Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 23 July 25 >

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 merge and redirect. Mailer Diablo 16:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Donoghue

[edit]

This article appears to be non-notable, and vanity. I would recommend merging it with the Cyberkinetics article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-Notable vanity. --Cheesehead 1980 13:32, 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 merge/redirect to Midnight Rx. --Ezeu 06:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium dibromide

[edit]

I am the creator of this page and I am uncertain whether this page belongs on Wikipedia, whether it deserves a merge, or deletion. I have created this deletion page so that other Wikipedians could evaluate this page. --GoOdCoNtEnT 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology, I seemed to have not read your message, so lets go with Merge per above —Minun Spiderman 12:46, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree

[edit]

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 06:35, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City Wiki

[edit]

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. The only link besides the website itself is a forum post [1] and not only does that fail all wikipedia requirements, I think it's not even allowed to be linked (please note I have not removed this link). FurryiamIAM 06:35, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Watches

[edit]

Non-notable company as per WP:Corp as noted by computerjoe in his 20-July prod that was inappropriately removed by article author. Valrith 00:37, 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 08:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest first week sales

[edit]

It's unclear as to what the article is actually about, due partly to a bad choice in name; and only rap artists have been taken into account for the article anyway; which doesn't list its sources, if any. JD[don't talk|email] 00:07, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Morality and the Law

[edit]

We have articles about books. But articles about chapters of books are inheritently not-notable (unless the book is a Koran or Bible or something like this) abakharev 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in this form: Having a discussion of one of Foucault's major talks is fine, but this really does look like a digest of the chapter, study notes. Foucault wrote a great deal, and this talk isn't really pivotal. Geogre 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom JianLi 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984. (that is the book that this is a chapter of (not mentioned in nom). Frankly, no need to throw away good infomation, just put it where it belongs. says so after reading the article and finding the topic interesting —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is verifiable, well-referenced, and, with the addition of an adequate criticisms section, and other restructuring could easily be brought into compliance with the NPOV policy. Additionally, the article is notable because it demonstrates the role of Michel Foucault, Jean Danet, and Guy Hocquenghem in attempting to promote pedophilia, and relates the chapter to a pro-pedophilia petition that Michel Foucault had signed:

    The issue was brought to debate while a reform in the French Penal Code was under way in the Parliament. Many French intellectuals [1] - including Foucault, Danet and Hocquenghem - had signed a petition addressed to the Parliament in 1977 defending the decriminalization of all consented relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen.

    The article is quite useful in understanding the "intellectual" basis upon which pro-pedophilia movements that pose a continuing danger to public safety have attempted to justify their perversions. John254 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not violate any Wikipedia policies. If a "criticisms" section is added, it must of course likewise satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR. --LambiamTalk 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surprisingly deep coverage of a lesser work of a highly influential philosopher but This article is surprisingly good is hardly a good criterion for deletion. Article is long enough to justify itself. To suggest Philosophy of Michael Foucault is indiscriminate information is just plain nuts. WilyD 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD and John 254. Wikipedia is Cliffsnotes sometimes. AdamBiswanger1 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is encyclopedic as Foucault is a major philosopher. Article is well-referenced with no obvious fluff, and is split from parent article Michel Foucault because of size. Eagle's suggestion of merge to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 doesn't work because there's no article about that book at present. If one is written, then merging might be possible, though the article is maybe still too large for merging. Phr (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and hope that many similar articles are forthcoming. More important than the Dead Parrot Sketch, however much better-known that may be. Vizjim 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Foucault is significant, but this is a chapter. There should be an article on the book, perhaps, but Foucault is not at the same level as Hegel, and we haven't articles on all his works, nor on the level of Nietzsche. What is written is good, but it's far too summary, far too "remember this for the test," for my tastes. It's not actually localizing the philosophical themes. Just because Foucault is significant, that doesn't license misnamed, free floating summaries of his speeches. Geogre 14:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there should be any limits on articles that are in the realm of academics, even if the result is a disproportionate amount of information on a second-tier philosopher (it's one of my soapboxes that I use over and over). If someone wants to write 30kb on an obscure conversation regarding a famous philosopher, that's fine with me. What harm is there in this? When we sit at our computers and wistfully imagine Wikipedia in 30 years, don't we all dream of having so much knowledge on a such an obscure yet dignified topic? AfD is for deleting articles like "List of guns in Halo 2", not anything with such intellectual merit as this.
      • And regarding the style of the article, I have some qualms about the style being a bit on the OR side ("main ideas of the text"), but this can be edited and toned down to read like any other enlightened and neutral explanation of a text. I'll probably do it myself at some point today. So, although the organization is a bit superficial and non-encyclopedic, it can be changed to fit quite well in our encyclopedia. AdamBiswanger1 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This is a conversation broadcast on the radio. Where is any evidence this had any sort of broad implications beyond the initial broadcast? I've heard several nationally broadcast discussions of sexuality and law on morning radio broadcasts in the U.S. Should we start articles for all of those? Best case scenario for those wishing to retain this info would be to move this to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 and expand it beyond that one chapter. As a standalone article about a radio conversation with no evidence of any broader impact or implications it doesn't pass muster in my opinion (and Wikipedia should never be "cliff notes).--Isotope23 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, the large, pile of citations in the article to other articles (in 4 languages) about that very conversation, is evidence that the conversation got far-reaching attention. Phr (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • From what I see it is by and large trivial mention in other works, one reprint (translation) and a mention in the context of a summary of “Politics, Philosophy, Culture”... which is where this article should be moved to if it is retained. I don't see any evidence that the "conversation got far-reaching attention..."--Isotope23 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't suppose that many philosophical works recieve as much attention as, say, Oops, I Did It Again, but that certainly does not limit their notability, especially being that it is from a well-known and highly notable philosopher. AdamBiswanger1 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Keep per WilyD, Phr and John 254. Very good article, notable subject, too bad its not Pokemon or it would never have gotten this many delete votes. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An Encyclopedia should cover all unique and relevant information on every issue. This information is undoubtedly unique and Michel Foucault is a renowned philosopher. His opinions expressed in this chapter are really relevant to the debate about "abolition of age of consent laws", once he brings other point-of-views that nobody else has thought of. Paulo Andrade 23:00 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
  • It doesn't matter if it's a chapter or a book or a whole collection of books. All information in Wikipedia should be subdivided into articles enough to show all different and relevant points of view. The relevance of this radio talk is evident. This should not be reduced or censored by any means, although (of course) it can be edited in other styles or lay-outs. Paulo Andrade 23:00 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep, wikipedia is not paper, and this is not pokemon. It's smart, well-done, and encyclopedic. Themindset 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To hide relevant information from the public is simply dishonest (no matter if it's right-wing or left-wing) and disqualifies the intentions of those who oppose the content of the text. One may not agree with Foucault, but at least one should agree that it is the right of other people to know what he said. My impression is that some people are desperatly seeking any motive to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others. I live in a country where a whole generation of intellectuals fighted against censorship during military dictatorship for over 20 years, so I know how it looks like. Paulo Andrade 23:45 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
It probly isn't anything so malicious - english speakers in general are typically fairly unaware of Foucault's importance. In this discussion Foucault is called less important than Nietzsche, or Hegel - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - his philosophy is referred to as an indiscriminate collection of information - anglos just don't know much about him because he isn't as accessible as Hume WilyD 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it isn't really the place, but you cannot be seriously suggesting that Foucault even enters the same order of significance as Hegel, can you? Vizjim 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, realistically he probly lies somewhere between Hegel and Nietzsche ... but he's not been buried long enough to accrete the amount of influence that either of them have - importance is a different issue. WilyD 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm, Yes, Paulo Andrade... I voted delete or move to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 "to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others". How did you ever figure out my sinister master plan? Mwa-ha-ha! (end sarcasm)... Seriously though... read WP:AGF Paulo before making wild unfounded accusations.--Isotope23 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WilyD and John254. I hope the nom isn't actually suggesting that only religous texts are worthy of thorough examination. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After looking at the talk itself, I've moved a little closer to Geogre's view that the article is mostly summary and could be made shorter, but that's just an editorial issue, the topic is still fine and deletion is not appropriate. Editorial issues should be discussed on the article's talk page, not afd. Simply moving the article is inappropriate since it's a split-out from Michel Foucault about the specific topic. Further editing at Michel Foucault might change that, but not something for afd to deal with. I'd rather leave it up to the article's regular editors who know something about the subject matter.

    I'm not worried about having an article about a chapter of a book in and of itself. We have lots of perfectly good multi-page articles (e.g. Ozymandias) about 14-line poems. Also, we can't count on the talk being online all the time (for that matter, the reader might be using an offline copy of wikipedia), so having a non-copyvio summary of the talk in the encyclopedia helps the parent article considerably. See The Saga Begins for another example. Phr (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-The article is relevant, informative, well-written, and notable. I would hate to see such good information on an oft-repressed subject deleted. -Timzor 08:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One last information: in Wikipedia, Foucault has articles in 35 different languages, Nietzsche has in 55 and Hegel in 41. By contrast, Durkheim has in 31 and Baudrillard in 20 languages. I believe all of them are important. Paulo Andrade 22:11, 26 July 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep this verifiable and well-referenced article per WilyD and John 254. Yamaguchi先生 02:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well how about this. Glad I stumbled on this as I can now eliminate the identical text from Age of consent reform which is one of the many places where our new pal has been busy busy. So I would say Keep and tag for cleanup, primarily a severe pruning. Its notable enough for an article (partly, as mentioned above, as another demonstration of why Foucalt is now mostly ignored); it's not notable enough for an article nearly this long. And yes, WP:PAW will get to it (sigh). Not necessarily this year, though. We have many busy busy busy friends. Herostratus 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Limit the content? What purpose does that serve other than attempting to ensure some sort of notability to information ratio that cannot be attained, and is in itself a value judgment? I say the most we should trim down is to the 30kb limit. AdamBiswanger1 13:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because its encyclopedia, and after all it is just a radio talk rather than a large body of work. An overview, with links to the full text and related texts ought to be sufficient for researchers. But anyway that's a discussion for another day, on the article's talk page. Herostratus 16:00, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Fangames HQ

[edit]

Non-notable site about fan-made games for Sonic the Hedgehog. I prod'ded this but it was removed. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Ssbfalcon 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • DimensionWarped admits that this site is not discussed, just people that happen to be associated with the site. You're supposed to be the ones arguing why the article should be kept. Danny Lilithborne 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless to whether the site is discussed at length or not, content created with relation to the site is distributed by largely recongnized media sources. That fits the rule. If you question that reasoning against deletion, then I'll have to question your reasoning for insistance that this isn't a notable site.--DimensionWarped 05:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glaber here, this article is still under construction and the history bit is not ready yet. So the article should stay other wise nothing. (the only thing I could do is reupload)
  • To those who are simply saying "delete," state your arguments as to why, in particular, where it fails the Wikipedia standards test. In other words, substantiate your claims. Otherwise, you have no argument. My Arguments for non deletion: As mentioned, this site has been the launchpad for various notable projects as mentioned and is one of the most active fangame communities still around, and it has gone through quite a bit. Many other communities have come and gone, such as Zelda Fangames HQ and Megaman Fangames HQ, but despite the attacks on the site and its community which even took it down from the internet for a while, and demonstrates a fangame community which thrives on just that. Again, many have tried, but they have failed many times. SFGHQ again has a decent amount of success stories, such as the above mentioned games, compared to the other fan game communities, including the much larger Mario Fangame Galaxy.

--Ssbfalcon 05:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shadix here, it would be nice if you guys would at least give us a chance to put our article together some. SFGHQ is rich in history and remains one of the larger franchise Fangaming sites out there. There is also quite a bit of useful information that can still be put on it. -Shadixep 05:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wholly support the non-deletion of this article. As previously stated, the article is a work-in-progress and just because you, as a non-Sonic fangamer think the site is non-notable doesn't mean it actually isn't. It's THE most active Sonic fangaming site to date, the longest-running and is associated with the Mario Fangames Galaxy as well as the Sonic Stuff Research Group (when it was on Emulationzone.org) and also is rich in history. As far as non-notable goes, I think you haven't had a toe in the ocean that is fangaming and really either didn't research it at all or only had a little look at it. --Suspchaos 06:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It goes without saying that people involved with the site would believe that the site is rich in history. That doesn't make it notable in a general-interest sense. Claiming that those in favor of deletion "have no argument" doesn't help your case at all. Danny Lilithborne 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though not mentioning your case at all and just saying the site is "non-notable" doesn't give you a case to argue either. We have mentioned few of SFGHQ's history which you have obviously overlooked in your quest to see this page removed. I must also mention, according to the WP:WEB that Kinu linked to. Our content has received awards from publications including Gamespot (it's on Gamespot which is a notable achievement in itself since very few fangames developed make it onto sites such as Gamespot or 1up. --Suspchaos 06:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already presented a counterpoint which nullifies your argument for the deletion of the article Lilithborne. --DimensionWarped 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair 06:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry about it anymore. We're not going to fight a battle that we probably won't win. Just delete it. Enjoy your minor victory, Wikipedianals. --Suspchaos 06:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that really matters is that it meets the criteria for notability. And it meets that criteria, so I really don't see how there can be any further argument on it. Atlus meets the criteria for notability simply for articles on games they produced. The magnitude-ignoring assumption there is that if a product of notability is affiliated with a group, then that group is in itself notable. And people, this isn't a bloody vote. It's a debate on notability. Either state legitimate reasons or don't state anything at all.--DimensionWarped 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete it. Everybody has their own opinions as to what and what isn't notable. And just because a few people (who interpret the rules incorrectly and to their advantage) find it useless doesn't mean it is. Perhaps you should just ignore it if it is so useless to you. It obviously isn't useless to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.145.169 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Not notable gamecruft. ViridaeTalk 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NOT. To 70.130.145.169 and DimensionWarped: there are guidelines on what can and cannot be included on Wikipedia, and we are following them to the letter. See WP:NOT and WP:WEB. Srose (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure gamecruft, and NN --Bschott 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Guys, please take a look at this essay: WP:FAN. If you really think that an article can be written on your forum that doesn't fall into fancruft as defined there, please write it and stick it up. At present, the article is little more than unencyclopedic gibberish. Vizjim 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether or not the article meets WP:WEB (i.e. whether or not the required notability exists out there in the real world), the notability is not currently documented in the article. If the documentation exists and can be added to the article, we can revisit. Demonstrating notability is up to the article authors, who should put necessary docs into the article itself. Other editors are not expected to go search for it. Phr (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I support not deleting this article. Like many have said the article is under construction and the site is rich in history. -W.A.C. (7/24/06)
  • Keep. It's oviously notable. Just search for it on Google! --Mark the Echidna 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to note that the article as of 10:11, 24 July 2006 is drastically different from the original article. If some of you are basing your arguments on the content of the current entry (which is about as unencyclopedic as I could ever imagine), consider just whether the topic alone merits an entry - regardless of whether or not its current incarnation is, as you say, fancruft. Workaphobia 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft Computerjoe's talk 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definitely. However I would like to remind everyone here that "Gamecruft" or "Fancruft" is not a Wikipedia guideline, and is thus never grounds for deletion. The causes for deletion are WP:NOT and WP:WEB, not "gamecruft." Dark Shikari 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Leave it be. Don't you guys have other things to worry about? It's a fansite. Not a cult of any kind. What damage is this going to do Wiki? None! By the way, get yourselves educated. Furthermore, what is gamecruft? You guys never explained what the hell it is? SFGHQ is much bigger than you "deleters" think. Just do a google search. Sonic Stadium is a another big fansite. If you wish too, go to Moogle Cavern wish could be said to be the "sister" site of SFGHQ. Most, if not all the olde members of SFGHQ post there quite often.
    • "Cruft" is an old programmer/hacker term for something that is only important to a select group of people (well, actually it refers to old junk code in a program, but that's another story). So, "Gamecruft" means only gamers would be interested in this article.
      • SFGHQ isn't a cruft in the least. What part of thew word SONIC FAN don't you guys understand? SFGHQ is merely a fansite.
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. GassyGuy 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. -- Whpq 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you all should actually read WP:WEB and pay particular attention to section 3. I already stated that the questioned webcontent meets section 3 which means it complies with WP:WEB.
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm torn on this one. This site has been around for an eternity and has been very influential in the creation of many notable fangames, but as a website I don't believe it's notable. Only 4,690 results from Google on "SFGHQ", the common abbreviation. Even less for the full name of the website in quotations. The fact that the article itself is a stub, and a rather bad stub at that, doesn't help. Also, note that you're going to get meatpuppets lured in from this forum topic here: http://sfghqmb.com/showthread.php?t=495 -MysticEsper 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also WP:CVG#Scope_of_information for additional guidelines on how to write an article for inclusion in an encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDolomite (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, per WP:WEB. --NeoChaosX 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Meatpuppets? You know there are actual people behind this. God you guys are about as elitist as it gets. Call off the debate, just let the bums delete it.
    • Comment I'm not trying to ruin anyone's parade, but policy is policy. Meatpuppets are highly discouraged, especially in cases of AfD discussions. I merely linked the relevant topic so it would be understood that there would be a lot of meatpuppets and why. If you'd like to consider that elitist, you may go ahead. -MysticEsper 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Policy dictates that the use of such a word is ill advised. If you want to talk about what is highly discouraged, maybe you shouldn't be partaking of the discouraged yourself. I'll assure you that no one from that topic is getting involved here unless they would do so upon their own personal discretion. It isn't some board full of nothing but pitiful flunkies.--DimensionWarped 06:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment DimensionWarped, I have in the past been a SFGHQ member, and no offense to you or anyone else, but all forums, no matter the notability, have their fair share of "me too" bandwagon hoppers. Simply being linked from a current forum topic is going to lead to people seeing the AfD and clicking on it. I prefer all information to be put forth out in the open, so I linked the forum topic and explained the situation so everyone knows as many facts as there are to know. After all, if the site truly is notable, linking a forum topic and saying a few meatpuppets are posting won't make any difference on the consensus. I will note that I'm perfectly happy to change my vote if I see evidence to the contrary, but currently all I see is "A bunch of popular fangames got their start here", which I don't see as notable in of itself. -MysticEsper 08:27, 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!) 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylexyinfo

[edit]

Fails WP:WEB This is a fan site, not the official website for the show. No alexa rating at all. Just not notable. My vote would be Delete. Dipics 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I almost put it up for speedy delete when I first saw it. --KPWM_Spotter 00:42, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interspecies erotica

[edit]

Dicdef, nn-neologism abakharev 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable term. Never heard of it before. Not much of an article anyways. -Royalguard11Talk 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is two sentences and is unknown to people who didn't see the movie. -ScotchMB 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wow, a joke from a movie. Wow. Until someone can point to a 10 year history of the genre, it's just another case of someone seeing the movie and typing into a search box here. Geogre 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The genre (which has nothing to do with bestiality, contrary to this article) actually has a history that is at least 30 years old. We have a proper article on one aspect of it at Rishathra. Uncle G 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, that's the problem. In science fiction, there has always been that "Kirk kisses the alien chick" stuff, and there has always been a form of science fiction novel that takes it further, but for those bordered by the terrestrial "interspecies" means either Clan of the Cave Bear or, much more likely, bestiality. Geogre 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not entirely clear what problem you're describing. Inter-species means between species, whether one is talking about science fiction or not. Arguing that there's confusion because to some this is a straightforward synonym for bestiality (which has the logical consequence that this article should be a redirect) contradicts your argument that this isn't such a synonym but merely a once-off joke in a movie. I argue that it isn't synonymous with bestiality at all, that the content of this article is based on a joke in a movie, and that thus there's no confusion. ☺

        Further to the point about the genre: Read this. Uncle G 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • "The problem" is that it is a term that means one things to science fiction fans and another thing to non-science fiction fans. To the one, it can be a genre. To the other, it's just a faux euphemism. Therefore, there's no way to keep it as a redirect to or parent of the science fiction "genre," because that term would be disturbingly inappropriate to people who think about real species. Geogre 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no need for it to be the parent of anything. The parent is sex in science fiction, which can gain a breakout article on the subject of interspecies sex should it ever need to. (It doesn't seem likely right now, given that the subject has roughly 1 sentence of discussion there at the moment. ☺) Uncle G 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. [Insert joke about "interspecies glamour photography" here] Silensor 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism from a joke in Clerks II. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a repository for one-shot jokes from movies for which no one over the age of 12 is going to bother searching. --Kinu t/c 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands. It does occur in Science Fiction (e.g the Ringworld series) so there could be scope for an article but it'd be easier to start over. Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not the place to catalogue every phrase from movies. JeffMurph 12:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, AdamBiswanger1 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -999 (Talk) 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom — and I immediately thought Rishathra, also. However, this is a dictionary pseudo-definition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIt also mean beastility? Wow, you learn something new from Wiki every day. I expected an indepth article about erotic relationships of intelligent species in fiction. Somewhere all the half-elves have to come from after all. (Reminds, I hope that book about that alien and that woman arrives soon, it sounded fairly interesting and slightly raunchy.) --84.184.95.77 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I learn something from Uncle G every day. It's apparent that an article at this namespace could be appropriate. However, this one certainly is not, for the reasons listed above -- no need for a page for a movie catchphrase, and no dicdefs. Delete. Jacqui★ 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit. Keep, did you guys just search for it for the sheer purpose of deleting it? There are probably some other catch phrases from movies here, so I do not know what makes this one so wrong. I do think it could be edited in light of recent arguments, though.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G4 as Suisky. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suisk

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

The result was speedy delete as simple, pretty much word-for-word, re-creation of previously deleted content (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That's So Raven: The Movie). Please make use of {{db-repost}} for this sort of thing, rather than creating a whole new AFD nomination. Uncle G 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's So Raven: The Movie

[edit]

This was nominated for deletion before, but someone has recreated the page. It all seems to be fancruft or speculation; as was said in the first discussion, there is no evidence to suggest a That's So Raven movie being produced in the near future. LBM 00:53, 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 to keep, and it's not comfy. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klippan (sofa)

[edit]

Non-notable IKEA product. Spam-like. Fireplace 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Mind boggling that someone would create an article about a sofa. -Royalguard11Talk 01:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Show some references, some mentions of the importance, some usage other than the catalog. Otherwise, voting to keep is voting against the deletion guidelines. Further "notable" isn't a justification for an article. This is one model in the IKEA catalog. While the Billy might make it (as one of their oldest units and the first to be popular, and therefore the one that made the company successful), this isn't a Billy. Geogre 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some usage other than the catalogue was in fact already in the article. It wasn't immediately obvious, I grant you. But it should be now. Uncle G 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • N.b. Uncle G and others have been rewriting and improving the article. I still can't quite change my vote, as I think 1980 doesn't really make this one of the Sofas that Made IKEA, but the article as it is now is vastly superior to the one that I and the above voted on. My vote now is a much weakened delete. Geogre 20:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep after the rewrites. I'm still not convinced that anything new when I went to college is a "classic," but this is a well done article now. Geogre 11:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a notable product. Particularly in home furnishings, an industry where trends come and go like fireflies, it's extraordinary that this continues to be popular after a quarter of a century. Definately more notable than any number of products we have articles for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan. -- Librarianofages 02:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both notable and comfy. george 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks to be WP:OR: A more elegant solution is to feed a broom handle.... Also, being more notable than other products with articles is an argument to delete those, not keep this one. - Yomangani 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I didn't consider one article (discounting the passing references in the other sources) to be 'multiple non-trival published works', so as far as I was concerned it was failing WP:CORP. However a little digging brings up a few articles specifically about the Klippan, and since the original research has been removed I have to change to a 'Keep'. Yomangani 09:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no ya don't No sofa models from Ikea, please. I think there's probably something like 25,000 Ikea products, and none of them are notable...even if I'm sittin on one now. AdamBiswanger1 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:CORP, the primary criterion for products and services is that they be the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of their companies. The vast number of IKEA products will not satisfy that criterion, their only mentions being in product catalogues. However, this one does. There was a whole study published about how this specific sofa burns, for one thing. Keep. Uncle G 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the fire safety report isn't about this sofa in particular - in the report they use three custom built sofas based on the Klippan (probably because it is a common make) Yomangani 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is. It's about this very sofa with various different flame retardants applied to it. From page 12 of the source cited by the article: The IKEA sofa “Klippan” was used as the model for all three sofas. Uncle G 19:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The study is about fire safety regulations, not about fire safety in the Klippen model, and the sofas are based on the Klippen model rather than being the Klippen: Three different sofas were used for this study, all based on a standard, commercially available European model sold by IKEA (the “Klippan” model). This model is currently marketed with a mainly polystyrene rigid frame, but for this study a wooden frame was used because this is more representative of typical furniture on the market. I'd say this amounted to trival coverage (even if it wasn't a fire safety report). - Yomangani 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if this sofa really did make it as an iconic piece of design like the Barcelona chair, then it would be a keep, but there's one newpaper article about it. A fire safety test report doesn't count, nor does a mere mention of the product in the Kuwaiti Times. At best, merge into Ikea. -- Whpq 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reference to the Kuwaiti Times is to source the previously contested point that the sofa is named after the place in Sweden. Not everything has the purpose of establishing notability. Sometimes a source is being cited for the simple reason of providing a reference for something in the article that needs to be sourced. ☺ Uncle G 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Andrew Lenahan. 1ne 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Verifiability/references for this topic are not a problem. Here is a BusinessWeek story on the history of the Klippan. And here is one from the Scotland Sunday Herald. I'm sure it would be possible to find quite a lot more, especially if we count interior/industrial design magazines and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the Sunday Herald article is sufficient to establish that the sofa is considered a significant piece of design. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sofa looks notabler and notabler with each of the references added, and if Lars Engman is the main designer of this sofa (and probably many other mass-produced and recognized pieces of furniture) and the current chief designer of IKEA, he should probably have an article too. I found some references to Klippan (commonly called a "classic") in a Swedish newspaper article database. I haven't looked through all of the hits, but the current head of IKEA Sweden, Jeanette Söderberg, declared Klippan to be her favorite IKEA product in an interview in Svenska Dagbladet (2005-01-22). According to an article in Aftonbladet (1998-09-13) on "why men like leather sofas", Jean-Pierre Barda, Swedish celebrity hairdresser and former member of Army of Lovers, had a Klippan in brown cowhide at home. up+land 09:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it passes Geogre's notability standard then it certainly passes mine ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as the conflicted nominator. Some of the sources seem to be about the Klippan qua paradigmatic IKEA product, rather than qua itself. Fireplace 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above as rewritten by Uncle G and others. Yamaguchi先生 22:57, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC MD

