 500 ghits and 33 hits on google academic.--Anchoress 22:17, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic Muslims and the West[edit]

Doesn't seem to be needed. And besides, shouldn't it be Turkish, not Turkic?
 :: contact ::
01:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Turkish are citizens of Turkey. Turkic are members of an ethnic group. Fan-1967 01:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...
  • Turkic people are all the descendents of the Monglian invaders from central Asia.Turks are one among Turkic people. Eventhough the Turkic people and the Arabs are both Muslim, they have been treated very differently by the United States and the West.This article was written to highlight the good relationships between the Turkic people (who are Muslim and tthe United States and the West whereas the Arab Muslims have been demonized in the West.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie thomas (talk • contribs)
  • Delete for being pretty POV and suchlike. What's salvageable can be moved to articles which already exist on Turkic peoples and the countries in question. BigHaz 03:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article tries to deliniate the differences between how the United States has related to Turkic Muslims versus Arab Muslims.Turkic people are an ethnic group and the common ancestor of the Turkic people are the Mongolians.The Turkic people occupy lands ranging from Turkmenistan to Turkey.Turkic is not the same as Turkish .Turkish people belong to the Turkic ethnic group but not all Turkic people are Turkish.In this article I tried to explain that the relationship between Islam , the West and the United States is not black and white but is riddled with complexities.Arab Muslims have been treated very differently by the United States than the Turkic Muslims.This article is critical for a better understanding of the complex relationship of the United States to Muslims because an important area that has not received enough attention is highlighted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie thomas (talk • contribs)
Comment all of which is very useful, but more than a little POV. There are detailed articles on each of the Turkic populations with their own country and usable ones on those without, which is where I'd suggest this information belongs. Additionally, the page currently has the Chechens as Turkic, which they are not (although I'll fix that immediately I finish typing this). BigHaz 03:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete unsourced, POV. The first paragraph (which is the only part that should be retained if this discussion closes with a keep) could be merged into, say, Turkic Muslims or similar, and the rest is just stereotyping. Kimchi.sg 04:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced, fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply impossible to write a non-Point Of View article about the relationship between an ethnic group spread over several countries and the many governments that make up the rather hazily-defined "West".Vizjim 13:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being original research. In spite of the creator's good intentions, treating all Turkic muslims as one diffuse mass, as the article does, is meaningless. --LambiamTalk 19:29, 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 hoax. DS 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Simon[edit]

Questionable notability, no sources for claims. Submitting to AfD for community feedback. --Alan Au 01:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The claims of notability all look like nonsense to me, no record of them in a google search. No record of "Palestinian-Israeli Moderation and Peace Association". The "popular website" that he supposedly founded has no alexa ranking and no content and contains just some spam links. --Xyzzyplugh 01:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weasely vanity article --Xrblsnggt 04:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, and WP:WEASEL. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Massmato 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense hoax. NawlinWiki 03:14, 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 merge with Nuclear Death.  RasputinAXP  c 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Planet Cachexial[edit]

Not as controversial as some of my other nominations (I think !!!) Fails WP:MUSIC and if it is a WP:HOAX then it is one of the better efforts I've seen ! 10 ghits DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 02:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Maybe it has something to do with the record label ... Cat`s Meow Records ... possibly the record label was screwing them ??? DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to guess that the author meant something else by it. (I hope.) Fan-1967 05:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think it's something related to the band, as there is also this DVD: Nuclear Bestiality. Maybe they thought the word sounded funny... -- Koffieyahoo 07:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as non-notable album by only slightly-notable band, mention it in the band's article and be done with it. -- H·G (words/works) 05:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: Getting any album to have a solo article was a big VfD fight. Then it was "significant cultural milestones like Let it Bleed." Then hordes of small albums by routine bands began forming a queue to come through the door. The point is that albums are not automatically individual articles. It's closer to the other way. Each article has to give us reasons for its existence, must make its claims, and albums are no different. This one fails. Geogre 11:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder, has anyone brought up the fact that the project page at WP:ALBUM contains no notability standards? How is an editor to know what albums are considered acceptable for articles? When you add in all of the information laid out in the project (track listing, personnel, etc), any album article is going to look odd inserted in the middle of the band's article. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:14, 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 spam. DS 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Agency Short-Term Securities[edit]

Delete This is nothing but an ad, and has been for over a year. Until someone with the know-how is willing to make a real article, I think it'll be better if we just remove this ad from the servers. MonsieurKovacs 02:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Truly shameless. Do they have a marketing class called How to SPAM Wikipedia? --Xrblsnggt 04:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with long term fire. --Brad101 04:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam Computerjoe's talk 11:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:30, 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. Mostly Rainy 10:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of matinee idols[edit]

Entirely subjective, unverifiable list. MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it might just have been a term bandied around a bit some years ago, but I'm reasonably certain that "maintee idol" was a legitimate descriptive term of a group of actors. With that in mind, this list could prove verifiable etc. BigHaz 03:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Matinee idol if the list ever grows too large then it can be broken out seperately. --Brad101 04:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per MichaelZimmer. -- Kjkolb 05:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is legit, but the article on matinee idol is short enough that the list need not be broken off. Merge to matinee idol. GassyGuy 10:32, 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) 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Shopsowitz[edit]

Fails WP:BIO ... I can't see anything in the article that claims to assert ay notability 0 ghits DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 02:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and corned beef on rye; extra pickle. --Brad101 04:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and hold the pickle. SynergeticMaggot 08:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the Shopsowitz name carries on in a brand of deli meats, Shopsy's. See also [2] -- Koffieyahoo 08:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unlink from the extant Shopsies article. This article has to make its own claims for validity, and it fails to do so. It simply offers us a person who ran a deli, and that is insufficient. Geogre 11:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The person isn't notable. What they did is questionably notable. An article about the deli and or the meats might stand a better chance of survival, but I doubt it. Peyna 03:07, 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 speedy delete A6 (Attack Page).

List of Israeli Massacres[edit]

Someone's poorly spelled and unoriginal personal opinions at a title that's totally unsalvageable. Opabinia regalis 02:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Totally unsourced and POV. Strong delete, could even be speedied. -David Schaich 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is with the uptick in middle-east POV these days. Is this some kind of PR campaign? --Xrblsnggt 04:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per David Schaich. There are articles covering the current conflict without nearly so much POV. -- H·G (words/works) 05:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, big time POV. Fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Medtopic 05:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Obviously anti-semetic hate mongering propaganda. Buckner 1986 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is scurrilous and libellous to assume that all opposition to Israel is anti-semitic. Piccadilly 17:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - please be very careful with words like libelous, and I don't mean your spelling. One of the easiest ways to earn a block is violating WP:NLT. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unfortunately to keep seeing these types of unsourced and terribly PoV propaganda popping up on WP. "Wikipedia is not a soap-box" and all that. The topic of wholesale massacres is already covered by list of massacres, so my preference is delete. — RJH (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as extreme POV. Unfortunately, I can't find any wp:csd criteria that fit otherwise I would have speedied it. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- upon further consideration, I realize that CSD A6 applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:29, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Eric Blackington[edit]

  • THE DEFENSE RESTS - I've already spent more than enough time outlining the arguments for keeping the article, so this is my final post. Like I said at the onset of this discussion, I was just attempting to share... and having an article is not important to me in the grand scheme of things. When I decided to write a Wikipedia article on myself, I was under false assumptions that wikipedia was a lot freer than I had initially thought. Everyone has done a good job of disillusioning me, and I now have a much more accurate view of wikipedia. Anyway, all my points are listed in the lengthy debate below, and I have added verifiable footnotes to the article, per request of the posters. All that needs to be done now is for someone to make the final decision for or against deleting because I know it's not MY responsibility. I want to thank all the posters who sincerely tried to help improve the quality of this article as opposed to just judging and leaving. So, whoever has been elected the final judge, it's time to make a final decision. Thank you for giving the article more than enough time to list all the arguments for consideration.
  • ATTENTION: I just added footnotes to the article per WP:AUTO's suggestion at the bottom which would prefer verifiability through a self-published website than no verifiability at all. So, it now should coincide with the first 2 mandatory policies of neutrality & verifiability. I discussed the 3rd original research policy at the very end of this article. Do a keyword search for 'physics cranks' to read it. Thanks. Dave925 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A website creator, fails WP:BIO -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know, I don't really care if it's deleted. I just thought I would try to tell you I exist, and I have had (and continue to have) noteworthy accomplishments in my life (as were stated in the biography). Wikipedia seems a bit different than it was when it started way back when as an "ideal." I believe any individual in the world should be able to tell their story to the world whether or not they have had noteworthy accomplishments or not. Notewrothy is a serious judgment call, and who is the judge? The Media? How much money you have made? No. Is wikipedia low on disk space or something? Are they worried that when you type in "Albert Einstein" you will get 500 different names and won't be able to figure out which one is the famous guy? How many other "David Eric Blackingtons" are in the world? Is this article really going to CLUTTTER up the category of other David Eric Blackingtons? Does wikipedia not have enough diskspace for everyone in the world to write their autobiography? I agree you should require a full name including middle in order to prevent the cluttered search results, though. Furthermore, website creators do meet the criteria for verifiability because you can just go to that website and look at what they are doing. If you feel the website is noteworthy, unique, newsworthy, then so be it. For profit websites should, I agree, be held up to higher standards for noteworthiness. It's really a difficult decision to be made based upon the "free" philosophy that wikipedia was founded upon. I guess as time goes on, the standards become stricter and stricter until wikipedia can just be renamed "Encyclopedia Britannica!" It just sounds a bit funny that a "free encyclopedia" would be judging whether a person's life is NOTEWORTHY to be read about by the general public. No large online dispenser of information ever wants to be in the business of being the FIRST to publish a person's life story, do they? Oh, let someone else do it. We don't want to hear about it. But wasn't that one of the reasons for the start of wikipedia? The idea was for the entire world to log on and tell their story and help write about things they know about. If you don't give people a chance to write their story, 99% of the lives of a person will go unnoticed because YOU say they are not notable. Why not let them tell their story and THE PUBLIC will decide whether or not they want to read about them or not. Just like you have a button to change the channel on the TV, you have the power to type in a different name in the search engine if you don't feel like reading about the one and only David Eric Blackington in the world. -- Dave925 (talk) 9:42PM, 21 July 2006 (PST)
You know, I don't really care if it's deleted. I just thought I would try to tell you I exist

Not even an original thought ... War Is Kind and Other Lines (1899)

A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."

-Stephen Crane
Daniel Case 03:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, we're only applying current policy here. If you think that WP policy should be changed so that "non-notability" does not exist, you should bring up the issue at the appropriate level. For now... this content should be moved to your own user page. Delete.EuroSong talk 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I went to the notable page, and it says the criteria is controversial. So, it sounds like you can be free to make up your own mind about the use of that criteria.Dave925
  • Keep Many people like Dave are feeling rejected to tell their own story here in Wikipedia. That's why AntiWikipedia opposes to this ideology of "What is notable" and "What is not notable". I didn't know we were in a popularity contest here. Still I took the liberty of adding Dave's article to the AntiWikipedia which is a place where everyone can exist and no one has to be right about anything.24.90.233.29 20:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why AntiWikipedia is not Wikipedia. The goal is to be an encyclopedia, and part of that means discriminating about what material is worth including and what isn't. Peyna 03:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. Article is also totally unsourced, hence unverifiable. This discussion is an example of THE PUBLIC [deciding] whether or not they want to read about [you] or not. Kimchi.sg 05:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The disagreement is mostly philosophical, and over the years a general consensus has been reached that Wikipedia can't be the central server for knowledge of EVERYTHING. That would make it bigger than the Internet, in every sense possible. I agree wholeheartedly that everyone should be able to tell their story in some way, but Wikipedia really isn't the place for it--it's not a central directory of the Internet. Dave925, there are tons of web services out there that let you have a free web page to tell your story on your own terms, and I hope you find one that suits you and your designs. -- H·G (words/works) 05:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per concerns above about verifiability and notability.--Chaser T 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save, per Wales philosophy. Quote from the wikipedia article of the founder of Wikipedia: Wales explained the purpose of Wikipedia by saying, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."[19] Furthermore, THE PUBLIC constitutes how many people? Are you being paid to review wikipedia articles? Or do you just have time to kill and just decide to mark a zillion articles for deletion because you don't care to read about them? Personally, I don't have time to criticize other people's lives. I'm sure there are a lot of other people's lives which other people would consider noteworthy which you would care less about. I say have a libertarian "live & let live" philosophy like Wales suggested when he founded wikipedia. Believe it or not, the "sum of all human knowledge" also includes the knowledge I am offering to the public with my metaphysical research. If you delete the article, you will be depriving people of "the sum of all human knowledge" which Wales wanted to offer people.
  • Save, Unsourced? Actually, any idiot can figure out if they go to the external link whether or not I am legit. It >IS< verifiable knowledge which I'm offering the public. In terms of the biography, what better source would you need than the horse's mouth? Are you going to ask my Mom if I won the Gold Medal in the Nutmeg State Games in 1990? Well, the results were actually published in a local newspaper, but no one in their right mind would want to know the name of the newspaper. Even if I was to cite that newspaper, are you really going to go check up on my source to verify my name is listed under the winners? What's a reliable source that I was born in Tolland, Connecticut? Do you want me to cite the Tolland Town Hall or something? Do you want me to upload a copy of my birth certificate? What's a reliable source I received an award for being ranked #1 in my college class? How about the college? You can call and talk to them, if you don't believe me. The fact is, LOTS of KNOWLEDGE goes unpublished. Wales knew this, and this is why he created wikipedia. His intention wasn't to bar all knowledge that was never published. His idea was for humans to have access to the "total sum of all human knowledge." He didn't say "previously published knowledge." Believe it or not, there are a lot of bits of human knowledge that go unpublished. In fact, probably at least 50% of the human knowledge base is unpublished knowledge. Dave925 10:23PM, 21 July 2006 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.73.186 (talk • contribs)
    • It is not the job of an encyclopedia to collect unverifiable information, even if it were true. Other Reliable sources must have mentioned it first. Geocities, Myspace or Blogger would be a better place for unverifiable information. Lastly, duplicating your "Saves" won't increase this article's chance of survival. Kimchi.sg 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the name, date, author, and title of the newspaper article is exactly what we want. Uncle G 08:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite (or because of) entertaining, Mary Katherine Gallagher-esque rants. Daniel Case 05:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PSI wasn't trying to duplicate "Saves".... I was trying to indent underneath and realized I would need to include another save to indent.Dave925 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, like it says in the deletion policies... this isn't a vote, It is a discussion. When does the voting start? And who makes the ultimate decision about whether I'm noteworthy knowledge in the total sum of all human knowledge? Dave925 10:53PM, 21 July 2006 (PST— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.73.186 (talk • contribs)
    • Voting never starts, this is a consensus of the community. Kevin_b_er 06:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course lots of knoledge goes unpublished. What my grandmother did on thursdays at 6 PM (likely TV) is part of what wikipedia is not, which is an indescriminate collection of information. Also, sources are not just sources, they are reputable sources(ie, not myspace, as kimchi.sg puts it well). This is vanity, the classic WP:BIO cite, and, in the end, unverifable by reputable sources. Kevin_b_er 06:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. I'm quite surprised no-one has suggested userfying this before now. There would be nothing wrong with this being a subpage of Dave925's user page. But it's not notable enough to belong in article space. Grutness...wha? 06:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, in terms of articles on wikipedia, I have seen a lot worse which haven't been marked for deletion. For example, take a look at Daniel Baier's article. If you compare this 3 sentence biography (with no photos, no sources, and very little information) to my article... honestly, which would you rather read? Tell me how Daniel's article is a great deal better than mine? And how is his life more noteworthy? The fact is, different people have different standards of whether something is noteworthy, so there are articles which get approved which others would not approve. I'm sure there are articles which never got flagged for deletion which are worse than mine. Dave925 11:25pm, 21 July 2006 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.73.186 (talk • contribs)
    • Then you flag them for deletion. Just because other non-notable articles exist is no reason for keeping one. As for the example you cited, that is a footballer in a major German team and almost certainly has been mentioned in the media before. Lastly, and for the final time, please stop putting "'''Save'''" before your comments. To learn how to properly indent comments, read Help:Editing before making your next reply. Kimchi.sg 07:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yea, I forgot, media rules the world of human knowledge. Obviously, Wales' ideal is not going to go anywhere if he is hiring people with narrow minds. I vote that any human being who makes a good intentioned attempt to write their autobiography is given a chance to be heard on wikipedia. Onless, of course, you know of a webite that is already organizing legitimate attempts to share their life story. Is there a website out there called biography.com or maybe even wikibiography.com which houses real attempts of possibly "normal" people who are writing their biographies? (Believe me, I'm not considered "normal" by most, and I may even be considered noteworthy by some!) The good thing about wikipedia is you can just click on a birthdate, and it will give you a list of other people who were born on that day. You can then see what their professed occupations are and listen to what other people's lives are like who share your birthday. But, if someone comes online and starts a file with their name and says, "Today I went to the store and bought ice cream. It was good. Peace out!," this is obviously not an legitimate attempt to write your autobiography and noteworthy accomplishments. Again, noteworthy to me, may not be noteworthy to you, or noteworthy to someone else. If the media is used as a measure of noteworthiness, I can't imagine what type of society we will end up becoming (oh, don't tell me this has already happened? ;) Dave925 12:17am, 22 July 2006 (PST)
      • You don't seem to have thought of Blogger, Myspace and Geocities which do exactly what you want - host biographies for free. We have standards for biographies, so stop throwing the subjectivity card around. Your comment have, so far, made no attempt to assess yourself fairly by our standards. Kimchi.sg 07:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are no standards on those websites. People can write anything. Yet, the standards here are obviously no less strict than Britannica. You need to loosen up, or they need to create some standards of how to write a biography.Dave925— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.73.186 (talk • contribs)
          • Arguments that we should change the goals of the entire project just to suit you will not be well received. Wikipedia is not a primary source. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. If you want a web site for publishing primary source material, which is what an autobiography based upon firsthand knowledge is, please look elsewhere. You have been told about several possibilities. Your statement that we are serious about our standards is a compliment, by the way. Uncle G 08:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd say it's time to change wiki's slogan to something other than the "free" encyclopedia. It's almost as much of a joke as calling the United States a "free nation." It's misleading. False advertising. It might be freer than some encyclopedias which don't really have a forum to argue inclusion, but it's bluntly obvious it is far from free. You might consider changing the title to Mediapedia because of your incessant need to appeal to the media to justify an article as worthy human knowledge. Also, my biography isn't a primary source. My website is the primary source which verifies the existence of unique metaphysical knowledge which is being offered to the public free of charge. It may not be of interest to you or john q public, but it may be of interest to the metaphysically-minded minority. If you're going to discriminate against all the metaphysically-minded users of wikipedia by not providing the "sum total of human knowledge" in the field of metaphysics, then so be it. Ask yourself another question. How many other metaphysical reasearch websites can you find in search engines on the net? Unique? I'd say so. In fact, I believe you should start a new article on metaphysical research and provide external links to those websites which are currently "on the case" and publishing real findings free for people to read. You can create a separate category entitled "metaphysical investigators," just like you have created a category entitled, "astrologers." Either way, whether it is now or later, this information will become part of wikipedia under some category, believe it or not. Dave925— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.73.186 (talk • contribs)
      • I'd say it's time to change wiki's slogan to something other than the "free" encyclopedia. It's almost as much of a joke as calling the United States a "free nation." How many times do we have to say this? "Wikipedia is not an experiment in Internet democracy. It is a project to create an online encyclopedia." Quod erat demonstrandum. Daniel Case 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the logical flaws in your argument is that Jimbo "hires" administrators. This is simply not the case; they are promoted by and only by community consensus. They are awarded a certain degree of trust from fellow editors. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 07:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Concensus? Oh, you mean themasses? I understand now. I'll mention that to Galileo next time I talk to him about the sum total of human knowledge. You're the type of people who would not mention a word about the world being round UNTIL some "reliable source" told you so. What you consider a "reliable source" is just like what you consider "noteworthy" or not. It is all subjective and based upon themasses consensus. That's why it took so long to figure out that Galileo was actually right-on! Yea, the sum of human knowledge. That's what wikipedia is about! ;) Remember, minds are like parachutes, they only function when they are open -- Dave925— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.73.186 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Utterly insignificant, -- GWO
  • Delete per nom, also WP:VAIN. Tychocat 09:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What, about the biography of this person, makes this life one that others are either curious about or that they need to be curious about to understand the world? There is no deferred rationale, in my opinion. Were the website the most popular among Deists, let's say, that would not mean that the person who created it is sufficiently famous or culturally significant to require a biography. What about this biography suggests that the person is old enough to be discussed? Delete as a vanity article and as making insufficient claim for notability. Geogre 11:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the many and wide-ranging arguments of Dave925, which demonstrate clearly that the article falls foul of WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. Vizjim 13:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Massmato 15:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Believe it or not, there are a lot of bits of human knowledge that go unpublished. Let's keep it that way for this one. --Kinu t/c 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability in not notable - Let me explain how notability is not a valid criteria to judge an article. I believe it already says this under the controversial discussion of this criteria, but let me reemphasize with an example of why. If I start a new article and entitle it "John Q Public" and then begin writing my blog, what is wrong with this scenario? I'll tell you what's wrong. The STRUCTURE. It is not consistent with what the structure of an encyclopedia article would be. Wales' idea (I surmise) was not to DISCRIMINATE against the noteworthiness of people's lives, but it was merely to ensure wikipedia was organized with the correct encyclopedic structure and articles were listed in the proper categories. Then, Wales would only need to type in "John Q Public" and read what an encyclopedia would say about his life (if he was ALLOWED in the TRADITIONAL encyclopedia). Wales would not want to type in a person's name and get their blog because that is not what encyclopedia's do. Encyclopedias include biographies of people's lives, and up until today, they have all been judged as noteable by virtue of POPULARITY. I don't believe that Wales' idea of a free encyclopedia had anything to do with POPULARITY or NOTEABILITY, but I think he would have liked articles to have the correct encyclopedia STRUCTURE, be ORGANIZED, and have the correct TITLES so people reasonably know what to expect of the content of the article before clicking on it. Again, a person wouldn't expect to get a person's blog when they click on an encyclopedia article with the person's name. However, I don't see anything wrong with providing external links to their blog just in case that person was intersted in further nonencyclopedic information about the person. So, if biographies are going to be included in wikipedia (notable or not), they should have basic encyclopedic information about the person like when/where they were born, where they grew up, their notable accomplishments... stuff you would see in an encyclopedia IF they were considered a notable person.Dave925 9:58am 7/22/06
  • Furthermore, if people are so dead-set on having only Britannica-level information/biographies in wikipedia's search results, instead of trying to keep out 'non-notables,' you could provide a separate search box to search the entire wikipedia knowledge base which would include all your college professor's biographies and the serious biographical attempts of your next door neighbor who works at your local department store. This way, if you come to wikipedia to only read Britannica-status articles, you can use the 'notable-only' search box.... whereas if you want to search the entire "sum of human knowledge" which Wales initially dreamed about, you could select the "sum of human knowledge" box which would include access to the knowledge which less notables may be able to provide.Dave925 9:58am 7/22/06
  • Delete vanity page. Also the website hurts my eyes. JChap (talk • contribs) 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Artw 21:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Otherwise I would like my own article, please. ... discospinster talk 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I believe everyone should be able to write their own encyclopedia article on their life as long as it's a legitimate attempt to write an encyclopedia article on yourself. Again, you need to include pertinent information that you would find in an encyclopedia article on a person, and THEN, and ONLY THEN, should you be able to provide your external links. If someone creates a page with their name and writes "Hi, my name is John, come visit my website at www.mywebsite.com, peace out!" Obviously, this warrant's nomination for deletion in order to urge the author to conform to the basic standards/structure of an encyclopedia article. If you are not familiar with the type of encyclopedic information to include in your biography, you can consult an professional level biography article in any local encyclopedia.
    • If you're going to judge anyone's encyclopedia article, I would hope it would be judged upon whether or not the content and structure coincides with what you might find in an encyclopedia article >IF< the person was noteworthy. The criteria of being popular, in the media, or considered 'noteworthy' by your fellow peers should not be a relevant argument for deletion. Questions like, Is the person trying to write a professional encyclopedia article on themselves? or, if you came down from another planet, would the structure/content of their article APPEAR like they are an unnoteworthy person? For example, if I created an encyclopedia article under my name and just started writing unencyclopedic information (like blogging or whatever), the person coming from another planet would notice that the structure/content of my article doesn't seem to fit in with the other encyclopedia articles.
    • Either that, or I vote for wikibiography.com where people can go and read EVERYONE'S professional biography as opposed to just the people who happen to win a popularity contest in our society. Furthermore, just because someone is popular doesn't necessarily mean they are 'noteworthy.' There are a lot of unpopular people out there who have a lot of noteworthy accomplishments and knowledge to share with the world. Remember, everyone is your superior in some aspect of life, and we can learn something from them (or their lives). Noteworthy does not mean popular. Noteworthy means you don't start an article under your name and start telling us your favorite color, favorite singer, and favorite sport without clarifying the relevance of these statements with noteworthy accomplishments which tie into these statements. For example, you can say, "John's favorite sport growing up with Basketball, and he went on to become the captain of his college team at Harvard Unverisity and win most valuable player award in 1993." He may not be that popular, but he still has had some noteworthy accomplishments which appear relevant to mention in an encyclopedia article under his name.Dave925 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Er, I wasn't serious. ... discospinster talk 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. The author - and repeated poster in this AfD - seems to misunderstand the fundamental concept of an encyclopedia as well as what does (and does not) constitute bias. Although Wikipedia's goal have been sloganized as being "the sum of all human knowledge", there is plenty of "human knowledge" that will be forever outside the realm of Wikipedia. There are no shortage of other Internet outlets that do not have the standards and restrictions that Wikipedia does; they are not encyclopedias. Serpent's Choice 03:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repeated poster? How are you supposed to have a discussion without repeatedly posting? Isn't that the word on the tab? Discussion. Never mind, don't answer that. It's clear from your "strength of conviction" that your mind was made up before you even read the first word of this discussion. Furthermore, who in their right mind would trust a Serpent's opinion, anyway? I'm sure you're familiar with the reputation of the Serpent. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish when you chose your userid. What's in a name? A name is pretty important, and it should be choosen wisely. It gives people an immediate first impression which can influence people's perception of your credibility Dave925 09:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I read this entire discussion prior to posting. I'm quite willing to change my mind regarding entries in Wikipedia, based entirely by fact-based arguments centered around Wikipedia's policies and, to a lesser extent, its guidelines. In fact, I've been an increasingly vocal participant in the discussion of an article whose topic I personally disagree with completely, because that is what is asked of me by policy and guideline. This entry, on the other hand, does not meet the standards set in those policies and guidelines. Specifically, under WP:WINAD, "Biography articles should only be given for people with some sort of achievement. A good measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources." This is clarified in the guideline WP:BIO. Is it possible they are wrong? Yes, it is. Policies and guidelines have changed substantially over the history of this encyclopedia's existence. But an AfD isn't the place to argue policy. If you really want to try to sway the community, the place to do so is on the discussion pages of the policies that are almost certainly going to lead to this page's deletion -- and not here. But, as a word of wisdom, if you fashion yourself Sisyphus and wish to attempt that task, borderline-attacks on other users based on your biased point of view regarding their userids is going to get you sanction, not discussion. Serpent's Choice 12:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - not notable, but feel free to slap it on the user page like many others. -- Whpq 12:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is a controversial GUIDELINE, not a policy. Plus, it says right on that page that it shouldn't be used as a criteria for deletion in itself. Notability is not the criteria anyone should mention to a new comer at the start of an argument for deletion. It should only be mentioned in passing or at the very end to add a "nail in their coffin," so to speak (for lack of a better way to phrase it). Dave925 11:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it doesn't belong in a TRADITIONAL encyclopedia, but I thought wikipedia was supposed to be more free and open. After all, isn't it's slogan "The Free Encyclopedia"? I'm quite certain it doesn't say "the encyclopedia that everyone is used to."
  • Comment - I just thought of yet another reason to allow non-notables to write encyclopedia articles on themselves. Literary Incentive. In other words, if wikipedia does allow non-notables in their "exclusive group," it will encourage more people in the world to sit down and share their story with the world. It actually may even encourage some people to get off their butts and accomplish something in their life, so they can put it in their article! Ever think of that? The world will publish your accomplishments if you have them. Verifiability won't be a large problem because people would question anyone who claimed to have accomplished something REALLY noteworthy. Furthermore, the REALLY noteworthy accomplishments of people tend to be caught by the media, anyway. And, as far as I'm concerned, the ideal would be to get every person in the world to sit down and write their biographies. Wouldn't that be fascinating to be able to read encyclopedia articles on that many people? And, again, we are talking about serious encyclopedia articles where they have the content & structure akin to that of a professional level article. Imagine clicking on your birthday in wikipedia and getting a list of people born on that day who wrote their own encyclopedia article? Remember, only .27% of the population are born on your birthday, so this would represent a quite unique sample of individuals. I'm always curious to see what type of people my birthday is producing (in general). You might even find articles written on people born on your specific DATE of birth which is usually only a handful of people (considering most don't have the patience to sit down and write their story, anyway). Aren't you at all curious what your birthmates are up to? A person is lucky to find ONE famous person who was born on their full birthdate, so it would be nice to have a few more than just one person to read about who shares your full birthdate, don't you think? Even if you aren't into the birthday scene, having access to all those biographies would be quite amazing, eh? I don't know of any other service on the net which is in the business of organizing encyclopedia-style biographies on every individual. As far as I know, no other webspace has standards for structure & content, so visiting a person's myspace page is usually far from informative compared to if we compelled people to adhere to encyclopedic standards for writing their biographies. For example, in 8th grade, our English teacher asked the class to write their biography. They required we follow a particular structure, and we were graded on whether or not we followed it. I'm sure everyone who contributed on this talk page would help our users in writing their encyclopedia article correctly/professionally if they see people going astray. But, to simply not include them because they are considered "not notable" is, to me, a serious mistake if they are actually making a ernest attempt to write a well structured article under their full legal name with encyclopedic content.Dave925 09:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dave, frankly none of your arguments to this point have been persuasive. This article unambigiously fails many of our policies and guidelines and will be deleted for that reason. Specifically, this article fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, and WP:NOR (your latest addition about something said by your prof.). You're not going to win this one by arguing with us about notability. That fight's been fought. The best you can do read our objections above about serious problems this article has with numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines and try to fix the problems. Just try not to violate WP:ANNOY while you're at it, please.--Chaser T 09:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I'm always open to suggestions, by all means. In addition, I just found out that Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. I don't know how many users are new on this talk page, but very few people on this talk page have read this policy. I think most of the users on this talk page are still stuck in the "be bold" philosophy which is only supposed to apply to NEW comers, according to policy. The more experienced you are with wikipedia (if I read the policy correctly), the kinder & gentler you are supposed to be with your words and suggestions. In fact, the problems which people keep noting in this discussion don't really come with any suggestions for rewriting or reprhasing. They just say "DELETE" and then don't have time to explain how it can be improved. Of course, if they don't want to see my face in the enyclopedia, why would they try to help me, anyway? Right? If you need me to put a footnote on my birthdate and tell you where I got the information, I will. As to whether you consider my source reliable is another story, and also a value-judgment call. So, so far, the criteria of notability and reliability are value-judgments. And I'm also noticing that a lot of the links people provide are GUIDELINES, not policies. There is a difference between a guideline and a policy. As far as I read, the "strict policy" is for everyone to be nice to new comers, all those links which you provided me to read are merely guidelines. No, it doesn't mean you can disregard them or they don't mean anything, but it also means not to apply them too strictly. Be a little loose, friendly, lighten up... all these things are in the tradition of what I have read about Jimbo's philosophy.
        • I can see that you're upset about this, Dave. But you really lose me with "I don't know how many users are new on this talk page, but very few people on this talk page have read this policy." First, you can click on their user names and look at their contributions to see just how new they are ... or aren't. Second, if you go to the main AFD listings and see just how often these policies are cited and linked to (including WP:BITE, which you tried to link to above) by people who can quote the criteria listed on them off the tops of their heads.
        • If you weren't so new here, I would consider the insult to our intelligence implied by that argument to be a personal attack. But since you are, let me just say it more directly: You're a minnow trying to jump with the sharks and whales as far as your efforts to interpret Wikipedia deletion policy in your favor are concerned. During his legal career, my father once told me of a conversation with an appellate judge he was acquainted with. The judge had many years on the bench, and was often amused when neophyte lawyers would come before him trying to win their cases on some novel legal theory or interpretation. "I know the law," my father recalls him saying. "Stick to the facts of your case if you want to win." You would do well to consider this story and follow the same advice. Proving notability to our standards is about the only way I have ever seen anyone convince us to keep an article they're fond of (welll, once I translated an article from French and that worked, too). Trying to convince us to completely jettison several years and thousands of deletion debates just to accomodate your ego is most definitely the wrong way to do this.
        • This "it's just a flesh wound" attitude of yours has grown tiresome. Considering that this entire debate will be archived forever once it's over, do you really want a prospective employer or client to see you engaging in such pointless and self-destructive arguments when they Google on your name? Please think about this, for your own sake if no one else's. Daniel Case 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jimbo also states that the primary motivation for the policy for 'original research' was to keep out people who publish theories on wikipedia that haven't been published. As you can see by my article, I'm not a physics crank, and I'm not posting theories which haven't been already published. The only other two strict policies which are outlined are neutrality & verifiability. It says on the WP:AUTO page that you can use your own website to verify personal information about one's self as long as it's not grossly self-promoting. They also mention notability, but the whole notability guideline is NOT a policy, so lacking notability doesn't automatically mean 'delete.' So, as far as I can see, the only thing I can do to help the article is to publish my personal information on my website and add a footnote to that link. Right?
      • As for Jimbo's idea about people being written about by other people if they are notable, I don't think this is always true. There are notable people who are not being written about, and SHOULD publish their autobiography. To me, that's called sharing. Sharing is a valued concept in my book. There's a fine line between sharing yourself and vanity, but being stingy with yourself, to me, is just as bad as being vain. In fact, those people who WON'T share themselves with the world by composing their encyclopedic article for everyone to read are just as vain as the ones who MUST. It is the balanced people who are not the vain ones. The people who aren't over zealous about NEEDING to be known and are also not too stingy to the point where they want to keep every single detail of their life to themselves. The very first words out of my mouth when I heard someone nominated my life story to be deleted was... well, you can scroll back up to the top of this talk page and read them. And, yes, I do mean it. Whoever has the power to delete my article, if they don't like it, I'm fine with that. All I was trying to do was to share my life because I thought sharing was a worthy value to have. Believe me, it wasn't a vain attempt for me to share, and I would never want to be part of a group who does not want me as a member.
      • So, if you don't want me in your book, I will take that as a hint that you don't appreciate what I have to offer. However, I still would say it's a value-judgment. Like Jimbo says, what matters are factual-judgments such as neutrality & verifiability. As far as I can see, the article is written in a neutral tone, and I can make the personal information verifiable by publishing it on my website (per WP:AUTO)... and, lastly, the original research policy was designed to keep out crank theorists, and everyone can see I didn't publish any theories in the article, so no one has to worry to much about that. If you insist I run down the name, date, & author of the newspaper which publishes my name as the winner of the Gold Medal, I will. Of course, I know no one in their right mind would spend time to check this reference, anyway, so I could just approximate from memory and no one would know the difference, right? It was a local newspaper, and it was published in July 1990... probably the Journal Inquirer or Hartford Courant. But, this really is a non-issue because isn't it common knowledge where one would find a list of the winners of a state olympics? I think an 8th grader could figure that one out, don't you think? I don't think it's necessary to cite your sources when an 8th grader would know where to find that information, anyway. Now, if I was writing highly technical information or assertions... yes, I would need to show people where they are published. I think it's ok to use a LITTLE common sense as opposed to being blinded by a hard & fast policy. Dave925 11:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, in a nutshell, when one of Jimbo Wales' statements agrees with your beliefs he's right, and when he diverges from your beliefs he's wrong? You still haven't exaplained why this article doesn't fall foul of WP:AUTO, or WP:VAIN, by the way. Vizjim 13:53, 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 No Consensus. Paul Cyr 03:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and animal rights[edit]