[edit]

Advertisement and self promotion. Tagged with "prod" on 5/22/06; tag removed by IP user in the same region (Chicago) as the business is located. Diogenes00 00:56, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding hamster

[edit]

By its own admission, this topic is obscure. Simply put: no way is "an obscure in-joke in the early years of [a] Finnish computer magazine" notable. Not in the least. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (The only reason this article exists is for silly parallelism with exploding whale and exploding toad.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE

Cmon now...an exploding hamster? Get that outta here...Reppin the bay 01:54, 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 Obvious. Naconkantari 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IGN_users

[edit]

Do we really need this page? Seems like nonsense to me ScotchMB 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(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. DS 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

schoolhandbook.blogspot.com

[edit]

Removed without comment. a non-notable blog that fails WP:WEB Lorty 01:28, 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. DS 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrustedID

[edit]

fails WP:CORP ranks almost 3 million on Alexa; spam links to this company have been placed in other articles. Rklawton 01:45, 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 deletion. However, does everyone realize that the O.J. Simpson carchase was eleven years ago? RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1990s retro movement

[edit]

The retro movement described in the article appears to be purely speculative. Unlike other retro movements, this one is not widely considered to have occurred. Also, the references to events in the future are bizarre. Originalbigj 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:CITE --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I saw this page a few days ago and said to myself, "This is a horrible page. Why does it exist? I should AfD it." But, me being as ADD as I am, I forgot after about fifteen seconds. -- Kicking222 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Yeah, what is this predicting the future, "Pokemon will die in 2010"...Definitely gotta delete. Reppin the bay 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Deep thoughts, man. Let's, like, imagine that, like, people are going to be buying wide ties like the 90's nostalgia for the 70's. That would be so cool! When the 90's nostalgia (other than nostalgia for the US presidents) hits, and when it is past tense, and when it has been discussed elsewhere, it will be time. Otherwise, this is IR (idiosyncratic research). Geogre 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what is this? Crystal ballzzzz. --Kinu t/c 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would think to have an article on a retro movement, that time period should be at least a decade away. Come back in 4 years. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The gold standard for nostalgia is Happy Days. This T.V. show from 1974 was a nostalgic look back to 1954. Then, in 1978, Fonzi jumped the shark but that's not my point. The point is, you have to wait 20 years to look back on a decade. I mean, if they are still selling Pokeman Cards, then it isn't nostalgia, its just a continuation of the Pokeman thing, which I don't get by the way. Take the Viet Nam war for example. They were still fighting it hot and heavy in 1973, but that doesn't mean it was a nostalgic throwback to the 1960's, it was just the war continueing on. In fact, to reminisce about the Viet Nam war we created M*A*S*H, which was purportedly set in Korea but was really about Viet Nam and you know it. george 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like the line talking about 1990s Adult Contemporary music continues to be played on workplace radio stations; notably Detroit's WNIC. I think that's by force and not by fad, you don't hear alot of new Celine Dion or Kenny G stuff anymore, and most music today I wouldn't consider "office-friendly". Also, these points;
Many bands from the 1990s such as Green Day and Smashing Pumpkins continue to record music in the 2000s.
Sonic the Hedgehog is remade for modern game consoles.
Bands and video game franchises can last more than one decade? I never knew that, my mind has been blown! (faints) Nate 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terrible. JeffMurph 08:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Try to assume the mind set of someone who would type in 1990s retro movement. They may be wondering if such a movement exists or not, that question is itself an iterestig and evolving question and should be covered in an expanded issue. There is also a theory about retro movements that they are the emotion responses of new parents to the pressures of adult life looking to reconnect with the existence of their childhood, that is retro is by its nature an effort to return to a more infantile state. Someone who was 13 years old in the mid 1990s is still a young adult and probably not yet old enough to turn conservative. A fuller discussion of if there is a 1990s retro, if one evolves (it will in about 5 years, they always do) and its history would be a breakthrough article for Wikipedia, the first time such a fine grained social event could be followed publically. Its the kind of thing Encyc Britannica could never do. Also having lived through the time I notice the kids are now waring 1987 retro, so we can see 1990s retro soon. Anyways I fail to see the damage this does if someone just edits it some.--Rhooker1236 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How on earth can you pinpoint "1987 retro"??? Are you being serious? Cultural things aren't THAT well defined that we can say "oh, that's 1973 retro" or "That's 1981 retro!". --Rehcsif 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - besides, you admit yourself that we're talking about "if one evolves". It hasn't yet, so there's no need to write about it until it has. When it does, then it's a useful topic. BigHaz 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is lame. Furby's are 8 years old. Tamagotchis are 9. These toys took a few years to dwindle away, so we're talking maybe things 5-6 years old are now "retro"?? Check back in 15 years and then we can maybe write this article. I knew a guy when I was in college in 1990 who had an Atari 2600 in his dorm, but we didn't call it the "1980's retro movement"... --Rehcsif 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: How on earth can he tell what will happen in the future? --awh (Talk) 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. While I admire that this page is well defined. The 1990s just aren't retro yet. Sure there are nostalgic teens and adults from the era, but the '90s just aren't that retro yet. This article will make more since in the tweenz (2010s). By the way I am very nostalgic towards the '90s. The '90s rocked! (Tigerghost 04:02, 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!) 05:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up To The Ground

[edit]

Again, WP:NOT a Crytal Ball. --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Bugs, but allw for recreation when more info is present.
  • Delete as it stands now, as unverified. Article claims "is filming" but all the cited sources just say "has been signed to appear". Need actual verification that it is filming, not six-month-old articles that say it was going to. Every source I can find is dated in March, with not an update since. Fan-1967 02:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no inherent value in an article about a movie with "no release date and no announced plot". If indeed more information becomes available regarding this then it can be recreated, but as of now it's just crystalballism. DrunkenSmurf 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as "empty, no content." What is there is that there is a movie, the production date nobody knows, about a thing no one has heard, that will be released nobody knows when, but here is a title. Borderline pranksterism, and we ain't aint-it-cool-news.com. Geogre 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once the movie is actually announced by IMDb or a film company, then it should be created. As of now, it's all speculation. Not a crystal ball. -Royalguard11Talk 02:35, 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 lies. DS 14:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desinterism

[edit]

Per the article, "Term desinterism was used for the first time in USSR in 1964". Only problem is, with zero GHits, it doesn't seem to have been used by anyone, at any time. Looks like Original Research and Neologism. I also can't find any references to "Golden paprika" that don't refer to a color or a spice, so total hoax is possible. Author has no other edits. -- Fan-1967 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, grave robbing would be "disinterism", although I believe the usual term is disinterment. This one just doesn't seem to mean anything. (I even tried possible Spanish variants like Desinterismo or Desinterisma because of the Latin American references in the article. No hits.) Fan-1967 13:45, 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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bermuda Triangle incidents

[edit]

This is neither a list of incidents nor even a list of links to them. It's mostly a collection of links to various dates and various types of craft. Crabapplecove 02:17, 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 05:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of German exonyms for places in Latvia

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a thesaurus, much less a language translator. Crabapplecove 02:20, 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 delete. 1ne 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Four, issue number 1 cover spoofs

[edit]

It's a terrible article anyway, but the whole idea seems based on opinion and Original Research. What constitutes a "spoof" is often largely subjective. (What If #36, for example, is most definitely not a spoof, because there's nothing humorous or satirical about it.) Crabapplecove 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are we allowed to link to WP:NOT and say that "WP is not.." whatever we feel like, even when it's not explicitly listed on that page? Can I say that WP is not a tuna fish sandwich submerged in a bathtub full of mineral spirits? -- Plutor 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My apologies for misguided humor, I knew which one I was thinking of when I commented. The correct justification for my comment is WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, with the caveat that this is not an exhaustive list per "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not" -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was also a poorly composed joke. I knew which explicit rule you were referring to. Apologies all around! -- Plutor 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with swipe (comics). MrDolomite is right they are not spoofs, rather they are often an homage. The list isn't necessarily Original Research because there are forum discussions that document swipes (see links at the end of the swipe page). Journeyman 07:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save—I think the list is notable and interesting, though perhaps homage is a better term. I don't like swipe, because that implies that it was stolen or copied out of laziness. Ragdoll 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Journeyman. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to have small sub-sections for the swipe page for the covers that have been homaged/copied so many times that the amount of swiping itself is notable, as FF#1 certainly qualifies. However the article as it is isn't enough to justify its own article. --SevereTireDamage 04:55, 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 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Meteos planets

[edit]

It either needs to be completely redone or, IMHO, deleted. It's nonstop opinion throughout {"very strange", "it's great", "sounds like", etc.) and reads very much like it's been cut and pasted from somewhere else. The statistics almost certainly were, and are therefore a copyright violation. Crabapplecove 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would have tagged it with {{move to gaming wiki}} if I have seen that article lately. The information does not fit Wikipedia, the simple list of planets could go in Meteos, while all the extra information may go to a gaming wiki. -- ReyBrujo 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Move to gaming wiki per ReyBrujo. There is no need to delete potentially useful infomation, just put it in the right place! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article then rewrite and condense. Noting some of the wilder characteristics (such as for Gravitas or Hevendor) would be useful for the main Meteos article, but comprehensive stats are things for a gaming wiki (or Wikibooks?), especially when the game itself mentions nothing about these stats and they can only be derived experientially. --Stratadrake 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (With move to a gaming wiki if any want it) I wouldn't call using statistics a copyvio, they're simple facts that can't be written any other way. That being said... simple stats about video game levels pretty much violate NOT a game guide, as do the personal opinions and suggestions. I don't really see any need to merge - there doesn't seem to be any info that would be useful, except in a guide sort of way. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Wikibooks. I did contribute to this article, but let's be honest- it's more appropriate for a strategy guide than an encyclopedia, and a strategy guide is what Wikipedia is not. --Sonicrazy 02:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credit freeze

[edit]

The intent of this article is to draw attention to one company, also nominated for deletion. All but one of the external links are to pages about or written by one of TrustedID's founders. Finally, this article was created on 2006-07-22 by User:Citim who also created the TrustedID article. Citim has made no contributions to WP other than creating these two entries and editing Suze Orman to add another link to TrustedID. Both articles are VSCA and should be deleted. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:37, 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 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byrd Alzheimer's Center & Research Institute

[edit]

This sounds like it was lifted from a website. First person viewpoint, some POV... TrackerTV 02:38, 24 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. Mailer Diablo 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus Twelve

[edit]

Delete non-notable, unverifiable and likely original research. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 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 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Price is Right (1976 Music Package)

[edit]

If this isn't cruft I don't know what it. It is useless, unencylopedic and something nobody is likely to search for - and those are the reasons that are on the talk page@ Buckner 1986 02:44, 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 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedias by size

[edit]

Without actually providing the sizes for the reader, this is unproven Original Research. It's also just plain goofy. Crabapplecove 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as probably a redundant article MLA 09:51, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulric Nisbet

[edit]

The page does not assert the notability of its subject and has no citations. It has only 496 google hits. It seems to be a non-notable author who wrote a few books during his life time. Cowman109Talk 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently 23 google hits for for the term "Ulric Nisbet" (taking out wikipedia hits)[5], and 16 hits for "Nisbet, Ulric"[6]. Bwithh 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. I only found 2 ghits. One was Wikipedia. Alphachimp talk 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For a topic this old, internet hits mean nothing, you have to go for print sources. It's easy to forget but for a long time there was no such thing as an Internet, and lots of stuff from the pre-Internet world has not yet been "nettified". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairnie for a more recent example with limited Google hits, but that's now shaping up as a very good article. Note: no vote (changed below) from me re this specific article for now. Phr (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added this page. This author clearly meets the Wikipedia citerion for biographies: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". OK, he's a minor literary figure, but he was published, some of his archives are held in Cambridge University Archives, and he was reviewed in serious national newspapers ("The Onlie Begetter", TLS, 1936; "Spread no wings", Times 1937). Are we to purge Wikipedia of all minor writers and thinkers? That would remove one of its strengths - coverage of the unfashionable.Mark Nesbitt 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to allow clear consensus to develop. - brenneman {L} 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to shout. Google hits aren't the be-all and end-all, but they do mean something to different degrees depending on topic. It can especially useful when you're using Google Scholar and Google Books too. Bwithh 05:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mark Nesbitt seems to be working on his family tree, which is okay if the subjects are sufficiently encyclopedically notable minor thinkers and authors. Unfortunately I don't think this author is.
    • I found three entries in the Cambridge University library catalogue[8] (which is a legal deposit library[9], with minimal selectivity in what it archives - rather the library tries to catalogue all publications so its not a mark of distinction to be in the collection). The catalogue has a timeout feature, so direct links to searches won't work, but anyone can use the search function. I could not find "Spread no wings" in the catalogue.
    • Of the three I found - one title is a privately published book under a pseudonym, another is a book also printed under a pseudonym which had a print run of 250. The third is probably Nisbet's most notable book, The Onlie Begetter (1936), in which the author theorizes that the Mr. W.H. (the "only begetter" (i.e. patron, I assume) of the sonnets) to which an 1609 edition of Shakespeare's sonnets is dedicated is William Herbert, 1st Baron Powis, rather than William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke who was and is considered to be the most likely candidate. This theory is probably why the book received attention in the Times Literary Supplement. (But we don't know how it was received).
    • However, I can't find any relevant hits which discuss a connection between Powis and Shakespeare (searching for "William Herbert" and "Powis" and "Shakespeare" and "sonnets") in Google[10], Google Scholar[11] or Google Books[12](the national biography hit discusses William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke - the Powis mention is elsewhere on the page and is unrelated and not the right Powis anyway. and the biography dates from 1911.).There are 4 hits for "Ulric Nesbit" likely related to Shakespeare on Google Books[13]. Zero hits on Google Scholar[14].
    • In comparison, there are a substantial number of hits (658 pages on Google Books; 157 hits on Google Scholar, 765 hits on regular Google) which discuss the relationship between Shakespeare and William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke however[15] [16][17]. The wikipedia article on Mr. WH also lists 5 other persons aside from Pembroke who have been discussed as likely candidates for the mystery Mr. WH. - but does not include Powis.
    • All this leads me to believe that while Ulric Nesbit's WH theory about Powis may have made a minor splash at the time, he has had little or no lasting impact on the Shakespeare scholarship, even in his own lifetime. I think Ulric's theory should be mentioned in the Mr. WH article, but he is not notable enough of a scholar for his own article Bwithh 05:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough for inclusion. JeffMurph 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh Originalbigj 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mulling it over if this is the author of The Onlie Begetter (but if so, why isn't that in the article?) there's multiple hits for Ulric Nisbet on bookfinder.com. The Onlie Begetter was published by Longmans in 1936 and republished by Haskell House in 1970 and 1982; that there were enough readers to keep it marketable for that long is evidence of minor notability (unless Haskell House is a vanity press--I have a slight suspicion of that but haven't checked it out). However, there's also a 2006 print-on-demand edition which I'll guess is connected to Mark Nesbitt; if it is, then the article has a tinge of WP:SPAM to add to the WP:VAIN already evident. Phr (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haskell House seems to be a small specialist publisher dedicated to reprints of "scarce scholarly books".[18]. Now known as MSG-Haskell House[19]. Can't find website for the company Bwithh 10:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sigh, no I'm no relation to him and have no connection with him. I was a committed contributor to Wikipedia who likes to release to the public domain pieces of research that I do for other purposes, if they seem to fall within its scope...Mark Nesbitt 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Bwitth's link to MSG-Haskell which looks a legit press (at least these days). ("Scarce scholarly books" is actually what sounded to me like "vanity"). If The Onlie Begetter stayed in print for 46 years in the pre-POD era, that's enough notability for something like this. Mark, if the article stays around, it would be good if you could update it with something about the book. (added:) Also, thanks for the clarification. Phr (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the above comments. 496 google hits is fairly decent for a subject who died a decade before the internet became commercially viable. Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're not parsing your google search correctly. There are currently 23 google hits for for the term "Ulric Nisbet" (taking out wikipedia hits)[20], and 16 hits for "Nisbet, Ulric"[21]. Bwithh 18:46, 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 speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitfit U.S.

[edit]

Non-notable bandcruft, vanity, and a great deal of patent nonsense. Crabapplecove 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Patent nonsense and non-notable group/biography articles can be speedy deleted, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 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. Rje 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesneco Torch, The

[edit]

Non notable publication. No Google hits. There seems to be some little notability assertions (organizing 1st Organizational Assembly, 1st Torch Cup Debate, etc), enough to prevent a CSD:A7, but not for AFD. ReyBrujo 03:10, 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 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Airs

[edit]

Delete – Non-notable individual or, at best, very minor notability. (Not even a particularly well-known name in the sex-positive movement.) Article reads like a vanity piece. Only 620 unique Google hits when Wikipedia is excluded. Iamcuriousblue 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When chcking on the notability of Kim Airs and Grand Openings, I came across this mention that Grand Opening had been bought out be Good Vibrations. That probably mentions some mention in the GV article. I'll add it soon. Iamcuriousblue 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what happened with that, though, as the new Good Vibes isn't in the same space where Grand Opening was (unless Grand Opening moved at some point), and they're not using the Grand Opening name at all, so be careful if you mention that (and don't believe anything the Herald says :P) Catamorphism 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I only do speedy deletion tags when its really really obvious that an article is patent nonsense, obvious vandalism, or something along those lines. If there are doubts about notability, I prefer to run it through an AfD to make sure there's consensus about the lack of notbility. Speedy deletion is a bit unilateral, usually the opinion of one tagger and one administrator, and I've seen perfectly good articles thrown out because two people happen to make the wrong call. Iamcuriousblue 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion might have worked here, though? Catamorphism 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new one to me. Iamcuriousblue 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Better to be safe than sorry, right? --Tuspm(C | @) 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She seems non-notable from the article, especially the poor sourcing (owned an adult shop, now out of business, and joined some organizations) but I am curious about the Playboy mention. She apparently was the subject of a one-hour HBO special[22] (source is crappy gossip-like column on Boston.com) and the amateur show is mentioned in Daily Dig[23]. There is more... it seems she is at least somewhat notable. I am wondering if a cleanup might not be more appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At best, those programs make a case for the notability of the "You Ought to be in Pictures" event, but I really doubt even that's particularly notable. (Hard one to Google test considering since there's an old movie and popular song of the same name.) I haven't seen any of the two cable TV programs in question, but it sounds to me like these were just brief parts of a larger TV episode. Iamcuriousblue 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm neutral on whether this stays or goes, but I wanted to clarify: her store isn't out of business. At the beginning of 2006 she shifted it to online-only. FreplySpang 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you click through the links on the Grand Opening site, you quickly end up on www.sextoysex.com. If you go to the front page of Sextoysex.com, you'll see that its an online business with an affiliate program. If you go to their generic "Lesbian Front page", you'll see that the Grand Opening site is just that site plus the Grand Opening banner. If you click through the copyright information on the bottom of the Sextoysex.com home page for ownership information, you'd find that its run by a Dave Levine, through his company Convergence Inc. It goes without saying that none of this makes a case for Kim Airs notability; quite the opposite, in fact. Iamcuriousblue 16:10, 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 08:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abune Yosef

[edit]

The population estimates released by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia has no listing for any settlement with this name in the country. However, there is mountain by that name, one of the 10 or 20 tallest in Ethiopia, located in the northern Amhara Region. Lastly, according to my map Mt. Abuna Yosef is 390 km north of Addis Ababa, not 320 km. Once all of the mistakes are removed from this article, there's nothing left to salvage. This should probably be considered a speedy delete, except I can't figure out a suitable category to justify this act. llywrch 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, if I take out all of the mistakes, there won't be anything left; & is it simpler to move an empty article -- or delete it & write an entirely new one? (I'm not trying to be snide here; I would apply be bold here & just delete the article & write an entirely new one were it not that "being bold" has acquired a bad reputation recently.) -- llywrch 23:04, 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, trans-wikified already. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choad

[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 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Zamojc

[edit]

Non-notable commissioner of public works for Region of Peel in Ontario JChap (talk • contribs) 03:38, 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. Nandesuka 16:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of international Tartan Day celebrations

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Unfortunately, that's exactly what this list is (it even says it is). The list was apparently split off from the Tartan Day article, but that might not have been the right thing to do. Suggesting deletion: yes, it's a notable holiday, but the main article has enough information already. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:42, 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 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter baxter, slamdance

[edit]

Non-notable. Naconkantari 03:56, 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 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Call it Magic

[edit]

Supposedly an upcoming Fox reality series. No relevant search results except Wiki and mirrors. Author (MCcoupe7 (talk · contribs)) also created a bunch of articles on upcoming Disney series which have been Prodded, but this one already was Prodded, so it needs AFD. I've never heard of a "planned" series with 30 episodes in the can, and no press. Likely hoax. At the very least unverifiable. Fan-1967 04:14, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harpies in market-driven culture

[edit]

Article was created by a user who was clearing out a trivia section from Harpy and didn't write the material. He has no attachment to the article and considers it "drivel" as he indicated upon discussing the prod which was removed by a different user. As I stated in the prod, article appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information, and a synthesis of data that results in original Research.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's where the material originally resided. It was removed from there as inappropriate by the article creator (see Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations for handling Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles--Fuhghettaboutit 04:46, 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 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imyst, Inc., Imyst, Imyst mystery shopping

[edit]

Appears to fail WP:CORP. ghits: [24]. Alexa for site 904,210. — NMChico24 04:26, 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 08:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IFSZ

[edit]

Article has been around for a while and has not conformed to WP:WEB

Reasons for failing WP:WEB
1. No other sources other than information from IFSZ(No News Articles, Other Web Sites, ect)
2. No Inpedenant award given.
3. Has not been distributed via a site that is both well known and independent of the creators Aeon Insane Ward 04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete I am going to fully re-write this article, I do not believe it should be deleted. I know this site. I have the original article saved, just incase you need it. (Did it. Too late though. I'll do some more later) - User: Iced Kola
Comment I know this site as well (I have been a member since 2003) and the Article Totally fails WP:WEB, it is Nothing against the IFSZ but has to do with Notability. Aeon Insane Ward 02:55, 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 speedily deleted by Grutness. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K-rock 1998 dj scratch

[edit]

Sounds like a first-person view. I messed up the formatting, but this is NN and speedy! TrackerTV 04:37, 24 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walled garden (wiki)

[edit]

self-referential, move to meta

  • Transwiki to meta or maybe to project space. Phr (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a nomination. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion, and the best way you can help AfD be the Best AfD It Can Be (yeehaw!) is to actually give reasons for your nomination, and refrain from treating it like a vote, and straighten your tie, this isn't high school. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since it's a term which is thrown around a bit here, it might help to have an explanation handy domestically, rather than at another wiki. BigHaz 10:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to project space. Just zis Guy you know? 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not truly self-referential; something like this could also be an article in the Encyclopedia Galactica. --LambiamTalk 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination reason is bunk: this is not in any way self-referential. There are plenty of websites, and even wikis, that aren't Wikipedia, so an article discussing a phenomenon on certain websites (particularly wikis) is entirely appropriate. There's no good reason to delete this thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the slightest evidence that the topic is encyclopedic or notable in the usual sense. It's just internal jargon. We already have a whole wiki just for stuff about wiki culture, namely meta (or there's project space), either of which still seem to me like more obvious places to put the article. Phr (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll say again: Wikipedia is not the only wiki on the Internet. Neither meta nor project space have anything to do with wikis that aren't Wikipedia, and nor should they — however, there's an argument that some aspects of wiki culture should be discussed in main article space. Please realise this. Once you have become fully Enlightened on the sheer number of wikis that aren't Wikipedia (search Google, if need be), feel free to come back and talk about "notability" and "encyclopaedic". And when you do, please tell us why you didn't bother to mention all this in your nomination. Nominations are the core of any AfD discussion, and they need to be good. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are still required to adhere to the Wikipedia:No original research policy. And whilst I agree that the reason for deletion given in the nomination is invalid, the original research problem is a valid one. I've looked, and whilst I can find sources that discuss walled garden (media) and (of course) walled gardens, I can find nothing that discusses the wiki-specific concept that is propounded in this article. This article appears to be original research, the promulgation of a new, wiki-specific, concept that hasn't gained traction in the world at large. Delete. Uncle G 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the PPR link at the bottom there? æ² ✆ 2006-07-24t14:29z
      • That isn't evidence that the concept has gained traction in the world at large. Such evidence would other sources dealing with the subject, independently written by other people. Uncle G 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three articles on things called "walled gardens" are pretty small and pretty similar. I think they could benefit from all being merged into the one article, and would be willing to do this later. There is still the issue of nothing being sourced, but so long as we can agree (I know the bits I'm familiar with are unobjectionable, and Uncle G's a fairly cluey chap too, so he could look over it as well) that it's all true, we could merge the content together and bung a "need references" sign in. How would that sit? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of what I've found has been source material for content that fits in walled garden (media) (I've added some further reading to that article.), which is in need of attention to bring it nore into line with what sources actually say walled gardens are. The third paragraph of this article is actually dealing with the walled gardens discussed in walled garden (media). It's no loss to lose it from this article, since that paragraph came from walled garden in the first place and in fact should, according to what the actual sources say, have been moved to walled garden (media) rather than to this article.

      Whilst in the wiki world there may be a concept of a set of self-contained pages that are cordoned off from the rest of the project (Indeed, they do this very thing at Wikinews.), I have found no independent secondary source material that addresses that. I haven't found any source material for the concept in this article. Uncle G 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wikipedia namespace to comply with WP:ASR. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a worthwhile entry, and it talks about wikis in general not wikipedia. It definately needs sources to back it up, but the best way to achieve that is to keep it until someone can find sources for it.Adam Slack 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Walled garden (media); I heard of this concept before I ever heard of Wikipedia. Not a self-ref, but I'm at a loss for how to source it without referring to another wiki. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to WP namespace. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't move to wikipedia:namespace or eta because it is not a wikipedia or even wikimedia specific concept, it s a wiki secific concept. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 03:59, 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 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Joseph

[edit]

WP:BIO, WP:NN chef ... I am AfDing this at the suggestion of another editor (See edit history for details) ... deprodded twice DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 05:33, 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 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Black Mesa

[edit]

This is a modification for Half Life 2 which has not been released yet, and therefore could not have achieved any sort of notability. See: Wikipedia:Notability StukaAce 05:35, 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 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties of capitalism

[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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ebeling

[edit]

Non-notable singer. Extremly POV. I think we might have speedied it once before. -Royalguard11Talk 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Royalguard11Talk 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You know, if you actually got nominated for a grammy, I would have expected the top google page result for your acomplishment to be mentioned somewhere other than Myspace, but maybe that's just me. Irongargoyle 06:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was speedied as db-empty, but AMG and google turn up nothing.--Chaser T 07:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete If this enrty was ever added before, it wasn't by me Rodney Libby, IT Director for Holiday Inn Southfield, His name was spelt wrong on Kid Rocks page and had an empty link. I can try and get more information, please let me know thanks
what is extreemly POV? Here is a single page referencing the Grammy Nomination... http://www.deanguitars.com/jon_kott.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.172.2 (talk • contribs)

and another

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/2826435/a/Para+Siempre.htm

http://cdreviewsonline.com/june2006.htm

http://news.surfwax.com/music/archives/Smashing_Pumpkins.html

ALL 43rd annual grammy nominees:

http://www.salsaweb.com/music/articles/43rd_annual_grammy_nominees.htm

Bob (Robert) Kaeding was an aka for Bob Ebeling:

http://compras.univision.com/Downtown-CDs_stcVVproductId2935930VVcatId403860VVviewprod.htm


Too much information for you to handle? What is your affiliation with Wikipedia & The GNU Free Documentation License Entities(GFDL) Royalguard11? In trying to edit a Wikipedia article, you may encounter edit warriors?

  • Comment These links seem to verify the claims, but I don't know if we should include producers and engineers. I'm ignorant about their notability in the music world, so perhaps a regular editor to music articles can advise. Unrelated to the merits of keeping, I'm quite annoyed that this IP apparently tried to impersonate me by copying my sig. This may have been an accident, but it doesn't look that way. If it was intentional, that is very uncool.--Chaser T 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for the POV, which I missed, the whole article reads like a praise of the subject. If it is kept for some reason, then it needs to be seriously rw. -Royalguard11Talk 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on a listing much like other bio listings. Thanks for your help.

Rodney Libby (user:Rodnuts)

  • Delete. Apparently Rob Ebeling (not credited as Bob) was one of 11 recording engineers/mixers who was credited under the Grammy nomination for Album of the Year for Eminem's The Marshall Mathers LP (along with Eminem as artist and five producers including Eminem) [25]. That's an accomplishment, but I don't know that he necessarily qualifies under WP:MUSIC by being one of eleven people receiving a tertiary nomination for a Grammy. If the article gets a significant rewrite before the AfD is over, I may reconsider. --Metropolitan90 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The grammy nomination was a very very smal portion of this individuals accomplishments. --69.33.172.2 04:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete So you are saying that the guy that recorded Eminem and Dido's "Stan" is worthless to this culture? What about the guy who taught Kid Rock what rock is. What about the guy who completely produced Tantric, Remy Zero, Rufus Wainwright, Dead Meadow, etc..... --69.33.172.2 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (RODNUTS)[reply]
    • Please stop putting your recommendations in boldface. While AfD is not a vote, you have already stated your boldface recommendation for this article. Nobody has said Ebeling was worthless to this culture. Furthermore, you currently have more in this article about Ebeling's work with Ethan Daniel Davidson than his work with Eminem. The Grammy nomination may be a small part of Ebeling's work but that is no reason not to explain what he was nominated for. --Metropolitan90 05:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add any info you find, I am trying to get everything I can. I thought this was a team effort?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.172.2 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, and in the unlikely chance it isn't deleted, a complete re-write is needed. Stev0 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...the bias is obvious: A musical prodigy at age 6, Ebeling has been displaying natural talent ever since. Eventually mastering nearly any namable instrument, he became an indispensable part of hundreds of studio recordings, live acts, and a looming figure behind the scenes of uncountable musical entities. Not only that, the article is poorly written and formatted terribly.Gregmitch 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wholly unsourced. BlueValour 21:56, 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 delete. DS 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boirpy

[edit]

Speedy tag removed by anonymous user. Unsourced neologism at best, patent nonsense at worst. 0 google hits for supposed internet slang. "One who is bored and has nothing to do"? Hmmm... :-) Irongargoyle 06:14, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasian Actors

[edit]

Short list with entries already covered in List of Blasians. Crumbsucker 06:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for same reason:

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

The result was delete, speedily, because Memory-Alpha's license prohibits commerical reuse, which is specifically allowable under the GFDL. As such, the article remaining here would constitute copyright infringement. It can't be merged ("delete and merge" is impossible even if this were GFDL text, but anyway...) due to the license issues. Dead, anyway.--SB | T 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Kahless

[edit]

This page has been lifted from Memory Alpha where it should have stayed as it's not notable in the least. Philip Stevens 06:46, 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. Resistance is futile!. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProgArchives

[edit]

Unexceptional web forum, delete. --Peta 06:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I do not see any problem with this. This is not just a forum, it's an authorative website and one of the best sources for progressive rock (and metal) on the web. We are always pleased to make the necessary changes and expand on this entry. Also, we have removed a lot of the original content since the original deletion status was applied, because we deemed it trivial and unnecessary. >>> I've made further changes and the entry now sits with me more comfortably. I've also noticed other websites/forums have wiki entries here >>> I'm not sure what kind of sources Wine Guy expects us to use... surely the website itself is proof enough? All the information contained in the article can be found on the website itself. Therefore I do not see any issues here. If Wine Guy (or anyone else for that matter) can confirm to me what kind of sources we are supposed to be using, I will be happy to add them >>> Tellier-Craig, as far as I can tell, has also not made any other contributions to wikipedia, besides his/her comment, so why has their comment not been commented on, like the others? Just curious. --Geck0 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Apart from I dont see any problem, this is one of the most important website for progressive rock. As google already cited is as the first result if "progressive rock" is searched. Imoeng 07:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to have some of the ad-centric content cleaned up, but this is a very useful site for information about progressive bands, albums, and sub-genre definitions. The reviews and band bios are pretty extensive and that part of the site is a pro-bono service of the members, not unlike Wikipedia itself.Sheriff Bob Moore 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sheriff Bob Moore (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete Seems like an advert for a website. If people want information on ProgArchives, they can go directly to its website. JeffMurph 08:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a member of that forum and that site. As wonderful as the site is, this entry here lacks.I find the Wikipedia entry of the Archives kinda sloppy and uninteresting. A generalization that pretty much serves to nothing.Very short, simple background. Section "Community" goes very casual, explaining general things. About the collaborators, decent stuff, still rudimentary. Features that express details (something not really important, in my opinion, of a view over the concept of Prog Archives. Miscellaneous things that serve the same thing. In my opinion, not the best way to highlight, within the archives of this site, the Progressive Rock website, forum, concept etc. >>> I see modifications were made, just want to add to my opinion, that there is already an extensive definition of "Progressive Rock", the one given here is half-copied (first paragraph), half easy interpretation. Some sub-genres go repeated for the second time. Also, "Community" section and "The Forum" section are practically the same thing. Tellier-Craig 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic web forum. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Typical forum vanity, as usual no reliable sources or evidence of media attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Listerin 14:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tellier-Craig. -Royalguard11Talk 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: This site is the best reference that we have in the net to keep alive one of the most artistic expressions of Rock music. 200.4.234.111 05:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 200.4.234.111 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep Whoever said it's a generic forum got to be kidding. The forum is just a small part of the site, I mean, if there are entries on sites like Ebaumsworld or Something Awful who also have extencive forums along with regular content, PA must stay. Plus it's an extencive informatione resource, not just an entertainment site. -The Miracle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete. This article makes no reference to independent (third-party) reliable sources, and until it does, it fails WP:V and must go. --Wine Guy Talk 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Come on, the fact that we don't appear in the news shouldn't ve a reason to delete. We're not advertising anything, we're just prog rock enthusiasts promoting music through this wonderful resource, a completely non-commercian information database. The owners of the site have nothing to do with this article, it is NOT an advert and not meant to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete. Non-notable forum. *drew 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would probably be willing to concede notability ... but there isn't a single citation in the article. Thus, it is presumed to be origina research. BigDT 00:33, 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 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulahla

[edit]

I couldn't find any evidence that this is anything more than a couple of wild and crazy guys messing around in their local supermarket car park. --Spondoolicks 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly but not particularly funny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete* This sport is well known and played frequently at the University of Western Ontario. It has been widely discussed (not in the most favourably of lights) in the student-run paper The Western Standard, which unfortunately is only available in printed form. Will attempt to scan archived articles when I return to Western come September. - JeffTaytay (—The preceding comment was added by 198.96.223.175 (talk • contribs) .)
  • Delete. If it is real it can be recreated as an encyclopedic article but this reeks of WP:NFT: eccentric Otis, 84th Lord of Seaton and his courtiers Fraser Iggbert Macdonald and... and is WP:OR. Yomangani 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont DeleteThis is a work in progress and obviously lacks the professionalism and full citations of a finished article, but it is based on a real sport and its history has been documented in multiple student papers at the University of Western Ontario, as well as Huron and Brescia colleges. A probationary time to complete the article is well deserved. --SteveKourash (—The preceding comment was added by 198.96.223.175 (talk • contribs) .)
  • Weak Delete. There appear to be a couple of mentions of the game, such as down the bottom of this page and in a few other places, but my Google-fu gives no substantial coverage of this sport in what one might refer to as non-trivial publications. Mostly they're Wiki mirrors and "alternate uses of shopping cart" bits. I don't think it quite gets to verifiable levels of notability, though. Tony Fox (speak) 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --G0zer 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete this sport is gaining popularity in southwestern ontario —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eliasn (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete* As a student at the university of western ontario I can attest to the sport's popularity, however I think that some liberties have been taken with the content of the artcile. It can be stripped down to a bare-bones article and be encyclopedic. User:costellofaso
  • Delete not notable, the claims of many an unregistered UWO student notwithstanding. Raggaga 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough for an article. Monkey Brain(talk) 22:56, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Telco

[edit]

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it won't be a loss for the article to go. This is not like a biography of a deceased person for whom documentation is getting harder and harder to find. If the site gets more notable, documentation should become easier to find, and a new article can be entered after that happens. Anomo 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a notable wireless Internet project. I'm going to start looking for newspaper articles, I've seen it get a lot of coverage. --Liface 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No need to get rid of a well-cited article, it makes a claim to notability, and provides useful information to the reader. --tjstrf 17:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep, although I'm not quite up-to-date with en.wp's rules of the day. Even if the website is less notable today than it was when I started this article in May 2001, Personal Telco was an important part of an important "free wi-fi movement" around the turn of the millennium. If the article is deleted, Personal Telco should at least have a section in the broader article about this wireless community network movement. Several similar articles could be coalesced (sp?) into that one. Perhaps my old text from Everything2 could also be used for this? --LA2 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. PersonalTelco's notability is that it is an important part of Portland's high-tech industry/community, as well as having influence in the larger Free WiFi movement. The article probably could emphasise this more, but even as it currently reads this article explains why the subject is notable. Liface has done a good job of providing cites for this article, but if there are any further doubts, I'd be happpy to sift thru my PTP maillist archive & pull out more references: I expect PTP has been written up several dozen times by the press since its incorporation 5 years ago. -- llywrch 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability has been asserted. --Peephole 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While an org, I don't see it meeting WP:CORP. There are many Wi-Fi networks up and running. Including a generic article that includes all of these some what mentionable ones is a better way to go in my mind. Otherwise a lot of these will deserve articles. The same is true for the multiple mesh networks that the various companies are installing. Vegaswikian 23:25, 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. Davidpdx 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galbijim Wiki

[edit]

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: Watching the List of wikis page I suspected there might be a VfD on this one eventually as well, and since I wrote the article in the first place I'm going to stay neutral on the vote. The site is to Korean articles on Wikipedia as Wookieepedia is to those on Star Wars, meaning that anything that would be of too much detail here can still be written over there, and the two aid each other in that way. That being said, that in and of itself may not make the article notable so I'm going to just let the vote go according to everyone else's wishes. If it is deleted though there should still be a clear limit for when it would become notable in the future. Should there be a few other blog entries, newspaper articles, if so what kind of newspapers and would those in Korean be acceptable, etc. The Wookieepedia article for example also only has a single blog entry as an external link, but its sheer article count seems to have kept it from deletion. Mithridates 10:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I personally don't see any reason to delete it. A Wikipedia article about another wiki website seems notable as long as it's properly categorized. It has almost 4,000 articles all related to Korea. I have found a lot of the information there useful. I think it's notable enough to merit its own article. However; maybe should be reduced to stub status, and as the website grows, and as time pasess, it could be expanded further. Merkurix 12:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "A Wikipedia article about another wiki website seems notable as long as it's properly categorized" lots of them have been deleted, kamelopedia, uncyclopedia of stupid, homestarrunner, something based on star wars, and they've even deleted ones with actual notable newspaper sources in them because people demanded the use of multiple newspaper sources. Hardvice 12:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the person who nominated the article is wrong. The above article does meet noteablity and has recieved The Best 43 Blogs Award [27] for best Wiki blog. In addition, the article has high mention though sites like Dave's ESL Cafe. There is lots of useful information for expats (those who live in Korea). Also it's worth mentioning that FurryiamIAM nominated upwards of ten pages for deletion in one day and he/she has very little in the way of edit history. Davidpdx 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is indeed a bit short of the Wikipedia's standards, but it is my opinion that anyone who have had a read through it will agree that it is a detailed wiki about Korea, and the article has potential for expansion. I would also like to draw attention to what Davidpdx said above and
  • Comment. Like porn stars, wikis don't yet have clear guidelines for establishing notability other than an uneven record at AfD, so Furry or Hardvice or whoever is definitely WP:POINT. It should be noted that for many of its articles, Galbijim is literally the only English-language source available. Since I've done a lot of editing and admin work there I feel I should stay neutral but otherwise, I would be voting keep all the way.--ThreeAnswers 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and relevant. -- Visviva 01:25, 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 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Open Source Centre

[edit]

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. When I came across this article, it already had a deletion concern notice, but not AFD. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 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 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barge of the Dead

[edit]

This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Not notable JeffMurph 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on copyvio grounds, not on notability grounds. I, for one, would like to see an article on this; as I remember, it had a presence in several Star Trek episodes as well as a number of novels, and is noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia due to its rich mythological parallels/inspiration and central place in Klingon beliefs on the afterlife. Ripping material from Memory Alpha, however, is not acceptable. Captainktainer * Talk 18:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can probably be speedied (using {{db-copyvio}}), depending on how broadly an admin interprets "commercial provider" -- Memory Alpha copyvios have certainly been speedied in the past. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 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. I think I can close this one early -- nom clearly didn't understand the subject's importance. Jacqui★ 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Football (band)

[edit]

Delete No indication of any notability in the article, no awards etc. Appears NN Spartaz 08:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Copyright 2002 Denver Westword, LLC  
Denver Westword (Colorado)
November 21, 2002 Thursday
SECTION: Music/Columns
LENGTH: 291 words
HEADLINE: Critic's Choice
Owen
BYLINE: By Jason Heller
BODY:
Nobody likes a whiner. And yet a whole troop of emo crybabies, from Dashboard Confessional's Chris
Carraba to Bright Eyes' Connor Oberst, has whimpered its way into the spotlight over the past couple
of years. Mike Kinsella, otherwise known as Owen (appearing Tuesday, November 26, at Club 156 in
Boulder), is at least partly to blame. As drummer of the mid-'90s Illinois group Cap'n Jazz, Kinsella
helped tame the wuss-rock frontier now populated by the likes of Modest Mouse and Jimmy Eat World.
The members of Cap'n Jazz, though, were always deconstructionists at heart, using feedback, caterwauls
and solipsistic wordplay to unravel their songs almost faster than they could stitch them together.
As Cap'n Jazz mutated into Joan of Arc and then OWLS, the players softened and refined their sound,
invoking the abstract groove of Tortoise and conceptual folk-blues as much as the cathartic abandon of
Rites of Spring. Kinsella himself ventured even further into the realm of accessibility with his side
project, American Football, a stunning exhibition of intricate, elegant guitar pop. With Owen,
Kinsella has switched to guitar and vocals, boiling down American Football's melodic sensibility
to its purest essence. His self-titled debut album shimmers with wispy synth backdrops, bashful
strumming and his dandelion-puff voice, a plaintive sound stuck somewhere between Rainer Maria and an
unplugged Coldplay. Songs with titles such as "Declaration of Incompetence," with lyrics like "I can't
do anything/I can't do my hair right/Or have a good time/Or fall asleep with my girl," aren't going to
significantly distance Kinsella from the current herd of bleating emo troubadours. His finesse and
forbearance, though, already have.
LOAD-DATE: November 21, 2002

--Dan 07:48, 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 Chinese Democracy. Redirects are cheap. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better (song)

[edit]

Delete - article about a G'n'R song that hasn't been issued yet and may or may not be on a forthcoming album. Can be recreated when the album is issued and it is clear whether the song itself deserves an individual article Spartaz 08:27, 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. JIP | Talk 06:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Clockwork Waltz

[edit]

Non-notable band tribute at community theater with limited run in one small city. Wikipedia is not a theater listing. Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plans are actually in the works for a regional tour of independant theatres. The Dresden Dolls support this production and future tours, as well as productions of this nature. (Just look at their roots in the music industry) I don't feel the entry should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.228.149.182 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and I get the impression that individuals associated with the production have written the article, or at least the original text, and likely have written the above comment. Originalbigj 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Community theater? I don't think so. When the production lands on Broadway, or goes on a national/international tour with multiple verifiable sources, the article can be re-created. --Wine Guy Talk 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I brought this up before on the article's page. This is a community theatre project and not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. As Wine Guy said, when it gets big it can be remade. Tartan 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia may not be a theater listing, but it is an encyclopedia; that means that all subjects - whether you consider them relevant or not in your elitist snobbery of what is acceptable - should be allowed to have an entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.84.18.84 (talk •contribs) 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article was added as what we felt was a notable entry for The Dresden Dolls and to people everywhere. The fact that a band signed to a major label would allow and encourage our production should be notable in itself. Citing WP:NOT is probably not the best method of recommendation for deletion. Nowhere in that article do I find anything that suggests our article is inappropriate to Wikipedia. This article was not meant to be as for a theatre listing, but to serve for reference as articles do for other plays and musicals. "An encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Why must you be so particular?Alexbt 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexbt, I cited WP:NOT casually, but we actually have a formal deletion policy and music notability guidelines. At the moment there isn't a specific guideline for theater productions, but if there were, then some level of national media coverage would be part of it. The band's involvement appears to be largely passive cooperation, and while that makes it worth noting on their article, the article doesn't fit the level of notability that we've established to prevent Wikipedia from becoming, essentially, Geocities for anybody who wants an article on themselves. More on point, we wouldn't want it to fill with advertising pages, either. By asserting standards of encyclopedic value we ensure that our users can think of Wikipedia as something useful. While we can include more, much more, than a paper encyclopedia, we can't include everything. I hope you do not see this as judgement of the artistic value of the show, because it is not. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aborted

[edit]

Borderline Notable as per WP:Music. Seems to have been around forever but doesn't seem to have achieved anything. The article itself is just a discography and I'm pretty sure ther eare lots of places on the web where oyu can get one of these for this Spartaz 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep They seem to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC (with enough albums with a record label), they also sell online here. --Porqin 17:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I might be biased because I am Belgian, but I know they are known in the European Grindcore scene. They are one of the top Belgian grindcore bands, toghether with Agatocles. I came here loking for information, which proves something.
  • Keep For god's sake, Aborted is a known band, they even have videos around, don't delete this article, it is real
  • Keep I nominated it but the creator provided good reasons why it should be kept. Meets criteria per WP:MUSIC.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 07:31, 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 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Menoosha Susungi

[edit]

Tagged nn-bio, but notability is asserted (opened for Miriam Makeba, Kool and the Gang, Stevie Wonder). Either needs expanding and evidence of importance added, or deleting if there is no such evidence. Janitorial nomination, no vote. Just zis Guy you know? 08:45, 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. There was a strong lobby for merge and to merge other characters in the programme as well, but I have reservations about this as the competition results have not yet been announced. Merge can anyway be addressed without AfD. This article, if not merged, may well be suitable for AfD some time in the future, when the competition fever has diminished. Tyrenius 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Koumaev

[edit]

Not-notable enough. abakharev 08:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Majority of contestants could fit into one page, given they've done almost nothing of note. People who have won or placed very highly in major tournaments, it can be argued, have done something noteworthy and are deserving of some measure. But most of these people are 15-minute celebrities and not something you'd EVER find in Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book. --ThatBajoranGuy 07:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Arguments on whether content would appear in paper encyclopedias are frankly irrelevant. It would be inconsistent to delete this entry and not delete the entries of other finalists. Moreover, as a top six contestant in the show, there is even less logic in deleting his entry before the show's completion. It should be noted, that merging all the articles is not an option without having this same discussion for each of the other finalists, and such a move would be blocked for those contestants like Schwimmer who have lengthier résumés. Rcharman 01:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There seems no logical reason to delete the artice. Is it taking up unecessary space the Wikipedia does not have? It is a good entry that helps impart information on it's subject; just as any good article in an encyclopedia would. Arguments that this would not appear in paper encyclopedias are irrelavent because they have different concerns such as space and printing costs. If that was a valid argument, then all articles about all actors would have to be removed, all articles about schools and universities would have to be removed, all articles about singers would have to be removed, all articles about plays and movies would have to be removed, etc. This is not a paper encyclopedia so deletion would be quite unjustified.