Delete (changed to Move/Merge see my comment further down) Insufficient material to justify an article. The few paragraphs seems to be culled from a single work. POV, whether or not Israel is "one of the most progressive nations in the world when it comes to animal rights" is an entirely subjective statement dependant on whether or not one views kosher/halal slaughter as more or less humane than other pratices. It's not clear cut (no pun intended). And the bit about whaling is just odd - Isreal's never had a whaling industry is likely because there are no whales around. That it's government voted for a ban on whaling is not especially meaningful. Homey 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, since the article could theoretically be de-POV'd and possibly prove useful (in much the same way as we have articles on human rights in different countries, animal rights could make an worthwhile collection of articles). BigHaz 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps at one point, right now this would make more sense (if rewritten) as an entry in some sort of article cataloguing animal rights around the worldHomey 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point. One could either rewrite this to remove any POV-ness and then make articles on "Country X and animal rights" to go along with it or alternatively rename this article, use what we can and make a whopping great list about how every country treats its animals. BigHaz 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears not to be a good-faith nomination. The article was created some time ago, but I just noticed it today and tried to tidy it a little. Homey is currently following my edits because we're in a dispute. He knows I'm interested in Israel and in animal rights, so he's taking this opportunity to be unpleasant. He also hates to see anything positive written about Israel. The article does need a lot of work, but it's correct that Israel is one of the more progressive countries in the world when it comes to animal rights, so it could definitely become a legitimate article. There would also be valid criticism to add (from a rights perspective), regarding the continued use of animals in research, and so on. I doubt there's a huge amount of material out there, but certainly enough to justify an article. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, that's a POV dependant on your views on kosher/halal slaughter. If you think it's crueller than regular slaughter then Israel as well as Muslim countries would not rank as more progressive, if you think it's less cruel than they would. As for your personal attack, users should judge the article based on its merits and demerits, not on Slim's personal views about users. I don't hate to see anything positive about Israel, I just have a distaste for silly propaganda - it reminds me of the stuff you used to see from the old Soviet Union about how the grass is greener, the sky is bluer and the animals are happier - but again, the article should be judged on its actual merits. Homey 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was created on October 26 last year. I edited it for the first time on July 21 at 17:53. You nominated it for deletion nine hours later at 03:04 July 22. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and since I put it on my watchlist when I first noticed it last year it came up on my screen when I logged on. Thanks for reminding me about it. It doesn't seem you have very much to actually say in defence of the article itself since you're spending so much space attacking me. You write "I doubt there's a huge amount of material out there, but certainly enough to justify an article." the first part of your sentence is true, I suspect, so I don't see how the second part follows. With scant material, only one source it seems, it doesn't seem to justify a whole article. Homey 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't nominate it when Das Baz edited it on July 10. I won't keep arguing with you, because it's clear what you're up to. You should perhaps reflect on the wisdom of an administrator behaving like a troll and a stalker. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I don't remember what I was thinking in October - I suspect I put it on my watchlist because I was dubious about the article and wanted to keep an eye on it to see if improved and then it dropped off my radar and I forgot about it. Please don't embarass yourself with specious accusations because I've AFD'd one of the hundreds of articles you've edited in the past week, particularly since you know I edit Israel-related articles and have for a long time. Homey 09:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had fine interactions with each of you (many of my extra-Wiki views, I think, are a bit more consistent with those of SV than those of Homey), and I appreciate that each of you is sincerely interested in improving the encyclopedia. Here, FWIW, I don't think Slim's inference apropos of Homey's wikistalking is unreasonable, but, notwithstanding concerns about less-than-ideal inter-user civility or impaired collaboration, where a nom can reasonably be understood as consistent with encyclopedic purposes, such that it is, relative to the project, propitious, the underlying motivation isn't particularly relevant. The nom here isn't disruptive—since several of us appear to support deletion—and can be justified on encyclopedic grounds, so, even as I'd likely conclude that Homey's conduct is indecorous, I think we'd do well to overlook it and focus on encyclopedic concerns. Joe 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I can see some potential value in a systematic series of "Animal rights in X country" articles, but this one is just sloppy and reads like a propaganda piece. Israel banning whaling is like that town in California that banned detonating nuclear weapons within city limits. Opabinia regalis 05:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep good job starting the rewrite, Veriditas.--Chaser T 03:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Keep and slap a POV tag on it. I found some articles on PubMed, but one source isn't likely to lead to a NPOV article. Could you two focus on the content instead of carping at each other? If it's dispute resolution you need, there's a place for that. Thanks.--Chaser T 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - as a former member of http://www.anonymous.org.il/english.htm I find it more important to protect animals than to have a wikipedia article on our work but still this article could be of use (especially if expnded) Zeq 05:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wouldn't mind seeing this in a larger article comparing various nations laws and views on the subject, but not in a stand-alone article. Medtopic 05:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move to Animal rights in Israel, and cleanup. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Opabinia and inasmuch I don't imagine that the article might ever comprise sufficient encyclopedic detail as to evolve beyond stub status (if that conclusion is demonstrated to be wrong, I'd surely support keep), and, as such, inasmuch as it's an unnecessary fork (although, to be sure, not a POV fork), of of Cruelty to animals#Laws against animal cruelty and/or Animal rights#Animal rights in law; WP:SIZE would suggest that the article be merged into one of the overarching articles, except that the body of the information already exists at the latter (and anything else to be merged is sufficiently simple, publicly available, and non-original as to be replicated in the latter without GFDL concerns). Joe 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Potentially informative. Without naming any names, the timing of this nomination gives the appearance to disinterested observers of wikistalking on the part of the nominator. I hope that I'm wrong. —Viriditas | Talk 09:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand using what material? As for stalking, if there were a pattern of someone habitually following someone around and posting comments where they post comments or editing where they edit (see, for example, Zeq's edit below) then you can speak of wikistalking. It's absurd to make such an accusation on the basis of one article, particularly one as obviously substandard as this one and particularly when I am well known for editing on Israel related topics. Homey 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the most practical course is to create an Animal Rights around the World section in Animal rights, NPOV and move this article to that section, add other countries then, if warranted, create a spinoff AR around the world article. Anyway, given the lack of AGF exhibited above I'm taking both this AFD and the article off my wathcpage and will leave all this to others to implement if they so desire. Homey 11:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Homey. We should the same for Apartheid articles and maybe create Apartheid outside SA ???? Zeq 12:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would make the animal rights page too long and lopsided to have a special section on Israel. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Animal rights in Israel and put POV tag on it. JChap (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the new article proposed by Homey. While having POV issues (there is nothing "progressive" about "animal rights" IMO) a page that discusses comparative legislation and movement issues in various countries would be more valuable than having this done piecemeal. Smerdis of Tlön 19:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. Jon513 23:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and agree with JChap2007: move to Animal rights in Israel. --Daniel575 23:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've rewritten this article and moved it to Israel and animal welfare. Until the animal rights section grows large enough, it should be maintained as a response to the animal welfare policies of Israel in the criticism section. —Viriditas | Talk 09:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Informative, interesting and notable article. Move to Animal rights in Israel. We also need an Animal rights by country category. Carioca 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SV and Viriditas. 6SJ7 01:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because Israel probably has the best wild nature conservation program in the Middle East. Additionaly, Israel's people are influenced by Judaism's laws of caring for animals, see Noahide Laws#Food laws. Hunting is discouraged and animals are to be used primarily for food. IZAK 06:59, 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. Mostly Rainy 10:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Fear[edit]

No assertion of notability beyond that it was performed on a given tour. In fact, the remarks that no single release or video ever occurred seem to be assertions of a lack of notability BigHaz 03:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agreed with nom, notability is not only not established, it's pretty much refuted by this article. -- H·G (words/works) 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete It seems nonnotable to me but I can't say for certain that others would feel that way. Konman72 11:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Trivia for a particular song. For fans accessing a fansite, it would be potentially interesting, if they saw the band on that particular tour or had the t-shirt. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Geogre 11:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am well aware wikipedia is not a fansite, thanks. I just thought the song might be ok for an article, i am aware what wikipedia is thankyou (Neostinker 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep this information was only intended to be a stub, improve the article , and i add that it is not ONLY a song sung on this one tour, it is a track on the album and the special edition album which may yet be made into a video or released as a single. (Neostinker 19:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. "May yet be released" doesn't count for much; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it is released as a single, I suppose it may belong here, but for now it's too early to speculate that it would. -- H·G (words/works) 05:12, 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 10:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's Restaurant (Brooklyn)[edit]

This establishment doesn't seem to be all that notable, despite the article's claims of favorable reviews and such. I can't really be sure, though; although I know a lot about New York City, I'm not too familar with the restaurant scene. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It seems to be a notable restaurant in the area. However, if this article gets deleted, it has been added to AntiWikipedia It also has a more elaborate version of the article.24.90.233.29 21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; I (being from Canada) ate there just a few weeks ago, it's one of the oldest restaurants in Brooklyn and is apparently quite well known in Park Slope and such for good breakfasts. Normally I wouldn't vote keep on a restaurant AfD that doesn't assert clear notability like the other Tom's Restaurant in Manhattan... but I'm doing so primarily on the basis that every Brooklynite I've asked knows this place. -/- Warren 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See, I'm from Queens. That should be quite evident. Exactly why I put this up for discussion, since I clearly don't know enough about it myself. =) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, single restaurants are rarely notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. The Brown Derby is the only one that I can think of that I would recommend keeping. -- Kjkolb 05:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete article does not assert notability. Phr (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's an A7 speedy delete, but I must say that I think this particular diner gets some play in contemporary navel gazing New York culture. Wikipedia, however, is not a Zagat's guide. Geogre 11:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Kjkolb Dlyons493 Talk 12:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is this the same Tom's in the Suzanne Vega song and on Seinfeld? PT (s-s-s-s) 16:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. -/- Warren 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's Tom's Restaurant (Manhattan), on the Upper West Side. I live a few blocks away. For the diner with probably the biggest free pubicity in the world by far, the food is really mediocre and compares not so well with other diners in the area. As for the Brooklyn namesake, I lived in Park Slope for a few months and never heard of it Bwithh 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. There's nothing in the article which leads me to believe it's WP:ENC. --Kinu t/c 17:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clubmarx 18:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For what it's worth, I lived just a couple of blocks from there for 6 years and never heard of the place. Really should be a speedy A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have said, it probably could be speedy. Warrens makes a better argument in his week keep than the page itself does. Erechtheus 21:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's kind of scary, actually. :) -/- Warren 04:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as above Bwithh 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be fair, I just saw this recent post on Gothamist about the restaurant[3]. It does appear to be have some very local reputation, and also seems to be the better eating place than the Upper West Side one - but not by any means as encyclopedically notable. My vote stays at delete Bwithh 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gothamist is a redlink... a bit surprising. *shrug* Bwithh 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've lived in Brooklyn 5 years and N.Y. metro all my life. I have never heard of this place. --Nelson Ricardo 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless it can be shown that this restaurant has any notability outside of the local area. If it's not even being mentioned in other dining guides or airplane magazines, I can't agree that it's notable. --Elonka 18:11, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubed³[edit]