Diemunkiesdie 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

FYI, I did some research and have considerably expanded the article with additional information and references. --Elonka 23:31, 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 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Children at Play (Alternative rock)

[edit]

Tagged nn-band but contested. No evidence of meetign WP:MUSIC - one EP and "local stardom". Entire repertoire apparently free online - not a good sign! Just zis Guy you know? 08:55, 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 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Didsbury Dozen

[edit]

unencyclopaedic article nob-notable pub crawl DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 08:56, 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 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sons Of Nothing

[edit]

tagged for deletion as non-notable band, but contested. This is a Pink Floyd tribute with some local fame, may or may not meet WP:MUSIC (no real evidence presented that they do). Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band is apparently listed with PollStar [29] if that makes them more notable. I agree the Australian Pink Floyd is clearly more notable internationally. Sons Of Nothing is a regional phenomenon at this point. --166.70.238.250 16:46, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Light Performance

[edit]

Commercial POV endorsement Skysmith 09:23, 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 merge into Christ Church, Oxford. Done. Ifnord 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student (Christ Church)

[edit]

Read it once, then twice and if you still don't get it, read it once more!!! Anyway, regardless, this article does nothing to assert the imprtance of it's subject DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 09:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I'm not entirely sure that what's there really qualifies as a subject, let alone one which needs a separate article. BigHaz 10:16, 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 12:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palmerston North Boys' High School 3rd XV

[edit]

A High School's third Rugby team, however triumphant is simply not encyclopedic. Also suffers from POV and OR issues. --Aoratos 10:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On second thought, I can't even find info about the team at [30], which seems like the place where it would be. Delete unless something can be sourced. If it can, I revert back to my merge suggestion. GassyGuy 10:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's strange to have an article about a specific sports team from a school, especially the THIRD team. This has obviously been put here by someone currently in the team or related to the team in some way. If I was a more experienced wikipedian I would have just deleted it on first sight... Ham21 11:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you wouldn't :) It does not meet any of the speedy criteria (as it definitely asserts notability), so AfD is the way to go. Let's not stretch the speedy deletion criteria without discussion... --JoanneB 12:17, 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 userfy. There is strong consensus that the articles as they exist are not suitable for mainspace. Once they are cleaned up, they can be moved back. - brenneman {L} 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States health reform 1912-1920 - United States health reform under FDR - United States health reform under Truman - United States health reform under Nixon - United States health reform under Carter - United States health reform under Clinton

[edit]

According to the discussion at Talk:Health care reform, the creation of this group of articles appears to have been encouraged by a college instructor at Duke University, User:Conoverc, for his Politics of Health Care class to address why universal health care proposals have been defeated despite overwhelming public support for universal coverage. To me, WP:OR appears to have been violated in that a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position appears in each article. He admitted to devising a common article template for his students to use in order to reach the conclusion "why the window of opportunity (for reform) closed", and the edit histories reveal a flurry of referenced assertions in the various sections of each article. In my opinion, the position being advanced is that reform or change is an "opportunity"; the synthesis is the A + B + C insertion of references to reach that conclusion. Medtopic 10:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaned my mind after doing a little quiet research Very Weak Keep All but these articles really need cleanup Aeon Insane Ward 18:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep and cleanup. I cheerfully confess I have not read each nominated article. The ones I did read were not so awful as to be unsalvageable; they were referenced. Even if they were created as a class project, they contain encyclopedic information that should not be simply erased. They do need to be edited to remove jargon ("the policy stream"?) and checked for NPOV, but this makes them no different from any other article about history. Smerdis of Tlön 14:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The articles are useful as supplements to the presidents in question. Much of the non-NPOV position has been editted out, leaving valuable articles (though bloated, in my opinion) - JethroElfman 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per JethroElfman - NickSentowski 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All -- Wikipedia prohibits "connecting the dots" as a violation of the policy against original research. See [31] Suggest the material be moved to Wikisource instead. Morton devonshire 05:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although some of the articles are problematic there is sufficient encyclopedic content that they should be saved. They certainly need more work and I'm interested in discussing it with anyone else who is willing to spend some time seperating wheat from chaff. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The synthesis to advance a position problem is still present. For example, it is noticable that only certain Presidents are part of the series. I seem to recall a few presidents in between and since like Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and a Bush or two (a couple of whom signed reform legislation like the establishment of Medicare and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act). And the articles have statements like "resulted in no progress towards universal health care" that demonstrate their advocacy of the point of view that universal health care would be progress in the U.S. GRBerry 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No the point is that the series was constructed as it is in order to advance a point of view, thus fauling afoul of the policy against original research. There is no excuse for a neutral series of articles on healthcare reform in the U.S. omitting coverage of the introduction of Medicare, which is one of the most important pieces of healthcare legislation. One could say that the 2003 reform act is too new to evaluate in an encyclopedic fashion. Why are all cases of significant reform omitted from the series? GRBerry 12:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find it somewhat ironic that I'm speaking in defense of these articles; 99% of my AfD votes are straight "Delete" because 99% of what comes through AfD is utter crap. These are not utter crap. They may be incomplete, POV, poorly written and partially redundant...but none of those are problems for which AfD is the best answer. The best answer is to rewrite, remove POV, and add more encyclopedic content, not to remove the useful information which is there. I know I'm starting to repeat myself now, but if information is missing why don't we add the needed info, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting useful content that simply needs improvement? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I often see articles like this, with OR being the main premise for deletion, but invariably someone throws in the words "Inherently POV" or "Inherently OR". Not the case here. While I certainly agree that Wikipedia is not a place for "connecting the dots", I see no harm in making uncontroversial statements of the obvious theory behind such information. Perhaps our encyclopedia could just spew out facts and statistics with no correlation, but we must realize that the theory that binds these facts is as true, and is as much value to the encyclopedia as anything else that can be copied from an almanac, and the theory relating to this information is generally uncontroversial. What about the parts that are? Get rid of them. Like my history teacher used to say, "Facts without theory is trivia. Theory without facts is bullshit." And who's to say that this is OR? Who's to say that it is connecting the dots? Do not forget that each of these articles contain something like 10-15 references (Take a look at United States health reform under Clinton), so an OR claim in itself is strenuous enough, and certainly not strong enough to warrant such an ill-considered and reflexive call for deletion. I think what everyone here is looking for is a bunch of these: <ref>d</ref>, and I certainly am too, but I'm not going push for its deletion on those grounds. That, like everything else in these articles, can be improved.
  • Now I have a few reminders for us all. Firstly, there is something called Template:OR. It says, "Hey, let's work together and fix this". Secondly, AfD is not a substitute for cleanup. If cleanup is reasonable, which it most certainly is, then deletion is unthinkable. Thirdly, many of us are probably under the impression that the OR is much more serious than it is because of its non-encyclopedic tone, which reads like a tenth-grader giving a book-report. Let's fix this, not blow it up. AdamBiswanger1 19:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is certainly possible for editors to interpret Wikipedia policy differently, so calling this an "ill-considered and reflexive call for deletion" is unwarranted. If one believes that individual referenced points are strung together to make a point (i.e. connecting the dots), then he or she will view this as OR. If one does not believe that, then he or she will not. Medtopic 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly understand OR--as noted in my comment, I am not convinced that this is OR. The reason I suggested that the decisions of other voters was "reflexive", is because the issue here is unusually complex for AfD, and without an examination of the text, it may very well seem like OR on the surface. I'm no better than anyone else--sometimes I just jump on the dogpile and type "Delete per nom", but sometimes I see a flash of light in the article, and I investigate more carefully. Also, be assured that I am not accusing all editors who want to delete the article as being careless. AdamBiswanger1 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure which of the four of us you are accusing of carelessness, however, I think it's fair to grant the benefit of doubt to others here and assume that they have investigated carefully, too. The fact that three of the four editors voting "delete" thus far have referenced a particular section of WP:OR (i.e. synthesis of published material serving to advance a position) does not suggest that they have given only a cursory examination of the text, or that have voted reflexively, or that they are not capable of understanding the complexities of the AfD. Medtopic 22:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am willing to say that the other editors probably spent about 2 minutes in reading the articles. I respect you and all of the other editors here, and I am by no stretch of the imagination insulting them or looking down upon them because, well, we all do it (as I said). But to assume that every editor took long and deliberate look at each one, and upon a long period of thoughtful contemplation reached his or her decision would only be a lie to oneself, unless by some miracle each one actually did-- in which case I will tuck my tail between my legs and go home. But all of this is rather peripheral to my main contention, which is that this is not OR, and it is not advancing a position. And if it is? Well then we'll take it to the cleaners, not the cemetary. AdamBiswanger1 23:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'd really like to emphasize this part: "...take it to the cleaners, not the cemetary." We really shouldn't be deleting useful content that can reasonably be brought into compliance with policy, which this can. The policy problems are related to the quality of the writing, not the quality of the content. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The titles should be changed. The word "reform" assumes that the change is for the better. But often there is not agreement on whether the result is actually better than before the "reform". And even if "reform" were OK, the subject being "reformed" is not "health." Maurreen 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, summarize, cleanup. These read as essays more than encyclopedic articles. They need to be summarized, text attributed to reliable sources, editorializing removed, and abundant references provided. If editors are not willing to do that job, then Delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to start a list and I hope that others who have 'voted' to keep and cleanup will sign on to help.

  • Editors willing to help clean up this mess:
  1. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Not Sure if this is the palce for the list) Æon Insane Ward 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AdamBiswanger1 21:18, 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 Keep. -- Longhair 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goulash Communism

[edit]

Besides its obvious brevity the article contains nothing but an amalgam of highly superficial catchwords without any explanative value whatsoever and displays a clearly non-neutral point of view.
Many of the common complaints regarding articles on topics concerning "Socialism" apply here:
1. No socialist country has ever proclaimed itself to be "communist" this being merely the final goal society strives to reach in the distant future.
2. "'Lighter' version of communism" is highly tendentious, implying that "communism" as such would be "hard" only to be a bit "alleviated" in its "later stages".
3. "Much diminished socialist propaganda" ("propaganda" here obviously but unduly used as a derogative term) is totally incorrect. As in every other socialist country the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the forms of its dissemination in Hungary underwent adaptations and modernisations, especially after 1956. But neverthelees it remained the official guiding thought and was propagated as such right until 1989.
4. The introduction of some market elements (combined with planning) as was the case in Hungary (but not only there !) is in no way incomaptible with a socialist economy. Therefore no "aknowledging of a deviation" would have been necessary.
This artificially magnified discussion of certain idiosyncratic features of the building of a socialist society in individual countries, for insthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goulash_Communism&action=edit Edit this pageance in Hungary, should at best be avoided altogether. And if this proves to unfeasible, in the case of Hungary we already have the "Happiest Barrack" article (also fatally flawed but still far better than this one) of which this article is basically a shallow and useless reduplication.
I therefore demand the deletion of the article on "Goulash communism" as quickly as possible.
--Elsmlie 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Its brevity may be due to its relative youth; it still has the "new article smell" on it. Fact is, the term is out there, and I'd like to see it explained better. I learned the term in high school history (although high school history tends to be a tad more simplistic than anything at the post-secondary level). I remember hearing the term as well on a TV documentary. I'd actually like to see the article fleshed out. It ranks up there with terms like "gunboat diplomacy" and "bamboo curtain" that people coin to describe a situation or concept that appears to be different from the norm. --SigPig 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand if possible see this diff, article was apparently created to fill a redlink someone else had left (with a misspelling). I notice there's no hu:gulyáskommunizmus article though. Phr (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I hope there will be some improvement as time goes on. Zello 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (if really necessary) If you insist on keeping the term (which, I will repeat, may be widespread in American High School history lessons but still doesn't become any more correct or useful) merge this article with the "Happiest barrack" article and add the term "Goulash communism" as a second "catchword phrase" there. We do not need both articles.

--Elsmlie 16:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thinking about it a second time, I believe that when merging the two articles, it would be even better to keep the heading "Goulash communism" and delete the "Happiest barrack" heading instead. The content of the "Happiest Barrack" article should then be moved under the "Goulash communism" heading and this term be added as a second catchword there (as proposed in my previous comment). Despite its flaws "Goulash communism" as a term is in itself less offensive than "Happiest barrack" and should therefore be used as their common heading. --Elsmlie 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again, let's fix the problems addressed rather than delete the article. I've heard of Goulash communism, and it is most certainly a valid phrase AdamBiswanger1 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here's my proposal:
1. Repair the various problems in the article mentioned in my original deletion request. Since the article is not very long and it's been me who brought this all up I could do so, if you agree.
2. Sometime in the future, merge the article with the "Happiest barrack" article and use "Goulash communism" as their common heading.
What do you think ? --Elsmlie 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I have now fundamentally revised the article conforming to the points raised above. I hope my revision will find your approval and we can close the discussion. --Elsmlie 19:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a common used expression for the 1963(?amnesty)-1989 period in Hungary. kelenbp 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge the Happiest Barrack into this one, since "Goulash Communism" seems to be the more common term. I created the article out of "self interest", wanting to learn more about the subject. I am pleasantly surprised of the response, so far. I would like to see/add references to more or less similar situations, like Tito's Yugoslavia or present day China. Barabum 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or Merge and keep a redirect); the term is clearly a notable one (see the Google test). Problems with the content should be solved by editing, not deletion. KissL 10:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the original problems have already been solved since I have fundamentally revised the article yesterday. I therefore repeat my proposal to close the discussion. Merging and redirecting can be done later. --Elsmlie 10:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest merging and redirecting sooner, rather than later, to avoid duplicate work.Barabum 14:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep. This a a normal, very frequent historical term now in all relevant European languages. Juro 22:47, 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 and I ignored those dubious keeps, just for the record.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beefy (artist)

[edit]

Podcaster, amateur webcomic artist, apparently unsigned nerdcore hip-hop artist (no albums yet). His claim to fame is two animations on albinoblacksheep.com. Please excuse me if I take that as a different meaning of the word fame from the one I am used to. Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Criteria --Xrblsnggt 03:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no non-homemade records, no indication of significance. Just some guy with a website. Friday (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most nerdcore albums are "home made". Also he was present on the Rhyme Torrents[32] compilation, which is the first major collab between several nerdcore artists. Also he is featured in Project: Nerdcore [33], the nerdcore documentry. --Kahless720 09:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hazard a guess that across the board, most records are homemade. Most records also get no reputable sources talking about them. This is exactly why we don't cover most records. Friday (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the last time this deletion issue was brought up I've gotten more coverage and reviews. From what I understand at the end of August I'll be mentioned in an issue of Wired Magazine. Not to be the vainest man in the world, but in the realm of nerdcore I'd say that I'm at least a bit significant. Beefyness 08:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • note: ip=71.83.252.111; text deleted by 151.198.116.169, restored by Gimmetrow
  • Keep He may only have two known cartoons, but he's currently working on a few Nerdcore-Hiphop projects (Tri-Forc3, new album), most Nerdcore Hiphop is created in a home or private office, and in his trade, he's basically the best I've heard, and really stays true to the Nerdcore genre. TimCoPress 11:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Beefy's too fat for wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.48.120 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 July 2006

I can assure you that these are not fake posts or accounts or whatever. Timco, Kahless, and Amy are just people who like my stuff. If you want to discredit their opinions and votes just because they want to keep the page up, then by all means don't let them have a say. Beefyness 05:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep:This page is not in violation of any of the vanity page rules. Beefy has gained a lot of street cred in the last few years as more people listen to his albums, read his comics and tune into his ever entertaining podcasts. knowlege of beefy and his work is a more than excellent introduction into the little known nerdcore hip-hop scene/genre. if there is a place on the web for things worth knowing about it's here on wikipedia, that is why beefy has a page here to begin with. 67.188.213.76 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Amy Hanson[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Sydney Demonstration School

[edit]

Consensus seems to be that schools under high school age are not inherantly notable. Only actual claims at notability seem to fall under the history of the area rather than the school itself. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:48, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2013 World Championships in Athletics

[edit]

Too far in the future, too speculative. Punkmorten 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the speculative nature of the article. Punkmorten 13:36, 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 12:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cohearence

[edit]

non-notable band Travelbird 11:06, 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 12:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digimods

[edit]

non-notable webpage Travelbird 11:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Sporting League

[edit]

non-notable, a league (?), no Google hits Travelbird 11:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per non-notable, only 10 total google hits, some to this page. --Porqin 12:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, not sure it even exists... Andymarczak 08:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The League existed from 1970-1971 in England. I know its pre-google, but pre-google doesn't necessarily mean outside the realm of wikipedia. If you look at the (admittedly few) google references, they do provide a bit of information, and I've tried to fill it in to the article. Anyway, I'm voting keep for several reasons:
1. It was a professional league, even if only for a short while. It was also a professional league in England, the home of football and a major footballing nation by almost any criteria.
2. 1970 was a watershed year for sponsorship in football, with the introduction of 3 major sponsor events (Texaco Cup and Watney Cup being the others), and the Ford Sporting League was an important part of the trend. This needs to be filled in better in the article, and I don't quite have the resources to do it.
3. It had a unique and interesting scoring system, about which much could be written. Vickser 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Comments updated further: Vickser 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral It still seems that if the league was very influential, there would be more than 10 hits on google, as people would write about this league, regardless of when it was formed. If the scoring system, the ability to deduct points, is unique to football; then maybe the league is worth mentioning. --Porqin 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a potentially interesting article about a professional league involving well known teams. (A quick google search yields not only Oldham, but also Fulham- I'd certainly be interested in finding out which other teams participated.) I won't rehash the reasons Vickser has given, but I strongly agree with all of them, particularly the interest generated by the unique scoring system- are there any other tournaments in football where scoring was directly influenced by sportsmanship? True, the competition was short lived, but so was the Super Cup, and that (rightly) has an article. I'll admit, I hadn't heard of this competition before looking at this article- but that just shows one of the great things about wikipedia, the potential for learning about interesting things, just like this.--Robotforaday 23:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as an aside to the above, the Oldham Athletic: Complete Record 1899-1988 by Garth Dykes might have results in the Ford sporting league (which would hopefully at least tell us just who participated), with possibly a final league table. Could be worth a look before deleting. I will get it out of my university library in a few days.--Robotforaday 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know the teams playing will effect some votes, so it's worth noting that Colchester United, currently playing in the Championship, also participated in the league. So far they, Fulham and Oldham Ath are the only ones I've found, but I'll also be doing some more research. Vickser 02:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a pro league and with more work it could be a very interesting article.  Slumgum T. C.   12:47, 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 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathic Papers

[edit]

essay/email, orginal research/not encyclopedic Travelbird 11:13, 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 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Café Reconcile

[edit]

I removed much of this article as a copyvio, and now what is left doesn't seem close to passing WP:CORP. It was prodded previously which was removed without comment. Kevin 11:19, 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 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minidab

[edit]

blatant advertising Travelbird 11:51, 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 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tradecision

[edit]

blatant advertising Travelbird 11:50, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Settlersindia

[edit]

another advert Travelbird 11:57, 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.

AudiopleXus Mastering

[edit]

advertising Travelbird 12:06, 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 Keep. --JoanneB 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mr. T Experience

[edit]

This band does not meet the criteria on WP:MUSIC-- JoanneB 12:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." This band has released four, and appears to meet WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. They gather about 86,000 google hits, and currently have albums selling here. --Porqin 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, you're right, I misjudged their record label and made a serious mistake while googling. My mistake. Closing as speedy keep, let's move on :) --JoanneB 12:46, 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 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xentash

[edit]

The latest version of www.xentash.com, has 85 members as of July 21. The designer of Xentash hopes to have 100 members by July 27. And WP:NOT the way to achieve that. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the huge issue is, I'm not using Wikipedia to get members, as a matter of fact, only around 2 members have come from Wikipedia. Please don't delete this, it isn't intended as an advertisment.

It's non-notable, it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus War

[edit]

Online game launched in May this year. No evidence of number of players, innovation, significance, external coverage, etc. No sign of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Porqin 12:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB --Peephole 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Highway Return to Oz... 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The game is a browser based game and should not have to adhere to WP:SOFTWARE
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - People are far too eager to sling around "non-notable", when you've got articles on quite a large number of more "non-notable" topics. Nexus War is extremely innovative for a browser-based game and has gained a large number of players in a very short period of time, and will only continue to do so. --Keolah 18:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nexus War has gathered a lot of players already, and the community is still growing swiftly. The game is very entertaining, and are actually better than some browser games that I know of. There's little doubt that it would be swarmed by browser-based MMOG fans. --Kamalia Timandre 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How about you do some research instead of just saying Delete as norm for everything. Its a very active community with about 8000 users so far and its only just gone into Beta. --Rogue
    • Comment: If this can be verified, wouldn't this tend to make the article notable? I don't know what a large player base for a beta is, but this sounds like a significant number. If so, certainly criteria according to WP:WEB will follow; should we delete the article until then, or try to stay ahead of the curve and keep developing the article, since it's already been started? B7T 09:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article as it stands is at worst a badly written stub on a worthy topic. I hardly find that reason for deletion. Aren't we here to improve these articles rather than get rid of them? B7T 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a fairley new game and thus dosn't have much wrote on it yet, I've been looking through the other browser based games edit history and most of them started off with even less information than this, if the lack of statistical information bothers you that much, then go find it out and add it to the article. --Meirleach 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Feel free to propose those articles for deletion as well if they haven't asserted notability. But this afd deals with this article not those others. So please provide valid reasons to keep this article. Has it received any significant coverage? Is the game notable? Is the game innovative? Has the developer created any previous notable games? ... --Peephole 21:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: You're missing my point, look at say one of the earlier Urban Dead edits - here Its tiny, not very well written and contains very little information, now look at the current page Urban Dead it contains information on the player base, how many active accounts their are, and several of the interesting game mechanics. My point is that articals don't start off perfect, most of them start off as small poor quality stubs and are expanded upon by interested wikipaedians, they need time to grow. Go back to the earliest version of most articles in browser based games and you will see exactly the same thing. --Meirleach 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Meirleach makes a good point. It's disappointing to me when there is the appearance of being automatically dismissive of an article whose merits may not be immediately apparent. Peephole, your questions are worthy of consideration, but they are subjective: What makes a game notable or innovative? Whose coverage sets the standard for noteworthiness? And a developer's first game could indeed be noteworthy, so precedent needn't be an issue. B7T 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: This afd isn't specifically based on the contents of the article but on whether the subject deserves a wikipedia article or not. My questions were indeed very subjective and that is why the subject needs independent, external and reliable coverage, which doesn't seem to exist at the moment. So the article should be deleted. If the subject is truly notable and worthy of an article, then it will eventually be treated by a reliable source and then the article can be recreated. --Peephole 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: Regarding re-creation of the article, see my comment under Rogue's above. And my questions were not rhetorical: What criteria define notability or innovation? Where, specifically, should we be looking for worthy coverage? I generally get my own initial information through the less significant sources like blogs and forums, and look to Wikipedia itself as one of the significant sources. B7T 10:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, sockpuppet-supported. Fails both WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB, whichever you prefer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment NN= not negotiable? This AFD has only been around for 3 days, according to wiki policy at Wikipedia:Deletion policy this is a public debate that lasts for 5 days, I also dislike the implication that I and several other 'keep' participents are sock puppets, we have all made valid comments and its unfair to just dismiss us on the suspicion of being sock puppets. On another note there is a general consensus that the article does in fact lack information and could be a lot better, if you look here in the deletion policy page Problem articles where deletion may not be needed You will see that articles that lack information or need alot of improvement should be listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention not deleted.
      • Comment: NN=Not Notable. Also, as I've said before the discussion is mainly on whether the topic deserves an article at all. --Peephole 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment And as I have said before, most of the other articles in browser based games started off in nearly exactly the same condition, why weren't they all deleted? If this browser based game isn't deserving of an article why are the rest of them? Almost all of us have agreed that the article needs work, and if you look at the earliest versions of just about any of the browser based games most of them weren't 'notable' either, but they were given a chance and some time and they grew into 'notable' articles. --Meirleach 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Nobody said anything of those other browser games deserving an article. If you think they do not deserve an article, feel free to put them up for deletion as well. But this discussion should be on this articles merits, not those others. Oh and the problem isn't that this wikipedia article isn't notable but the subject (the game) has no notability and thus doesn't adhere to WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. --Peephole 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: The games only been in beta for 3 months and already has 8000 players and as for innovation, most browser based MMORPGs seem to either focus on running a big empire(Dark Throne, battlemaster) or running your character around levelling up killing things (Shartak, UrbanDead and Runescape), Nexus War is a very interesting fusion of the two due to the faction system.
It has the more normal RPG elements, like finding weapons, gaining experience and levelling up, buy skills and all the usual RPG fair, but it also contains elements of the more strategic RPGs, you have to keep your weapon stocks up, so your faction members actually have stuff to attack with, you can hold areas by building barricades, make your faction bonuses stronger by infusing squares on the map.
But unlike games like DarkThrone you don't do this by yourself, due to the games design its impossible, so if you want lots of faction bonuses, you have to organise the other players to infuse, if you want to attack someone you can't just click on their name and obliterate them, you have to find willing players in your faction and co-ordinate them, you want tons of guns and ammo, you have to keep players with crafting skills supplied or even forget that bit and make an alliance with another faction where they supply you with weapons in exchange for protection.
Its a browser based game that *encourages* interacting with the other players on a level I have yet to see in any other browser based game, having said that you can play on your own, thereýs nothing stopping you, but its a much less filling experience.
Now that all looks like a lot of gushing POV hyperbole, and of course there are things that annoy me in the game too, but the games faction system is very innovative. On --Meirleach 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment:That's great, but is there a reliable source to back that claims up? --Peephole 19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment: And therin lies the problem with browser based games, most accepted by the wiki reliable sources dont review browser based games, its very unlikey that you'll find a review of Nexus War in a newspaper or gaming magazine, WP:SOFTWARE has "The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer." You will be hard pushed to find a reliable source for any browser based game, due to their nature they don't fit properly in WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB, the two articles I linked above dont meet those two, which by the way are not policies, only guidelines, guidelines which due to the nature of browser based games, don't apply to them very well.
                  • Comment: Those same arguments were used for webcomics and internet memes. Until it was discovered that notable memes or webcmics ones were actually covered by reliable sources. If the webgame really was truly notable, it would have been covered. --Peephole 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment: So what would be a "reliable source" for browser-based games? I have yet to see the name of a publication, or a link. I'm not sure one exists. B7T 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment: A newspaper or a gamingmagazine would be most likely to cover this subject and would be a reliable source. --Peephole 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Comment: You're being a bit disingenuous. Browser-based games aren't typically covered by mainstream press, nor do I expect them to be. This doesn't make a particular game any less notable -- although perhaps it makes it less likely that you will have heard of it, which I suspect is the real issue here. As far as verifiability goes, I agree that it would be better for there to be abundant coverage by mainstream media sources, but the fact that this is a web-based game puts us in the unique position of being able to actually click on the link and see it with your own eyeballs. Would you argue that items such as the W3c article shouldn't be on Wikipedia? -grummerx 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Comment: They're not typically covered, because...they're not typically notable. W3c definatly belongs on wikipedia and guess what, it is extensivly covered by reliable sources. No one is contesting Nexus War doesn't exist but wikipedia just isn't a collection of links. So the sites that have an article should be notable sites. And Nexus War doesn't seem to have an exceptional number of users, it barely has any google hits, alexa barely notes any traffic and there are no reliable external sources covering it, so I don't see how it is notable.--Peephole 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Comment: Equating Alexa traffic to notability is a spurious argument. I regularly visit a site that is way further down on Alexa's ranking, and it's garnered notice on a nationally televised newsmagazine, as well as several magazine articles internationally. B7T 13:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Comment: I agree, I just think Alexa can give some indication whether a site is popular and thus can be considered notable. --Peephole 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Comment: Please read my comment again and notice that I wasn't addressing the W3c's notability, but rather its verifiability. The extensive coverage you speak of is not what forms the verifiability of the W3c article. The key facts in the article can be gleaned from links to the W3c itself. -grummerx 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Sockpuppet? I think you've gotten your definitions mixed up, here. A sockpuppet is one user using multiple accounts to "vote" on something. That is not at all the case here. :P Someone with few edits on this wiki is not, by definition, a sockpuppet. Players of the game coming on to support it does not make them sockpuppets, you know. You may not think their words carry much weight, but that does not make them "sockpuppets". Or do you really think that that game has only one player? :P --Keolah 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE and it just came out in May so it doesn't really pass WP:NN either. Whispering 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If anything, this article is a candidate to be added to Pages needing attention, not for outright deletion. To those voting "delete", I'd encourage you to read the actual Deletion_policy linked in the template at the top of the page. Note that although items such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V are addressed, notability is not. Notability is not a universally accepted criteria on Wikipedia and does not appear anywhere in the official deletion policy.
The deletion in question is being proposed for failing to meet such criteria as WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB, and WP:NN. None of these are actual criteria for deletion, but rather suggested guidelines. If we're bandying about proposed guidelines and essays, then I'd like to throw WP:NNOT into the mix. grummerx 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The game currently has 15760 players, and unlike UD which spawned NW, people are only allowed one account each on pain of banning. Surely that's enough people caring about and putting time and effort into the game for it to have an article?--Mobius Soul 22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That amount of players apparantely isn't large enough to ensure coverage by any major news outlet or other reliable source. So why should wikipedia keep an article on the subject?--Peephole 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The question isn't "why should we keep it", but rather "why should we delete it?" The onus is on you to provide a satisfactory reason for deletion, which as far as I can see you have yet to do. The only criteria for deletion that I have yet to see comes entirely from proposed guidelines, and the assertion of "notability" itself can be seen to be NPOV. While your point of view is that a browser-based game is "not notable", from the point of view of thousands of very active players, it is quite notable. The notability article itself states under the "Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability" section that "'Non-notable' is generally a non-NPOV designation."
      • Comment: From WP:V: "the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." My point of view isn't that a browser-based game isn't notable, it is that this particular browser-based game isn't notable. And indeed notability is a point of view, that's why we need reliable, verifable and independent sources and that's also why there are guidelines for notability like WP:WEB and the proposed WP:SOFTWARE. --Peephole 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: And that's also why we have guidelines like WP:UCS. Using a little common sense should make it abundantly clear that Nexus War can't really be shoe-horned into WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. From a notability aspect, common sense would dictate that a browser-based game capable of attracting thousands of very active users in a reasonably short time and which has hundreds of users online playing at any hour of the day or night is indeed quite notable. Remember that the "thousands of users" I refer to isn't the same as a website which receives thousands of visits a day -- these are actual users who come back to the game multiple times per day as opposed to casual viewers who may just glance at a web page before moving along. -grummerx 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: You claim that a couple thousand players is a high number and thus notable. Yet, I'm not convinced it is a high number. That is why we need reliable external sources to determine the game's notability.--Peephole 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: I again direct you to use common sense rather than use the "it's not important to me, therefore it's not important" guideline. I note from your recent edits that you seem to have a bit of a vendetta against browser-based games, even going so far as to contest the notability of Urban Dead which by any measure of common sense is quite notable. Or perhaps you'd care to point me to another browser-based game that has had thousands of active players in the last hour alone? -grummerx 03:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment: I slapped a notability on the Urban Dead article in hopes of someone finding sources. But anyways I googled a second time for them myself and hey, I found some. Not the best ones but apparantely browser games do get some coverage. Can you find any sources for Nexus War?--Peephole 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My general sense of this AFD is that of "here's a topic which doesn't interest me personally, let's throw as many proposed guidelines at it as possible and see if one sticks." -grummerx 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)$[reply]
  • Keep - As a moderator for NexusWar and a player of UrbanDead, I find the claims of sockpuppetry offensive. Keolah is a distinct individual, and also a moderator, as is Meirleach. The current amount of players totals approximately 7500, rather than the 15000 stated by Mobius Soul, but nevertheless, it is still not an insignificant number. Technically, it doesn't meet the WP:WEB requirements. I will freely admit that. Fortunately for Nexus War, WP:WEB is a page that gives some rough guidelines. -Wyndallin 00:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Way too new for being notable. The sockpuppetry in progress reminds me of the horrors of Lentil (slur)'s AFD last week. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am a (casual) player of said game. Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's non-noteworthy. No sock-puppets here, either. Zarggg 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I've never played the game, but I'd rather be able to look it up on Wikipedia should I so desire than, say, a high school. And each of those NN buggers has its own article. Icewolf34 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This may be a "weak" keep, but it's one of the strongest arguments I know of for keeping this article. Bear in mind that Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia and there's no real reason to delete an article that obviously has some genuine interest. Again, the common theme from many of those proposing deletion seems to stem from the fact that this is a game that they've never heard of. I'd argue that this is actually a great reason to keep the article -- I find myself using Wikipedia to look up items about which I know little or nothing far more often than subjects about which I'm well-versed. -grummerx 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too new and not notable. To all for/against this delete - We all agree that in its current state it is nothing but an uninformative stub. If this game is truly notable, it'll eventually be covered or sprout a more extensive piece of writing. No point arguing over a stub. Delete for now and wait to see if the game swim or sink. Remiraz 09:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Without getting into an argument over whether gaming press coverage is necessary / sufficient for notability, I'd like to point out the game's virtues. To my knowledge, persistent-world 100-way capture the flag hasn't been done before. The game mechanics blend LoRD and TW:2K2 in a way that is, in my estimation, fundamentally new. Other MMO's have done roleplaying and PvP, but long-campaign strategy (and the community it begets) is the emerging paradigm in the genre. This game does it better than its browser-based cousins, not to mention the most popular game in the world. It's like somebody fused Axis & Allies with Dungeons & Dragons and then connected your kitchen table to every other house in the neighborhood.

This goes a long way to explain why Something Awful, Genmay, Penny Arcade and other (wikiworthy) forums have a significant Nexus presence. I have to think it's the article's style, and not the game's merit or notoriety, driving the removal votes. Parent says as much. Mockturtl 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Hi, I've contributed a great deal to this page (though as an exopedian it's not that obvious), and I'd like to vote keep because I believe the reasons for deletion don't fit in this case. It certainly doesn't fit WP:WEB as a browser based game, and it is notable regardless of its coverage in the press purely because of the sheer amount of players. If you're worried about the content on the page being lacking, I promise and doubtless others will also endeavour to improve the page further. This seems to me largely a "I haven't heard of this, so let's delete it" AFD, which does not accord with deletion policy. --84.67.51.36 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • keep- When I look at the article I can see where it can be improved. I know as a player of Nexus War that maybe the article in question should be declared a Snub until it gets expanded. The information there is all correct, and compared to Urban Dead, the game that spawned Nexus War, Nexus War has the potential to grow past UD (Urban Dead). To me, the article is not about how much publicity the game actually gets, it's about having information out there. Information is the real meaning Wikipedia was created. Nexus War is complex enough to warrant having an article. I agree that the current article is lacking. But improvement is a much better than deletion. So I stand that it should be kept and improved. This sin't some Unclyclopedia article on bungee jumping, it's an article about a real thing.I'm certain there are people in the NW community who would be willing to improve the article. Infested-jerk 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Having read many "keep" requests across this page, this is more of a comment to all of you. The issue here is not if the page can be proven worthy of deletion, but if it can be proven worthy of keeping. Despite what many of you seem to think, WP:WEB is, in fact, a criteria and NOT a guideline. As, quite truthfully, Nexus War is not the subject of any reliable publications. Also, from WP:NOT: "Internet guides - Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known." This is more an introduction to the game than anything else, and has nothing like dates of the beginning/end of alpha, or beginning of Beta that an encyclopedia entry would have. The only information is a summary of the game and Jorm's name. However much I enjoy this game, I also recognize that this entry is not encyclopedic, has no statistical information, and, therefore, does not belong on Wikipedia. 19:59, 29 July, 2006
    • Comment - Rather than just saying delete it all, why not tell us what you'd like to see on the page to make it more encyclopedic? What statistical information or other information would you like to see? Surely by answering these questions and helping other people to expand the article, this would help more than deleting the page outright. --84.64.13.108 00:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there is an issue with the lack of encyclopedic information (and yes, I'm aware that that's not the only issue at hand here), then I would like to attempt to rectify that situation rather than delete the page outright. Give me a few days to see what sort of information I can grub up on the subject, and I'll see if I can at least alleviate the unencyclopedic concerns. Their user-base also seems to be growing at quite a clip (From playing the game, it appears that they generally have at least 200 players logged in at any given moment, and this seems to be increasing rather than dropping), though I don't have reliable figures for the true user-base figures. -- Kirby1024 00:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The userbase numbers are posted to a restricted section of our forums, but I've already stated them earlier on in my keep vote. They're as current as that comment. Anyways, if you need or want more information, and you use IRC, please, come to #nexus on irc.zirc.net and speak with jorm, myself, or any of us. Your best bet would probably be to PM Keolah, Maggah, Meirleach, or myself (Wyn). We'd be more than happy to answer any questions you need, and our own wiki can provide you with a great deal of information. -Wyndallin 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are thousands of people registered, with over 100 players online at any given time. As mentioned before, popular forums such as Penny Arcade and Something Awful have large in-game factions.
  • From what I've seen, the game is much more innovative then Urban Dead because it forces the player to specialize their characters to remain effective in their preferred task as they level up. This in turn makes it very beneficial to join a faction, as the skills of each faction member complement each other. As mentioned before, it really does boil down to a 100-way game of capture the flag. Large 40 man raids comparable to those in World of Warcraft are not uncommon.
  • This may be a somewhat weaker argument, but the game only went public near the end of May. For a new non-commercial game made by an formally unknown developer to gain such a large player-base in only three months is amazing. I don't really see the point of deleting, since the number of players will only continue to grow and even if the game is not notable now by the official guidelines, it will be soon. --James 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would assume the three main points being argued are:
1. Does NW need to, or already, fall under WP:SOFTWARE?
2. Does NW need to, or already, fall under WP:WEB?
3. If none of the above, is it notable?
I would argue that NW does not fall under either WP:SOFTWARE (as it is not a "software application", and in a category of games that is generally overlooked completely by ANY mainstream media. Whether it falls under WP:WEB is debatable, but it doesn't really seem to apply in this case. In addition, while I have participated in a good many AfDs that allege "WP:NOT a crystal ball", at this point it doesn't need to be. The site has thousands of unique users, with hundreds on at any given time. In addition, Urban Dead has an article as well. It is slightly fallacious to argue that it is not notable at this point by people arguing for a "Keep" as as stated above, Wiki is NOT a crystal ball. But I feel the article is notable. Cleanup it may need, but that's not a reason to delete it either. Tokakeke 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is non-notable, there is no way to "make" a subject notable. Wikipedia is not a platform to advertise or establish noteriety. Ifnord 05:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment- But is is a place to learn about things. So tell me. Does the article act as a public relations ploy or does it actualy give out information? I feel it's the latter. The article in question really doesn't show vanity and it certainly isn't just a propaganda or advertising platform.
  • Keep-I'm well aware that people not familiar with NW are having to take the word of the players for it, but as someone who has personally watched the growth in playerbase from day one of beta, and before, I can say that if this is deleted now, because it is not "notable" enough, it'll only have to be restored later when everyone is convinced it is "notable" --Lancensis 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Judging by the comments here and the size of the community behind the game, it rides on the cusp of the "notable" definition, such that its notable status currently depends on how one defines notability. So at the current moment call the situation balanced. But since it shows signs of increasing membership, I think we'll have to nudge it in the direction of "notable". Or, if not that, we'll have to look at some clearer criteria. But I think that the continued existence of the Urban Dead page at least invalidates the requirement for "respectable sources" coverage, because as far as I know there is no substantial coverage of that game in any respectable source. (There may be a one-sentence throw-away reference somewhere, but such a reference really establishes nothing that can't be better established in other ways: e.g., visiting the listed URL.) Joshua Nicholson 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Many of the delete votes note that the article does not have properly "encyclopedic" information like player numbers, start of alpha, et cetera. I'm more of a Wikipedia reader than contributor, but it's my understanding that one of the main purposes of using the wiki format is to permit members to improve articles themselves rather than requiring them to be discarded. "It's not good now, so let's not give it a chance to become so" is not a valid argument by any stretch of the imagination. Speaking as someone who plays this game and is an enthusiast of games and browser games in general, I can attest that the growth in player numbers in Nexus War has been nothing short of astonishing and, if anything, appears to be accelerating. The design innovations it has introduced are remarkable as well. Finally, for those arguing that this can't possibly be noteworthy because it hasn't been covered by the press or other "reputable" sources, it's worth noting that internet phenomena in general tend to be poorly covered. The next mention I see of Slashdot in the mainstream press will be the first (not saying there haven't been any, just that I haven't seen them), and I'm a certified news junkie. --McSnatherson 02:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fans of the game, please do not argue against deletion using reasons below.

1) This game has a huge player/fan base : Please do not quote large number of players unless you can prove it. I investigated into this matter and found out that there are only around 150 "characters" online at any one time. It is hard to see how there could be even 1000 "active" unique players in the game based on this data. (note: 1 unique player can own multiple "characters" in the game)

2) This game is "better than" another game : Please refrain from citing reasons like "this game is better than World of Warcraft" or the more general "this game is good/fun". All these are POV opinions and not facts. Wikipedia do not delete software entries based on POV opinions.

3) Using other wiki articles as examples : This discussion is about this article only. If you feel that there are existing wiki articles that "deserves to be deleted more" then feel free to nominate them for deletion on their respective pages. The existance of other articles is not an excuse to keep this one.

If this game indeed have a huge player base and thought to be good (or better than mainstream commercial MMORPGs like some claimed) then it'll eventually earn coverage and become notable. From what I understand, this game was heavily inspired by Urban Dead which earned itself three citation from notable sources. Remiraz 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - It's an AP based game. For the most part, characters are only logged in for 5-10 minutes at a time to spend their AP. That does not mean that there "must be" fewer players than was stated. The data on the number of players came from the game admin himself. Also, I would like to point out to you the most similar games to Nexus War, Category:MU*_games, many of which have far fewer players than NW does. And I will state again that "notability" is not a viable criteria for deletion and never has been, in spite of what some people like to insist. --Keolah 06:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not a fan; I'm a moderator on the wiki associated with the game, and also a playtester. Brandon Harris is the game creator, and is therefore on the shortlist of people who actually have access to the programming and the database, and he has a habit of posting current stats in the playtesters' forum. I have access to current numbers, but only secondhand. I posted them straight from Mr. Harris' post in the forums. If you wish, I could get screencaptures of the forum posts - but somehow, I think you wouldn't accept them as proof, either. Also, please keep in mind that any one player can only have three characters unless they donate to the game or were present in the Alpha phase, and therefore if you divide the total number of characters by three, you're likely to find a relatively accurate number of accounts with the game. Research, research, research! -Wyndallin 10:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - First of all I tried the game and know that it definately takes more than 5-10 minutes to spend all APs from full. Second, the only way to log into the game is through its website: if there are more than 8000 active unique players logging into the game twice or more everyday shouldn't there be a lot more traffic than those shown on Alexa? Finally, the existence of other similar wikipages has never been a deterrence from deletion. If you feel that those pages deserve to be deleted, please nominate them for delete. Otherwise, they have nothing to do with whether this wikipage stays or go. Remiraz 10:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I don't expect you to believe that this screencap is authentic, as per my earlier comment, but here is a capture of the most recent data that I have access to with regards to account information. Whether you choose to believe it is authentic or not is immaterial. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Ladayna/proof.gif -Wyndallin 10:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - That's the total number to have signed up in the game's history, rather than the total playing every day? --Grole 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - That is the current number of undeleted accounts, this is true. Regardless, 'playing every day' is misleading. Some people play day-to-day. I certainly don't play every day. With ten characters, I don't have the time or the inclination to play them all every day. I'll try and find out the number of accounts with at least one active character. -Wyndallin 11:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment - Are inactive accounts included in that number? I know the game keeps track of who is active and who is not, as you can find factions filled with grey 'inactive' names. --James 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - There is good reason why Alexa is not an acceptable measure of a site's "notability". Alexa's traffic ratings only indicate how many people using Alexa's toolbar are using a site, which is extremely subjective and most people don't even use Alexa's crap. Plus there's been some talk of Alexa's ratings being compromised by people intentionally trying to boost their ratings on it. (The same can be said of Google to some extent, but Google tends to be more widely used.) Alexa was rejected as a method to determine "notability". --Keolah 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Once again the argument devolves into dubious claims of "non-notability". Allow me to address your points individually, Remiraz:
1) Re: player base: While I sincerely appreciate your effort to actually investigate the item in question, it would be nice if you'd also make an effort to understand how the mechanics of the game affect the number of concurrent users at any one time. In short, the AP mechanism means that users will typically only be online twice a day, and only for a few minutes at a time -- this happens to be directly mentioned in the article itself and should be apparent from a quick perusal of the game. The number of concurrent users you quote (150) is quite large when considered in this light.
2) Re: Comparisons to other games: Agreed. NPOV statements and comparisons to other games do not belong in this discussion. However, this same standard should also apply to NPOV claims of "non-notability", e.g. claiming that a game can't be as good as others simply due to lack of mainstream media attention. To your assertion that "Wikipedia do not delete software entries based on POV opinions" I counter that this is exactly what you are attempting to do.
3) Re: Using other wiki articles as examples: Agreed on the point of comparing this article to others that may or may not deserve deletion. However, pointing out articles which have set a precedent by surviving similar AfDs is entirely acceptable. The mention of BattleMaster above is indeed pertinent to this discussion as it has just survived an AfD proposed on the same grounds as that for Nexus War.
I'd now like to add my own items to your list if I may, for the benefit of those championing deletion:
4) If you're going to question the size of the player-base, at least make a passing effort to understand the game mechanics. If I were to claim that chess is non-notable because I watched a game and never saw more than 2 players, I'd be betraying a flawed understanding of that game, and this instance is no different.
5) Don't resort to straw man arguments. When verifiability of an article is mentioned, don't couch your argument in terms of notability.
6) Don't use Alexa as a measuring stick (ever). To quote WP:SET: "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons." Ignoring Alexa results is especially important when measuring a game such as Nexus War or Urban Dead. Players of these types of game tend to favor Firefox since the game community releases Firefox extensions to aid gameplay, such as NWTool and the Nexus War Homing Beacon. Alexa, on the other hand, is compatible only within Internet Explorer and would therefore never register many, if not most, of the users.
-- grummerx 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) It would be nice if the people who have access to the secret player stats told us how many people were actually active in the game.
2) Whether the game is as "better" than others is irrelevant. If someone claims the game is non-notable and that it must be a bad game, it's only the non-notable aspect that this AfD concerns itself with.
3) No, this is just as bad. Battlemaster and Shartak seem to have survived simply because nobody who agreed strongly with the AfD happened to read the page, and because somebody who disagreed with it decided to close it. A couple of articles sneaking through AfD doesn't mean they should be kept forever (articles often come up for deletion multiple times), and particularly not that all similar games should automatically be kept.
4) Again, it would be nice to actually see some figures about the number of players, and the number of retained and active players.
5) That's fair enough.
6) It might be erratic, but even if players of these games mostly use Firefox, Urban Dead has an Alexa ranking of 14,711, compared to Nexus War's 200,691.
And to add my own:-
7) "I think this game might be notable one day" is an argument for deleting the article and recreating it if its subject becomes notable, rather than keeping it and waiting. (People should accept the possibility that this game may never become notable.) --Grole 03:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Agreed, these figures should be published. However, my comment was in response to Remiraz's own investigation of the game, wherein he was able to see that there were "around 150" characters active just at that moment in time. I was merely pointing out the fallacy in Remiraz's use of a flawed extrapolation of this number to claim that there couldn't be very many real players in the game.
2) Again, note that I agreed.
3) I do happen to agree with your points about the other AfDs not necessarily being set in stone, but must point out that doesn't preclude us from mentioning them. AfDs don't happen in a vacuum, and similar AfDs elsewhere on Wikipedia are most definitely valid points of discussion, whether or not you happen to agree with the outcome. We don't necessarily have to follow their precedent, but you can't just pretend those AfDs don't exist.
4) Agreed, see point 1.
5) ...
6) Please, please, read WP:SET and Alexa. There is absolutely no reason to continue referring to Alexa. Continued mentions of Alexa just serve to distract from valid points of discussion.
7) Perhaps. My contention though, is that Nexus War is notable now, or at the very least can't be shown as "non-notable" by any honestly applicable guideline. Please refer to my comments on the AfD for Pardus. To summarize:
  • The only real notability guideline that has been claimed here is WP:WEB.
  • WP:WEB was designed to weed out trivial, easily created, sites such as vanity pages and web comics.
  • Nexus War and the other games in this category are not easily created, and do not easily attract a user-base of thousands.
  • Applying WP:UCS and considering the spirit of the law makes it apparent that WP:WEB wasn't intended to weed out non-trivial creations such as these.
  • There should perhaps be a notability guideline for these sorts of games, but until one exists it's better to err on the side of leniency rather than to delete legitimate information.
-- grummerx 07:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I am not a gamer, I do enjoy Civilization and a few other simulations, but in my opinion games are not encyclopedic unless they are mega-notable. And Nexus has it's own WIKI: NexusWiki. Perhaps just keep the page with a link to Nexuswiki and then lock the page. --HResearcher 02:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecorp

[edit]

Online game launched June 1 2006. No evidence of players, innovation, external coverage etc. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE, in other words, and lack of sources suggests WP:OR if not outright WP:VSCA. Just zis Guy you know? 12:20, 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 delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 19:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Freaks of Nature

[edit]

A game launched last Novemner and according to the article still in beta. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 12:22, 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. DS 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lennexe Productions

[edit]

blatant advertising Travelbird 12:29, 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 Speedy delete as recreation of content deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjabi Prison Match. Just zis Guy you know? 11:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Prison

[edit]

Tagged as repost, but (a) different content and (b) deleted by CSD G1 anyway, so bringing to AfD. At the very least the title needs changing. Wrestlecruft. Just zis Guy you know? 12:36, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moneysavingexpert.com

[edit]

looks like spam to me. Pap3rw8 12:57, 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. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Nicholson MYP

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as autobiography, which it is, but that's not a speedy criterion. Appears to violate WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN. No sources. Just zis Guy you know? 12:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good luck to him, but the article barely asserts notability and is mostly unveriable. Half a dozen relevant google hits. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity, and just so you know; vanity articles are candidates for speedy deletion. [34] Rob.derosa 21:43, 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 per CSD:A3 - no content other than a template. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance and Control Group (disbanded) RAAF

[edit]

looks non-notable Nearly Headless Nick 13:04, 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. Having a gallery of 'fair use' images is far from 'fair use', and possible copyvio too. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Dé circuits

[edit]

Unencyclopdic gallery of fair use images. Delete. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I still think that given the subject, the page—as it was—was encyclopedic. Just like a book on Beanie-babies needs pictures to be usefull, a description of one of these circuits without at least a low-res picture is also difficult. (The actual boards are the size of a poster) I had originally intended to add more content—as I just have to section one, and will for the rest of the sections over the next week or so.
    Especially with said content added, I believe this page meets Wikipedia’s criteria, and while it may deserve a cleanup tag of some sort, I do not believe it should be deleted. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page was one of the first I created here, and at the time I did not know images without text were generally against policy. When it was page-blanked in a recent edit, it showed up in my watch list, and I restored it as the first step in fixing it. Before I could do much else, it was listed for deletion.
    It is very-much a work in progress at the moment, but there are things to say about each circuit that would be of interest to anyone reading up on the game. (Enough that it would clutter the main article) —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a couple of images into Formula Dé. I'm a fan of the game, but this is "detail only of interest to players of the game"; it doesn't add a proportionate amount of encyclopedic perspective about the game. The meat of this is already in the parent article, and doesn't need to be duplicated here. Barno 18:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The TV irritainment programs have millions of repeat viewers, sometimes tens of millions. Formula Dé has a few thousand or at most a few ten-thousands of face-to-face players, and big multi-game tournaments might have a few dozen FD players. There might be a few thousand more players at online sites like BSW if they have FD. That big difference in broadness-of-influence is what hits Wikipedia standards; FD has narrower notability no matter whether it does much more to make people think and interact and make their own fun. Barno 13:31, 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 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oghamura

[edit]

oghamura -wikipedia gives 103 Google hits, all of them due to someone using the word as their name on forums. "ogham ura" -wikipedia only gives three hits. Probably someone's personal artificial script, nn if it exists. ∅ (∅), 13:15, 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 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Orator

[edit]

Original article was deleted. The new article is much better but unfortunately the subject is still non-notable. It is the school newspaper of a local elementary school. Notability is asserted but there is no verifiable evidence of it. Replaced prod with Afd. My vote would be Delete Dipics 13:28, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Brodack

[edit]