Original research on a not particularly notable website (~60k Alexa ranking). Delete also due to no independent sources listed and does not seem to be verifiable info. While it seems like a nice site, that does not make it notable. Wickethewok 03:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no need for deletion as this page is being constructed by readers and forum members of Cubed3 and not the staff team. As explains on the talk page for the entry. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtempertonc3 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Spamvertizing a non-notable organization. --Xrblsnggt 04:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 04:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a spamvORtisement. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also advertisement, and WP is not a free webhost. Tychocat 10:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other websites such as Revo-Europe and AMN have Wikipedia pages along with N-sider, Planet GameCube and Nintendojo. Cubed3 is of a similar type to these sites and the Wikipedia entry is just as valid. Deletion would be harsh considering the entries already on Wikipedia. I advise that it be left online as a source of information on the site and what it does and its history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtempertonc3 (talk • contribs) .
    • Good point. I'll go list those now (only the first three as the last two seem to be notable). --ColourBurst 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of third party coverage. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, no third party coverage per WP:RS, and possible WP:SPAM or WP:OR. And trying to justify one article's existence based on that of others never works. --Kinu t/c 16:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justification based on almost identical entries is perfectly acceptable. If this entry is to be deleted, then surely countless other entries need to be deleted as well. Marking out a lack of third-party coverage is also incorrect. Cubed3 is linked and noted hugely across a large number of gaming sites on the internet. Its right for a Wikipedia entry is just as justified as that of many other website entries also found here. Jtempertonc3 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are many articles in Wikipedia that do not belong. We welcome anyone to help identify them. That doesn't justify adding another. Fan-1967 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So if everyone is looting your house that means its OK for me to do it too? --Xrblsnggt 18:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a good analogy, a precedent has been set through other articles of lesser websites. Ergo this article has little or no grounds for deletion. HazukiSan 21:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia entry, as can be shown by media references that need to be added in (notably Slashdot and Engadget, amongst others). 2,000,000 monthly page views seems to me to be enough to support that cause. However, a case could be made for spamvertising - the admissability of the Community Features section, in particular, is debatable, as is information such as the interpretations of the name Cubed3. Such information could easily be found on the Cubed3 website if someone is that interested, and isn't of any particular wider interest. The only other problem is the fact that many of those writing the article have vested interests in Cubed3, but NPoV is largely being maintained. --Rob W 23:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sock Puppetry is not cool, Rob W I'd like to point our that Rob W has one edit to his credit and that is his vote on this page. --Xrblsnggt 01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not a sock puppet, thanks very much. I just don't edit much, and when I do I don't bother to log in. --Rob W 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:20, 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.  RasputinAXP  c 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PRWeb News[edit]

Non-notable company, only 267 unique results in google. Also, this whole article reads like an advertisement WinHunter (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Unique hits are only filtered from the first 1000 on Google, so when the total is larger they're not significant. This site has 8.6 million total hits Fan-1967 05:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not so sure because the site itself can produce most of those links. Also, even if it is notable the current form is still a advertisement? Furthermore, some of these text are directly copied from it's homepage. I think if anyone wish to write an article about this they better start from scratch. --WinHunter (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with WinHunter regarding the site producing its links. Keep in mind this is a PR/new-release-distribution service, which says to me that if they can't get a few million hits by spamming a bunch of websites, then they would be truly incompetent. I submit this is another case where raw Google hits should not be used as the final arbiter of notability, where the type of hit is more important than a big number. Tychocat 09:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. Also copyvio for taking material directly from PRWeb's site here. Question of meeting WP:CORP obscured by the fact their press releases are as widespread as one might expect from a PR company, though I am unable to find any third-party non-trivial articles about the firm. I also diffidently note a pattern of edits to contributor RobertMc - he starts in March, 2006 with a series of edits concerning Atlantis or Atlantis-related topics until July 21, 2006, when he makes one non-Altantis contribution. This the PRWeb article. His next edit is back to Atlantis. Tychocat 10:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Musaabdulrashid 12:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProCon.org[edit]

Article written by user of the same name (vanity/spam). This website has been briefly mentioned/linked to in a few articles, but I would consider these "trivial" with regards to press coverage. Most of the information in the article is original research or at best not using reliable independent sources. Almost all information seems to be either from (possibly) the editors experience or from the website. Delete per the above reasons. Wickethewok 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Created as an advertisement, and non-notable. Also, qualifies as vanity. Picaroon9288 18:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity/spam Clubmarx 18:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What part of Wikipedia is not an advertising service do you not understand? --Xrblsnggt 19:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aye. Mceder 03:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ladlergo 17:57, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilemedic EMS[edit]

First prod on the 18th. Removed on the 20th. Not very notable and posing as spam. Brad101 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, ~150 unique Ghits, many of which aren't related to this subject and none of whic appear to be verifiable sources that could meet WP:CORP requirements. It does read like an ad at this time too. If some good sources can be found per WP guidelines, I'd be willing to reconsider. -- H·G (words/works) 05:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam essay. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 19:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 12:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...wow...didn't even notice my prod had been removed until now... --Bill (who is cool!) 14:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems purely an advertisement for a company failing to meet WP:CORP. These type of companies exist all over the country. Mattisse 16:07, 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 redirect to Garage sale. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block sale[edit]

Prod removed with no explanation. Concept is not sourced and is possible neologism. Little more than a dicdef. Delete.BlueValour 03:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to garage sale, where it is mentioned. -- Kjkolb 05:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. It's a valid term, I've heard it plenty of times, but I don't know that it needs its own article. Garage sale covers it well. -- H·G (words/works) 05:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to garage sale per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect - Ok, I'm persuaded. :-) However, I would ask the Redirect folks to consider Delete and Redirect i.e. delete the history then redirect. The problem with a simple redirect is that any editor can simply revert it the next day! BlueValour 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Works for me. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if someone reverts in this situation, just revert again, citing this AfD. -- Kjkolb 00:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the problem with that is that you get into an unprofitable edit war; better to clean it out IMHO. BlueValour 02:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If the editor refuses to listen and reverts again, I would take the matter to the Administrators' Noticeboard. It is not the place for content disputes, but with an AfD behind a decision to redirect, I, as an admin, would intervene. Not all other administrators might, but I think many, if not most, would. Also, if an editor was that determined, he or she could simply rewrite the article rather than reverting, especially with an article this small. I don't know if there is a technical downside to deleting or not deleting in this situation. Deleted articles are still stored in the servers so that they can be viewed by admins and undeleted if necessary. It might be better to delete articles or to just replace them with redirects or it might make little or no difference. Obviously, it would make no difference when dealing with this particular article, but it might be significant if policy were changed. Perhaps I'll ask someone. -- Kjkolb 10:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to garage sale per Kjkolb. We can't delete and then redirect if we're going to be using ANYTHING from this stub in the other article (which we might), because it breaks down the GDFL chain of attribution. I'll put the redirect on my watchlist in case it comes back. -- nae'blis (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine just redirect it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagman5 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 July 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Baseball Online[edit]

"Please do not delete anything"? Just the article, as it's purely promotional. Daniel Case 05:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertising. -- Gogo Dodo 06:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I think it's more a review than an ad. BigHaz 06:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and massive cleanup Obviously, the author is confused and thinks that Wikipedia is a place to post his game reviews. While the article in its current state cannot be salvaged, the topic is indeed notable, as this game is an upcoming major release for the PC. [4] SubSeven 08:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the current version, without any prejudice towards later recreation or a massive rewrite into something more encyclopedic. BryanG(talk) 08:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising at worst, as a soapbox for contributor's reviews otherwise. Also WP is not a crystal ball for "upcoming" releases, no matter how reputedly major they may be, and the article neither states nor implies notability at all. Tychocat 10:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tychocat. Clubmarx 18:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert Jaranda wat's sup 05:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the game makes it out of beta and becomes notable, then a proper article can be written. -- Whpq 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite a more NPOV article should be written about the state of the game--Mofomojo 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article was lifted wholesale from [5], but the game is real and was released earlier this year. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN game - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 10:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Zidian[edit]

Not a notable person Phoenix Hacker 06:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not nearly enough to be notable.--Runcorn 07:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; a number of articles on Hawaiian Tropic models have been created lately, this one got lucky in getting taken to AfD rather than CSD. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 07:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- Whpq 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- Crazy4metallica 22:35, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Via Altos[edit]

Deprodded, so brought here for discussion. There's an attempt to indicate notability in here, but the professor who's mentioned gets no Google hits that I can find, and I don't see this as being a substantially important street. Delete Tony Fox (speak) 06:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 07:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, seems not to be a substantially important street. For the sake of reference here is a Googel maps link. As for the venerable Professor Aaron M Clark, may be the creator of the article AMClark could expand or explain the venerability of the professor.--blue520 07:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the professor were notable (which is not established), that doesn't make the street notable. -- Whpq 12:13, 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... again. DS 22:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mypsc[edit]

Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Win777 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete No claims of notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. Unfortunately, websites don't come under the purview of CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Really, when you think about it, websites not falling under CSD A7 is pretty stupid. I think WP:WEB is a good start for guidelines -- so why not propose a policy change to allow CSD A7 to be used on non notable websites? -- Grinnblade 07:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because "non-notable" is hard to determine on the spot. An article about a notable website might be written in a way that misses out what makes the website notable. A7 is only reserved for articles with no assertion of notability about the subject, not non-notable subjects; these are not the same. For example, "xyz.com is a website founded in 2003" is a statement without assertion of notability, but "xyz.com is a website founded in 2003 and has won many awards for its design" is a statement with assertion of notability. Whether that assertion is true, is a matter for AfD to decide. Kimchi.sg 07:22, 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 10:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etelos[edit]

Non-notable software company; no evidence that it meets WP:CORP; less than 1,000 G hits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:29, 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 Keep and rename, nom also withdrawn per all agreeing. Article has already been moved to Epinions SynergeticMaggot 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epinions.com[edit]

Article only valuable as advertisement and propaganda for the aforemention website. meatclerk 06:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I really don't see much advertising/propaganda in the article, and I'd say it passes any notability test. BigHaz 06:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's notable, but nothing valuable to the article. The article describes mostly how to use the website and how it might be better than the competition. Nothing of social value exists. Hence, delete it. meatclerk 06:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't quite see what you're getting at here. The article probably goes into a bit more detail about the site than is strictly necessary, but that's hardly grounds to delete - it's grounds to get the article listed for a cleanup. Additionally, I'd defy anyone to write an article on any website without including "how to use the website" and "how it might be better than the competition" (for the record, I'm of the belief that the latter can be done in an NPOV manner). BigHaz 09:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and rename to Epinions. 1 reference to the website in San Francisco Chronicle, and another article in the same paper several months later mentions the company behind the website. Needs rewrite to focus on its notability, though. Kimchi.sg 07:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - this is a highly trafficked website, and I agree with BigHaz in not seeing significantly problematic text. While a cleanup may help, listing it for AfD because someone may have inserted some POV material doesn't make sense. Could you be more specific about what you see as "propaganda"? Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 07:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Material disseminated by the advocates --meatclerk 08:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't have a definition in mind; I know what "propaganda" means. I was looking for some specific quotes or diffs. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, I'm tempted to think this is a joke--the subject is almost certainly notable, being fairly popular and having been featured in several verifiable sources. A re-write wouldn't hurt, I'd agree, but from the Talk page it doesn't look like much discussion or work went into doing so before this nomination. -- H·G (words/works) 07:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely a notable and high traffic website. Voice of Treason 08:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AT issue is not the website, the website definitely has note. This article is far below par. A cleanup might yield 2 sentences, at best. --meatclerk 08:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If that's the issue, you should suggest or start clean-up then, and work up from there. Deleting the page whole from the system is no kind of fix. Voice of Treason 09:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and rename article should be called "Epinions" per WP convention, I think. Cleanup consists of erasing most of the article. Alternatively, delete so someone can start over without prejudice. Epinions is definitely a notable site but this article is mostly advert. Phr (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote, because of a conflict of interest. However, I don't see anything in particular that needs to be removed in re the {{cleanup}} tag, other than the last paragraph, which seems to consist entirely of unsourced praise of Ciao.com and mouthshut.com. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote, because of a conflict of interest. I put this article up for deletion. The website in question is of some note. Definitely better article than the other in the Category:Reward_websites. Even so, a look at the logs shows the article not having a champion. That is, for this article to be of any worth we need to answer the question, "why is this of any worth?". None has been shown, no one seems to want to it either. As for the comments on "how to" please read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information No.9 --meatclerk 06:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meat you can't vote on your own nomination. Regards Supposed 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think every keep vote indicates an editor who wants to keep this article and considers it of worth. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong keep following move as the target of this AfD is now a redirect. Certainly a notable website. -- nae'blis (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not a speedy, or any AfD could be sidetracked by moving the article. All comments except those specifically dealing with the name should still be valid. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, except that so far no one has voted delete (and even the original nominator, meatclerk, seems to be unsure on his opinion of deletion of the article). However I have changed my wording, pending an official rescinding of the nomination. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't see any reason at all to remove this article. Supposed 19:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, popular site. *Dan T.* 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone has stepped up to clear all issues with all articles relates to Category:Reward_websites meatclerk 05:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Withdrawal of AfD if all agree, and the person stepping up agrees in some time frame to fix, else we will be back in a sometime. meatclerk 05:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking to close the AfD early? It's not entirely clear what you're saying. AfD's aren't a bargaining process where "if this happens, then I'll change my vote", but rather a discussion to determine if the article belongs on Wikipedia at all. If it's change you're looking for — say, to reword a part that you feel reads like an advert rather than an article — then you'll have better look bringing it up on the article's talk page, using a tag like {{cleanup}}, or another non-deletion process. If you'd like to change your comments, however, just strikeout the old ones (but don't remove them) and voice your new opinions here. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole idea of deleting an article on a top 20 /50 /100 (whatever) website is ridiculous. This article is plagued by editors with an pro- and anti- epinions agenda, that's all. If that's a big problem, delete all articles on all political parties right now! The formal suggestion to delete is using a nuke to swat a fly, and quite frankly abuse of the power to call for delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.84.7.90 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Calm down, please. It seems to have been a good faith effort to get the article cleaned up or deleted from its apparently advertising-based format, and that's being accomplished. AfD is the nuclear option of cleanup, but that's no reason to start crying "abuse of power". 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable site with verifiable external references. --Elonka 18:16, 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. WP:NOT a game guide.  RasputinAXP  c 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caldari[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable enough, I don't think. Delete, but an alternative is to merge to EVE Online. --Nlu (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this article needs an expansion with the starships of the race added. The entirety of the Eve Online wikipedia content is very poorly organized though. RotoSequence 17:44, 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 keep.  RasputinAXP  c 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy White (porn star)[edit]

It's been claimed that this person is of some note and may fall under WP:PORN_BIO. However, in about a year nothing substantial has been added to this article. Hence, fame and glory are fleeting. In that regard, any significant improvement might have helped this article. I feel it's too late. meatclerk 06:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. `100 films in 3 years... meh. -- GWO
  • Keep 100 films is a incredible huge amount of movies for a gay porn start. I suggest reading: Wikipedia_talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#Gay porn notability. -- Koffieyahoo 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. This is just a list of his movies, and I dont base my opinion on it meeting 1/10th of WP:PORN BIO. SynergeticMaggot 08:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep porn star and director, 100 films. What do you people consider notable. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- WP:PORN BIO is only a proposal, and the 100 films criterion is contention because it would exclude 99/9% of gay porn stars, i.e., WIkipedia could have no articles on gay porn stars at all because they don't meet a standard set based on what is appropriate for straight porn. But here we have the other 0.1% of gay porn stars, the onle one I can think of who meets to the proposed test, and he's nominated for deletion! Zeromacnoo 13:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And we should keep every porn bio just because they were in 100 movies? Over night, the claim hes won 2 awards was thrown into the article, and none of the article is meeting WP:V. My stance on bio's conforms to notability and WP:V. SynergeticMaggot 16:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic porn "star". Excluding 99.9% of such is a good thing - we exclude a far higher proportion of the general population. Just zis Guy you know? 18:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just another porn actor. The number of films is nearly meaningless with porno stars, since they can be in 90 films in 3 months of work. Because the films are underground, the actors and actresses don't get general notability unless or until they have a very long career. When there is a biography needed, we can seek it. Until then, someone with a dick is about all you can say. Geogre 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: 100 movies, folks. Zweifel 10:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This guy's the equivalent of Michael Cain when it comes to gay porn - his output is astounding. He has worked for the major studios; been in both starring and supporting roles; is versatile, had his own production company and directed as well. I have written to the producer of the Grabby Awards to ask for historical information for that award. Only the 2005 and 2006 award information is available online for the Gay Video News Awards; I'm working on other sources. (I didn't add the citations, but I'm trying to find the references.) The information that is readily available for straight porn performers is much more difficult to come by for gay performers. Remember that gay sex was illegal in many places up until 2003! Comparisons between straight and gay porn are inappropriate. Also, see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Rhodes (porn star) discussion for more information about what makes a gay porn performer notable. Randy White is notable, his article needs additional work. Chidom 04:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somehow I feel Randy White might be a significant talent in his industry and do him wrong. I'm a fan of Peter North (porn star) (straight films). But that is not the subject, the article is. If he is significant, then why has his article been mostly ignored for a year. Perhaps, the industry cover him much better than wikipedia does. Inclusion in those directories is a matter of money. Wikipedia is a matter of information. meatclerk 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Vergardio 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient quantity of films, and he's won awards. --Elonka 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs to be revised (the filmography list is unnecessary), however he is the recipient of awards. While the awards he has won isn't listed on WP:PORN BIO, we would have to determine whether or not the "Grabby Award" or the "Gay Erotic Video Award" are awards on the level of AVN or a major publication. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please person is notable and in over 100 films too Yuckfoo 13:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not delete. As to whether to merge, I am not sure there's consensus. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with closing this discussion with the result of "not delete". With 4 votes for deletion, 2 for keep, 6 for merge, 3 for keep or merge and 1 for delete or merge, this should've been listed as no consensus. The immediate result — retaining the article — is the same, but this may be important to note later on, as I imagine the discussion over this article isn't through yet. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Having been part of the LDS Wikiproject for a year now, I have to say that this is one of the more unusual Mormonism-related articles that I've seen. As it stands, "Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" seems like a non-sensical topic... there is very little in terms of doctrine relating to animals specifically, and none that would really be considered notable. If encyclopedic content were to appear concerning this subject, it would be better inserted as a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as it's doubtful that it would merit its own article. In any case, this one needs to go. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 07:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may seem to you to be a non-sensical topic, but as the article's references state, it's a topic that is included in the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism. Wikipedia should not be any less of an encyclopaedia than that encyclopaedia. The article requires citations for much of its content, but what citations there are indicate that this is, indeed, a subject that has been covered in multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of their subjects, and thus notable. This is a stub article that cites sources and that has clear scope for expansion. Deletion is not the way to fix the parts of the article that don't yet have sources. Keep. Uncle G 08:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the fact that it's a topic that's been covered in a Mormonism-specific encyclopedia doesn't strike me as the most persuasive of arguments, since an encyclopedia specific to any topic will naturally be able to devote more space to more esoteric topics than a general-interest one will. An encyclopedia of competitive sport, for example, would more than likely deem football clubs notable which would fail our guidelines, while an encyclopedia on the Pacific islands would be able to devote considerable space to members of local government in Samoa who would probably get short shrift here as well. BigHaz 09:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a very persuasive argument against the assertion that the topic is "non-sensical". Please read what I actually wrote. The argument about notability is based upon the multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of their subjects, both cited in the article and locatable elsewhere. Uncle G 09:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • At no point was I criticising your argument about notability, I was merely remarking on the inherent problems of relying on more specific encyclopedias than what we appear to be creating here. BigHaz 11:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply While I still haven't made up my mind about the need for a seperate article or inclusion in a list of unique theology, I do think that coverage in another encyclopedia is relevant. "What Wikipedia is not" clearly says one advantage of wikipedia is that it need not be limited by printing/arbitrary limits on which topics to cover. Wikipedia is not meant to be only a general purpose encyclopedia but also include everything that would be in specialized encylopedias as well. some quotes below (emphasis added) --Trödel 16:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a more general page dealing with the concept of soul/purpose in life in the LDS theology. Zargulon 08:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to one of the more general Mormonism pages. Too much cruft in the form of excessively many separate articles on a given topic is not in the WP:NPOV#Undue weight spirit. There's probably a 20-volume "Encyclopedia of ball-bearing polishing technology" somewhere but Wikipedia shouldn't try to duplicate its contents. Phr (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:NPOV discussion of undue weight is about minority and majority points of view on the same topic, not about the weight that should be given to different topics. The relevant style guide on whether there should be breakout articles on sub-topics is Wikipedia:Summary style. If you actually read what is cited by this article, you'll see that there's a lot that can be said on this subject, clearly enough for the topic to be broken out on its own. As I said above, the article is a stub with clear scope for expansion. Please actually read the articles being discussed and their sources. Uncle G 09:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read the article. I'm not persuaded that "scope of expansion" is a good reason to keep a stub around if there's a logical place to merge it until a separate article is needed. Better to split subtopics out of the parent article as they grow too large, than to spew stubs all over the place in hope of expansion. Stubs are to hold a place for an article when there's noplace else to put the info.

        Also, undue weight in my view applies to the enclopedia as a whole, not just to individual articles. That's the reason WP:CRUFT is bad. It's fine to have an article about some movie of medium importance. It's also ok (or anyway it's a fait accompli) to have a bunch of separate articles about characters in an ultra-notable movie like Star Wars. It's undue weight to have dozens of separate articles about the different characters in the minor movie, especially stub articles where nobody has bothered to research whatever they thought the article was supposed to be about. This is more of the same. Phr (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • Stubs are to hold a place for an article when there's noplace else to put the info. — which is the situation here. Also, undue weight in my view applies to the enclopedia as a whole — You are still mis-applying a principle related to the presentation of multiple points of view to something completely unrelated. I did read the article. — I also encouraged you to read the sources. That you don't see that there's scope for expansion indicates that you haven't seen how much more is written on this topic in the sources than is at present in the article. For the third time: This is a stub article. Uncle G 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Stubs are to hold a place for an article when there's noplace else to put the info. In this instance the info can go in one of the more general Mormonism articles. Scope for expansion I never said there's no scope for expansion; I agree that there is scope for expansion. I explained why I think the existence of scope for expansion is not a good reason to keep a stub. It's like saying we should keep an article about some some unknown musician or author because she "might become famous". Let her become famous first, then we can add an article. Expand the info about <whatever> in some other article first, then split it off to a separate article once the parent article starts becoming unbalanced or overlarge. Phr (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, it is not like that. That is another misapplication of a principle to something that is unrelated. Authors who "might become famous" have nothing written about them now. This article, on the other hand, has scope for expansion from material that currently exists. Uncle G 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, I did read what's cited, and it's very, very little to work with. As BigHaz mentioned, being mentioned in an interest-specific encyclopedic doesn't do anything to establish that it's of sufficient importance to merit an article here. From personal experience, after five years in the LDS Church, I don't ever recall hearing or reading any discourses on animals in Mormon theology. Thorough citations on an unsignificant topic don't make it more important. It was a good intention, and it may find a home on an LDS-specific wiki. If consensus is in favor of deletion or a redirect, perhaps it could be userfied to UncleG so he can use it elsewhere. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are, in effect, applying the "I've never heard of it." criterion to this article. That is an exceedingly poor criterion to apply to decide whether an article should be deleted, and one that is generally rejected. If you want a notability criterion, consider the primary one from WP:WEB, WP:CORP, et al.: A subject should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the subject. This topic clearly is. It even cites a few of those published works. Uncle G 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • One of many criteria applied, and while "who's heard what" isn't always a good determinant of a subject's importance, it isn't always bad either. In any case, you miss my point — the intention was to illustrate how rarely the topic is brought up. If you can find any discourse, spoken or written, by a General Authority of the LDS Church (for outsiders, that is more or less what could be considered "official") focusing solely on animals in the same manner in which this article treats them, please, post it up. Problem is, I doubt it exists. This is patched together from a scattering of brief statements drawn from different sources, and even then, the article is filled with supposition. Whittle it down, and you're left with material that may be appropriate in a larger doctrinal article, but not meriting its own. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any authoritative LDS Church statement mentioning the significance of its animal theology. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The majority of the article remains uncited. There are a myriad of unsubstantiated claims, and it's general premise is one that can't even be found from the religion's cannonical works. --Hetar 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't delete articles because some parts of them haven't been sourced. We delete articles when they are unverifiable. This article cites several independent non-trivial sources that discuss the subject of the article. Fixing the article is simply a matter of bringing the article into line with the sources, which involves cleanup, not deletion. Uncle G 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article cites ONE source. Remove all the uncited information, and you are left with two sentences, not much of an article. And we do delete articles when they discuss something that can't even be backed up by the most authoritative sources for a subject. --Hetar 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article cites one source and lists four more treatments of the subject in a "further reading" section, which can be used as sources when expanding or correcting the article. Asserting that this article "cannot be backed up" is silly, given what is right there in the article. Uncle G 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge. This is undeniably cruft. Just zis Guy you know? 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge; is there a general page on animal souls that this could be merged at? Smerdis of Tlön 19:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge This article needs work, to be sure. But I think the information is interesting enough, particularly because it differs from the views of some other forms of Christianity that hold that animals have no souls at all. This difference should be noted somewhere, be it in this article, in another article on Mormonism (for example, it says that they believe that animals have immortal spirits so the article on whichever afterlife kingdom they're believed to go to, Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial, might be the right place), or in an article on the views of animals in general as Smerdis suggested. One benefit of keeping this article is that in merging, it would be difficult to decide where to merge to and the info might be broken up into many pieces (some in the articles on Mormon beliefs in before life, some in after life, some elsewhere, etc.) instead of being in one comprehensive article. --Icarus (Hi!) 20:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. As a former member of the church for a good 20 years I can say that this topic is one that very rarely is ever mentioned in the church itself and there really isn't any way to expand upon this article, and is not important enough to merit its own entry. I'd be just as happy to see it deleted but if the majority wants to see it stay I'd rather it was merged into some other article, as suggested above. Arkyan 21:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • there really isn't any way to expand upon this article — There are four more potential sources for use in expansion right there at the bottom of the article. I'm certain that they are not the only such further sources to be found, moreover. Uncle G 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge This is not a trivial article or obscure point on LDS theology. The role the animal kingdom plays in relation to humanity (humans are animals, by the way) is an important theological question with perhaps more questions than answers, but a valid question nonetheless. LDS are but one Christian church whose leaders have evidently commented on the significance of animal life, but animals are important to many more than just LDS, including non-Christian perspectives. These should be included also. When article expansion is initiated, the discussion merits careful navigation to preserve NPOV simply because I suspect there are a multitude of voices on the issue. The broader Christian view needs to be navigated carefully (including LDS), but I believe it can be done. Interestingly enough, CS Lewis devotes an entire essay in The Problem of Pain (ISBN: 0060652969) titled "Animal Pain" that parses the moral and physical intracacies of animal life, especially in their relation to humanity. Clearly, animals are important in his fiction as well and take on roles of sacrifice, redemption, deceit, suffering, valor (Reepicheep), and transcendance (Lewis has remarked in Mere Christianity something to the effect..."Isn't that how the higher thing always raises the lower?...how our pets seem human, and in the end that's what they almost become," to paraphrase from memory. Thus, an article dealing with just the LDS view is, I think, a little too narrow in the broader scope of the issue, albeit very, very interesting...it merely needs expansion, context, and additional references, not deletion! I don't think we should abandon valid information, regardless if it appears to be an unfrequently traveled religious issue. There are thousands of current Wiki articles that any random schmuck could point a finger at and say "too trivial" or "no import whatsoever." Look, frankly I don't perceive this information to be in error or obscure at all. It's an important moral question. Yes, the recent edits are far from transcendant, so clearly it needs to be expanded or merged (however, given the contentious climate at the main LDS Church article, I doubt that a proposed merge would be adopted easily). In the meantime, let's get this thing off the delete list and get it in better shape. Deleting this would be a shame.--Piewalker 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Typical Mormon doctrines" section of Mormonism is a pretty obvious place for this. Even if the article is kept, it should be summarized and linked there. I still suggest merging. Phr (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Unless this can be expanded in any significant way, a merge is the more appropriate course of action. Peyna 03:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, merge, merge. Current title makes it sound like animals are among the parishioners. bd2412 T 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment – I agree that the title is misleading. Perhaps "Animals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" would be better. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a LDS article, an animal article, or both. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 00:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hey, I got some vandalism related this AfD! About time I had someone other than Carbine blanking my page. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 04:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now — It is clearly a stub, but it is a topic that is fairly unique among other Christian religions. If people seem to be unable to expand it enough to make a decent-sized article, then we can merge it with some other article (although I can't think of a candidate at the moment). wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — This is about all the information that is available on this subject. It should be merged with another article about religious views on animals. Val42 03:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's WP:OR to extrapolate this information from existing texts for no good reason. What's next, Food in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Trees in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Rocks in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? or People with Hebrew-sounding-yet-meaningless names in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? wikipediatrix 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 15:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Radford-Kirby[edit]

Local politician of only very local notability. Mtiedemann 07:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No more or less notable than many of the other local councillor entries!! At 41, youngest member of ESCC Cabinet with task of attracting £1bn of investment. Very ununusual having served on 5 different local authorities. Would he be more notable if he were a local Labour politician?? 09:04 22 July 2006
    • Arguments that other bad articles exist don't wash. If you wish to argue for keeping this article, point to multiple independent non-trivial published works that are about this person — show that xe satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Uncle G 08:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I accept your logic about other bad articles but presumably if election results are sufficiently notable then those sucessfully elected are also sufficiently notable. Also why have categories for local councillors if the likely entries are only going to have local notability?

Do these Google pages demonstrate notability?

Councillor Simon Radford-Kirby Profile of Councillor Simon Radford-Kirby, Conservative County Councillor for Pevensey & Westham. www.eastsussex.gov.uk/yourcouncil/ about/people/councillors/find/pevensey

What's new On Thursday 29 September Simon Radford-Kirby (Conservative) was elected councillor for Pevensey and Westham. View the full results on our interactive ... www.eastsussex.gov.uk/new/default.htm?y=2005&m=09

[PDF] SOUTH COAST TOWNS File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Simon Radford Kirby, Cabinet Member for Economic Development. Projects, East Sussex County Council. 12.55. Questions and discussion ... www.landorconferences.co.uk/conference_files/co199.pdf

membership of the Society Simon Radford-Kirby of East Sussex Gillian Herbert of Hereford Keith Laughlin of Co. Antrim Toft Pedigree Southdowns of Yorkshire ... www.southdownsheepsociety.co.uk/membership.htm -

Gregory Barker - Media Zone - Greg Backs Pevensey Lorry Ban Speaking in the constituency, Greg, who recently met Conservative County and District Council candidates Simon Radford-Kirby and Kevin Balsdon to discuss ... www.gregorybarker.com/mediazone.php?articleid=178

[PDF] BOARD MEETINGS 2006/07 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Cllr S Radford-Kirby, Appt ESCC. The Sandcastle. 46 Val Prinseps Road. Pevensey Bay. PEVENSEY, BN24 6JG. [email protected] ... www.ashdownforest.org/leaflet_2a_board.pdf

PDF] Converted from C:\PCSPDF\PCS5130.TXT File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Simon G. Radford-Kirby. Alan R. Attfield (**). Linda J. McKeever. Susan E. Evans. Michael C. Evans. Joyce Huggett. THOMAS. Christine Anne. Liberal. Democrat ... www.wealden.gov.uk/council/Electoral_services/ Forthcoming_Elections/documents/PCS5130.PDF

[PDF] Arts, Culture and Heritage Committee Agenda 8 April 2004 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML In May 2003 local entrepreneur Simon Radford-Kirby purchased the old. Indoor Tennis Centre at Ferrymead for conversion into a studio. Progress ... www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/agendas/ 2004/April/ArtsCulture/Clause4AttachmentApdx2.pd

EAST SUSSEX cheap hotels : UNITED KINGDOM cheap hotel, discount ... It comes after Mr Barker , along with East Sussex County Councillor Simon Radford - Kirby , led a successful campaign to secure the new service . ... www.travel-on-the-web.com/ hotels/townGen.php/EAST_SUSSEX/GB.html - 77k - Supplemental Resul

Stories for 3 October 2005 - The Argus archive Businessman Simon Radford-Kirby won a county council by-election with a thumping majority. more... Taxi fares set to rise. Taxi fares are set to climb in ... archive.theargus.co.uk/2005/10/3/

etc.

Sorry if as a newbie I don't understand the logic but to quote wikipedia "there are tens of thousands of pornographic stars" but only 200 or so County Council cabinet members.

  • Delete fails WP:BIO. We have articles on holders of major national offices. County councillors fall a long way below that. This is a long-standing consensus view on what constitutes a notable political office. And yes I'd rather we got rid of the porn "stars" as well. Just zis Guy you know? 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On it's own, being a county council member is not encyclopediac. The other accomplishments listed do not add sufficient noteriety. --DarkAudit 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DarkAudit. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 00:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Musaabdulrashid 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Paul Cyr 03:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of changes in Star Wars re-releases[edit]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Zargulon 08:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Compared to lots of other star wars-related material in the encyclopedia, this stuff is somewhat culturually significant and is interesting to quite a few star wars fans, including the not-too-crazed. It's also relatively non-WP:CRUFT-y in that it pulls a lot of related material together in a single article instead of spewing it to 20 separate articles. Alternative would be to disperse it into the articles about the individual films but I like the idea of centralizing it like this. Phr (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia is also not a paper encyclopedia. The article is relatively neutral in tone, and is verfiable and referenced. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The argument this article is "relatively" not as a bad as others, is irrelevant to the nomination, as is the weak claim the article is "somewhat" culturally significant. WP is not paper, but it is also not an indiscriminate collection of everything. Tychocat 10:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm saying this list is not indiscriminate. It's info that I'd even hope to see in a paper encyclopedia that covered Star Wars in any depth. Phr (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While slightly crufty, considering the significance of Star Wars and the controversy that Lucas' tendency to reinvent his movies creates certainly makes this article worth keeping. Furthermore, as written, it's fairly close to being worth considering for Featured Article status. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The Wookieepedian 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning of others above. Voice of Treason 12:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of the intrinsic quality of the article, I feel that Star Wars/Lucas Wikipedia articles should have significance beyond the Star Wars community, whereas this article is by definition and in practice entirely inward-looking. Zargulon 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the sentiment that Wikipedia articles should have significance beyond the Star Wars community, but that "community" is a tiny subset of "people have have seen the movies" or even "people who are fans of the movies". I think this article reaches well outside of the tiny subset that can reasonably be called the "Star Wars community". I'm not even in the largest of those groups mentioned (I've seen some of the SW movies but not all, I don't own any SW videos or merchandise, and I'm not remotely a SW fan) but I liked the article. Phr (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't say this article is uninteresting. I think it would find a more natural audience (including your good self) in a blog or a movie almanac. I'm not sure that it is appropriate for Wikipedia, or, for that matter, a paper encyclopedia. Zargulon 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the stuff in the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, given the depth of SW-related coverage that WP editors have already deemed appropriate without serious controversy. I have some minor reservations about the article existing as a separate article, as opposed to splitting out its contents to the articles about the individual films. But that's a matter of editorial discretion, and there's benefit to putting it all in one place like that. Phr (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning of others above. Gran2 16:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is from a nuetral point of view, and provides information to many star wars fans, there is no reason to delete it.
  • Keep per Phr and Caerwine. BryanG(talk) 16:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's NPOV, and a pretty good article. Worth keeping if only as a cruft dam. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into the respective movie articles; information on the various versions of the SW movies (which this really is) is good to have. --maru (talk) contribs 23:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a highly useful and informative article. Giving its position on Wikipedia, a casual fan could find out what he was looking for without having to probe all varieties of Star Wars fansites with less-than-reputable sources. 24.161.191.234 08:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting, well-written, and encyclopedic. I remember when the re-release came out in 1997, and the changes to the trilogy got a LOT of mainstream press, so this is not just something only hardcore fans care about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thorough and necessary for fans - I don't know of another source that has all this information in one place. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The changes in the Star Wars series are a key part of the production history of the franchise. It's nowhere near featured article status - it's just an uncited list without much compelling prose, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be deleted. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, What harm is there in keeping this article? I don't understand what the point would be of deleting it. It's useful and informational. People will complain about anything. I came here to find this information and it was greatly useful and appreciated. I was scratching my head in wonder as to why the article would be up for possible deletion. Please keep this online.
  • Comment I agree, it's a shame how many people complain about good-faith deletion nominations. Hope your head is alright. Zargulon 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mangojuicetalk 16:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maui Cluster Scheduler[edit]

semi-spam article from Cluster Resources

This is part of a pile of spam left around by Cluster Resources, which had posted a now-deleted vanity article and also stuck spam links into numerous computer-related articles. Since this particular article is about an open source program it might have some tiny amount of merit. See also:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cluster Resources, Inc.

Related article: TORQUE Resource Manager, please comment on whether that should be deleted too.

  • Neutral for now -- will probably change to "delete" but wonder what others have to say. Phr (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Just zis Guy you know? 11:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn although it's nice to know I can freely download it for my home supercomputer. Dlyons493 Talk 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam essay. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 19:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article doesn't have anything to do with home PC's but I do think that supercomputer software is an ok topic for the encyclopedia. A quick look around shows the program is not really nn. If I can find some appropriate parallel computing article to put the info, I may merge it there. I agree that the separate article shouldn't stay. -- Phr (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maui is a recognized scheduler in the fields of cluster and parallel computing. I don't think there is any reason or precident to limit software articles on Wikipedia to only things applicable to low-end home PCs. -- Bovineone 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that related TORQUE article is prodded by me. Feel free to deprod or preferably (from my point of view) merge. Phr (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and NPOVize per Bovineone. —Ruud 14:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bovineone, and update in line with WP:SOFTWARE and WP:NOT a soapbox. JonHarder 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Reviewing the history, the author(s) have made virtually no effort to add rigor to this article. This code base started as a wrapper for the IBM Loadleveler parallel job tool on MHPCC's RS6000/SP in the mid '90s. If the author(s) wanted to make this article worthwhile, they should consider adding architectual detail such as found in the docs for MHPCC's follow up effort, the Maui Scheduler - Molokini Edition. -- cmholm 20:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phatlime[edit]

This whole page was created by a now apprehended anonymous user who had obtained my password from 14th Febuary 06 to 30th of April 06. It is merely about random characters he and his friend have thought up a la Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day even though it was thought up over more than one day i really don't appreciate having this pointless ariticle as part of my Contributions (The Bread) 08:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As above (The Bread 09:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. 121 Ghits, no movie site references. Article itself lists no studio backers or release date, which lends itself to failing the crystal-ball test. Ghits mainly concerned with a band of the same name. Tychocat 10:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:02, 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 10:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blake's 7 Fan Fiction[edit]

Delete or precis and merge into Fan fiction. Zargulon 09:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a free webhost. Tychocat 10:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ye gods. Original research, looks hard to verify, and .. well, really, is 90% of that article encyclopaedic? I don't actually understand large parts of it. I had to read the "the big kerfluffle" section three times to make any sense of it. The article has been tagged with "needs wikification" and "may not be compliant with Wikipedia policy" for three months. In that time, someone has corrected the spelling of "tomatoes" and wikilinked Star Trek and VAX. If that's as good as it gets, delete it. Telsa (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:52, 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. DS 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infotech Systems, Inc.[edit]

The article appears to be self-promotion of a non-noteworthy company.Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 09:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 19:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adcruft. Looks like a scam too. Mystache 22:46, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Munoz[edit]

n-n person as per WP:BIO Errabee 09:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the article doesn't even really have any content as yet, either. BigHaz 09:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It did have content, as can be seen in the history. Errabee 09:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it did, and what looks like test-page history at that. BigHaz 11:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per reasons above Nearly Headless Nick 11:29, 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 09:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna in Montreal[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a random collection of facts. No effort to verify or attribute beyond an link to a YouTube search result. No notability for the content of this page beyond that already covered by other pages about the subject. Allowance of page would set a dangerous precedent for the creation of nearly unlimited <person or group> in <place> pages. Serpent's Choice 09:57, 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 10:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EQMS[edit]

Blatant advertisement, also fails WP:SOFT. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Spam essay. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 01:47, 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 10:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ERG Group[edit]

Unsalvagable advertisment. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Spam essay. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 19:42, 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 09:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wryn Vance[edit]

This article was deleted 13 months ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wryn Vance and restarted 4 months ago. It has been subject to two recent attempts at provisional deletion, which were quickly blanked out by a new user Brianwbrown. The article is unsourced and vain. Recommend that this be deleted, and possibly protected against recreation. Caerwine Caerwhine 10:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable vanity article. --Xrblsnggt 19:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm from Auburn and I've never heard of him. Certainly non-notable. - Lissoy 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a rising star in sports broadcasting. Either keep him now or add him in five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.72.35 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 July 2006
  • Keep If you delete this, you'll be sorry when he's calling college football on CBS in about 5 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.86.117 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 26 July 2006
  • Delete If he is broadcasting for CBS in 5 years, the entry can be recreated. But if he is broadcasting for CBS in 5 years, it will be because CBS is in that bad of a shape. - collimd 13:25, 26 July 2006 (CT US)
    • Comment Previous unsigned comment from an unregistered editor came from the same IP address (66.32.72.35) that improperly removed the AFD notice from the article yesterday (since restored). Caerwine Caerwhine 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was hoax. DS 18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokle[edit]

I caught this on random article patrol. The article says this is a Steven Seagal movie with a 2006 release date, but it is unverifiable and possibly a hoax. Almost all Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors, and there is nothing on IMDB. Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:46, 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 09:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities claimed to have been built on seven hills[edit]

Unencyclopedic list of random cities with a claim of a certain number of hills in their vicinity. Appears to serve no encyclopedic purpose. Has been tagged for lack of references for over a month, no-one has yet replied to my query on the talk page as to the purpose of the article. I recently reverted an anon user's insertion of a line that said "this article is talking crap" which is a pov that I have some sympathy for. This page has though been in existence for over two years. However, Seven hills of Jerusalem (a probable inspiration of this article) was deleted on 16 June by Kungfuadam. MLA 11:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Vizjim 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "The seven hills of Asuncion" ... riiiight. GassyGuy 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the cogently argued and entirely valid nomination. Being b uilt (or rather, allegedly built) on seven hills has no demonstrable encyclopaedic significance, making this (a) listrcuft and (b) largely unverified. Absent secondary sources describing why this concept is notable and attesting to the inclusions, fails WP:V and WP:NOT. Just zis Guy you know? 18:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, okay, delete per nom. Unverifiable listcruft. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's verifiable if you actually try verifying it. Superbo 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cruft. Unless having "seven hills" around my house means I too can be on wiki. Mystache 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rome wasn't built in a day... and cities that claim to be Rome's successor should have better claims than just seven hills. I also doubt parts of the list. 132.205.44.134 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't DELETE Please! I love this page, it's fascinating. Give me a couple of weeks to try to sort out some of the criticisms [originally unsigned, typos corrected by Superbo]

→ for my further thoughts on this page, please see the article's talk page.