Vanity, YouTube Cruft, Non-Notable person Bschott 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I could possibly see a Merge with the main YouTube page or with a Well-Known Users of YouTube page but beyond that I personally believe it is possible Cruft and she is Non-Notable. --Bschott 13:51,
  • Keep The article is fully referenced to many notable newspapers/ magazines. She has recieved significant coverage as demonstrated in the article. (Disclosure: I am the articles creator) ViridaeTalk 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a vanity page - was not created by the subject. ViridaeTalk 13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Vanity pages are not just limited to the subject but those associated with the subject or those involved with the subject in some way shape or form. --Bschott 14:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Once again, not a vanity page. I am neither related to, involved with, or associated with the subject in any form apart from seeing her video on YouTube, seeing the press coverage and thinking that gave her the required notability for inclusion. ViridaeTalk 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am inclined to think that the Carson Daily contract, and all the media coverage would make her at least marginally notable already. And of course, once the Carson Daily stuff actually gets aired (assuming it does), I don't think her notability could be disputed. --Iustinus 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does this mean that anyone that is mentioned in a few articles automatically notable? Quite a few US soldiers have been named in various newspapers and shown on TV, especially when reporters are assigned to military units, but does that mean they are notable? --Bschott 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If a soldier gets the amount of press coverage that Brooke has got due to their actions as a soldier (heroic, illegal, immoral) then I don't see why they shouldnt have an article on them. ViridaeTalk 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I read an article about Brodack in the Boston Globe a few weeks ago. I do believe she is notable, not only for the sheer amount of press coverage she gets, but also because of the impact her popularity has had on YouTube. The Carson Daly deal isn't altogether that notable until something actually comes of it. But she is a notable figure; her name is a household one at this point. If this article is deleted, information about her should certainly be merged into the YouTube article. Srose (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If others on YouTube have articles (see Emmalina and the AfD vote for her. The vote there resulted in a keep.) Then this should be kept as well. Ms. Brodack is more noteworthy too. Dave 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep qwm 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I finally decided to try YouTube a couple of weeks ago. I almost immediately came across Brookers and her videos; she's really funny. However, I only read articles about her in the media once I found her on YouTube, mainly because her fans kept linking to those articles in their comments. I'd argue she's not even an internet phenomenon, but simply a YouTube celebrity. Someone argued Emmalina from YouTube also has an article and intimated that to be precedent for inclusion for Brookers as well. Nobody knows these people besides users of YouTube. If computer programmers are very active in newsgroups, end up getting jobs because of their contributions to those communities, and then end up in tech site articles (for whatever reason), that doesn't automatically warrant the creation of an entry on wiki. Remember the Star Wars Kid? He was notable. Whether people were part of a particular community or not, they found out about him. Brooke Brodack isn't quite there just yet.--Contrinewb 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)contrinewb[reply]
  • Keep - Seeing as she has been hired by someone in the industry, and she is the first to do so through YouTube, pretty much single-handidly, that makes her very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.79.227 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - I highly agree with the above.--Joseph 00:11, 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 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Tate

[edit]

This is a long, unreferenced autobiography which, in the last paragraph, makes a fairly tenuous claim to notability. Wikipedia is not MySpace --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:23, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEFA

[edit]

It's an advertisement. Fails WP:CORP and WP:SPAM and WP:V Mattisse 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - therefore is my vote per nom. Plus external links that ask you to sign their guestbook really are not what WP:V means. Capit 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SEFA specifically describes the SEFA rebreather breathing set. SCBA describes industrial breathing sets in general. I do not see that either article is "better" than the other; they are about different parts of the topic.
Mine rescue mentions SCBA: it does not go into details about them. It also points to some makes of SCBA, including the SEFA.
http://www.therebreathersite.nl/Zuurstofrebreathers/English/sabre_sef.htm (the link that Capit objected to) points to a good description of the SEFA breathing set. Its link to a guestbook to sign, is irrelevant here. I am not going to refuse a link to a very good informative external site merely because the external page pointed to has a link to a guestbook tacked on its end. Anthony Appleyard 04:34, 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 Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goad

[edit]

Appears to be almost entirely OR. Violates WP:OR. The links provided do not meet WP:V Listerin 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep I don't like deleting things because I've never heard of them. I see nothing in the article that might suggest it is a hoax, either. Also, you know the saying "Goading someone on"? (As if to prod or poke someone) Also check this out [35] AdamBiswanger1 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have restored the earlier contents as they existed before the "original research", if any. Anyone interested to have a scanned copy of the page from the book I have referred in this stub, are most welcome to send me a wiki-mail. I shall send they by way of e-mail attachemnt, a scanned copy of the relevant page from the book. --Bhadani 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Bhadani's edits belong at Ankus, not at Goad. Goads have a long history in agricultural societies; I have no doubt a good, non-OR article on the history of their use can be written. User:Angr 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree. Your revert was fine. --Bhadani 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to be civil and don't bite the nominator of this article. AdamBiswanger1 16:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatmouse

[edit]

Just a non-notable web meme. An encyclopedic article could be written on mice that are genetically engineered such that they metabolize food differently, but it'd be at a different article name and it wouldn't be about some silly meme. Cyde↔Weys 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be verifiable, but it's non-notable. ; ) AdamBiswanger1 23:36, 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 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syllable Counter

[edit]

This isn't an encyclopedia article; it's unclear if it ever can be. It seems to be some sort of indirect advertising for the website that's linked to. Delete. User:Angr 14:26, 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 snowball redirect. JDoorjam Talk 05:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Spirt Award

[edit]

G6: Housekeeping: Better, properly titled page exists. See Independent Spirit Award. Kitty Davis 13:48, 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 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kwan Rin

[edit]

The article has close to no information at all, no info is given why this person is of any notice outside of NK, and the only source is a North Korean website, highly POV. --Konstantin 15:34, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of states where language is a political issue

[edit]

Useless POV list. Language is a political issue in more or less all countries. Political disputes are listed haphazardly and subjectively as minor, moderate, serious etc. This is far too vague a subject to make a list about. Ezeu 14:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd agree; although I recognise the subjectivity, the page provides a useful starting point for someone researching language politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.47.14 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 24 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 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llama Love Society

[edit]

Due to the fact that this article is only a microscopic part of the TV series "The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron" and barely even relevant, I nominate this article for deletion. In no way is this topic an important part of the series, and it has only been used in two episodes. Also, those episodes have not given any insight into what the Llama Love Society really is but instead has just shown that two characters (one is not even a recurring character) are members and have a membership card.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid 2002

[edit]

Quite Frankly, I feel that the article for Metroid 2002 does not belong on Wikipedia, as it is merely an ordinary fan site. Moreover, there's not much to write about, outside of a brief infobox and introduction paragraph. (PS, sorry If I posted this on the wrong page, I am rather new to Wikipedia) --ShadowJester07 07:12, 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 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Deal Wrestling

[edit]

Group of backyard wrestlers. Original research, non-notable Xyzzyplugh 11:40, 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. Ifnord 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votebank

[edit]

This article is created with sole purpose of pushing one's POV .The creater user:Gamesmasterg9 after unsuccessfuly trying to move the preexisting page Vote Bank to Votebank politics in India has created this page which cannot be moved now to the original place because it has a redirect to this article.This article which is merely a bundle of opinion of one person cannot replace the content rich and well referenced earlier version which is now Votebank politics in India.The person has history of trolling and does not believe in consensus.Please DELETE this page and restore the original version.See the relevant talk on the earlier page too.I agree the term is Indian but it does not mean it talks of Indian politics only and we cannot create pages with similar contents and subject.I would also recommend BLOCK for this person.Holy---+---Warrior 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A votebank is a political concept. The older page was a description of votebank politics in India exclusively. The move was justified.Gamesmasterg9 20:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plz note:The article will never grow beyond present size if it does not adress indian context.There is very little or no usage of the term outside India.The present content of the article is nothing but few sentences taken out of the original article.With time both article will have same/similar contents.Will you merge them then.Holy---+---Warrior 08:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PLz go through this too.[36],[37],[38] Holy---+---Warrior 08:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request - please don't make this personal.Gamesmasterg9 11:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A parallel discussion has taken place on this page too[39].One may refer to this too.Holy | Warrior 16:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Satin:Plz note the title occupied by this page has previously been held by what is Votebank politics in India.Check the move logs for better view.A question to you,if this case is not trolling,then if we assume a merger here,anybody creating a similar page again after merger,diverting the links, will not be called trolling again????Infact a merger of Vote Bank and Vote bank had already taken place,before creation of this article.Lastly I would say notability is not in question here because it has been already discussed during AfD of previous article,Perhaps you haven't gone through that.If we don't fix this problem now,I am pretty sure You will soon find pages with Vote bank politics in Kuwait,Votebank politics in malaysia with size comparable to the size of this article.In light of this you may reconsider your vote.Hope for the best from you.Holy | Warrior 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the pages you mention are created, how is that a bad thing? Why exactly is a longer article better than a short one?Gamesmaster G-9 17:54, 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 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web Designing

[edit]

non-notable company Travelbird 12:00, 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, db-author.  RasputinAXP  c 17:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the New Jersey Devils

[edit]

As I previously noted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, this article has no use. During the creation of the article, the creator in question said that they would be returning to the article in an attempt to try and turn it into a Featured Article. It has now been four months since the articles creation, and the article has not been touched once by the creator since then, and has also been left in decay for the past two months at the least. The article also sets a bad precedent insomuch as the New Jersey Devils are only a 24 year old hockey team, while other, more storied teams (such as the Original Six of the National Hockey League do just fine without the need of a "History of the ..." article for their own team histories. While this article may have one or two things of particular note that the team's main article neglects to mention (for example the controversy over the team's name a year ago), just about all of the article is a carbon copy of the team's history on the main page with some minor tweaks on the wording here and there.--Resident Lune 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It's just an expansion of an important section of an important entity. Why slaughter the information when there is not a question of notability of the New Jersey Devils, and there is certainly nothing wrong with having a history article, so long as it exceeds the limits of the main page. AdamBiswanger1 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) I didn't realize how extensive the NJD article was. AdamBiswanger1 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dunno about that. Montreal Canadiens could probably be easily broken into three articles: Current team, history and records. For a 95+ year old team, multiple articles make perfect sense, and are almost required. For a 25 year old team, not so much. Resolute 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, doesn't seem to be enough information right now to justify a separate article. JYolkowski // talk 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. What's next, a History of the Minnesota Wild article? --NeoChaosX 02:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the page's creator, allow me to explain. Several months ago, I began working on the main NJD article to bring it to FA status (or at least Good). Using several team pages that had made FA status as a template, I created a History page to allow a much more detailed history of the team on the sub-page, while keeping the main page broad (see: New England Patriots, Gotheborg, etc.) However, real life prevented me from working on the page for a week, then two weeks, then it turned into several months. At this time I do not know when I will be able to resume work on the main page. As such, when that time comes, I will work solely on the main page. When it goes up for peer review, if at that time the history section is too extensive to fit on one page, then and only then will it be split off into its own page. However, given the comments above (I'm aware the team is only 24 years old, same age as me), it may not be necessary to house a separate page. Therefore, I suggest deleting the History page (as there isn't anything on it that isn't on the main page), or, failing that, a redirect. Merge is unnecessary, since it's a carbon copy of the main page anyway. Anthony Hit me up... 13:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can take care of that, then.  RasputinAXP  c 17:24, 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 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/sources

[edit]

This article was created in an attempt to generate a subpage: [40] and it contains nothing but images, including a few from copyrighted books. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This subpage was created by me in the midst of a heated content dispute. An editor objected to the use of sources that he couldn't personally read, as they were not on the internet. The dispute ended up as part of an ArbCom case. The subpage does no longer serve any useful purpose, and its existence runs counter to current Wikipedia policies on subpages. --Andrés C. 15:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Landolitan 18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Gillies

[edit]

Very likely a hoax. Google for "Connor Gillies" "Real Radio Scotland" gets exactly 1 hit - this article. Delete. Kimchi.sg 14:55, 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 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Screamin' Eagles

[edit]

Local Welsh band that fails WP:BAND notability guidelines. Speedy tag removed twice by author. Google hits for ("The Screamin' Eagles" + band) = 181. No listing on Allmusic. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my brother's band (Thomas Jones). What do I have to do to the article to avoid deletion? JayJonesUK 17:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)JayJonesUK[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & redirect; thankfully the merging is already done. Mangojuicetalk 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Houses from A Song of Ice and Fire

[edit]

This page is merely a list with little encyclopedic information about the less important noble houses in the fantasy series A Song of Ice and Fire. The major houses of the setting already each have their own pages, and all of the information on this page is already replicated on those pages, or could be merged to those pages with little effort. This page is therefore merely an indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT. Indrian 15:07, 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 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo.com

[edit]

Straight advertising/spam. Original author removed prod. My vote would be Delete Dipics 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author also removed a speedy deletion notice on Bingoadvantage Lurker 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why cant one author write 2 articles? Bingo.com is probably noteable enough to list. And there are not even any links in it. Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.169.157 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 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 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Rose de Valladares

[edit]

Survived a VfD nearly two years ago, but I hardly see why. It reads like vanity and/or advertising, fails WP:BIO, and the subject only receives 126 google hits, most of them either wikipedia and its mirrors or links to presentations she has given. This person clearly does not belong here. Indrian 15:27, 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. Mailer Diablo 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McGrath (poet)

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

The result was Speedy delete. Normally, AfDs run for about 5 days or so, but this seems to be the most appropriate action. At minimum, The article is not a serious attempt at writing encyclopedic content for this project. HappyCamper 16:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Macaroni Monster

[edit]

Nonsense article, looks to be a parody of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Tags have been removed by author on numerous occasions. Wildthing61476 15:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a nonsense article, it's an article trying to prove a point, just as the original intent of the FSM tried to prove a point. M_Castaldo 15:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia is not a place to "prove a point" however. The FSM is listed because it became a wellknown internet meme. This is a parody of that, that was just created, and is NOT NOTABLE. Again, Wikipedia is not a place to "make a point" but is a reference guide. Wildthing61476 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why can't an article do both? Unless you'd like to disprove my religion is false. It has just as much validity as any other religion, even if it's slightly younger and unknown. M_Castaldo 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it violates NPOV, then help rewrite it, rather then delete it. Why destroy a work when it's still being developed?
  • Comment What is comes down to is that it appears this is a parody piece for one, two, the religion itself is not notable enough for inclusion. Look I could create a religion that believe it's God is actually a armoire in a self-storage unit in Buffalo, but if only me and a handful of my friends believe in this, it's not notable. The FSM has become an internet meme and is notbale, hence the article. If in time your "religion" becomes notable then by all means recreate the article. Wildthing61476 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course, this page should be deleted. There is no religion associated with this article. The so-called religion's founder, Mike Wong, and his associates, are atheists who are using and abusing their privileges at Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking the Christian faith, which Mr. Wong refers to as "ludicrous", "absurd", and "nonsensical". Moreoever, it is being used to make his argument in debate in the ethos section of a website called The Total War Center, dedicated to Creative Assemblies' Total War series of computer games.

I strongly urge the deletion of this article, as it has no religious or historical value of any kind.

Georg von Brandenburg, PhD (This was copy and pasted from the Talk page for this AfD).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fused Solutions

[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP. A prod and a prod2 tag were removed by the creator Fused (talk · contribs) without any explanation. The user admits he is spamming (although in all fairness he seems to honestly fail to realize it's not acceptable practice on Wikipedia). Pascal.Tesson 15:50, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Baz

[edit]

No evidence given of notability, despite long-term flag on article Dweller 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete supposed movie not on IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This movie is 6 min long, and gathers around 340 google hits. No real assertion of notability here. --Porqin 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Length is not an issue, as it is a short film, and its place on IMDB is a testament to its significance (they have similar requirements for listing to Wikipedia). Think of all of the Pixar shorts that may only score a scant few Google hits, but are seen by anyone who watches a Pixar film. Thorne N. Melcher 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMDB does not have similar requirements to Wikipedia. Their only requirement is that something exists. (For projects in "development" or "pre-production" they don't even require that.) There is no distribution of shorts, outside of things like the Pixar shorts that accompany their features. Most shorts are only seen by only a tiny handful of people who attend small film festivals. The vast majority of people will never see this, never have the opportunity to see it, and never even hear of it. That's non-notable. Fan-1967 19:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The vast majority" of people probably haven't heard of hundreds of Wikipedia topics from hundreds of fields. "The vast majority" of people probably don't see a lot of movies. And perhaps you should re-familiarize yourself with IMDB's listing policy. They will only list independent projects if they are lined up to be shown at a notable film festival or have been recognized in other significant fashion. The "development" and "pre-production" films are all titles formally announced by "big name" studios, producers, actors, or directors. Thorne N. Melcher 21:12, 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 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph O'Brien, Composer

[edit]

Non notable, with contact info; reads like an ad. -Sanbeg 16:06, 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 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Ng

[edit]

No content indicating notability of the subject. Page is an orphan with no pages linking to it. Fairsing 16:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn-bio. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bio does not a speedy deletion candidate make. "No assertion of notability" does. Delete - CheNuevara 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not quite a speedy. Does have a street hockey tournament named after him, which is apparently real but local to a small town and small in scope, raising about $7,000 CAN a year for charity. He was a policeman killed in the line of duty, which is indeed tragic, but typically not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 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 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Christensen

[edit]

Daughter of André the Giant, but not notable in her own right Zerbey 16:09, 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 merge Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liang Xing Long

[edit]

Non-notable character within the Dragon Ball GT anime series, and a copy of information already found in List of dragons in Dragon Ball. Only one of these characters (Yi Xing Long) has any real importance in the franchise. I am coupling this with others and Evil Dragons as well. Small amount of different info on some pages that can be merged, but at most they should redirect to the listed article.

Included in nomination:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most endangered United States cities

[edit]

This article/list is essentially entirely unsourced and speculative POV and original research, and really could never be anything but POV and OR. The article currently uses three criteria to determine if a city is "endangered," thus warranting mention in the article: declining population, "most in danger of natural disaster," and "most outrageous crime rates." In my opinion, the first and last of these could be sourced then split into articles of their own (perhaps List of cities in the United States by population growth and List of cities in the United States by crime rate). However, this article is about "endangered" cities, which is a very vague concept. It cites no sources and is speculative in large part ("Enormous earthquake predicted within the next 100 years. City remains unprepared and buildings are not up to code. Towers as far away as Chicago expected to sway when this earthquake strikes"). Finally, note that New York and Washington, D.C. are conspicuously absent from the list. Though it seems that these two cities would be more likely to experience a terror attack than any other US cities, adding these to the list would be purely speculative. Delete. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 16:26, 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 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Girl Emily (blog)

[edit]

Viral marketing has no place on wikipedia. Violates WP:SPAM --DarkAudit 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional from MrSassyPants via IRC: if they can make the article into something useful instead of a summary of the blog and some semi-useful links, keep it. Its just that in its present form the article is 100% pure shit. --DarkAudit 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Viral marketing ploy, just a few weeks old. If it must be kept, redirect to Court TV, which conducted the viral marketing campaign. --Durin 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a viral marketing ploy that may not even be notable, ever. Why even bother merging to Court TV? If it turns out to be a notable campaign in any way that becomes solidly identified with the Court TV, then it can be added. -- Whpq 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While interesting, there's nothing especially notable about this viral marketing campaign. --Alan Au 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. I realize as the author of the article, I must be seen as biased, but it seems to me that the article certainly fits in what is intended to be a highly-inclusive repository of information such as Wikipedia. I feel it serves quite well as a notable example of viral marketing, and is a useful example to those who are researching that particular subject. --Cyningaenglisc 01:49, 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 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurvedic Malas

[edit]

Article fails WP:NN and WP:CSD A7. Google search turns up only 28 hits, most of which have nothing to do with this topic. A possible hoax. Originally PRODded, but User:Kappa removed the prod tag without giving a reason, as it appears he/she has been doing for quite some time now. Green451 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. My mistake, I have striked this from the nom. Thanks. Green451 20:28, 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 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Real Pleasure(webcomic)

[edit]

Delete as it is a non-notable web comic. There are 8 strips all posted today by the author to his blog. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, they were posted July 21st, not today. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:44, 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 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheWxPage.Com

[edit]

Delete as a non-notable web page. It also fails the vanity test as it is written by one of the page's developers. The topic page looks good, but is basially just a collection of national weather agency links and graphics which is regularly updated. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. The text is the same as was in the previously deleted version of the article. In addition to reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhaseSpace, I had a look at all of the sources cited in the prior discussion (which are also cited in the article). None made any more than tangential mention of this company, supporting the view given by editors in the prior discussion that the WP:CORP criteria were not satisfied. An independently written magazine feature article on the company would satisfy the criteria. But a one sentence mention as an example of "other companies" (such as is the case with the cited ungraduate final year project) does not. Uncle G 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhaseSpace

[edit]

Has been recreated after afd deletion on July 20, 2006. Mattisse 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few articles as per the Wikipedia rules and expected to be part of the Consensus. I also expected to have to continue to add more and more articles until I wore them down. Someone unilaterally showed they have more brownie points than I do, and removed it, without saying who. I will continue to improve the site. Tmcsheery 17:18, 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 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insite

[edit]

Non-notable company with an advertisement as an encyclopedia entry. Delete. Gump Stump 17:16, 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 19:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Matchstick Men

[edit]

Non-notable according to WP:MUSIC. It was previously deleted by me according to WP:PROD, but the deletion was contested after it was deleted Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • KEEP it took me many an hour to make their page, the one of the greatest bands ever


Review of gig in the Guardian, lest someone decides the Scotsman is not a national newspaper... http://arts.guardian.co.uk/reviews/story/0,11712,1538361,00.html. They also played at the wickerman festival in Scotland this year (2006)

  • Delete per The Scotsman, where they merit two sentences under Five That Should Make It, they haven't made it yet. When they do (i.e. two full albums, not singles, released by One/BMG), the article can be re-created. --Wine Guy Talk 01:03, 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 19:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger A. Wilson

[edit]

NN politician -Sanbeg 17:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree I don't deserve to be listed in Wikipedia, but the Mount Kosciuszko inclusion, while true, was intended to be humorous. You guys really should lighten up a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.128.112 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Skye

[edit]

Is not notable herself. The loose notability claim declares that her site is the first to use high definition video in her video shoots. Other than that, it doesn't seem that she herself is all that notable. Therefore, this article fails to assert notability per WP:BIO and any criteria on the WP:PORN BIO proposal. Delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 17:35, 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 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Hensley

[edit]

Vanity page created by User:Jedhensley. Recreated after previous speedy deletion. This almost meets CSD A7, but because of the author's vigorous objecting, I felt it would be good to obtain consensus. I think "youngest Special Olympics Coach in Texas" is far short of WP:BIO standards... it is a claim to notability, though, and the only one I could find. Mangojuicetalk 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete CSD:A7. "Youngest Special Olympics Coach in Texas" is not sufficient notable, unless other Special Olympics coaches (by age and state) are similarly notable. Article is a substantial duplicate of author's userpage. --Alan Au 18:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I userfied the article resulting in the first speedy deletion; apparently he really wants a mainspace article, but I don't think real notability is asserted. NawlinWiki 18:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A7 only applies when there is absolutely no attempt at claiming notability. Even the weakest attempt at asserting nobility disqualifies A7. - CheNuevara 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G4 If it was speedied and recreated, it qualifies. Otherwise, just Delete. -Royalguard11Talk 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Nawlin says, the first speedy was due to him boldly userfying the page contents. It was deleted under {{db-empty}} which doesn't apply anymore, so I don't think G4 works here. Mangojuicetalk 05:46, 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 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Rebate Realty

[edit]

This look awfully like spam to me. Aristiana 18:08, 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 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Christmas (musical)

[edit]

Non-notable local production of a musical DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:08, 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 Deleted by Ed g2s --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Peppard

[edit]

Reads like a combination of a hoax and attack page. Probably fails WP:BIO too. No vote - listed here for consensus decision. exolon 18:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrthodoxWiki

[edit]

Article isn't notable according to WP:WEB. It has an alexa ranking of only 312,567 and a google count of only 54,100. The article is already listed at Christian_wikis, which I think should suffice.--Peephole 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it's fine to delete at this stage. It still is mentioned within the Christian Wikis page.Dogface 04:36, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanime (video)

[edit]

Unsourced original research and neologisms. Not to be confused with FanimeCon. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:15, 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 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Valenzetti

[edit]

This information is not notable. This person is a small part of an alternate reality game for the TV show Lost. No sources are cited, and the page is pretty much inactive. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:22, 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 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Peterson The X

[edit]

Nonnotable student; speedy tags removed so here we are. NawlinWiki 18:24, 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. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Olivieri

[edit]

The article for Pat's Steaks already provides the history of Mr. Olivieri and his contribution to the development of the cheesesteak Konczewski 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Pat's Steaks Keep per Capitalistroadster's expansion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His death has been widely reported over the past few days and there is enough material available to write a proper biography. There are 173 Google News stories about him see [42].