  • Strong Keep It's informative, and encyclopedic, and I don't see how it's crufty as it's all non-trivial information. There is a growing phenomenon of "listcruftcruft" here, of which votes for deletion here are a prime example. You can't just nominate a list for deletion simply because it's a list and you don't happen to be interested in it. Save the lists. Every encyclopedia has lists. As for this particular list, many cities make the Seven Hills claim, and it is noted in the title that this is only a claim and not a verified fact stated by each city. To the author, if you need any help editing this to meet the criticism, I'll be happy to help, drop me a line. Superbo 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telempathy[edit]

Looks like a neologism with some 700 Google hits from dubious sources (parapsychology websites etc.) The provided link doesn't even mention the term. Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V. Sandstein 11:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this appears to be about the badly named empath Deanna Troi of Star Trek ability. (Telepathic empathy) 132.205.95.44 21:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it is about that ability, it's still a neologism, and is very unlikely to be a search term. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:09, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Champcore[edit]

Article about a "new" music style, by one insignificant band. I love the frase Many are expected to follow. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:18, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oragon[edit]

This is an essay about a non-english word. Original research, and wouldn't belong on the english wikipedia even if it had sources Xyzzyplugh 11:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Interestingly, the article on the Bicolanos makes no reference to them being called this. BigHaz 11:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The word pops up in context with 50 hits on Google, but notability is not the issue. This is OR, written in the first person, and would seem to violate WP-is-not-a-soapbox. If edited-down to WP-style, it's not clear it would be more than a dicdef at that point. Tychocat 11:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It appears to be an essay in identity politics. As such, it seems to be a refugee from a blog. The term does not appear to be commonplace, and the article is an elaborate dictionary re-definition. Geogre 12:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rambling, creepy original research. --Xrblsnggt 19:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:11, 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 deletion of article and disambig. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy's Bucket[edit]

Troy's bucket was created by high school friends. Its Alexa rank is >2 million, Google search for "Troy's Bucket" cartoon gets around 40 unique hits, no evidence of circulation, significance, no reliable sources cited or evident. Just zis Guy you know? 11:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Oh, dear. Buddy article. There is no indication whatever that the article has been or shall be referred to by outside sources. We can call it OR or advertising. Geogre 11:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unable to locate multiple non-trivial articles by third parties to establish notability, only a few passing blog references. Parenthetically, "Troy's Bucket" +webcomic gets only 20 distinct hits, wider search results for "Troy's Bucket" are complicated by a band of the same name that appears to hog most of the resulting Ghits. Tychocat 12:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:54, 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 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Romano[edit]

A fill-in traffic reporter. Tagged db-bio, but notability is asserted - just not very convincingly IMO. Bringing to AfD instead. Just zis Guy you know? 11:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It looks like our Philadelphia TV news bandit is back. He has ensured that we have articles on every single personality employed by one TV news show, and now he has switched channels. Those others failed, too. A fill-in traffic reporter is at a lower level of notability than a reality show contestant -- at least those folks are on every week. Geogre 12:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD-A7. I am working on finding and nominating them as I found two last night. Buckner 1986 14:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Actually I nominated a couple of this user's many creations with db-bio. Oddly, two of them got deleted and three others were turned into AfD (including this one). I can see why one might refuse the speedy deletion but they should just have been proded as uncontroversial delete candidates and not sent to AfD. Or maybe we could have one BIG AfD for a group of 30 or 40 very non-notable bios of local TV, obscure personnalities. Pascal.Tesson 18:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. I'd just replace the tag. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge this discussion with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell. Pascal.Tesson 04:37, 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 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Greenberg[edit]

Another minor figure from WCAU. Tagged db-bio but notability of a kind is asserted. Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 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 - none of the proposed redir targets seems any better than the others... (ESkog)(Talk) 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Spin-off series[edit]

Tagged as speedy being "a copy of a paragraph from Pokémon" and contested but with no reason given for contesting. Since the speedy justification is not a speedy criterion and it's contested anyway, bringing it ihere. Sounds like an unlikely search term or I'd have boldly redirected it as I did for the similar Pokémon on the Wii. Just zis Guy you know? 11:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's a sad day when you have to take a paragraph copied from an article to AfD. *headdesk* Life sucks. Highway Return to Oz... 11:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's not the nicest person. He probably thinks I'm under 19, and that my opinion isn't valid. Highway Return to Oz... 12:29, 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 09:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Roberts[edit]

Another minor figure from a minor TV station. Perhaps we should merge them all? Previous deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Roberts was an attack, different content. Just zis Guy you know? 11:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Lower fame and significance than a voted-off-the-islander. She's doing her job, like thousands of others. Geogre 13:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Geogre. Highway Return to Oz... 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Jacek Kendysz 01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some 9,000 results from Google, but just another everyday run-of-the-mill reporter. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly merge this discussion with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell. Note also that the Google test for Alicia Roberts is particularly useless since there are probably hundreds of Alicia Roberts' in the world. In fact, the first page of hits seem to contain only unrelated people with that name. Pascal.Tesson 04:35, 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 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Veater[edit]

Tagged db-bio but contested. A murder victim, perpetrator unknown but speculated to be a serial killer. WP:NOT a cellotaph. Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, since we're not a cenotaph. If the perpetrator turns out to be a serial killer, she'll be a valid inclusion in a list of his/her victims. BigHaz 11:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn notable WP:NOT.--Ávríl 00:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, You are all right, what was I thinking. Thanks for the clarity I guess I was thinking this place was either a cenotaph or a cellotaph. Matt d walker 21:21, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl necklace (sexuality)[edit]

Slang, dicdef Donald Albury(Talk) 11:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete, no merge Dicdef, probably already at Urban Dictionary where it belongs. Please don't vote "merge," as that is a "keep" vote. Also, I suspect that the young woman in the picture wearing nothing but semen and a smile may be using the article as a forum for exhibitionism of homemade pornography, since she uploaded the picture herself. My suspicions are further supported by the fact that the picture does not, in fact, depict a pearl necklace, but rather a simple "facial." The idea of the "pearl necklace" is not an important topic in sexual activity, and is more of a joke than anything else (cf. the ZZTop song "Pearl Necklace"). Yes, it is possible to ejaculate on women in many different ways, none of which are encyclopedic, in my opinion. Erik the Rude 17:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to agree with Catamorphism below and recommend that it be redirected to the article on the facial. Jesus H. Christ, this is a silly discussion! I just realised that I couldn't make a "pearl necklace" because I'm a shooter, not a dribbler. I know, TMI, but the meds have kicked in. Sorry. Magister Erik the Rude 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is a merge vote a "keep" vote? I don't want to keep the content, beyond mentioning the term in the Come shot article, but I really want to leave a redirect in place so this is less likely to be recreated. Powers 21:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Admins frequently count merge votes as keep votes, especially when there is no clear consensus, which frequently leads to a no-consensus keep. It's one of AfD's many problems. Magister Erik the Rude 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because of GFDL issues, I believe. A merge means that the information should be kept, but simply not at this place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Erik the Rude Piccadilly 17:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. At least it's a term I've heard, unlike most of the sex acts listed here, but we don't need an article for what amounts to a dicdef. The picture actually is not appropriate to the article, as it looks like a facial, not a pearl necklace. -- Fan-1967 18:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Obviously a notable term. Need references? Try The Sex Book by Suzi Godson, et al, Sex Tips for Straight Women from a Gay Man by Dan Anderson, and the Vice Magazine guide to Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll, along with countless pop culture references. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly so. The issue is not notability, its encyclopedicness. What else can be said about it that is a) not just a definition and b) not already in the Come shot article? Powers 21:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plenty. Besides, if you're looking for "Pearl necklace," chances are you're not looking to dig through "come shot" to get to it. I also can't believe I spent 5 minutes hunting those sources down, or that I typed that last sentence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello, Jeff. I'm not surprised that you're here, as this is one of your areas of special interest, sexual slang in Wikipedia. I'll be polite and not dig up your history of time after time defending puerile sexual slang and then wave it in your face as other users do. Indeed, you must have the soul of an appeals attorney who specialises in capital crimes, and I commend you for your due diligence. Maybe there should be a Wiki project that deals more rigourously with sexual slang than does Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia, however, is not that project, nor are we Partridge's Dictionary of English Slang. All I can say is, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Magister Erik the Rude 23:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi! Right now, the article is simply a stub. With two books already, and some hope at Google Scholar from other research I've done, it seems there's plenty of room for expansion, and we haven't even talked about pop culture references yet, either. Yes, I tend to be a staunch defender of some of our raunchier articles, and why not? We don't censor ourselves here. Either way, I hope you'll reconsider. At least we agree on the image. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Erik the Rude. We're not Urban Dictionary. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to start censoring wiki now. Mystache 22:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - people are unlikely to find reference if they aren't looking for it. Wiki provides information - this is a real thing so why censor it? Although pic doesn't really show a pearl necklace does it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.111.149 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, Notable sexual term referred to outside. Photo may need to be considered. Capitalistroadster 23:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, well I considered it, and I think that young lady is pretty hot, minus the semen. (Ugh.) I think the pic is clearly intended to titillate, and is therefore pornography rather than an illustrative picture. Magister Erik the Rude 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The definiton needs work as well, as this activity is normally associated with, uh, genital-mammary contact, which isn't mentioned here. Fan-1967 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the term is notable although the article needs work. I shall selflessly volunteer my time to improve the article, even if I'm forced to wade through several dozens hundreds of images to find one that accurately depicts the topic in question :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with Facial (sexuality). Catamorphism 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Notable (sort of) but with problems, needs a lot of work! Aeon Insane Ward 02:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Facial (sexuality) Bwithh 06:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - its not a cum shot because no photography is needed to make a pearl necklace. There are many pop cultural references to the term, like the ZZ Top song and a Sex and the city episode. Its association with Mammary intercourse could be disscussed... That's got to result in more than a dictionary definition. It's even a much better known term then "Mammary intercourse" yet that's here too. I agree the photo could be replaced with an illustration or one that shows a better pearl necklace on a woman, but just how does a pornographic picture in this context cross a line? A merger with Facial (sexuality) should only be done if there is a super catagory for both terms to be merged under. Does anyone have an idea what that could possibly be?--Sneezy-pantz 07:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Keep and clean up per Sneezy-pantz. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the more notable term as it's a valid search phrase. I'll not suggest merging the picture to your own personal image collection. MLA 13:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you're going to redirect to anything, redirect to Mammary intercourse, which already lists this as a synonym. It's definitely not the same thing as a facial. Fan-1967 14:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment without getting into the technicalities of it all, I disagree. Pearl necklace is an outcome as it were rather than an act so the outcome of facial is more accurate than the act of mammary intercourse. MLA 18:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment without getting into the technicalities of it all (can't believe we're discussing this), it's a separate and different outcome than the facial. I have always heard this term used in connection with the act involving breasts. Fan-1967 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe it either, but I also hadn't thought of it in terms of, uh, "mammary intercourse." I'm not entirely sure a merge is proper, given a lack of a useful place to merge it to, assuming merge is the "correct" option. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having done the Hawaiian muscle fuck myself, against my own will, I might add as I was coerced by a kinky girlfriend with 36D's, I can't see how a pearl necklace is the logical end of the act. A dribbler would most likely dribble semen onto the superior sternum, which would then pool at the cricoid region and run superiorly into the carotid sinuses, lateral to the trachea and medial to the sternocleidomastoid muscle. It's also very possible that the semen would be shot between the breasts, on the belly, or dribble down the belly. A shooter would just blow it all over the chest or face in a blob and spatter pattern. To properly execute a pearl necklace, which I haven't done, one would have to dribble semen at the midline of the neck, superior to the clavicles. I don't think it's that easy to execute properly, it's almost certainly no fun because of the technical skill and control involved, which is why I think it is no more than a joke. Also, the viscosity of the semen would be a possible problem. Some semen is too viscous to "dribble" or "run." I'd be interested in some first-hand reports of successful pearl necklaces. Maybe some research could be conducted at Wikimania 2006, and if this crap doesn't belong in BJAODN, I don't know what does. Maybe merge it all to Deposition of semen during human sexual intercourse. Magister Erik the Rude 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But don't forget WP:NOR. :) Garion96 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Definitely the funniest argument I've seen today. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Short, but hilarious :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "on the belly"? Which direction were you facing? ;-) -- Fan-1967 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • She was sitting on the floor, reclining against the couch. I was more or less upright, and since it's almost impossible to aim one's dick, I probably would have shot on her belly. She was watching the action in the mirror as I laboured away with no final orgasmic reward. Therefore, I can't vouch for the location of the deposited semen. :-(. Tittyfucking isn't fun, guys. Don't believe the hype. It's weird as anything, and it's really kinky, but it's just stupid and it makes you feel like a douchebag. Don't even try it on anything smaller than a 36C unless you have micropenis. BTW, if anyone wants the name and location of this very busty Filipina-American 3-way girl who loves to do kink, email me. She's a Vice Consul for the U.S. State Dept., and she loves daily sex, so why shouldn't I help her out? Magister Erik the Rude 05:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe the more traditional position involves the woman lying totally flat on her back, which would cause the material to run up her chest and down the side of her neck. (Is someone going to BJAODN this discussion?). Fan-1967 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP is not a dictionary. Mangojuicetalk 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources and popularity of the term do it for me. Why do we have the other under mammary intercourse, however?? -- nae'blis (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the slang terms vary too much. It was originally created as Tit wank, which an American would never say. Fan-1967 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An American would never say Mammary intercourse either, trust me on this one...--Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard "Hawaiian muscle fuck" or "Hawaiian style", either. Do you prefer the simple, yet elegant Titfuck? -- Fan-1967 04:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Titfuck is good and should possibly be the primary name of the article if kept. I used "Hawaiian muscle fuck" for cacophemistic humor. However, I still maintain that all the articles on shooting semen on women during sex should be in one place. Folks, it's hard to aim unless you're a professional or you're less than 6 inches from the target. Even porn stars screw up and shoot the lady in the eye. Most of us have seen that many times. Magister Erik the Rude 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that we've lost the chain of discussion. Tifuck (by whatever name) isn't even the article under AFD. Fan-1967 05:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been transferred to WP:BJAODN on the grounds that it was nominated and seconded. Magister Erik the Rude 05:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excellent reasoning there, Erik the Rude, but I think the new article should have a shorter name like Ejaculation Deposition maybe? Many possible "targets" could be listed there. I really wish this subject was being discussed in a more erudite and sober manner. Remember, the eyes of your great great great gand childern may one day read these pages and they may try to reconstruct our civilization from them...(shiver). --Sneezy-pantz 06:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ever see the Rocky Horror Picture show? Tim Curry is wearing a (non-sperm) pearl necklace to signify the sexual act. TruthCrusader 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, maybe Tim Curry is wearing a pearl necklace because he's PLAYING A TRANSVESTIVE. Kaldari 06:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is also wearing a pink triangle. And if you think he is wearing the necklace as a fashion statement then you really must go see the film again :) TruthCrusader 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per above. Notable sexual term. Many references in culture. This article has plenty of sources. Interestingstuffadder 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete. Obscure slang, better dealt with in a broader article. Kaldari 06:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems referenced and the pic is nice ;).  Grue  14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BreakThru Radio[edit]

Non-notable internet radio station, fails WP:WEB. While a google search shows they've put out press releases claiming to have millions of listeners, their alexa ranking is 3,607,253 Xyzzyplugh 11:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unable to locate non-trivial third-party articles - a lot of press releases. I note the BreakThru Radio website doesn't have a hits-counter, either. I did find one apparent story in the Toronto Star, but it was a reprinted press release. Tychocat 12:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know a whole lot about the station except that I like it. I use wikipedia all the time to look up things but this is the first time I felt inclined to edit any of the entries. I looked up breakthru on here the other day and saw it was up for deletion. I don't really understand the editing process but I'll do whatever I can to not delete it. I've gotten to know tons of bands from lots of different countries because of this station. I even have met one of their DJ's who I assume started the entry from its record. Her and I are from the same town and I see her at every show. If she is any indication as to what the site stands for than it needs to be on here. I'm not aware of their press releases and I'm not very knowledgeable about computers but I'd think that they do get millions of listners. A lot of kids at my highschool listen and I know their friends do to. I did a google search on Alexa and it's just one type of browser right? from the people I've met through myspace that listen to breakthru, they are all from other countries. I'm not trying to defend that statement, just that I really like this station and they deserve to be on wikipedia. again i don't know alot about wikipedia (other than looking up stuff) and I'm not a writer. If so i would to more to improve the entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.230.76 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Of course, any internet radio station is going to claim to have (insert very large number here) listeners. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 21:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evos[edit]

Contested prod which seems to be blatant advertising. Does not meet WP:CORP. Creator has not edited any other article except the concerned "article". The amount of (attempted) external links also add to suspicions. MER-C 11:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also note that contributor Jamie.moore is same name as Evos legal rep/CEO, so possible vanity page. Tychocat 12:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam essay. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 19:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, will protect against recreation. Mangojuicetalk 16:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weycrest[edit]

Previously deleted as spam at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weycrest, re-created by the original author, Weycrest (talk · contribs). No evidence of meeting WP:CORP, fair evidence of meeting WP:VSCA. Not technically a G4 as the content is somewhat different. Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in what way is this spam?. It merely states what Weycrest does and where they are? There are no external "spam links" as such that I'm aware off. Explain how these other company contributions comply exactly? Cofinimmo, [[Namesco].], NDO (the latter of which is out of date and no longer exists as a seperate entity/company). Indeed NDO entry contains the following sales statement - "with the emphasis on customer service and not necessarily cheap and cheerful." Weycrest (talk · contribs) Sat Jul 22 13:58:48 BST 2006

The existence of other questionable articles has never been a compelling reaosn for keeping questionable articles. You are free to fix those articles or nominate them for deletion. WP:CORP gives the measures used to establish notability for companies. Just zis Guy you know? 13:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't dream of deleting other articles, which have existed for some time despite being "questionable" in terms of the WP:CORP. Seems odd to me these have existed as long as they have. Weycrest (talk · contribs) Sat Jul 22 17:51:17 BST 2006
Possibly because they are not on my watchlist as previously deleted articles. Just zis Guy you know? 10:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can delete whenever. We are setting up our own local wikipedia project for Docklands and will contribute articles to that. Oh and BTW stuff like this: Torchwood_Institute doesn't actually exist you know ;o) Weycrest (talk · contribs) Tue Jul 25 10:07:43 BST 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian (I'd Give My Heart)[edit]

No assertion of notability beyond that it was performed on a given tour. See other entries on this page for songs by this band from this album. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, because I can't see any possible earthly reason not to. By the way, these three songs could have been combined into one entry. - CheNuevara 15:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary article. The mention on the album's article is enough. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:20, 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 Mangojuicetalk 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Who I Am[edit]

No assertion of notability beyond that it was performed on a given tour. See other entries on this page for songs by this band from this album. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (see entry for Jillian above) - CheNuevara 15:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary article. The mention on the album's article is enough. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:21, 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. Mangojuicetalk 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stand My Ground[edit]

No assertion of notability beyond that it was performed on a given tour. See other entries on this page for songs by this band from this album. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (see entry for Jillian above) - CheNuevara 15:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary article. The mention on the album's article is enough. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:21, 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 09:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Forums[edit]

Fixing broken nomination by anon user. That said, there's no assertion of notability, and in particular there's no evidence of passing the WP:WEB test. For those of you who have and will comment: AfD is in no way, shape, or form a commentary on your website. I'm sure it's fun, and I wish you nothing but the best; however, I'm not convinced that an encylopedia should include an article on the website. See what Wikipedia is not for more information. You may also wish to see the deletion policy. Regards, Luna Santin 13:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In regard to Tychocat’s comment “If you have multiple non-trivial articles by uninvolved third-parties, please bring them out” may I present a rip from the tv show “Car Crazy” produced by Meguiar's one of the worlds biggest car enthusiast products producer and presented by Damon Duprez, one of Australians most recognized motoring journalists : http://simon.firesport.com/ccs13divxhigh.avi . I also have many print media references that I would be happy to scan and upload to my server if required. Simply because you do not know of this community does not give you the right to belittle it; in fact isn’t the purpose of an encyclopedia to educate people about that which they do not know or understand? Performanceforums.com has over 11000 members and has been a great technical reference for the Australian motoring enthusiast community for over 5 years now and deserves to be accurately represented on wiki.


  • The Performance Forums entry is quite an accurate reflection of the online community contained within & therefore should remain.
  • Even the list of facts at the end which appears to be random tongue in cheek dribble is comprised of notable quotes taken from memorable threads going back a number of years. People in the community know exactly what these references mean & knowing some of this history could be of potential benefit to a new user. -Ash H
  • The wiki entry will be cleaned up over the next few days, and will reflect the light hearted banter of the forum itself. It will serve as an important reference for people who are interested in the history and background of an important web resource for car enthusiasts in Australia. - signed on behalf of bigmuz/nikki Mrtwrx 12:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "list of facts" seems to be a magnet for vandalism. NawlinWiki 13:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, also Alexa rank 691,881. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per ASH H. WP is not a free webhost for your recruitment drive; the fact the material may be of "potential" benefit to a new member is nice but has no bearing on notability; the claim of being an "important web resource for car enthusiasts in Australia" is not born out by either references or citations. See WP:WEB for a fuller description of the issues we're seeing here. In particular, if you have multiple non-trivial articles by uninvolved third-parties, please bring them out. Tychocat 15:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is For teh lose ... I mean delete. In addition to the above-mentioned, the sentence "12. Whoever flagged this wiki for deletion is one of those members who requires an IP ban" shows me that this page doesn't have anything useful to say. - CheNuevara 15:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This forum is one of the longest-running Australian-based forums pertaining to automotive technology, having been around since November 2001, and is fairly well known amongst other Australian forums for it's focus on technical and performance issues related to car ownership and modification/tuning. If this article is modified to give a more historic view and neutral portrayal of Performance Forums, and remove some things like the top 100 list, surely it can be saved from deletion. -Bulgogi
  • Delete Spam essay for a creepy webboard. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 19:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:SPAM and WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the fact this is not a legitimate encyclopaedia, because the creators can't even spell encyclopaedia correctly, and it's full of useless articles already. You even have Wiki's on porn stars, lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugle11tybillion (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 06:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete forum vanity in the same category as the numerous clans that pop up here MLA 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Online forum that has press exposure and detailed history of its creation and evolution. SL666
    • Comment "Press exposure" that is not apparent in the article, and going by an earlier version of Art H.'s reply to me, I realize he believes documentation is a waste of time. Tychocat 04:50, 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.

A+++++++++ delete would delete again!!111one

i am a wiki nerd and i like to suck penises. present your penis for sucking or i will edit your dna!!!

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

The result was apparent hoax. DS 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suisky[edit]

neologism, Wikipedia not a dictionary Travelbird 13:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also dicdef at best. Unable to locate any citations to verify word even exists as stated. Tychocat 15:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. No evidence from a reasonable search that this word is actually in use in English. - CheNuevara 15:28, 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 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Dex Award[edit]

Sorry... I must nominate this article, even though I love Eurovision to bits. This is non-notable, and not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopædia - at least, not as its own separate article. Nothing against eurovisionhouse.nl, but.. even that itself would not be suitable, as per WP:WEB (not even eurosong.net (my own site) or esctoday.com need encyclopædia articles). This "award" given by the website is certainly even less encyclopædic. Delete EuroSong talk 13:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this award has gained quite a bit of publicity in the media, and notability is not a good criteria anyway. I can expand on that later but have to go now :D Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh, has it? First I heard of it having gained publicity! Well Bravada, you're the one fixed on references :)) - therefore this article needs appropriate references which show the fact that the award has had publicity. I guess this is offline publicity, because a Google search returns little beyond what is written on fan websites. As it stands, the article does not assert the importance or significance of the topic, so currently fails WP guidelines. How's your hand? EuroSong talk 14:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB and general notability policy. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 30/07/06, which in your star-time is merely the twenty-ninth. Try to catch up! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Skinmeister 15:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... an award given by a website that fails WP:WEB doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. --Kinu t/c 16:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but add eurovisionhouse.nl to the Eurovision Song Contest links section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mostly Rainy 12:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katalin Sárosi[edit]

Few information to verify Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 13:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on 22:24, 23 July 2006 CET the bot YurikBot added a link to the article that redirects to the Swedish counterpart of it. So from then on we know that she released an album in the 60s. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 01:30, 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. Paul Cyr 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerr Avon[edit]

Delete or Merge to Characters from Blake's 7. These characters are not important/interesting enough to all have short pages of their own. Zargulon 14:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles

Roj Blake
Cally
Dayna Mellanby
Olag Gan
Jenna Stannis
Orac
Servalan
Slave (Blake's 7)
Soolin
Del Tarrant
Travis (Blake's 7)
Vila Restal
Zen (Blake's 7)
Zargulon 14:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. Voice of Treason 14:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least renominate individually so we can consider each on their own merits. I get 21,000 Google hits for "Kerr Avon" (in quotes) and Avon +Blake's 7 gets 76,100. Undoubtedly, at least some of these characters should have their own articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI'd be interested to hear from you and other fans a list of who you think are the major characters.. perhaps they could keep their own pages. However ghits alone will not justify it.. for someone to have their own Wikipedia page they have to have a notable impact not only on the sci-fi universe or the fan community, but on the real world. Zargulon 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan. They're a bit short at the moment but could be expanded. Tim! 15:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't think they need seperate pages, but it's worth having one page with information about all the major characters from the show. If you're keeping individual pages for the major characters, I'd say Blake, Avon and Servalan would qualify. Mark Grant 16:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently notable, being main characters in a well known, long running series and with good scope for expansion (due to their long history in the series). TigerShark 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Articles for deletion. Only come here if you want an article deleted. Merger does not involve deletion at any stage.