The Washington Post [43], Los Angeles Times, [44] and the New York Times [45] have all reported his death so there is enough material for a standalone article. Redirect as a second best option. Capitalistroadster 21:01, 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 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aline media

[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, WP:AD, and WP:VANITY as User:Alinemedia has created a redirect to the article from userspace. Teke 18:42, 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 Keep and rename. SynergeticMaggot 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of places beyond Bikini Bottom

[edit]

User:Cafzal listed it for speedy because "No importance or significance. I have a hard time even seeing how this is a value for entertainment informational purposes" but I felt that this deserved a full AfD. I vote for a possible rename to something like Places in SpongeBob SquarePants with Bikini Bottom having a link to its article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Through Your Wires

[edit]

I originally put a merge to The Joshua Tree tag on this track from the album, but there is nothing in this article that isn't on the album page. U2 are, of course, notable, but this song (never released as a single) doesn't quite make the grade for its own page DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the problem here is that this particular article really has no additional interesting information. Since it has been a stub since it's creation, maybe a U2 fan can add some content to it. DrunkenSmurf 20:39, 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 speedily deleted by JoJan. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Elise

[edit]

Non-notable voice actor with one credit. 378 GHits, however most of the results do not refer to a voice actor. Article was tagged for speedy (by me) but removed by page creator, who also left a message on my talk page attacking the tag. hateless 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The defined reason for deletion was because one cannot attribute that she did or did not appear in Kiddy Grade based on the fact that she is non-notable. Which is an unjustified reason. And hateless appropriates this as his reason in the very same place on his talk page. Just because she is not particularly famous, that doesnt constitute as a valid reason for deletion, mainly as an encyclopedia is for the collection of information, irrelevant of how important that information is. Look it up in a dictionary. I made the page to rid of red links on the Kiddy Grade page, nothing more nothing less. I am not a particular fan of this person, I just do not want the red link. --Crampy20 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two ways to get rid of a red link. One is to create an article; the other is to edit the page and change the link to plain text. The second is often the better choice. Always consider both options. Fan-1967 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you care to look at Kiddy Grade and then go to the cast list, you will see under the present situation one cannot change the to text. Also a page about a person cannot be expressed on a separate page. Consider having Bill Gates bio on the Microsoft page. Does it make sense? Of course not!--Crampy20 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The cast list is editable, and you could change the entry from [[Melissa Elise]] to Melissa Elise, which would eliminate the redlink. As far as the bio information is concerned, there isn't any, so nothing further is needed. Fan-1967 20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instead of looking up the definition of an encyclopedia in a dictionary, may I recomment a more appropriate source? WP:BIO is the standard that is set for inclusion of a person in Wikipedia. This person easily fails. Dipics 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BIO is NOT policy, seems stupid to use non policy as a reason for deletion, does it not? Furhermore the page states that the subject is contentious and this:
"Important note: Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7 (Unremarkable people or groups)."
Speedy deletion refers to these things. Patent Nonsense, Test Pages, Pure Vandalism, Recreation of deleted material, banned user, housekeeping, author requests deletion, talk pages of pages that do not exist and office actions. None of these refer to unimportant persons. And under A7 (Unremarkable persons) it refers to AFD to decide if the subject is worth deletion. Which is what has eventually been done, after the original (without proper reason) speedy deletion was imposed. Thus hateless actually broke policy.
Thus under all this the above Delete is unfounded and an affective break against policy, AFD is designed to decide this, but if AFD refers to articles which refers to AFD no decision can be made.
--Crampy20 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:DEL, an official policy of WP. It explicitly states articles that fail WP:BIO as eligible for deletion. Also, WP:CSD another official policy, lists articles that do not assert notability as articles that can be speedy deleted. hateless 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see where the criteria for a speedy deletion really applies here. This article is not up for a speedy delete. AFD is an appropriate venue for articles that may not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia under the appropriate guidelines but do not qualify for a speedy delete. Dipics 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment The criteria for speedy deletion applies from here([46]) and here([47]) as he asserted that it should have been. Also the rules that contribute to delete an article are stated as this "The articles for deletion (AFD) process, supported by two companion processes, speedy deletion and proposed deletion". Deletion policy (Wikipedia:Deletion_policy) refers also to proposed delete, which does not apply and AFD, which is currently under way. The reason that this is brought up under AFD is also because deletion guides and thus speedy deletion indicate to bring this to AFD as described earlier.

Basically policy indicates purely and simply to refer to AFD and thus AFD must make the decision, but because of this AFD cannot refer to policy for its reasons because policy directs to AFD. The need to delete this page doesn't come any non-AFD criteria, as described earlier, and is based entirely on wether or not this article is useful. Melissa Elise is a recent voice actress and she is soon to have many more roles. This page will have to eventually be made anyway, and is there really a reason to delete it? It isn't spam or anything else. This has started to become personal... --Crampy20 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After all that, I the Author of the page Melissa Elise propose Deletion, under the simple fact that the aforementioned person has no biographical information available and that all information on the page is contained elsewhere and that no more information will be available as this only instance of voice acting was in 2002. I will contact an admin for deletion. (Thank you Fan-1967, your comment, though simple, was the simple solution.)

Comment AFD is the way we Wikipedians get together to determine if an article is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Policies such as WP:DEL and, to a lesser extent, guidelines such as WP:BIO help to set the standards for these discussions so they don't fall into a free for all. While WP:DEL tells us to list an article on WFD to gain consensus, it also specifically instructs us to use guidelines such as WP:BIO as an aid in determining notability. Trying to argue that policy doesn't apply to AFD is not likely to convince anyone but yourself. You state above that Melissa is "soon to have many more roles" but one of the tenets of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball. Perhaps we should wait to see if she actually does get some more jobs instead of assuming that she will. If and when she does, that is time enough to add her. Dipics 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. Kusma (討論) 11:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oval Bumper Stickers

[edit]

A list of those little vanity stickers. As you can get them just about anywhere, this list is never going to be complete. While the little stickers themselves are a notable fad and certainly worthy of an article, an attempt to list every single oval sticker that someone might make is not overly encyclopedic. BigDT 19:03, 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 19:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web design award

[edit]

Original research TigerShark 19:05, 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 both. Mailer Diablo 17:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing fetish: petticoating, Fetish clothing: petticoating

[edit]

Two re-posts/forks under a strange title. The consensus version is at Pinafore eroticism. Dr Zak 19:24, 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 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic Geopolitical Thinking in South America

[edit]

This article, though very well-written, is also lacking context (its first sentence does not even explain the meaning of the term). In addition, it has been completely written (excluding markup, etc) by one user, User:Jack Child, who is also the author of the book which this article references. So there is the possibility that this may be copyed straight out of the book, leading to copyright complications. I'm not sure if deleting it would be the right thing to do, but I at least wanted to bring this to the attentions of people with a better understanding of the policy than I do JianLi 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove references to 'Jack Childs' books and remove 'Jack Childs' own research If the author himself has copied it then its probably ok as he owns the material and therefore has the right to use it as he pleases, including subjecting it to open license. However it is certainly the case that much of the content of the article is the authors own arguements (demonstrated by him referencing his own book). This means that is breaches WP:NOR and those parts which are his own analysis should be removed.Adam Slack 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like a pretty clear essay to me. Some of the information in the article may belong on Wikipedia, but perhaps woven into a discussion of Antarctic or South American politics, not as its own article. But, as the previous commentor mentions, WP:NOR applies, and WP:NPOV may too. Originalbigj 23:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Originalbigj. Also, I still have no firm idea what "Antarctic Geopolitical Thinking" means. JianLi 17:15, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deponia

[edit]

Deponia (deponija) means garbage dump. There is no official place called Deponia and all of the Roma settlements are regarded to as "unhygienic settlement" and if any official would name them 'deponija' it would be most probably considered as an insult. To conclude - this article is fake. Delete. Avala 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may not be an official settlement, but there appears to be a widely recognized slum area near to Belgrade that is indeed known by this name, insulting or not. I've added citations to the article. Keep. Uncle G 00:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This name is just a mistake used by foreign media. It does happen. Even the CNN reported in 1999 that Nato bombed "Okolina". In Serbia there is no such place and that words means "Vicinity". It was a popular joke for some time after the bombing so let's not create a joke on Wikipeda. Avala 10:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First it means "garbage dump" and now it means "vicinity"? Please cite sources to back your argument up. Please cite sources giving the real name of the place, given your contention that this is not its real name. At present we have three sources saying that it is, and zero sources confirming what you assert. Uncle G 11:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You didn`t even read what I wrote. OKOLINA means VICINITY and DEPONIJA means GARBAGE DUMP. The story about vicinity or okolina bombing appeared on CNN which is a pure example that such a ridicilous mistake can be made. They reported the bombing of the Okolina, like if they said there was the bombing of Vicinity with capital V. So if CNN can make such a rough translation mistake those smaller sources you are citing could do it as well. Like I said the official name is "unhygienic settlement" and you will get results on these Roma settlements if you type it in google. Unofficial names can be kartoncity, deponija, ciganmala... but they are definately not something we should put into encyclopedia. Just type deponija in Google and you will get photos and texts about garbage dumps but not Roma settlement. And when you search Deponia among serbian text websites you get nothing as it is not even a correct spelling. This is not the official name and we can`t use it. We can make an article Unhygienic settlements in Serbia where we would cite all of the names but the article carrying a name like this is definately a joke. Avala 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I asked you to cite sources to back up your argument. Instead, you have simply repeated your argument. The source tally is still 3:0. Please cite sources. Uncle G 12:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not know much about quarters of Belgrade, but there is also quarter named Deponija in Novi Sad. See the map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Novi_sad_quarters.png So, it is not something unusual at all. If such settlement exist, there is no reason why article about it should not exist. PANONIAN (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So they have a garbage dump in Novi Sad? That's amazing! --LambiamTalk 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was not the point. There is a garbage dump there all right, but there are also some people that live there, thus it is also a settlement, not only a garbage dump. I presume same thing is a case in Belgrade. PANONIAN (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is - it is a generic name. We can`t call it a Deponija with big D as such a settlement exists in every town and it is not even a settlement but homeless people living on landfill zone. Avala
Ok, maybe then name of the article should be moved to "Deponia, Belgrade", while "Deponia" could be disambiguation page describing other meanings of the word. PANONIAN (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That site obviously refer to garbage dump, not to settlement. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many of the city quarters in the Serbian cities officially do not exist. Cities are usually divided into "mesne zajednice" ("local communities"), which may or may not correspond with traditional or known city quarters. Officially, only "mesne zajednice" exist, and everything else is unofficial. PANONIAN (talk) 16:58, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant of the Goddess

[edit]

This is both non-notable and spammy JianLi 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverified and sourceless, official site has Alexa rank of 1,111,293. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ALthough the article does need some sources, the group itself is quite notable, receiving 40,600 hits on Google, 717 of which are unique - quite a feat when put into perspective. As for the above comment, I don't think that the Alexa statistic should really come into pay here, as the article is about the organization, not about the organization's website. For example, the official website of the redcross recieves an ALexa ranking of only 13,254. tmopkisn tlka 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable neopagan organization both in longevity and size. Article could use some neutralizing and sourcing, but they deserve an article. Will add to WikiProject_Neopaganism. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- guideline should not be WP:WEB here; this shouldn't be an article about a website. Organisation is arguably the most important Neopagan organisation in the United States and inarguably in the top five. See the 1979 book Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler for more information about the organisation and its importance, or more recent surveys of Neopaganism in the U.S. Jkelly 21:49, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers

[edit]

Non-notable. It has been discussed and deleted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers), but the content has been substantially changed and expanded. TigerShark 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. Which notabiliy criteria are you using? I have tried to fit it with the film criteria, but can't. The Times article just seems to be a fairly random reference to a film found by the journalist and I'm not sure how important the MTV review is (does anybody know how difficult it is to get a review there?). Regarding the iFilm inclusion, they may not take rubbish but, again, how hard is it to get on there? Cheers TigerShark 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTFILM would not apply here anyway, as it's a nonbinding essay lacking broad support. I think the MTV + Times citation meet WP:WEB, as I also believe its inclusion on iFilm does ("The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."). --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:06, 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 deleted as a recreation of previously deleted content (content was not identical, but gave no additional evidence of notability; previous AfD hinged on lack of notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Sudoku). bd2412 T 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

House Sudoku

[edit]

Has already been deleted once, I was about to speedy it, but I can't guarantee that the content hasn't been significantly changed. I vote Delete per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Sudoku. tmopkisn tlka 19:52, 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 05:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Green Primary School, Crawley

[edit]

A school with 150 pupils is surely not notable Computerjoe's talk 20:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most Agreed, this school should not be included not notable for the wikiAeon Insane Ward 20:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into West Green, Crawley. — RJH (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the authors contributions makes me suspect that they are a teacher at that school or another nearby. This is a vanity article and should be removed.Adam Slack 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written article detailing history of this 50+ year old school, hardly a "vanity" article, which is inapplicable (from a policy perspective) to schools in any event. Further, "notability" (or the lack thereof) is not and never has been a valid deletion criterion for schools. 42 elementary/primary schools have survived the AfD process in the past 2 months alone, with hundreds of similar schools surviving the process in the previous 2 year period. While some of these elementary/primary schools resulted in "no consensus" closures, it is reasonable that a wikipedia reader would expect to find an article about this school when searching for it given the great perponderance of other elementary/primary school articles on wikipedia. --Nicodemus75 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but there are no external sources given. The two links are to the schools website and the local education autority. I think schools can be included as you are not meant to be th primary author of an organisatio you are associated with. Even then the information is not verifiable, and it looks unlikely that any neutral Wikipaedian would want to improve an article about an obscure institution.Adam Slack 00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry but ofsted is an external source. If the Government of the United Kingdom says the schools exists, it exists (as far as WP:V is concerned). This article is about a verifable school, period.--Nicodemus75 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, schools of all shapes and sizes are notable. Bahn Mi 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with the local supermarket, but there is no article on that. Jaranda wat's sup 05:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also lets say someone made a school (got it credited ect) and it only had lets say 10 to 20 people? Would you still include that? This schoool only has 150 students, there are preschools in some areas that have more than that yet they are not included here either. Aeon Insane Ward 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement and vanity. This is a private school and thus a private business, and I don't see any pressing reason (a 50-year history isn't significant in the UK) to allow them to advertise their services on Wikipedia. Incidentally, precedent isn't binding on AFD, and using the Schoolwatch page as an AFD scorecard page is wholly inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a primary school, the point at which I draw my line. All the issues have been argued and argued, leaving this as my only argument. AdamBiswanger1 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, primary schools (especially those with such a low number of students) aren't notable unless they did something more than exist (and for longer than 50 years, seeing as this is the UK we're talking about). Barring that, since this is a private school, I will go as far to say that this fails WP:ADS. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable primary school, WP:SCHOOL is not policy Jaranda wat's sup 05:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the well reasoned arguments established at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Having reviewed the article, nothing within it is of a promotional tone, nor does it have the appearance of a vanity page, it is simply informational. This school is notable, and Wikipedia:Notability is not policy, it's an essay. Silensor 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep established school and as such important to its local community, also the subject of a well-written article with multiple third-party sources. Kappa 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools are inherently notable per consensus reached @ This page -- Librarianofages 02:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no assertion of notability in the article. Primary school or elementary schools are also normally not kept, even by our excessively loose standard practices for keeping schools. If there is no assertion of notability in the article, having an article violates the Not an indiscriminate collection of information rule of WP:NOT. GRBerry 02:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Schools are inherently notable, per School Project. There is an organization of deletionists on Wikipedia that is out to delete all schools. Per School Project, this must be stopped. Capit 13:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of accusation does little to make the Wikipedia project seem more encyclopedic. Consider for a moment not that there is a deletionist cabal out to get rid of all school articles, but instead that a group of clear-thinking editors feel that schools which are not demonstrably notable in and of themselves do not need their own article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete nn - vanity article Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GRBerry. I have no problem keeping articles on schools, so long as that school has a demonstrable claim to notability. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - as it was I who wrote the article, I thought I'd add a few comments. Firstly, it's not a private school (not sure why that came up). Secondly, it was never intended to be recruitative; rather that it is difficult to find a central history of schools anywhere, and I have researched several; some of the older history info can be verified from the Victoria History series, so I can find a reference for that if that would make is saveable. Failing that, if consensus is that schools have to be of a certain size or notability, then what it that? And how broadly? It's notable locally since it has been threatened with closure on more than one occasion, and may well be again in the next 5-10 years. Does it need to be broader than that? Tafkam 19:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, there isn't a consensus over school notability, hence the differing opinions here. Computerjoe's talk 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding more verified information to the article about its local notability would make for a better evaluation. The article now seems to say that people cared, but not clearly enough to say if they cared about the school specifically or generally objected to the system's plan. The general rule for all articles is that the article itself needs to provide reason for being kept. GRBerry 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of seeming stroppy, is there a reason, then, that this article has been selected for deletion? I notice that almost every Primary School in Bucks has a two-line stub article, as well as a category to collate them.
    They may also be nominated. This just happened to be article I spotted ;) Computerjoe's talk 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep around and around and around we go....  ALKIVAR™ 11:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Alkivar, you've been here much longer than I have. AFD is for discussion and consensus-building, not a vote or making sarcastic quips. Comments like the one above contribute nothing to the discussion. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That might be true, but I don't see what repeating yourself over and over and over and over again in AfD after AfD adds to the discussion or to consensus building either. It's not like there aren't HUNDREDS of AfDs where you can't read Alkivar's views. I think it is ridiculous to expect editors to cut/paste their opinions hundreds of times.--Nicodemus75 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: That does not make it appropriate to post deriding comments that show that the editor has no interest in working toward consensus about a subject, which is contrary to the spirit of AFD, and the Wikipedia project itself. Again, I say, AFD is not a vote and comments like this seem to have an underlying assumption that this is so. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. Do you seriously believe that 90% of those who vote to delete on this and all the other school AfDs are "working toward consensus"? Do you think that "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" actually have any respect whatsoever for the opinions of those who disagree with them? I can't see as how those who pile on with delete votes aren't treating these "discussions" as a vote, particularly in light of the fact that school articles are very, very rarely deleted through deletion processes on wikipedia. The fact is, that ALL attempts at consensus on this issue have utterly failed, and in fact, if anything the failure of WP:SCHOOL simply codified the polarized positions that exist on this contentious matter. There is no consensus on what to do with schools and trying discredit editors who have well-known views on the subject, expressed in literally hundreds of previous AfD discussions is quite frankly, a cheap shot. Further, "around and around we go" is hardly "deriding"--Nicodemus75 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What happened to assuming good faith of those who disagree with you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • What happened to you assuming good faith? Your comment above claims that the author (and subsequent editors) of this article is engaged in advertising and writing a vanity article - hardly an assumption of good faith.--Nicodemus75 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I feel that it's a good-faith misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia isn't here to advertise businesses, and this article does little else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am sorry, but that is hogwash. When an editor creates an article about a school of which there are literally tens of thousands of such articles on wikipedia as well several organized projects to create and improve articles about schools, it is not an assumption of good faith to then suggest that the editor was creating "advertising". It is the opposite. It is obvious that the editor in this case created the article on wikipedia after seeing many other school articles and wished to contribute information about - not to "advertise" this school. Frankly, I find your lack of assumption of good faith with respect to the author and contributors to this article by suggesting that they are creating "advertising", offensive and uncivil. Your voting premise is faulty and malinformed in any case as this is a not a "private business". The article clearly states that this was founded as a Church of England school. In England, the Church of England is established. The article goes on to make abundantly clear that school was later reorganized by the Local education authority. This school is funded by the state. Did you actually read the article before voting on it?--Nicodemus75 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • One para intro, three para history. It's not exactly lauding the merits of the school, I admit, but announcing the existence of a business offering services to the public is an advertisement, unless that article serves some purpose other than announcing the availability of the services. This article fails to anything else, and, whether or not it was intended as an advertisement, it is an advertisement.
                      My knowledge of English schools is limited. (Does this school actively recruit students, or simply accept students from a district? In the case of the latter, my argument that this is an advertisement would indeed be incorrect.) I went to find out more, then discovered that Education in England is horrribly uninformative and badly written; it's mostly bulleted lists. Perhaps your time would be better spent making that a useful, informative article?
                      As for the rest of the articles, looks like there's a lot of work to do to clean them up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If you had bothered to read the link I cited, it would have explained to you how Local education authoritys work. Students are organized into these STATE SCHOOLS by the LEAs, the school does not solicit for students. Perhaps your time would be better spent getting informed on a subject you are voting on and discussing before pronouncing that the subject is "a private school" and "a private business" which is clearly not the case. I hope the closing admin discounts your obviously and admittedly shoddily-informed comment. Irrespective of your unfounded assertion and continued weak defense of same, "advertisement" is defined as "A publication produced in order to sell some commodity, service or similar." or "A commercial solicitation in a publication designed to sell some commodity, service or similar." This article is neither of those things, particularly since no service is "sold" by this institution. This state-run school is not a business.--Nicodemus75 07:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That last bit, at the very least, implies that the objections and opinions of editors who disagree are meaningless and without worth to the project, which I find nonconducive to the environment needed to create an encyclopedia. And further, yes, I believe that many of the people who have voted delete above have an interest in consensus, particularly when it comes to this article. The claim that people who would argue to delete an article like this are "piling on votes" is similarly thoroughly unfounded. I have expressed in my vote the reason I think that the article is inappropriate to include, and I am entirely open to discussion on my position as far as this article is concerned. Further, I have respect for the differing opinions of other editors who disagree with me- I extend this effort toward other editors in the name of not detracting from what Wikipedia needs to work, and it is this expectation that led me to voice concerns over what Alkivar had to say. Lastly, the concerns expressed by A Man In Black, I must admit, concern me as well. A civil environment in which editors assume good faith is similarly vital to the project. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Imagine it was your own primary school, which is probably no more notable (I know mine isn't). How would you vote then? I know this isn't a very convincinag argument, but give it a thought anyway. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll vote delete if my primary school gets an article and gets AFD, they are not notable except for select cases Jaranda wat's sup 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not encylopedic. Well written articles is not a reason for inclusion. Vegaswikian 23:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a sense of notability here, I do not see how removing this is beneficial to the project. Yamaguchi先生 02:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into West Green, Crawley (which is a stub in need of more information) or possibly a listing of schools. Doesn't seem notable unto itself. Dreadlocke
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of mathematical induction

[edit]

This article was PROD'd with the reason, "nonstandard presentation of trivial material". That didn't seem an appropriate reason for PROD, so I'm AfD-ing for further discussion. I have no preference regarding deletion. Thanks. RJH (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge the concepts into the section Mathematical induction#Proof or reformulation of mathematical induction . CMummert 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons originally stated. -lethe talk + 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this can be merged without deletion; and if it is to be merged, and if it is to be merged the history should be kept. Septentrionalis 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons originally stated. In WP jargon, "nonstandard presentation" is original research. Inasmuch as the content is standard it is adequately covered in mathematical induction. Also, lousy title. —Blotwell 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure it is nonstandard, I think I have seen a proof along these lines before. However, it is a trivial proof, and trivial proofs usually do not belong in an encyclopaedia. As most participants are probably aware, there is also some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Proving induction. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. If Ryan says it's important, then I guess it is. Furthermore, I forgot that I decided long ago not to bother about articles containing only a proof, even though I think they do not belong here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I usually hate joining AfD's, but this one seems to me to be misguided on a reasonably important topic. I dispute that this presentation is nonstandard, first of all. I have here on my lap a copy of Kolmogorov and Fomin's book Introductory Real Analysis (ISBN 0-486-61226-0) which, on page 28, proves "strong" induction using precisely this argument. Since strong and weak induction are equivalent, the argument has seen print. Second, on page 29, they prove transfinite induction using the same technique. Now, regardless of your opinion of the axiomatic status of the principle of induction for the natural numbers, you will probably agree with me that said status is nonexistent for ordinals. It can, however, be proved that the ordinals are well-ordered and hence satisfy induction using this argument. However, the article is not so well-written. I think it should be improved, have transfinite induction included, and perhaps sourced (like, from Kolmogorov and Fomin) to avoid further accusations of originality. I also think the name is fine: the natural numbers have a pretty variable axiomatic status (you can define them from the ground up, with the Peano axioms, but you can also define them from the top down, as a subset of the real numbers, and in the latter case, well-ordering and induction need to be proven explicitly). Ryan Reich 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See talk page for relevant details. --KSmrqT 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep per Septentrionalis. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. It may be fairly trivial stuff but it is also covered in books like Willard's 'General Topology' (and Munkres, I believe), along with the proof (based on well-ordering) of transfinite induction. Madmath789 11:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I have already seen an argument of this kind in the mathematical literature, the problem is to clarify the meaning and the details.--Pokipsy76 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up and Merge. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I look this sort of thing up on wikipedia from time to time(although this particular one has never been my goal) I hate when the present visual quality is enough to kill an article. i kan reed 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and improve. Variations of this content are found in standard literature, so OR is not an issue, per se. To be interesting and meaningful, this cannot stand alone. It must be part of a wider discussion of induction and the different axiomatic ways it arises and finds use. In Peano axioms induction is "built in". Typical topos foundations have a natural numbers object. Axiomatic set theory can use choice/Zorn to prove every set is well-ordered, from which induction follows. All of this belongs in the article on induction where it can properly be discussed. --KSmrqT 15:24, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Hazell

[edit]

This shows the signs of being a vanity page, created by User:Hazellj2 whos only contributions are to this article. No details are provided which explain what Hazell did for the six radio stations he worked for, nor are there any sources. Google searching for "James Hazell" +radio results in 363 hits but even then I was unable to find anything of note, so here it is. RFerreira 16:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I was not aware that Wikipedia was so heavily censored. I wrongly assumed that information to the general public was not controlled in this manner.

Please delete - I would not want to be a part of such an ill thought out regime.