    As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyta Alexander, this nomination is misguided. Again, research turns up plenty of secondary source material on these characters. What is required is for these articles to cite it, to allow editors to see how much secondary source material there is on these subjects. Keep. Uncle G 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You could have said the above without the additional "this nomination is misguided" comment. Let's try to be nice, please. Also, the nomination mentions deletion and merging as an alternative, so having it under AFD is fine. TigerShark 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's nothing not nice about saying that a nomination is misguided, and this nomination is misguided, for the reason that I gave. If someone wants something merged, they should not nominate it for deletion. One cannot merge content that is deleted. Either one wants the articles deleted outright, or not. If one wants a merger, then one does not. Uncle G 11:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blake, Avon, Cally, Servalan; possibly merge the rest. Not a job for AfD either way. To Zargulon, Avon was the most significant character, Blake the eponymous leader and therefore important too, Servalan their arch-nemesis. The series was originally scripted by Terry Nation. I'd decide mainly on the basis of how much information exists. Just zis Guy you know? 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ok, thanks. Zargulon 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever problems these articles may or may not have, lack of information is not one of them. There's been several books covering Blake's 7 (e.g. the unofficial Liberation: The Unofficial and Unauthorised Guide to Blake's 7 and A History and Critical Analysis of Blakes 7, the 1978-81 British Television Space Adventure) as well as lots of coverage in TV and sci-fi publications like Starlog, Radio Times, Cult Times, etc. Some of the actors involved have even written autobiographies, I know Paul Darrow has. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mark Grant. No need to remove this information, but centralizing it wouldn't be a bad idea. -- H·G (words/works) 19:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Show is sufficiently notable that individual character bios are appropriate. Possible some of the lesser characters should be merged with the main article, but that can be discussed on the indivual pages. Artw 20:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per the same arguments in the Babylon 5 AfD. Some of these characters may well be minor and should be merged into a "minor characters" article, but there is no reason to delete all. (Is there also an AfD planned for Jack O'Neill?) Fan-1967 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all each of these characters can be expanded on and improved. Moving them to one page will limit them. The assertion by the nominator that they are not important or interesting is subjective. Any requests for blanket deletions/mergings should be treated, in my opinion, with caution. Mallanox 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My opinion is the minor characters should be deleted and the major characters should be merged. I hope people will, as Mallanox suggests, treat it with caution. I am sorry if this has been percieved as misuse of AfD. Perhaps if we could form consensus around what should be merged, kept (or deleted) then at least something good could come of it. Zargulon 22:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None are really minor characters, all were significant recurring characters in the show, not red-shirts who got one line before being killed. All are worth keeping in some form. Mark Grant 22:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some may merit their own article, add merge tags instead and see which get disputed .Yomangani 00:20, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Arthurs[edit]

Non-notable persona (since when is every person accused of raping and murdering a child entitled to their own Wikipedia article?) Original author claims notability "because he may be Robert Venables." It has been proven conclusively that Arthurs is not Venables, and that he was born in Perth (as the doctor who delivered him has stated.) I elliot 14:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, enough verifiable third party coverage and government involvement - as an individual and as a rumour. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as he's certainly become rather infamous in Australia. I'm not a fan of having every sicko in the world given a page, but this bloke probably gets over the line. BigHaz 01:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete So far the most notable thing about this individual is that there is a rumor he is someone else. This might be worth a mention on the James Bulger page (Venables doesn't have one), but unless something comes of this new murder case, I just don't think it's notable.--Cúchullain t/c 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete* No notability as of yet, and given that his trial will not take place for some time, there is very little reliable comment that can be made. Dante Arthurs is not even notable should he be convicted of murder, as murders are fairly regular in the Perth area. I say 'strong', because it is evident to me that even while denying the James Bulger connection in the text, the author(s) are trying to promote it. That seems to be the central reason why this page has been posted. I also suspect that they are looking for a platform to publicise Dante Arthur's identity for its' own sake. This is a misuse of the open editing policy of the wiki. I note on the deletion discussion page that at least one of the authors is still defending this article on the basis of the same discredited rumour. If the rumour turns out to be true (extremely unlikely), the level of denial at government and police level will be the main point of interest. In the meantime, this article should be removed as swiftly as possible to defend Wikipedia's reputation. Centrepull 06:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The camera hardly ever lies. The non-coincdental similarities between the two are there for all to see. The article should remain on this basis alone. These pictures were obtained from public, unbiased sources - the West Australian Newspaper and the BBC. Elpocoloco 14:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Rje 00:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prestonworkers[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and WP:ORG criteria. No alexa ranking [6] and 32 Google results [7]--TBCTaLk?!? 14:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Spam essay. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xrblsnggt. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP i like it - it adds value to see a practical example

Hi can anyone give me advice on ho wto write a descriptive article about our committee; i'm not trying to spam up you site - thanks :) joshthetree

  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Brown[edit]

Non-notable musician, does not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. BrownHairedGirl 14:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for unanimous deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Drivers for Hendrick Racing[edit]

All info is pretty much in the Hendrick Motorsports article and maybe List of NASCAR drivers. This is unnecessary and I doubt it even deserves a redirect. Strong Delete. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 15:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This would be a merge except that the nom is right that it is almost completely covered in more appropriate articles. Erechtheus 21:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to Hendrick Motorsports, which is the actual name of the organization (not "Hendrick Racing"). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; mistitled and nothing to merge, so redirect isn't needed. This list is duplication that doesn't seem to help WP or WikiProject NASCAR's goals. Barno 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyta Alexander[edit]

Delete or Merge to Characters from Babylon 5. These characters are not notable/interesting enough to all have their own web page. Zargulon 15:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles:

Zack Allan, Alfred Bester (Babylon 5), Branmer, Emperor Cartagia, Centauri Minister/Regent, Morgan Clark, Marcus Cole, Vir Cotto, Delenn, Draal, Dukhat, Stephen Franklin, G'Kar, Michael Garibaldi, Jason Ironheart, Susan Ivanova, Warren Keffer, Kosh, Benjamin Kyle, Lennier, Elizabeth Lochley, Lorien (Babylon 5), Susanna Luchenko, Emperor Mollari I, Londo Mollari, Morden (Babylon 5), Na'Toth, Neroon, Pius XV, Lord Refa, Luis Santiago, Anna Sheridan, David Sheridan, John Sheridan (Babylon 5), Jeffrey Sinclair, Laurel Takashima, Turhan, Valen, Lou Welch, Talia Winters, Zathras
Zargulon 15:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. Probably some of these should be considered minor characters (and merged) while other major characters might warrant their own articles. Really though, I'm fine with whatever editors would like to do, as long as someone is willing to do the work. --Alan Au 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be POV nomination based on the presumption that none of the characters are "interesting" enough. Too many articles to lump together into one AfD page. CovenantD 16:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa! This is a bit severe based on Wikipedia precedent on starring, major, and semi-major characters. I will acquiesce that several of these characters are too minor and NN to qualify for their own articles, but many are blatently not.

    For starters, Delenn, Zack Allen, Stephen Franklin, G'Kar, Michael Garibaldi, Susan Ivanova, Lennier, Londo Mollari, Marcus Cole, John Sheridan, and Jeffrey Sinclair are all major, starring characters — as distinguished in the show's opening credits. They, in no way, fail WP:FICTION for their own pages, and I lean towards assuming bad faith on their nominations. Several others starred in many episodes and are integral characters in the show's several arcs and probably also deserve their own pages, (although not so obviously as the former examples) such as Kosh, Mr. Morden, and Bester.

    I will not, however, contest the merge of several of these articles into their applicable associated characters and episodes; Emperor Mollari I, Jason Ironheart, and Dukhat jump to me immediately. Alternatively, a List of minor characters in the Babylon 5 universe (similar to List of minor characters in the Firefly universe could be established for these imfliential, although minor characters.

    Finally, why were all of these AFD nominations lumped together instead of being nominated separately so as to discuss the worthiness and merits of each individual article on its own? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per CovenantD and pd_THOR - Rangek 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Articles for deletion. Only come here if you want an article deleted. Merger does not involve deletion at any stage.

    There's plenty of secondary source material to be had on the subject of the major characters in this television series, and the majority of the articles listed in the nomination are major characters. These articles all should cite sources, so that editors can see that the size of these articles is based upon the amount of secondary source material available. But deletion doesn't achieve that. As per pd_THOR, Keep. Uncle G 17:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all, they are good articles on the whole. Tim! 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, with no prejudice on renominating some of the genuinely minor bit characters in separate AFD, but this list includes the key characters. If you want to delete John Sheridan and Jeffrey Sinclair, what's next, going after James T. Kirk and Spock? Fan-1967 18:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly individually renominate some of the truly minor ones. Many of these are central characters and clearly notable enough for articles. Examples: Londo +Babylon scores 187,000 Google hits, Garibaldi +Babylon scores 239,000, Sheridan +Babylon scores 912,000, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad nomination because it is impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. Many of the characters are major characters of or play a significan rolls in Babylon 5 and can have their own articles per WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them all, {{fact}}-tagging where statements need citation. Babylon 5 has plenty of wiki-reliable sources for this content. I would not be opposed to combining some of the lesser characters (ones with little or no source-backed text) into a "list of minors" per pd_THOR, but this nomination seems motivated more by disgust with fictional-character articles in general, not because of their sourceable material. I can understand it, as there seem to be many more folks that would like to write about B5 characters than, say, asteroid classifications. But it's not a contest. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this looks like a bad-faith nomination or a WP:POINT to get rid of all fictional characters into merged list of characters pages. 132.205.95.44 21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My opinion is the minor characters should be deleted and the major characters should be merged, but clearly everyone else disagrees. Perhaps we could form consensus around merging the minor characters and keeping the major ones as they are... Zargulon 22:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, This was hashed out over a year ago and later summarized in WP:FICT. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, these are the standards under editors will be judging character articles on. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Amen to that. But kindly clarify something.. WP:FICT says that non-notable minor characters should be merged into one article. Surely if something is non-notable, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all.. or are they specially worthy of inclusion on the grounds that they are fictional characters? Zargulon 00:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the obvious precendent of major characters from major media works having their own articles. Would be fine to have a few of those in the rather extensive nomination being combined into a "minor characters of" list, but AFD isn't really needed for that. Kuru talk 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! WTF is this? A sudden move to delete this many articles, especially of the series regulars, smells fishy to me. Wl219 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Also, the vote is invalid as it cannot have a vote for multiple articles conglomerated. MSTCrow 06:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Could we keep Zathras seperate. Although only a minor character, the actor who played him, Tim Choate, died on the 24th of September 2004 in a motorcycle accident. He doesnt have a web page for himself up here at the moment, I just think the Zathras page would be a nice one to remember him by. --Dem 08:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Uncle_G. A few of these articles should be merged into a "minor characters" article, but that's irrelevant to this AfD. CWC(talk) 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of these characters are all characters that are important to the various arcing storylines of B5. Granted I don't know if they all deserve their own pages but they don't deserve outright deletion. Zessa 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a mass nomination - would vote differently on individual articles, but can't support a mass deletion like this. 24.136.38.121 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The show is one thing, but has anyone forgotten the mass of books? It's an entire universe. Bester has two books out of the Psi Corps trilogy written pretty much about him.
  • Keep It is...unreasonable to nominate so many characters simultaneously. It is beyond unreasonable when the list includes major characters (i.e., people whose names and/or portraits appear in the opening credits for any season, as another user has commented). If Kirk, O'Neill, and Bauer can have their own articles, Sheridan deserves his own. This should be broken down into individual nominations since there is room for debate on a few of these. There are two big names up there that could be merged by one interpretation of the rules, but doing so would make the entire article a giant spoiler.

    With regards to Zarbulon's comment of 23 July about notability: the minor characters as a class are notable because they are part of something notable. Major characters are notable of themselves. A good analogy would be an organization's website, which may devote a separate page to its leadership while ordinary members get little blurbs on a single page and perhaps links to private sites.--24.178.78.179 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not very convinced by this.. there are very few non-notable things which can't be argued to be part of something notable. Zargulon 09:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable -- Editor is jealous he didnt create these pages? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You found me out. Zargulon 09:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My detective skills are legendry ;-) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:02, 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 spam. DS 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Designnobis[edit]

non-notable company, advertising Travelbird 15:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertising Feedyourfeet 15:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verifiability or assertion of notability. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam essay. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 19:56, 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 notability not asserted. Tyrenius 18:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Diocletians[edit]

Fails WP:BAND only 1 ghit and that is for myspace DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 15:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Can we speedy this? -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is a speedy candidate, and have nominated it. Mr Stephen 17:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO doktorb wordsdeeds 15:50, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Americans Abroad!!! Against Me!!! Live in London!!![edit]

This is a future album. WP:NOT - not a crystal ball. Massmato 15:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is not a case of Wikipedia being a crystal ball. Everything about this album has been confirmed by the record distributor, it's just a matter of waiting out the days until it can be bought. Nowah Balloon 1:31pm, 23 July 2006 (HST)
  • delete - TBH I;m not entirely sure we'd need a page for a released albulm by this band either. Artw 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Future albums released by bands or musicians are all over Wikipedia (see [8]). If you check, this is listed on their official site (see news [9]), Fat Wreck Chord's site [10], and on Amazon [11]. And to Artw, is that supposed to be a biased statement? Not to assume anything but it sounds like you don't want an article for a release by them because you don't like the band. Most of their other albums by the band have articles for them. sharpdust 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see Wikipedia as a place for track listings for albulms that have no inherent notability (notability that would come through widespread cultural impact of some kind). To be honest I have no idea what the actual policy is on this, and others may disagree, but it seems like a reasonable opinion. Artw 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To ArtW: What exactly do you mean by widespread cultural impact? Like what album released has ever made a widespread cultural impact? The only thing that comes to mind are albums released by The Beatles (Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band), Pink Floyd (The Wall, or Nirvana (Nevermind) as they definitively made an impact on music. If that were the case, then thousands upon thousands of album articles would need to be deleted because nothing recently has made that much of an impact. As far as I'm concerned, any album released (released as in stores or online, not out of the trunk of someone's car) by a musician should be allowed to have an article. sharpdust 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the general rule is that the existence of other articles which perhaps shouldn't be here (future albums etc etc) doesn't mean that any specific article of that type needs to be here - so just because there are other forthcoming albums around the place doesn't mean that this one needs to be here. Without having looked at the entire category, I can't speculate on why they're there, but it's presumably a notability thing - albums by big-name artists tend to be more notable than debuts by relative unknowns, f'rinstance. BigHaz 01:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To BigHaz: Notability is a matter of opinion. And this is not a debut by a relatively unknown, they have been around for awhile. sharpdust 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to agree with deleting the article. While I like this band, the album is not out yet. I think the article should be deleted for now and then put back up when the album actually comes out. Josh, 22 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.103.44 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep- If the track listing and Album art have already been confirmed. I see no problem with it. --Diehard2k5 03:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add an external link or two for good measure. --Merovingian - Talk 03:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have updated it a litle bit so it's a little more informative. sharpdust 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the information (Track list and album art) is verifiable (like their label's website), then it doesn't seem to qualify as being a crystal ball. --Braintoad 09:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protest tourism[edit]

Neologism, that's so neo that no-one has even defined it (see article). WP:NOR and WP:NOT a soapbox. Mr Stephen 15:29, 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 deleted per CSD A1/G1. Text of article was a copy-and-paste from Al Roker with weird pictures added for taste. Xoloz 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heureuses dispositions[edit]

Nonsense -Nv8200p talk 15:42, 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. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow & Flutter[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 15:55, 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 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zumi zola[edit]

WP:NN actor - fails WP:BIO 22 ghits DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that not even IMDb have heard of him. He doesn't strike me as at all notable, or someone one would look up an encyclopaedia to find out about. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Ba Sing Se[edit]

This article on a future television episode is entirely speculative and/or orginates from an unreliable source. Prototime 16:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Put quite simply, there is no evidence this episode exists. Several editors, registered and unregistered, have been adding material from message boards that appears to be leaked from Nickelodeon, however, there is nothing to establish the veracity of this information. This episode’s name and very existence are derived from such information, since as of yet NO information on the episode has been publicly released. It can’t be verified, and don’t belong on Wikipedia.--Fyre2387 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree to statements above. --Crisu 04:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. -- Win777 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for unanimous deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 22:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIKECAT[edit]

Fixing broken nom by anon user. Appears to fail WP:WEB and WP:MEME. May be worth mention at 2ch or similar article. Luna Santin 16:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, BIKECAT is an important part of the history of cat image boards. The person who nominated this page for deletion needs to cite a specific reason from the deletion policy or What Wikipedia is Not. Danarjordan 09:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as lacking any importance outside of the sub-sub-sub-genre of pictorial pet-related boards. 176 unique Googles. Just zis Guy you know? 17:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Messageboardcruft. Artw 21:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As cute/amusing as those Bikecat pictures are, how is any of this to be reliably verified? Imageboard prittle-prattle is not a reliable source. ~Matticus TC 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I came to find out what a "bikecat" was, and this article told me more than any other place. Perhaps it should be checked to see if it is "truly unverifiable," as that seems to be the only possible problem I can tell from reading the deletion policy and What Wikipedia is Not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.11.5 (talk • contribs)
    • Note User's only contribution is to this AfD. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotta start somewhere, but I don't deny that.
  • Delete per nom. Google hits shows most mentions are from being a popular forum handle. No non-trivial articles by third-parties. Tychocat 11:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BIKECAT is amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.226.205 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. --Cúchullain t/c 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My cat is part of the Infinite Cat Project so I appreciate feline humor, but an actual entry on one of the cats is a bit absurd. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 00:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BIKECAT looked after my children Jezpuh 09:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete catcruft, or whatever. I have no idea what this is about. --Musaabdulrashid 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Paul Cyr 03:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the deletion result in this earlier AfD in light of the keep result in this broader, similarly-themed other AfD. For consistency's sake, the question now is whether the Sci-Fi program list should be kept, given that other network's program lists were also kept? DRV refers the question back to this AfD for an answer. Please consult the other debates before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the broader, similarly-themed other AfD. As always, I side with consistency. Maxamegalon2000 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mexamegalon2000.--Chaser T 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency's sake, the well-being of the SciFi Channel article, and for all the reasons stated to keep similar programme lists and the forementioned AfD and DRv, to which could be checked and improved upon via a subproject from the WikiProject Television. DrWho42 17:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. MakeRocketGoNow 18:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my previous remarks. All the same arguments that resulted in Keep on the other lists apply to the Sci-Fi one. It is useful for seeing the channel's history and contributions to the genre, it is not a guide to current program schedules, it is sorted by program types, which is helpful, and it contains redlinks, if I recall correctly, which would be lost in a category listing. Karen 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my previous comments in the other AfDs. This is historical data not TV guide data. - Wickning1 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DrWho42. --Electricbolt 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is useful and informative Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:42, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinzia[edit]

Not really an encyclopaedic article ... empty list, almost a dab page where there is no need for one (compare here DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: this is really just a bad dictionary entry. --BrownHairedGirl 16:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 12:28, 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 it redirected to Internet slang as a plausible variant of the more frequently used term "AOL-speak", and to preserve attribution for any and all content which may have been originally introduced at this title prior to being merged to the broader topic, as required by the GFDL (and blah blah blah). —freak(talk) 18:14, Jul. 25, 2006 (UTC)

AOLese[edit]

Unencyclopedic title, and all information is duplicated at internet slang. Lunar Jesters (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and/or merge with internet slang. Luna Santin 16:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even worth redirecting, IMO. -- Steel 23:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Vote It appears that these articles were merged into Internet Chat and the editor didn't bother to change this to a Redirect. The AfD really isn't needed, someone can just be bold and turn it into a redirect without sorting through all of this process. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, no AfD needed. Themindset 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done - pls close this AfD. Themindset 18:09, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Network Switch[edit]

Delete! Pure invention of User:CoolKatt number 99999 who has introduced speculation in Wikipedia before. This article links unconnected events and makes them appear to be one large event which is part of some greater scheme - basically this is a theory that one person holds, and thusly unencylopedic. All the edits by others seemed to be mainly cleanup edits. This isn't even original research, but original speculation. Buckner 1986 16:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tried Googling the phrase "Great Network Switch." When I eliminated Wikipedia and answers.com, I got a whopping seven hits, and not a one was related to this. This is WP:OR and does not belong here. GassyGuy 17:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and GassyGuy. This article is nothing but original research. —Whomp t/c 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 13 hits on Yahoo outside of Wikipedia. It's all original research. Blueboy96 20:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete for the reasons of everyone else above! Kramden4700 21:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with fire more appopriate on one of CoolKatt's ridiculous subpages. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per CFIF, I am planning on moving it like a normal pagemove to a subpage. CoolKatt number 99999 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much OR, and most of the deals in this "switch" were unconnected to one another except for being in the same decade. Nate 09:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above and due to the fact it is pure speculation. Rekarb Bob 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I take issue with those claiming this exists solely in CoolKatt's amazing imagination. It almost seems like some of the the events themselves would have to be untrue in order for the events that are to be disconnected, and it looks like they aren't. The idea that the Fox/New World and ABC/Scripps deals, at least, were connected doesn't appear to be, at least solely, CoolKatt's: [12][13], and the ABC/Scripps and CBS/Group W connection has been in the WJZ article for a full year: [14]. The only event it seeks to connect with the others that seems disconnected is the formation of UPN and the WB. Yes, the name appears to be solely CoolKatt's, but if this article is to be deleted we'll want to delete references to "The Great Network Switch" in other articles, since that would appear to be a neologism. Yes, it is mostly unsourced and essentially consists of an essay, which is OR no matter how many sources you give it... but there is something to it. (CoolKatt, why don't you just get an account on GeoCities or something to put your stuff so you don't get harassed about it on Wikipedia? I'm sure people would love to read it if their first response wasn't fuming at it being inappropriate for Wikipedia.) Note: RfC and ArbCom case in progress against this user. Morgan Wick 03:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not move to a user page. I stumbled on to this article from the "random article" button and it seems to majorly be WP:OR and possibly some really bad fiction. Moving it to a user page would violate WP:NOT. It is also a neologism. Given the evidence mentioned above, this is the work of a problem user who appears to inject all sorts of fiction into the Wikipedia, which is just wrong. Cabled Substitution 05:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coincidental and unrelated events, not to mention a coined phrase by the author. &mdashTwigboy 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC);[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brights movement[edit]

Starting with the name of the organization Brights and its entry are seriously misleading, as it indicates a group of bright people, yet based on what their own site says: "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview". Among their member's entries in Wiki they list many people of no actual notiriety including such colorful characters as Teller the Magician and Penn Gillette. However, the misguiding character of the organization's name is a threat to the informative character of an encyclopaedia.}} StevanMD 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not liking the name of an organisation isn't grounds for deleting its Wikipedia entry. --McGeddon 16:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not about likes or dislikes, but about the misleading character which is an undoubted fact. StevanMD 16:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article clearly states what the group is about. If anything, you may be building a case for disambiguation. Luna Santin 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article seems to describe sufficient press coverate to pass WP:ORG. An unliked group is not necessarily a deleted group. Also, fixed the nomination. Luna Santin 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless we're going to delete German Democratic Republic and other misnomers next...--Prosfilaes 16:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I urge everyone who thinks matters of this sort are not ground enough for deletion, to take a look at The Ultranet deletion debate and express the same kind of concerns as well. Thank you. StevanMD 17:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Stop creating ill-will and a spam funnel with your childish tricks. Don't abuse AfD. DrL 19:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editing other people's comments again, DrL? Don't make it a habit, please. I have removed your strikethrough on StevanMD's comment, as he did not want it there, presumably, or he would have done it himself. And yes, I am a member of the Brights, that's why I'm not offering an opinion on this AfD. Byrgenwulf 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE It's just a 3 year old neologism -- perhaps a one-line entry at Wiktionary is appropriate, but nothing here except a redirect to atheism or humanism.. --Michael C. Price talk 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per all keeps. Artw 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is in violation of WP:POINT, per StevanMD's comment here: "No, I was just demonstrating the principle that guides Wiki. Anyone can get anything deleted without real ground or qualifications to decide." Please don't attempt tit-for-tat deletions. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nomination, as per Quiddity's good research above. Vizjim 00:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepas per above --Donar Reiskoffer 05:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the 'misguiding character of an organizations name' - apart from the fact that this is very much a point-of-view (I do not consider it misleading at all), are we to delete the Virgin records article next, because of the misleading implication that the company's records are recorded by virgins only? Bad faith nomination. Max robitzsch 11:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Brights movement is socially notable, which is clearly demonstrated by international news coverage (e.g. New York Times articles) and discussion by leading figures in the intellectual community (e.g. Professor Richard Dawkins' multiple articles/essays discussing Brights). Spiralfracture 11:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Guardian piece seems to show this is verifiable and more or less notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Interesting article, completely acceptable. Please see above "keeps" as well. -Dialecticas 17:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Brights is a dumb name, but this is definitely notable and StevanMD should be ashamed of himself for using an afd in such a clearly biased way. Boo!-Hraefen Talk 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Movement is notable and document, and this is a bad faith nomination. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, seems to be a bad faith nomination. —Nightstallion (?) 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish the term had never been invented. But it has been, so keep.—Laurence Boyce 15:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP it may be an arrogant title for an organization (or just silly even) but that is the name of the organization.
  • Keep - known group; bad faith nom. DaturaS 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the group exists whether or not others like the group or its name. By deleting all entries about the Brights, wiki would allow its critics to control wikipedia. I can criticize christianity: I doubt that would lead to related entries to be deleted. Wiki cannot afford to allow bias to control it, no matter who holds that bias. Impish, July 25, 2006.
  • Keep obviously. And, erm, this article has been nominated for deletion a couple of times before, shouldn't the nominator have revealed this? Reeks of bad faith. Mikker (...) 23:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesnt list previous deletion nominations anywhere on the talk page (they should be added, where are they listed?), so that's probably actually not relevant. It does indeed seem to be bad faith for other reasons though. -Quiddity 05:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Not liking an organization is not grounds for deleting its article. --Cswrye 05:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kämpfer[edit]

Orphaned Non notable non wikied nonsense Rjayres 17:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly even speedy as no context. The Principality of Zeon? GassyGuy 17:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for no context nonsense --DarkAudit 20:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speedy if possible. MS-18 Kämpfer already exists (which is probably what the original author had intended) and it doesn't need to be there. --ColourBurst 21:45, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocates for Children in Therapy[edit]

Speaking for the organization which is the subject of this article:

  1. The article was created by an anonymous opponent of the subject organization, and is false in most respects.
  2. The article is possibly defamatory, e.g., the present section on "Acceptance by Mental Health Profession".
  3. The article, and its associated talk page, will likely be the target of numerous anonymous edits that can be anticipated to be false and defamatory.
  4. The subject organization does not desire to spend resources defending its reputation from "merciless editing" on Wikipedia, especially by correcting numerous falsehoods, defamations, and violations of Wikipedia policy which Administrators let stand.
  5. Corrective edits by Wiki editors have been reverted and labelled "vandalism" by the creator of the article.
  6. The article will likely become the object of edit wars, revert wars, or "fixated" editing on the part of supporters trying to defend the organization, which would lead to the editors being blocked, leaving the subject organization with no means of defense, and damaging the reputation and position of the editors.
  7. The subject organization reserves the right to take any legal action that is appropriate if the page is allowed to continue.
  8. The article was not created in good faith. The anonymous creator of the article has been a participant in many talk page discussions wherein he has called a "fringe" organization. A "fringe" group by definition does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the main namespace, so creating it was not an act of good faith.
  9. The article is not likely to contribute anything to making Wikipedia "a great encyclopedia" and more likely would be disruptive to Wikipedia and its administrators. Larry Sarner 17:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- vote undecided at moment: if you think that the current article is biased, I'd say, rather than deletion, rewrite it unless it's thoroughly unsalvageable. Also put a {{NPOV}} tag on it. --Nlu (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LeaveThe article does need more material, but it has a place in an encyclopedia:
  1. It is referenced in other articles and spaces in Wikipedia. Readers may have an interest in reading about the group and should have a convenient way to get information.
  2. Many other advocacy groups and organizations have Wikipedia articles.
  3. Controversial topics are excellent subjects for encyclopedia articles.

Regarding the objections raised by one of the group's leaders, I would make the following comments:

  1. Allegedly false comments can be disputed on the talk page and, if there is not support, deleted.
  2. Controversial topics go garner opposiing views. The Wikipedia consensus building process can manage that. If there can be articles about such "hot" topics as Nazi Germany, Abortion, etc. then certainly Wikipedia can contain and manage this.
  3. Fringe groups are certainly do have pages. See, for example Nazi-Skinheads.

While I can appreciate Mr. Larry Sarner's concerns, I don't believe those concerns should lead to the supression of information that may be of value to Wikipedia users. DPeterson 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if I were pressed at the moment, I'd say "weak delete" based on non-notability (though some research on the subject might change my mind). However, I'm with Nlu on this; there are other ways to resolve POV issues without having an article deleted. Please see if any resolution can be met by discussing these issues on the article's Talk page. -- H·G (words/works) 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Article and Add to it' -- This is a subject worthy of an article. The group is cited in several Wikipedia articles and is linked to a notable and sad story. I come to Wikipedia to get information (and occassionally to edit pages). Having access to information, even if difficult and conflicted, is important. I am sure that the article can stand to have several divergent points of view and thus end up presenting a balanced, complete, and reasonable presentation of facts. I'd like to see it stay. SamDavidson 20:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ya know, this article was created today, and the creator was immediately set upon by the nominator with these concerns. Can we give the article a chance here? It's still being written. (See my talk page for some of the exchange...) Mangojuicetalk 01:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KEEP' This article has information that Wikipedia users may want. Since the group is mentioned on other pages, a page on this topic is warranted. The objection of the group's owner(s) is not relevant, nor are those arguments relevant. The free flow of information requires that topics be covered, even if disputes emerge. RalphLender 17:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now - Given what I have seen of this nomination, it was made in haste and not completely in good faith. I also completely agree with Mangojuice's comment: Let's give this article a chance. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Thadman (talk • contribs) . (Blar, I can't believe I forgot to sign :-P :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep The article is relevant. The group has published a book and several articles to advance its cause. It attempts to influence legislatures, legislators, and various professional organizations. As such it is a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article. MarkWood 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Even though it appears non-notable, we need to give articles some chance to develop unless they are blatant nonsense. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The fate of the attempts to edit (correct and improve) the article while it has been pending has borne out the nominator's initial concerns about the article. It is not even possible to call for the verification of possible misstatements of fact (reverts immediately ensue when attempted). No secondary sources are cited about the subject organization (just its own website). If the article is kept, is it possible to keep it on a "probationary" basis so that if the article fails to develop in a reliable way, it can be again nominated for deletion without the nominator being accused of vandalism or some breach of good faith? I would invite all uninvolved commentators here to please visit the article from time to time to see what is happening. Larry Sarner 23:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No article ever has such a sacred status that it can't be nominated for deletion if there are good reasons for it. In this case, it seems the article will be kept primarily because it should be allowed to develop. In my experience, after about two months of relative inactivity, claims that the article "could improve" wouldn't be taken so seriously. Mangojuicetalk 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further query: Would "inactivity" be the only standard? For instance, would it be a reasonable basis for nominating it for deletion if the article failed to improve beyond being an original essay by the subject's critics, as it is now? I can foresee that there might be plenty of "activity", but it is all just making the article more and more of an original essay, with a major part of that activity being nothing more than reverting (or defending) changes concerning lack of verifiability. If that indeed happens, and such is actually a basis for deletion, how should one judge the situation reasonably to bring the article's back here? Larry Sarner 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Please, let's not get ahead of ourselves. While it is clear you would prefer the article be deleted, it seems a number of editors want to see it stay. Many articles, once in a relatively "set state" (listing all the relevant information) have not further additions or edits. I can understand your frustration in wanting this article deleted and that not occuring, but let's not try to get agreement on how it will be deleted if this or that occurs. The article has value.RalphLender 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep the article' The article, while controversial, is growing and developing well. The participation of those with a NPOV has helped it improve. The topic of the article is worthy of an article. The group is involved in advocacy, influencing legislation, and was involved in the Candance Newmaker story. SamDavidson 14:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you mean Candace Newmaker. RalphLender 18:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NewspaperIndex[edit]

No evidence of this site being notable, and creator of article has been spamming other articles. In fact, every single edit by the creator tried to promote this site. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. It's just a directory and not an aggregator or subscription manager or anything -- just a big directory. -- Mikeblas 17:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 19:58, 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 09:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Howard[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable newscaster. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crufty non-notable TV newscaster. Buckner 1986 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no film at 11. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This reminds me of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Gardner debacle from a month or two ago where the AFD was cancelled because someone with a grudge against this particular station (and Philadelphia in general) used a multitude of sockpuppets (which were eventually all blocked) to try and get his way. The writing style of the nominator here is similar. In any event, he is one of the two or three most well-known TV personalities in Philadelphia. A large number of similar newscasters in other markets have well-written articles, I see no reason why this should be an exception. Kirjtc2 23:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I notice this article was split from KYW-TV anchors. It should be merged back if deleted. Kirjtc2 23:56, 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 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime music[edit]

Dicdef stub; These can often be turned into a good article, but the author in this case seems to be confusing "crime music" with grime, on which WP already has an article. (The external link goes to a site about grime.), so this probably isn't even a neologism. The term gets 29,000 Ghits, but I cannot find one that discusses this term in the same way as the article. JChap (talk • contribs) 17:42, 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 relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (second nomination). -- NORTH talk 22:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Freeze[edit]

This AfD nomination was made by User:Adam 1212, who did not complete the second step of the nomination. I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 20:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteMinor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable newscaster. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop voting this has been/will be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell as a multi AFD. JianLi 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Moved to new multi AFD[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 relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (second nomination). -- NORTH talk 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Tomlin[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop voting this has been/will be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell as a multi AFD. JianLi 04:26, 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 relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (second nomination). -- NORTH talk 23:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Kelly (reporter)[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop voting this has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell as a multi AFD. JianLi 04:25, 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 relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (second nomination). -- NORTH talk 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Henley[edit]

Deleted before after deletion debate (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Henley); recreated, but allegedly in different form. Procedural completion of improper AfD listing; no vote. --LambiamTalk 19:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable newscaster. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop voting this has been/will be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell as a multi AFD. JianLi 04:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Moved to new multi AFD[edit]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Hughes[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:52, 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 11:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Polec[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Patent nonsense articles and vanity articles can be speedy deleted, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was DISCUSSION NEEDS TO BE RESTARTED. This discussion has become a mess because new articles are being added to it during the discussion, and there is no way to tell which comments relate to which articles. I have contacted the initiator of the discussion with this concern, but they continue to add new articles. Please restart this discussion with a fixed list of articles. TigerShark 15:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Russell[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JianLi 18:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JianLi 04:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all pure cruft. I tagged a couple a few with db-bio but they were turned into AfDs by an admin since a claim of notability is made. Still, these are still minor figures in a local TV station and are not of encyclopedic value. Pascal.Tesson 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also moving here from their individual AFD pages (reason: related articles by same user, User:Pressure Thirteen)
JianLi 04:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the AfD for WPVI Personalities, I suggested to keep and merge back the NN articles. User:Kramden4700 supported deletion of the Personalities articles and created new sets of articles intended to be more concise:
These articles are not up for deletion here. I'm listing them here to give perspective on this bio issue. I will go over the nominated articles with a fine-tooth comb to see what I'd like to keep or delete. Tinlinkin 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Indiviually they aren't really notable, I guess, but on the other Reporters and Anchors articles I created is a bit better, since they as a group are notable. Kramden4700 05:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Monica Malpass If a special report of her divorce was really five whole pages long in the Philadelphia Daily News, then she is notable. Otherwise, delete the rest for non-notability and cruft, per nom. Tinlinkin 08:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Also:

Multi-article AFD

JianLi 06:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These constant revision/additions are really messing up the flow of this AfD (and throwing off the headers). New articles really ought not to be added in the middle of the discussion. Agent 86 08:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, this is turning into a bit of a mess. Anybody commenting here should be looking through each article, not looking at a couple and then commenting. They can't do that if articles are getting added during the process. I suggest that this discussion is restarted with a fixed number of articles. If any other are identified later, they should be added to a new discussion. Thanks TigerShark 10:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added these to this deletion page, if that is ok. Adam 1212 15:34, 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.  RasputinAXP  c 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth (ship)[edit]

Redundant article -- contains no information about the ship itself, just a quick summary of the Boston Tea Party, which is covered far better in that article. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Boston Tea Party is already linked from the Dartmouth DAB page, so this is unnecessary, and it contains no information that isn't already included in the much more extensive Tea Party article. Fan-1967 21:46, 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 Speedied. Tawker 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Heslop[edit]

possible vanity, created by user with few edits but this one, and a related article. JianLi 18:01, 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.

Hey, I have a related page to add: Neighbour Day (created by same user, vanity) JianLi 18:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep --SPUI (T - C) 18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Sexuality[edit]

Original research, no sources, probably unverifiable. Solely the work of an editor whose sole contribution it is. - CheNuevara 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom JianLi 18:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the standard academic view on the topic that I remember from my classics courses. It needs sources, but these shouldn't be hard to find. JChap (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Standard academic topic for discussion in any History department. I know i had a course in NJIT, at least. Project2501a 19:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CLA 331-001 GENDER and SEXUALITY in GREECE and ROME. 300-level course taught at the univerity of Kentuky. As this link shows the existance of such an academic topic, and therefore is't not orinal research, I move to dismiss this AfD. Project2501a 19:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Solely the work of an editor whose sole contribution it is. is not good reason to AfD an article. It could very well be a newbie user. Project2501a 19:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked and the history showed a lot of folks who edited it, so I do not believe it was a BITE nomination. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a few sources to the main text, and I believe it can be worked on from the sources. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an article rename has been suggested for this article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Sexuality in Ancient Rome. The article has greatly improved since the initial nomination; now it features references. —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a worthy subject with many university courses and printed books covering it. I have added links to some. I also support the renaming. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article has been sourced, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination/vote for delete. But I would like to comment,
    1. The "solely the work" comment was to support the original research characterisation, not to bite the newcomers
    2. Original research can exist in an established field, and that doesn't make it any more acceptable. Just because a field exists doesn't mean that what's written about it in Wikipedia is established / not OR. However, now that this article is sourced, I'm satisfied that it isn't. - CheNuevara 22:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Sexuality in Ancient Rome or something along those lines. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:33, 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 by Adam Bishop.. --Hetar 19:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Boy (Seinfeld T-shirt)[edit]

Unencyclopedic and non-notable redirect, created for the sole purpose of cluttering a disambiguation page with a trivial, non-disambiguating entry. History at Talk:Golden Boy (disambiguation) and User talk:Freakofnurture#revert rollback abuse. Also Golden Boy (T-shirt), and Golden Boy (Seinfeld t-shirt). —Michael Z. 2006-07-22 18:15 Z

  • Delete, as nominator. —Michael Z. 2006-07-22 18:16 Z
  • Delete per nom JianLi 18:26, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zatch Bell! Spell Prefixes and Sufixes[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (Copied from Fuhghettaboutit's {{prod}}) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:20, 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. Mo0[talk] 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Keith[edit]

Article seems NN; IMDB record seems scant. What are the guidelines for these things? JianLi 18:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems notable enough, icluding having apparently starred in this movie TigerShark 19:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO criterion "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." --Aguerriero (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone in the Big Lebowski deserves their own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.98.33 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Corvino's defense of homosexuality[edit]

Err... how to describe. Doesn't seem encyclopedic Computerjoe's talk 18:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Same-sex relationships: a justification to point to this AfD as its content is identical and was created by the same user. ~Matticus TC 23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Well said. JianLi 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Summary of journal article, doesn't show that article had any impact or was noted. JChap (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a cut-and-paste of someone's term paper. ... discospinster talk 21:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. The article clearly cites the source as being a scholarly article (not "someone's term paper") by a philosophy professor; it is published in an anthology, as indicated in the article. Homophobic hatred is not a reason to delete any article. Has anyone heard of freedom of speech? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.213.146 (talk • contribs)
Comment. I mean the article itself, not the source, is a copy of someone's term paper. ... discospinster talk 23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not free speech. This is about the merits of the article as it pertains to the Wikipedia:Five pillars. -- Scientizzle 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, "Homophobic hatred is not a reason to delete any article" is treading close to a personal attack; equating a delete vote here to homophobia is boorish. -- Scientizzle 18:31, 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 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rupa_Huq[edit]

Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles, in this case within the Konnie Huq (her sister) article. Also this page is incorrectly listed under the British Politican stub, This person was merely a candidate and failed to be become a Member of the European Parliament for the North West 84.69.85.231 18:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 


   This article should be kept

Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Which is exactly the cast with this article on Dr Huq. She is the most substantial female politician to emerge from british asian women. At the moment there is not one single british asian women in parliament depsite the significant contribution that asian women make to british society. Therefore being twice a parliamentary candidate is a significant achievement that should be recorded on wiki, which is supposed to be a comprehensive source of information and not open to political manipulation.



  • Delete per nom. JianLi 18:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete per nom. Noteriety comes from winning elections not loosing them. Ifnord 01:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up and Under Football Club[edit]

Put up for speedy deletion but has an assertion of notability so relisted here. I am listing it out of process and not expressing an opinion. Tyrenius 18:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable local club. --Hetar 18:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable local club that won a non-notable tournament. Metros232 19:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It needs clarification and consensus as to how far down the system football clubs in England go and still rank as "notable". This lot play at Level 18. Most of the clubs down to about Level 11 (and an ever increasing number of those below that) appear to have their own article. I love non-league football (semi-professional/amateur football below the top four divisions for those of you not in the UK!), but I think what we've got now seems a bit over-the-top. - fchd 20:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - now that is impressive; how do you find out at what level a club plays? BlueValour 22:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article about this team's league, Devon and Exeter Football League, indicates that the Devon & Exeter top division is at Level 12. Then there are five more divisions below that, and after that then comes the division this team is in, which would be Level 18. That's a bit too low to warrant encyclopedia articles about the teams in that division. --Metropolitan90 06:02, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StrikeIron

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

The result was delete  RasputinAXP  c 21:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Turner (North American artist)[edit]

VanitySpam. Looks like this was deleted once already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George M. Turner Jr. --Xrblsnggt 19:09, 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.  RasputinAXP  c 21:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan howell[edit]

Non-notable actor. His IMDB profile gives him two credits, neither of which appears to be a starring or significant role. Metros232 19:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for being thoroughly non-notable, failing to meeto WP:BIO and for being retired at age 28! Eddie.willers 19:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, he is still an actor and well known in the Antelope Valley area for much of his charity work. Also, he gives seminars on his experiences from his childing acting days and how not to get caught in the "child actor syndrome" that has effected many actors before him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.100.103 (talk • contribs) user's first edit is to this AfD. Metros232 22:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If he has achieved notability for anything besides acting we will need reliable sources to verify that, because he doesn't seem to have achieved notability for his film work. --Metropolitan90 05:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Metropolitan90 puts it best; fails WP:BIO without the WP:RS. --Kinu t/c 20:10, 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 all. If you would be so kind to your fellow closing administrators, please refrain from listing multiple articles for deletion within a single nomination, as it is exponentially difficult to derive consensus when this is done, and unlikely to produce the result desired by the nominator. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 8-)[reply]

Crazy Watto[edit]

seems like fancruft JianLi 19:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also listing

JianLi 19:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for George Lucas in Love. The rest is cruftastic and should be deleted. Artw 19:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DVPH, The Formula, and GLiL, as these articles all assert sufficient (and verifiable) notability via winning notable awards and being mentioned in multiple reliable media sources. Delete Crazy Watto, Fanboys, and Broken Allegiance, as I can't find much importance for any of them. The BA article claims "the film garnered major media coverage and was screened at numerous local and international film festivals to great response," but a Google search of "Broken Allegiance"+"Star Wars" does not confirm any of this. -- Kicking222 20:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Fanboys and The Formula, as they were AFDed less than a month ago with a nearly unanimous "keep" result. Normal keep DVPH and George Lucas in Love. Delete the rest. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Formula was also AFDed with a keep result about a month ago so I think that should be a Speedy Keep as well.67.68.155.127 03:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changed argument accordingly. I forgot about that one. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All & Strong Keep for any that won an award. Their association with www.theforce.net is important & the notability of the Star Wars franchise confers greater notability on its major works of supposed "fancruft" than if they were associate with a less notable franchise. If these were mere fancruft, I doubt they would have survived on the associated template. Irongargoyle 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All films have > 500 google hits. Irongargoyle 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep George Lucas in Love which received coverage in the mainstream media. Merge and redirect all the others to Star Wars fan films. --Metropolitan90 05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pages, merge relevant content to SWFF, redirect those deemed notable.  -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep on all. Fanboys and The Formula both recently easily survived AFDs, Broken Allegiance and George Lucas in Love have received major international and mainstream press, and Crazy Watto played at the Cannes Film Festival, and along with Darth Vader's Psychic Hotline is also notable for the people behind the scenes, including the creator of Men in Black and other famous genre personalities. MikeWazowski 03:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep on all. Especially Broken Allegiance and George Lucas in Love. Broken Allegiance won the Audience Favorite Award in the 2003 I-CON Film Festival, and was a finalist in the 2002 Australian Effects and Animation Awards. Fan Films Quarterly recognized Broken Allegiance as one of the 10 most pivotal moments in fan film history during FFQ's Summer 2006 issue (issue #4), released in June 2006. The film has over 12,000 google hits.George Lucas in Love has won several awards, including the Canal+ Short Film Award at the 2000 Deauville Film Festival, the Audience Award at both the Florida Film Festival and the San Sebastián Horror and Fantasy Film Festival, and was awarded Best Short Film at the 2000 U.S. Comedy Arts Festival. The film has 108,000 google hits. MKL 18:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep on "George Lucas in Love", which received coverage from the New York Times, and on "Crazy Watto", which played at the Cannes Film Festival. Speedy keep due to out-of-process nom for "Fanboys (film)" and "The Formula (2002)" — both were recently nominated by me and consensus to keep was decided. Weak keep on the remaining two. — Mike 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you mean on the remaining four? There are six articles nominated. Irongargoyle 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Don't know why, but you inserted a bullet separating my vote into two votes, which I've changed back now. Strong keep on the first two, speedy keep on the two recently nominated, week keep on the remaining two. — Mike 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry about that, just a random OCD moment where I totally wasn't paying attention to what I was being OCD about. Irongargoyle 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep on all. I don't know why independent films should be less important than ordinary commercial movies. Fancruft is for all these films here an absolutely inappropriated word. I could call many commercial movies commercialcruft too but I don't want to delete them. Projects should not be judged only because it's fan work otherwise someone could have the stupid idea and call even Wikipedia fancruft because it's not commercial and made also by amateurs. Deleting of articles about important fan films would be a great lack for Wikipedia and there is absolutely no need for it. The fan film scene is an important and growing scene and should not be excluded by Wikipedia. It should not only be made a decision for not deleting these articles but a general decision to keep articles about fan films with a certain popularity with perhaps at least 500 or 1000 Google entries because such article get requests for deleting from some ignorants with no good reason frequently. Someone who is not interested in this stuff should just ignore these sites but not request to delete them. I'm also not interested in every article of Wikipedia but I don't make a request for deleting. 217.184.70.211 23:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all. FreakyMutantMan 06:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -LtNOWIS 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Darius[edit]

Vanityspam about some guy with a job in software. Links to his blog. Not notable. --Xrblsnggt 19:15, 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. Mo0[talk] 05:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N-TEN[edit]

Spam. Wikipedia is not an advertising service (not even for non-profit groups). The article liks to a dozen spam essays in the same style. --Xrblsnggt 19:23, 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 deleted. The Land 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASHI[edit]

Article written in an advertising style which on second glance turns out to be a spam article for a web directory. Artw 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The organization may be a notable one that someone could write an article on in the future, but I agree with the nom that this is spam. Erechtheus 21:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A8. This is a copyvio from [15] and meets the criteria in A8. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:42, 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 Speedy delete under A7 criteria by Ohnoitsjamie. --Hetar 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lottery Opportunity Review[edit]

blatant advertising Travelbird 19:44, 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 speedy delete as previously deleted content. — FireFox 20:02, 22 July '06

Jon versteeg[edit]

repost of deleted article, non notable student broadcaster Travelbird 19:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete I can't believe the admin overturned the CSD for this. Jon's nickname is Verstoogle says it all. No assertion of notability whatsoever, and no notability to assert. — NMChico24 19:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Speedy if the content is identical to the deleted article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:01, 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 11:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space mace[edit]

non-notable weapon Travelbird 20:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for unanimous deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive animation[edit]

Original research and neologisms. Only source is a post from a mailing list. Term is mostly used to classify animation that does not use standard animation clichés. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive anime --TheFarix (Talk) 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Interesting article, but not wikipediua material as effectively it's an Essay by proxy. Delete until such a time as it gains enough ground to be notable. Artw 21:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article wholly based on WP:OR, WP:NEO, and the opinionated essay of one individual on USENET. Voice of Treason 17:03, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revo-Europe[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. 85 distinct Google hits. No mention except in other similar forums. ColourBurst 21:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RE is a well-known gaming site, especially in Europe and meets the third criteria of WP:WEB.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tphi (talk • contribs) .
Comment. above user is article's creator.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Appears to fail WP:WEB. Along with nom's google search, I get an Alexa rank of 110,409 [16]. Regarding meeting the third WP:WEB criterion, I looked at the site, but failed to see that it fit. Can you expand on that?. Always willing to reconsider.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep No smoking gun but some evidence of notability.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First off, I am the article's creator, apologies if I should have stated that. I thought it may satisfy the third criterion as the site's content is also distributed as part of the wide AMN network, which is also responsible for the site's hosting. Additionally, the site's podcasts can be found on iTunes. The Alexa rank is low only as it has dipped in the past month or so - it has been 80,000 and higher. I guess another argument would be that of Futility's on the AMN AfD page [17] - which is that there are many other sites like this which do have articles. Nintendorks, N-sider, PGC - all of the same popularity and visibility online. In my opinion, to argue that this needs deletion would be generalising that many, many other sites would have to be deleted too. Tphi 23:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please don't take it personally. The only reason I didn't nominate PGC is because they do have mentions in major newspapers, like USA Today. On the other hand, the third criteria has limits to it as well - you can't host a page on Geocities and say it satisfies the third point. With the footnote, I find that the third point is strongly tied to the first. In addition, the Alexa rankings (though I do not always trust them) are actually vastly different for these "similar" sites. In fact, a lot of web articles get deleted (and sometimes we miss some - we are only human), because Wikipedia isn't really a web directory. --ColourBurst 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see your points, though Cube/Revo Europe has similarly been mentioned in the mainstream media, for example BBC News [18], which incidentally PGC is mentioned too in. Tphi 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The site is recognized among European Nintendo gamers. The previous owner, Tim Symons, was offered a job at Nintendo of Europe's HQ if I remember rightly; at the very least then the site is well-known within the industry. As has been said, Revo-Europe also comprises part of the AMN network. Also, articles from the site have been quoted elsewhere, including Wikipedia - see Revo-Europe referenced on Perfect Dark, a featured article. --The Researcher 12:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Media Network[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. 14 distinct Google hits for "Advanced Media Network", all point to that site or the Advanced Media Network Center of Utsonomiya University (and the wikipedia page, of course). ColourBurst 21:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 28,000 Alexa Rank, making it more heavily trafficked, at least, than a similar site like Planet GameCube which has a much more substantive article. I'm unsure of encyclopedic merit, but articles of equally or less important sites are abundant on Wikipedia. Futility 22:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet any of the various criteria listed under WP:WEB. --Satori Son 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Satori Son and nom. Ifnord 22:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mo0[talk] 05:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in the United States[edit]

Delete (or massively rewrite). I have been watching this page for a while now and doubt that it can ever truly be NPOV. The included links are arbitrary, it would seem. Typically I would want to clean up a page like this, but I'm not sure how it could be done in an NPOV manner. I'd certainly withdraw the AfD nom if this article improves substantially. I would love to see this go from a list of random tourist sites in the US to an article about the tourism industry in the US. Nationalparks 21:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there are 'tourism in' type articles for most countries and regions (Tourism in France,Tourism in England, etc). Its certainly a valid spin-off from the main subject, and its current trailer park state should warrant heavy editing, not deletion. Why do you feel it cold never be NPOV? Kuru talk 22:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the choice of links is inherently POV. What is the cutoff for articles to include in this? Why include Zion National Park if you aren't including Mount Rainier National Park? Why include the cities in the list, but not others? Where do you draw the line? Inclusion of the articles might imply that one park or site or city is definitely better than another, hence my POV concerns. I wouldn't mind an expansion of the lead paragraph (but in generic terms) and a removal of the list items entirely. Nationalparks 22:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, I think that would be the solution - drop the unbounded list of random tourist attractions and turn the entire thing into a regional and topical narratives with a couple of key examples each. Don't forget to add a section on the Biggest ball of twine (joke). Doesn't seem like there are too many editors, so it should be relatively easy to get consensus on the talk page; or just be bold and drop 'em. Kuru talk 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and someone will improve it sometime. Ramseystreet 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kuru. C.f. Category:Tourism by country. I'd like to recommend listing this page on Wikipedia:Cleanup. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but wow, what a mess. If anything, it should be blanked, have a new lead paragraph written, and then stubified until it can get more attention. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kuru, though I agree that the article needs further work. --Elonka 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kuru, the article should improve over time. Yamaguchi先生 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious speedy keep. It's POV? so fix it. But the subject is most definitely encyclopedic. I don't even mind if someone completely blanks the page and starts from scratch. There are many such pages on national tourism that are fine. Pascal.Tesson 03:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anastassia_Ailamaki[edit]

assistant prof, not important enough to have a wiki entry 151.201.30.210 21:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No publications noted. Valrith 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 01:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SilverScreenCatalog.com[edit]

Inherently non-notable. Ezeu 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only 2 google hits, 1 to the site, 1 to myspace. --ColourBurst 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's pagerank seems to be non-existant and alexa.com has nothing on it. TerraFrost 21:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, abyssmal page ranks and fails WP:WEB, looks like only about a dozen users. Kuru talk 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:WEB. Jacek Kendysz 01:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete miserable good-for-nothing junk per WP:WEB. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I usually don't mind vanity articles if they're justified and written like every other article, but this is just plain shameless. Blatant vanity article, subject fails WP:WEB and the author is spamming other articles with links... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the author of the page also added xlinks to dozen or two obscure movies... which I reverted because they added absolutely nothing to the articles, the same information can be just as easily be got from IMDB. Smells like a marketing attempt/pagerank booster. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:14, 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. Rje 00:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umaradum[edit]

German music group entry created in an horrible form in August 2005 by an anonymous IP, never wikified since then. The article does not exist in germean wiki. Google gives only references to wiki and derivatives as first results. Does this qualify as a group to be listed here? Cantalamessa 21:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Very few Ghits, with high prominence for wiki-derived entrys, has non-notable written all over it. Artw 22:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0 unique Google Deutschland hits for "Umaradum musik aton -wikipedia" [19]. Willing to reconsider if notability information is provided as subject, as a foreign item, is hard to research.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:45, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphasite[edit]

Non-notable vanity. PR of 2. TerraFrost 21:34, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphasite(Forum)[edit]

Non-notable vanity. PR of 2. TerraFrost 21:34, 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.  RasputinAXP  c 21:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Kan Singh Parihar[edit]

The article does not take a neutral stance on the subject. It is not strictly factual, but flattering and biased. Obie09 21:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. He's from India, there aren't any hits on him in English, but NPOV isn't a reason to delete (a reason to revise, maybe, but not delete). --ColourBurst 21:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This has been deleted before [22] as nothing but a weblink. I thought there was an earlier AFD on it. The hagiographic phrasing sounds very familiar. Fan-1967 22:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, Speedy Delete (recreation of deleted material). --ColourBurst 05:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it's a really, really bad non-neutral article, but that has little to do with deletion. Slap a NPOV tag on it, or fix it. I don't know enough about the Indian justice system to determine the level of his positions to determine notability, so no vote. Kuru talk 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hoax? No sign of him at Rajasthan High Court OK - he's there as Kan Singh Dlyons493 Talk 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been mentioned as 'Kan Singh' in short in the above URL pointed out. Please see again. He is very much a reputed personality who has done a great work for social upliftment in Rajasthan. He deserves a place on Wikipedia. There is no copyright violation as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LRBurdak (talk • contribs) .
    • Justice Shri Kan Singh Ji Parihar spent his life in the service of people, in the service of justice and in the service of law, whether as a Naib Hakim, a Government Advocate, a Judge of High Court, Chairman of an enquiry commission for emergency excesses or as a Vice-chancellor of University of Jodhpur, or now, as an honest citizen devoting much of his time in reading and in the service of the downtrodden and persons in need individually or through voluntary organisations. is word-for-word from [23] Dlyons493 Talk 04:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Anon IP 4.249.114.184 (talk · contribs) keeps removing AFD tags. Interestingly, that IP is in Colorado. Fan-1967 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The revision by Ambuj Saxena (talk has removed the copyvio but as he says there is little verifiable and notability is questionable. </>Dlyons493 Talk 11:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep Has been a judge of Rajasthan High Court ( known in Court's web site as Kan Singh ) and also Vice Chancellor of Jai Narain Vyas University at Jodhpur .However the article badly needs be rewritten in wikipedia style .Shyamsunder 16:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Somebody tried that during the last AFD. Once the rewrite had been completed, the original author blanked the article. I guess if the fawning hero-worship was not there, the author didn't want an article at all. Fan-1967 04:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise A simple revising instead of deletion would do the trick. I suggested the deletion in the first place, but I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy, sorry. Revising makes more sense. Obie09 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is clear that he is a notable judge. It is also clear that this article is absolutely, totally unacceptable. This is not an article. It is a hero-worshipping testimonial that has no place in an encyclopedia. Fan-1967 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have gone through the article twice, but couldn't find any notability. A Chief Justice may be notable for the post but not a jugde. Also, being the VC of a university isn't inherently notable. What's more, the article fails WP:NPOV (by a wide margin), WP:V (no verifiable sources given of the "claims"), and WP:NOR (that includes all the service claims). Failing all the founding policies of Wikipedia, I have no doubt in saying "Delete". — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article is to be revised then we need to find credible info on this guy. The page referred to be the author of the article [26], as said before, won't be sufficient. I did a Google India search for the Justice and found nothing. However, he is in the Wikipedia entry List of people from Rajasthan and List of notable people from Jodhpur. So either he is notable, and needs an article, or the Notable people from Jodhpur entry needs to be revised. Obie09 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I noticed this article when I was reading about Rajasthan, particularly the city of Jodhpur. It is interesting to know that he is someone notable from Jodhpur. So I think the entry of this article is worth keeping.
  • KEEPJustice Kan Singh Parihar has done great work for the rights of farmers of Rajasthan and for the common people. He is undoubtedly a notable person and meets notability criteria policy of wikipedia WP:BIO. A person becomes notable not just because of his high post but because of his great work and contribution to the society as a whole. Information on him is authentic and verifiable (Please see his web link and other information on him [27]

[28] [29] [30] Rajasthan High Court).This article will be revised and improved in wikipedia style, therefore, it should not be deleted.Jodmar 06:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It seems that I didn't make myself clear in my objections, so I have copyedited the article to remove most of non-neutral text and flowery language. Some objective claims have been left in the article with a {{fact}} tag on them. The only reference the article mentions is non-verifiable and most probably not even applicable as a reference. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I visit wikipedia frequently and noticed comments regarding this

article. There are lots of articles in wikipedia. But it is not necessary that those articles should apply to people who live in other parts of the world, of course not. Whatever you contribute to Wikipedia is not necessarily useful or interesting to everyone. But it can be good, useful, and informative to the people of the related country or certain region. Wikipedia is a very broad educational site it should not reflect with someone’s likes or dislikes. I do not feel there is any hero-worshipping. I support this article. I agree with Obie09’s “Revise” July 24, 2006. (Not for deletion). July26,2006

  • Comment I totally disagree with Ambuj Saxena’s comment. His objections are totally baseless and prejudiced. It seems to me that due to negative approach or attitude he is denying the facts.

There are enough authentic and verifiable information regarding Justice Kan Singh Parihar’s article. Please see again attached links of his web site [31], which is endorsed by the Vice-President of India. Is this not the reliable source? Also see that what other notable people think about him [32]. Link for reported cases [33]. & Other links as well. [34] [35] Rajasthan High Court All links which are provided here comply with Wikipedia’s Citing sources.Therefore, this article should stay in Wikipedia.(Jodmar 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment on the comment above. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My copyedit has been reverted by Jodmar with edit summary "Original article should not be changed while it is being reviewed by other viewers for their opinion on the original article." Note to editor: According to the top boilerplate text, "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Copyvio from [36]. Or if the content has been changed again from that version just Delete. It seems practically impossible to have a NPOV article - so get rid of it as fast as possible (and protect from recreation)Dlyons493 Talk 12:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jodmar is grossly mistaken on policy. AFD frequently results in reworking an unacceptable article into an acceptable one. Reverting to a version that is absolutely, grossly unacceptable is odd behavior from someone who wants the article kept. We have articles here, not fawning tributes and hero-worship. Fan-1967 13:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though he may meet standards for notability, it seems clear that the proponents of this article are unable or unwilling to accept Wikipedia standards for an article. That leaves no alternative but to delete unless someone can come up with an alternative solution. Fan-1967 13:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Roy A.A. 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BtVS as pastiche[edit]

Delete. Seems like original research. Non-encyclopedic, anyway. ... discospinster talk 21:57, 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 Mangojuicetalk 16:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pagliai's Pizza[edit]

This establishment is only regionally notable at best. In addition, there are numerous other establishments named Pagliai's Pizza throughout the U.S and probably internationally as well, causing potential confusion or conflict. This amounts to little more than advertising. --BRossow 22:15, 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 DELETED; author's personal lists of favorite wrestlers. Postdlf 00:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bable's List of wrestlers, Jeffrey Bable's Classification of Wrestlers[edit]

Unnecessary list, inclusion criteria is unclear and appears subjective. — NMChico24 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Not being a wrestling fan, I wondered just who exactly Jeff Bable was. Having found no google results, I can only surmise it is the name of the articles' author. The criterion for inclusion, then, appears to be "whim of the author," and I can think of no basis for a list more indiscriminate than that.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suplex & Delete. Jeff who? Mystache 23:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only criteria I can think of more indiscriminate than what Fuhghettaboutit outlined would be chosen by a random number generator. Author's warnings for other editors to stop editing the article is a bad sign as well. Perhaps userfy the list? Kuru talk 23:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as having little or no context. The articles give no indication of who Bable is, what it means to be a wrestler on this list, or where and for what purpose this list exists. Also, the "classification" "article" in fact has no classification, it's just an unexplained list of names as well. Postdlf 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeated reposts of Bable lists have proven that it's just the article author trying to use Wikipedia as a blog so he can post his favorite wrestlers. I'm going to speedy both of these... Postdlf 00:34, 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. - brenneman {L} 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20ID[edit]

Non notable 'gaming team' playing FPS games. Artw 22:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Yeah[reply]

  • Nonsense to artw, They won Championship gaming invitational, a 50,000 dollar tournament that will be hosted on direct tv and Fox Sports. They are the top Bf2 team in the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.28.40.151 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom; WP:AUTO ("Most of our team members) and gnews hits unimpressive. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unencyclopedic gamecruft. --Kinu t/c 20:06, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature records by city[edit]

This could never be a complete list. Information of this kind could be included in the articles for the cities themselves, if such information can be sourced, but this list would become so tremendously long without ever becoming complete that it would be ridiculous. - CheNuevara 22:46, 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. - brenneman {L} 03:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial Graal Communication Center[edit]

The article describes a fairly obscure fan forum[38] that only has very vague importance in the game's[39] community.

  • I would like to cite Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents#Internet "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable" and point out that there are at least two wikis [40], [41] dedicated to the game in question. Loriel 23:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Members: 280"[42].--Fuhghettaboutit 23:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "was created in July 2006". Too new to be possibly considered as notable. Fan-1967 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOT a place for forums with only 280 members -- Steel 23:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete the forums have a significant ammount of controversy surrounding them. This page was split from the GraalOnline article's criticism page so that issues surrounding it are not boggling down the GraalOnline page. This page was made in the effort that the issues surrounding this can have a place to be voiced to those interested in the game. It is also to be noted that deas.--Psychoraymond 01:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE -having a seperate article seperate from the GraalOnline article is important in preventing vandalism of the GraalOnline article. -Eagle23 01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: 635 Google results; obscure and non-notable. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete The corporate manager of GraalOnline does not let us list it on the GraalOnline article without vandalizing it. What else can we do? Di4gram 01:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm sure we all feel sorry for your plight if you can't discuss things outside of the site, but that doesn't necessarily mean that an article on the Wikipedia is what you need. By all means report the manager of the site for vandalism (since it's not "his article" to decide what goes into it and what doesn't), but I'd suggest you look elsewhere for a means to discuss if that's the only reason you have for keeping it. BigHaz 01:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree there and we have taken actions to file a complaint against the managers. But the point remains that the UGCC has become more than just a Forums, it has become also a haven for people and a large ammount of contraversy is caused because of it that is worth being addressed, even as a subarticle of the GraalOnline (which it really is meant to be) --Warcaptain 02:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered myspace or freewebs, or some such sie where anyone may post anything? There you can post whatever you want about your forum. This is not the place for it. Fan-1967 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of places we could put it, but the managers claim that when we link (before we just linked right to the UGCC instead of to this wikipedia article) that we were advertising by making every mention of the UGCC a link.. ie: having something in the criticism section like: "Many people have created fan forums for the game as a reaction to the strict rules, ie: the Unofficial Graal Communication Center." They make a big effort to say this is not allowed because they 'do not allow this link to be posted on graal sites' even though we tell them that Wikipedia is not Graal Online, it is its own entity. As soon as the managers User:Graal unixmad and User:Stefan Knorr are blocked from vandalizing the Graal Online article, I will have no problem deleting this article. Until then there really needs to be a page where the concerns of the players can be heard. --Warcaptain 02:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding us. It is a large part of the Graal community. It has as much relevance to Graal, and belongs there just as much, as the official forums. Most, if not all, of the UGCC forum users are former official forum users. I agree that it shouldn't need its own article, but it certainly does belong in the GraalOnline article. Di4gram 02:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And therein lies the problem. If it's relevant to the rest of the community, it belongs with the rest of the community. It doesn't appear to have enough notability on its own. If you can't get it into the main article for whatever reason, complain about the behaviour of those who are allegedly vandalising the article or take Fan-1967's suggestion and set up a page elsewhere. Creating a separate article for these forums isn't a means of taking refuge from another person. BigHaz 02:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable three-week-old message board. NawlinWiki 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE This is a relevant article, and is no less relevant than the GraalOnline's wiki attempt which is little more than self advertisement, only positive self postings, and propaganda, if this wiki is deleted then the GraalOnline wiki should get deleted as well Vipercat 03:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • DELETE, "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable" --Moon Goddess 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Generally' is keyword. Since you have made a refusal to let anyone put much more than a single link in the article that these forums are related to, we made our own sub-article for it. --Warcaptain 04:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One link is sufficiant for an article for Graalonline. I based my decision on the wiki rules.--Moon Goddess 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE*

So this stuff doesn't leak onto the Graal Online article --Xc4l1br 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, small minor message boards are not notable. This is not the Graal wiki, Graal Online is a relatively minor game. This message board has less than 300 members and its supposedly notable? Keep everything Graal is one article. T3CK rules. KnightsHFU 04:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is completely biased as it is from a group of people that were banned from the UGCC for inaproproate behavior. (Proven by the T3CK Rules [the leader, who was banned]) --Warcaptain 04:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this statement is completely unbiased, it is a personal opinion, and it would remain my personal opinion regardless if I was an active member of the "UGCC" or not. KnightsHFU 04:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete, horrible message board, too small to be notable, and agreeing with KnightsHFU, if this is notable, it should be kept to a single Graal article. Even though I don't think it could be in the GraalOnline article, either, because there have been other message boards before, and they're not noted, why should this garbage website? Rich Kyanka 05:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again this opinion is biased as the user is a member of a group that was banned from these forums. --Warcaptain 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Perhaps this page would be better as a subpage of the GraalOnline article? I believe I would do that by moving it to GraalOnline/pagename

That way it would be under the namespace it belongs and not as its own? I see many of your points, but I believe that an article is okay, maybe just under GraalOnline --Warcaptain 18:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is considered by some to be in violation of WP:WEB then GraalOnline article should seriously be considered for deletion as it has been used and editted by the staff as an advertisement, not as a accurate encyclopedic article. Many Wikipedians are wholly averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted. Someone please explain how this does not equally pertain the GraalOnline article? Vipercat 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete being under the GraalOnline namespace still does not make it noteworthy --logan

I have moved this to be under the GraalOnline namespace, I am sorry for giving its own namespace I forgot about being able to put it under other namespaces! So I am removing deletion notices etc

  • I believe WP:SP says that articles in the main namespace should not use subpages... --Kinu t/c 04:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deedy Delete, promotional article, non-notable. Protect from recreation. Offer a kind word of advice on this kind of thing to original author. Karwynn (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--66.189.171.62 08:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Dont Delete![reply]

A message board created this month does not get an entry. Delete. DS 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grocer[edit]

This is a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia entry.... word is already in wiktionary Uncle Grover 23:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Redirect to supermarket per tariqabjotu--Fuhghettaboutit 23:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that there isn't much encyclopedic about the part concerning sellers of groceries, but what are we going to replace this with...a straight redirect to Edward Heath (see the article)? If I came to Wikipedia, searched for Grocer, and got an article about a British politician without any prior explanation, I'd be perplexed to say the least. For reason of disambiguation, this is one time that even a dicdef is better than nothing. Vadder 00:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Supermarket This reads like a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia entry. The page should be redirected to supermarket per the term's modern-day use. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable occupation capable of expansion. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Supermarket per Tariqabjotu. --Tuspm(C | @) 02:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a clerk in a meat department in the SF Bay Area. Also Shop stewart, member of local 101. The article is just a definition, but a poor one. Regionally, the meaning changes. Historically, the meaning has changed. The root of the word is not known, at least not to me. The word is deserving of an article. Starting over would be the best. Delete this one, it has no real purpose. meatclerk 06:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't imagine an encyclopedia without an entry for "Grocer". Grocer certainly does not equal "Supermarket". The article certainly needs expansion.--Nicodemus75 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jessemonroy raises valid reasons to keep this article, actually, with a major rewrite discussing the historical evolution of the word. Danny Lilithborne 20:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think it deserves an article, but someone has to write it. It's not going to be me. If someone champions this, let it continue, else squash it now. meatclerk 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • k the world needs grocers. see WP:AFD/BAG. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:41, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_22&oldid=1081095813"