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Becker

[edit]

This article has remained a substub since its creation one year ago. While Becker may or may not be notable, the article itself not only fails WP:PORN BIO, it is damn close to meeting our speedy deletion criteria. At the time of nomination, this article lists only one film in the videography, does nothing to assert notability of the subject, and provides nothing in the way of references. RFerreira 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can only find one film for this performer in checking three consistently reliable sources: tlaVideo, Vivid Video, and HisXpress. (See below.) The one film that is listed at HisXpress and tlaVideo is Intruders, Fox Studio, 1984. Vivid doesn't list it. The only reference I can find that would make Paul Becker in any way notable is included in the notes for that film at tlaVideo [53] - that he was a competition bodybuilder. I found a website for a Paul Becker bodybuilder[54]; his picture there looks nothing like his picture on the cover of his video[55] or his picture at HisXpress (caution: full-frontal nudity)[56]. They could be the same person; 1984 was a long time ago and he's got on a lot more clothes in his wedding photo (odd choice of picture for a bodybuilding site, but I digress). Rather than run the risk of it not being the same person and creating some sort of brouhaha, I vote for deletion. Additionally, since the original author of this article is no longer around to question as to sources, unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep the page that I'm not aware of, I think it should go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chidom (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: My experience is that tlaVideo generally has the most complete filmography; even though they are a retail site, they still list films that are out of print or no longer available. Their credits list includes information (when available) for Country, Studio, Cast, and Director - clicking an entry in the list produces a filmography filtered by the contents of the link. Vivid and, to a lesser extent, HisXpress tend to delete films from their lists that are no longer available for purchase or rent (download), but they are still worth checking, although their search engines are not as robust or intuitive. Searching "Paul Becker" in the search box at HisXpress, for example, will get you a list of every film with someone named Paul or Becker. There is a drop-down list of performers to search by name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chidom (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, they're mine. Sorry I forgot to sign them! (Thanks, RFerreira) Chidom 05:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuklear Age

[edit]

Nonnotable self-published comic book; 88 unique Ghits, Amazon sales rank below 300,000. NawlinWiki 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep. The article's been around for a while and seems to have had multiple contributors. Even though the book currently has a relatively low sales rank and comes from a vanity press, it has a relatively large number of (borderline non-trivial) reviews on Amazon, and its author has an as-yet-unchallenged Wikipedia article. I think a lot of the content (all those character bios and extended plot "summary") is unencyclopedic, however, and would be in favor of deleting most if not all of the character articles such as Katkat, Nihel and Mighty Metallic Magno Man. If they aren't included in this AfD, I'll eventually list them separately. -David Schaich Talk/Contrib 23:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I agree with the comments above that the article can be trimmed down substantially and that the various "character" articles can be removed. --Chrismith 05:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely trim the separate pages for character bios though. None of them are necessary or cover information that is not already found in the main article. As for the Amazon Sales Rank, that's not a very accurate ruler to go by. The book seems to rubberband between 50k - 300k depending on the day of the week. Kurosen 06:52, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shartak

[edit]

Online browser game launched last year. No indication of notability or a large number of players. Doesn't seem to adhere to WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB. 1680 google hits. Alexa ranking: 1,743,476. Peephole 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Given that Shartak, a web-based "browser" game isn't technically software, it shouldn't be expected to meet these guidelines. Also, how is Alexa's demonstrably flawed site ranking valid or relevant? The game has maintained over 1000 "active" players for several months, despite only launching publicly since Jan '06.---Jackel 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If it does not fall under WP:SOFTWARE then it falls under the WP:WEB guideline. Which requires the content of the website to be "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". --Peephole 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read the WP:WEB article and note that the the 3 listed criteria are prefaced as being "some rough guidelines", not all-inclusive and by no means "requirements". Then, peruse the that entry's talk page and note the various threads concerning the current lack of "notability" criteria for web-based entries, and the overall disfavor with which this particular guideline is viewed. ---Jackel 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB is generally accepted throughout wikipedia. And yes it is a guideline, if you can state why Shartak should be considered an exception from this guideline please state so. --Peephole 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google hits and Alexa ranking (Or amount of players) Should have no bearing on whether or not an article for it should exist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should have as much information on all subjects as possible.
    • Comment: No, Wikipedia has an official policy on what it is not, including "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". See WP:NOT. --Peephole 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you should rethink your definition of an "indiscriminate collection of information". The article in question does NOT fall under that category. (As a side note, I'd like to mention that you seem to be against keeping both this and another browser based game, Nexus War. It appears that you have a distaste for browser based games, and this would be in conflict with many of wikipedia's policies.)
        • Comment: My reference to WP:NOT was to your claim that "wikipedia should have as much information on all subjects as possible". Also, please refrain from making personal attacks, they do not help your "cause". Especially when they are unfounded (I did not nominate the other article for deletion) and if you're making them anonymously (smells like socks). --Peephole 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was only simply stating that you seem to have dislike these games. Not once did I say that you *did* dislike them, just that it looks that way. It is by no means a personal attack, and I most certainly did NOT say it anonymously. Infact, I'm displaying more personal information than you, as all I see is your profile name and a link to it, and my IP address is displayed under the history. Thats far more than anonymous. I'd also like to note that we are getting off topic. Let's focus on the task at hand, shall we?
  • Keep - I don't even like this game and have never actually played it, but I think you're getting a bit over-enthusiastic with the deletion proposals here. By your "criteria" that aren't even policy, by the way, we'd end up with no articles on webgames at all. --Keolah 00:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I like Shartak I find it relaxing, and as several people have pointed out WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE are guidelines not policy and if you check the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page, you will find no refernces to deleting things for failing WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. --Meirleach 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: None of you have still haven't made any good points as to why a webgame with barely 1000 players is notable enough to be included on wikipedia.--Peephole 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Notability is not an acceptable guideline for deletion. It isn't a vanity page, nor obvious patent nonsense, and it isn't spam nor copyright infringement. You haven't given good reason why it should be deleted. Alexa and Google are also not acceptable sole reasons for deletion (In fact, one could argue that Alexa is non-notable in and of itself. :P) --Keolah 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The google and alexa information wasn't included as an argument for deletion but to indicate how trivial the subject is. Lack of notability IS an acceptable reason for deletion. Articles are being deleted constantly for not being notable.--Peephole 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:SOFTWARE doesn't apply because the article is primarily about a game, not the code that runs it (hence Category:Browser-based games and Category:Massively multiplayer online games). Besides, WP:SOFTWARE is only about "software applications" (see Application software). Furthermore, WP:WEB pertains to "web-specific content" such as "webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts". While web-specific content is not limited to those categories, it doesn't seem like Shartak, which is first and foremost a game, is the sort of thing that's being discussed. And finally, regarding WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I think it's essential to read the entire section for an idea of what its heading means. (The section consists mainly of a list of kinds of articles that should not be included in Wikipedia according to consensus.) Interestingly enough, none of the eleven items in that list concern this article, so I'm curious as to how a summary like "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" can be an argument for deletion when its explanation is clearly not. — Elembis 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we may have a disagreement as to where the burden of proof lies. To my knowledge there are no policies and guidelines that make statements like "articles about games are always okay" (Wikipedia:Notability is just an essay), but there are plenty of policies and guidelines about what isn't okay (like WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:DEL). Doesn't that strongly suggest that any article is acceptable unless it violates a policy or guideline? Doesn't the very act of proposing an article for deletion imply that the person making the proposal has a case to make? — Elembis 04:38, 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 21:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies listed on NASDAQ

[edit]

The list of companies listed on the NASDAQ changes daily, often with multiple changes per day. It's unfeasible to keep to a canonical list current without introducing an automated mechansim. Trying to keep the list current by hand results in unreliable data. Ronnotel 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Oh no, no, no. Unencyclopedic, unmaintainable. Don't want to see those dreaded words "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it" when there are thousands of companies that could be listed. This is as bad as one of those List of song titles that contain a vowel articles. Fan-1967 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. There are a multitude of online resources dedicated to providing this data. We might auto-generate from one of them, but what's the point? Not only are companies added and removed, their listings change for a multude of reasons, including name changes, acquisitions and ticker symbol changes. I appreciate the spirit of completion, but as the initial author indicates (by running out of steam after a few dozen listings), practicality must intrude. This can never be accurate, much less canonical. --Pagana 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like the idea, but I'm afraid anyone interested is going to have to go to Nasdaq.com to get updated info. Maybe we can have an eternal link on the NASDAQ article. AdamBiswanger1 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable Dlyons493 Talk 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just provide an external link at NASDAQ. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:17, 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 Merge and Redirect to Xbox_Live#Gamerscore. Ifnord 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerscore

[edit]

Non-notable gamercruft neologism. De-prodded sans explanation by article's creator/sole editor. --Icarus (Hi!) 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong, strong, strong keep and expand I've never touched a 360, and I'm a Playstation man, but to 360 gamers, one's Gamerscore is a HUGE deal. IGN and Gamespot have each written articles (one or the other, I can't remember which, has written multiple articles) about earning Gamerscore points. I know people who have rented games they couldn't care less about simply because they wanted to raise their Gamerscore. Achievement points are, for one reason or another, incredibly important to hardcore gamers. I think this article has to greatly expand on the topic, reference some reliable game sources, and get rid of the stupid external links to banner makers. I also think that the article should absolutely remain on WP. -- Kicking222 22:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Xbox 360 article. If it's that important to people, then it belongs there. It's sole puropse is with Xbox 360's, so it belongs there. -Royalguard11Talk 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Xbox_Live#Gamerscore, this information is already covered. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect as Anetode/Royalguard. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 21:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Famiglietti

[edit]

Nonnotable songwriter, 9 unique Ghits. Also listing his song Savannah Breeze. NawlinWiki 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both. Fails WP:MUSIC. -Seidenstud 00:12, 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. DS 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart intercom codes

[edit]

non-notable, unencylopedic. Internal corporate info. Dr. Cash 20:54, 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 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pickard Chilton

[edit]

Page originally tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of www.pickard Chilton.com, tag removed by author. Prodded, against tag removed by author. Article is blatant c&p from above website, reads as advertising/spam Wildthing61476 21:00, 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 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robert Condon

[edit]

The title of the article is "Dr. Robert Condon" but the article is about John F. Condon. The article duplicates verbatim the information about John F. Condon that appears in Lindbergh kidnapping. Medtopic 21:07, 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 - full copyvio from [58] —Mets501 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defendion

[edit]

Non-notable product; 99 Google hits. Reads like an advertisement. User's first edit. Haakon 21:22, 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 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfanbase.com

[edit]

No alexa ranking, doesn't meet WP:WEB Xyzzyplugh 21:29, 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 Speedy Deleted. No brainer indeed. kingboyk 10:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a World Cup Spreadsheet in MS Excel

[edit]

Clearly a how-to guide. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Nothing really else to say except delete. Wickethewok 22:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Wegman

[edit]

non-notable &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I've taken a swack at adding content, but Wegman is at best marginally notable for our purposes here and what should be a bio is not a bio at all, but a irresistable POV magnet for pushing the message the anti-Global Warming crowd. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Content is awful (irrelevant). Subject appears patently notable (relevant). Google search reveals 266 unique hits for a math professor (not sure there aren't some false positives), but a study of the links found is serious stuff. 137 Google Scholar hits [59]. Multiple books on amazon by him and apparently mentioning him [60]. I wasn't able to find an actual article, but a google search of ""Edward Wegman" "New York Times"" indicates many mentions in New York Times Articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep He's a very well-known Statistician. Of the order of 100 hits on Google Scholar. I've even heard of him myself! Dlyons493 Talk 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Being used purely as a vehicle for POV. — Dunc|☺ 09:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Suspect nominated as a means of censoring Wegman's views. It's against NPOV to remove well-referenced information "on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. --Uncle Ed 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are free to suspect anything you want, but the guy simply is not notable. By the way, "liberal "pro-global warming theory" point of view" -- why not be a bit more blatant about your point of view? What next, the "liberal" theory of the big bang? the "liberal" idea that HIV causes AIDS? Bottom line here Ed -- your comment was out of line. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The info in this article is important. Perhaps it should be at Wegman Committee, cast as the recommendations of the committee rather than as a "bio" article. Is there a "keep and move" option? I hesitate to move it while the afd vote is going on, but the relevance of the info is the challenge to the liberal "pro-global warming theory" point of view. I'd like to see Wikipedia avoid championing the liberal POV; opposing POVs should be mentioned, too. --Uncle Ed 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, verifiable as demonstrated above. I won't wade into the POV history; I just note that even if it is currnetly POV that is not a rationale for deletion, it must be irredeemably POV to have an article on the subject for that to be grounds for deletion, and I believe that that test can never be met for a biographical article. GRBerry 02:59, 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 merge all but Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) to List of Kiddy Grade characters. Mangojuicetalk 16:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddy Grade characters

[edit]

I prodded some of these articles earlier but they were deprodded without any comment by their author. I feel that they relate to characters from a very minor animé series, and may constitute fancruft.

The articles I am nominating are:

I am not nominating the following lists at this time:

I feel we do not need detailed articles on all these characters. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am this Author. Does 977,000 GHits ([61]) sound minor? I feel really insulted by this, I really enjoy this series and wish to make a valid contribution to the pages related to it. I don't care, how big or small it is, I am interested in doing this. I just happened to put great effort into these pages and really wish to improve them. I have contacted several users for their help, and placed the article in several 'wikihelp' instances, note the Talk page. I as one dont understand the obsession with not needing detailed articles on 'minor things'. I happen to note that you have no active interest in anime series. Unfortunately who are you to decide wether or not this article is relevant, irrespective of your admin title? All I want to do is write a damn good article and everything is getting in the way. Most of my argument is personal, I realise that. --Crampy20 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentAlso Ah! My Goddess, arguable the most popular anime around at the moment, has less GHits than this ([62]). --Crampy20 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Firstly, I should be clear that the fact I am an admin is not relevant to this discussion - anyone can nominate articles for deletion and I am acting as a regular user and not an administrator in that regard. Secondly, I am not (exclusively) trying to decide whether this article should remain on Wikipedia or not - this discussion will hopefully attract other Wikipedians who can contribute and make recommendations. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is unfair, I do not base my argument on that fact, ''irrespective of your admin title'' should make that clear. I wish for your comments on my comments. --Crampy20 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Articles should be much more than they are now and give character relevance if they are to stay, but the pages were just created. As for Crampy20, don't take things so personally, as while this isn't a vote rants are more likely to lose like-minded individuals than gain them. I do disagree with KG being considered very minor (while it is an average series), but if this is as far in detail as the articles are to go I'm more in favor of a Merge. Voice of Treason 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Venting is doing nothing to help your case here. My point of view of the series' quality has nothing to do with my nod to stay/go, and how long the text was around before doesn't change the fact the articles are very young (which was an argument to your benefit, not against). I will say though, after sitting through the show only once, I don't think that many characters could supply sufficent content to sustain an independent article. It shows they were taken from a list as of now, an expansion of detail and relevance on your part would do more to prove doubters wrong. Voice of Treason 23:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am going to stop my venting, I takes me time to stop being juvenile about things.--Crampy20 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would again like to point out the Kiddy Grade Talk Page - Talk:Kiddy Grade where I am currently trying to rally other people to help me improve this article. I would also like to point out this, as much as I am shooting myself in the foot. It is relevent [65] and [66]. Where the information was clearly farmed from. Another reason for improvement on this article. Which i plan on starting soon.--Crampy20 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge: It would be easier to just move the short paragraphs if the pages have to be deleted rather than to delete the character summaries. If anyone needs to look at the structure of anime articles rules stuctures see; WikiProject Anime and manga. This is my opinion of trying to save the summaries of the character if possible. -Adv193 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Point taken on the merging. But Aesthisticly and in terms of wanting numerous images, this way is the best. I have done similar things with other animes, most notable Tenchi Muyo where you take an article, where the character info is confusingly placed all on one page and move them to separate ones supplying a char box. It encouraged writing ten-fold. The images help the articles immensely too.--Crampy20 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 23:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to be rude and please don't take this is gnawing the newbies or assuming ill intentions of an editor. I don't, it's not the editor, it's the culture. But there has been a pervasive explosion of these character articles in Anime articles. They contain little chunks of information, but only seem to exist to hold an image and an infobox on the character and to fill out a character navagation template... [Note: this comment added by Kunzite]
  • I have half a mind to say delete the lot of them and start from scratch .. but I'd only push for that if we could throw in the similarly formatted character articles from OMG, IY, and Tenchi as well. They were all created in the same manner, and it's not well suited to the wikipedia. First off, they contain way too many pictures and (some of them) seem to only exist because an infobox was able to be created for the article. But, I will not be mean to the information and I will push for a SUPER speedy merge These articles fall under the auspices of the WP:FICTION which give a wonderful steps on how to create such pages. Also, a aticle like Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) contains WAY too many photos and is a definite violation of the fair use policy. It needs a lot of trimming regardless of the outcome of this debate. I would vote to Delete the Kiddy Grade Infobox and navigation templates, if I could. [Note: this comment added by Kunzite]
  • I also mistakenly removed a prod template from the minor non-human chars article.. It, however, would be best to list it with these articles. [Note: this comment added by Kunzite]
  • There are a lot of Anime and manga character articles that need to be cleaned up and merged. (Though there will be some fights on certain series.) Perhaps, I should nominate as a ACOTW. --Kunzite 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Oh and I have already cleared this up with another admin, it isnt a breach of fair use as, each picture is displayed just once throughout the whole of wikipedia. --Crampy20 09:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I wish to point out that I am not trying to do what fits in with policy best, but with what is easiest to read. This is an anime, and a anime is a cartoon and as a visual product, pictures are available and used. For this point i will use Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) and will tell you that all the pictures are relevent. There is the main one of each character there, you can't argue with that. Then there is also one of their guard robot and ship, that La Muse and Donnershlag, each of these articles are important in the series, technically, I see that they should be placed on the Non-human Kiddy Grade Characters Page. But they are relevant to the people. Now the other 4 pictures of eclair and lumiere are ones of forms that we learn about later in the series, while these forms are relevant they are also spoilers. But again this is an anime, it is visual each picture is useful and each has a purpose. Wether or not this suits the wikipedia style. As I am trying to get an article that is easy to read and that gives lots of relevenet info. Now in terms of the info the pages are very young, and haven't had time to accumulate information. That said a merge should probably wait a bit at least. --Crampy20 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard that a fair use image may only appear once in wikipedia. I do, however, know that only a limited ammount of fair use images should appear on a page. The fair use image (screenshot) has one goal: "For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Furthermore, according to the official policy, "3) The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately" and "8) The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." For the page in its current for, the images of the the two charaters on that page could be done with two images. As to the newness of the articles, I'm currently out of time and will write more on that later. --Kunzite 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Since they are often in pairs, the articles aren't as bad as many others. Probably better to merge them a bit more, perhaps Main chars, ES Members, and Others. - Wickning1 03:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge to List of Kiddy Grade characters per WP:FICT. A partial merge to multiple smaller lists, per Wickning1, would be an acceptable alternative if it is likely that a single monolithic list would be too cumbersome for people who are looking for this information. — Haeleth Talk 08:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A merge to multiple pages, if the page is large, would also be a wonderful solution. --Kunzite 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Wikipedia grows faster and better on stubs and this is something that should be encouraged. WP:FICT (Notability) is not a policy to promote deletionism. People should not be given timetables on how fast they are to write articles. --Cat out 11:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: There can be a lot that can be said about Keiichi Morisato. The character appeared on 5 ova episodes, one anime movie, over 37 anime episodes (ongoing serries), furthermore it appeared on a manga that had been around since 1988 (23 volumes). By all means Keiichi is among the most notable fictional characters. With the logic behind this nom that article should also be merged just like all stub articles throughout wikipedia. At a point Tornado was a stub. --Cat out 11:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose what, exactly? This is AFD, not RFA; the usual bolded comments are keep, delete, merge, redirect, etc. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYES.. It should be merged into a list of characters. If, after the article is merged into that list, there is a decent ammount of information, a summary should be left on the character's page and the article should be moved to its own page. The Keiichi article doesn't have much substance right now.. It's a lot better than some of the other one paragraph, two sentence, fluff that exists for some of the other OMG articles. Secondly, you're over stating the character's importance he's appeared in a lot of episodes, but only one franchise. The case could be made per WP:FICTION that he deserves his own article because he appears in an OVA, the TV series, and the manga of the same exact series, but that's stretching it a bit.
I have told you this before, and I will tell it to you again: there are more benefits from merging these articles than keeping them seperate. The first and foremost is that they reduce the number of pages that need to be monitered to ensure that changes are made correctly and that no vandalism is occouring. They also make the articles easier to navigate and provide more succinct articles without the need to repeat the same information over and over and over. --Kunzite 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very tough call. The series and characters are notable, but the articles are, quite frankly, horrid, and do not even attempt to use an outside perspective on the series. Also, way too many images, ugly templates and nowhere near enough prose. In accordance with my view that articles up for deletion as "fancruft" should be judged by quality of writing, I say merge, with no prejudice towards recreation iff the author can come up with better versions. --tjstrf 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your points are null, you cannot make a call on wether or not to keep an article based on "looks," clearly stated in policy. There is no policy on fancruft so that isn't a valid reason. Giving that the articles are horrid could be considered a personal attack, against policy. Thank you for your opinion. --Crampy20 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for the excessively intense langauge then, it was not meant to be interpeted as an attack. By "horrid", I meant that they don't follow the writing guidelines (including WP:FICT), manual of style, proper voice for writing about fiction, etc. I'm simply suggesting they be merged for now, and that you rewrite them one at a time. We did something similar with a number of character articles from the Bleach (manga) category who were either non-notable or had not yet proven their notability, and as some of them have turned out to be important, we have reinstated their articles. I'm not saying we should salt the earth here, just that character lists are preferable to character articles until the list has reached a sufficient length. --tjstrf 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank for reiterating that, I was just poking the fire with the horrid comment. ummmm, The notability is not disputed. An earlier comment comparing the GHits of this to Ah My Goddess, a clearly more favored program. Proves that it is beyond a doubt notable. And I am also going through the articles, if you still think that Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) is written badly please say, as the new article is designed to be far better and non fancruft. --Crampy20 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, now I'm confused, but at least it had some actual information. Still needs significant clean-up. (Tip:Use sub-headings) Why are Eclair and Lumiere listed as one article anyway? The only times I've ever seen 2 character articles are for characters who are split personalities of each other. It also needs far less pictures. --tjstrf 19:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to either main article or to list of characters. Main article has nothing on them, and the pages up for deletion don't have much. So put them all back together - policy, I believe, says they should only be split when there becomes too much to keep them on the main page. Trim them down and put them back there. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all but Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade). This is the only characters with enough content to stand on their own and should be split into their own articles. The rest, however are too short in accordance with WP:FICT and should be merged into List of Kiddy Grade characters with short excerpts for Eclair and Lumiere as well. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the editor's effort to pair up related characters to decrease the number of subarticles by a factor of 2 is admirable, and if there's not, in fact, enough information for separate articles, they can be revisited when they've had enough time to mature. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't really read what everyone else's take is on this, but it seems to me that the grouping of this AfD is off. A quick glance and it would seem that some definitely should be their own articles, while others I could see as merged to a list. So merge and/or keep, but definitely not delete. -- Ned Scott 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge. I've sinned in regards to crufty character articles, although I think I'm on the road to atonement. I'm becoming increasinly hostile to the idea of separate articles for all but the most important characters in fiction, and anime a fortiori. Considering how hard it is to get citable material for an anime series as a whole, I can't believe that there's enough on the Kiddy Grade characters listed above to warrant all these articles. One article succinctly listing all the notable characters should suffice, with either one cast shot ala NGE, or a series of small pictures for the most major characters.--Monocrat 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can't you cite the series itself as a resource? I realize it's a primary source, but it's a published source and highly verifiable. We cite primary sources in the form of research studies in numerous articles. The biggest problem with citing external sources is that outside of Wikipedia, your review sites are basically a bunch of blogs and barely say anything other than "I liked it". I suppose there are probably some magazines that cover anime series as well, but that's only helpful for establishing notability. When it comes to actual information about a series, wikipedia is often the best source outside of the series itself, because while our articles are often written by cruft loving fanboys, everyone else's articles are written by cruft loving fanboys who don't have rules against speculation. --tjstrf 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment There is a large amount of printed information available for the series in the form of the Continuity File books that were included with the LE DVDs and the kiddy Grade Conclusion book. Unfortunately it is all in Japanese but parts have been translated for the FUNimation site (which is all in Flash, but I have all the textual information extracted on disc). Shiroi Hane 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge. There's not going to be much you can say about these characters outside of plot summary or analysis of Kiddy Grade, and we really don't need 79 million articles all recapping the plot of one anime series. It's kind of a cheap shot to call Kiddy Grade minor, but it isn't exactly Mobile Suit Gundam or Walt Disney for lasting cultural impact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. OH MY GOD! It isn't about wether or not we need them, you can't say that we don't need something just because you think we don't. Please if you are going to make such a comment, give a reason. You don't know these characters, there is plenty to say. It isn't about cultural impact either. I consider the a article to be pointless, it has little use, i think. But there are fans of series, people who are interested in anime. In just the same way that there are people interested in language and typography. No anime has cultural impact in the way you suggest it, but that doesn't stop us from writing articles. I can't believe that you are prepared to make such a statement. -end of rant- Apart from that, I have already said that a merge is not ideal. Articles sit for long periods of time, wallowing around doing nothing. You take the list of character and split them into their own areas and people can easily focus on adding pictures and writing informative long articles about characters. having it in one least, means that they are encouraged to just put basic information down, not to give detail. Wikipedia is a resource an infinite one, while you may not think it's necessary, each little article isn't exactly a waste of space, they are like 2 kb each for crying out loud. --Crampy20 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply He did give a reason: Lists allow for the exact same amount of useful information to be given as articles do, you do not need minor character articles. Seriously Crampy, you need to calm down, realize we aren't trying to remove any content, just place it in a list rather than individual articles. --tjstrf 12:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Yeah I do agree with Tjstrf's statement and besides one thing I learned when I helped with the making of character profiles is that those with one or few paragraphs should deserve to be on the same page and only those with a large amount of paragraphs into a page which is not only why I supported having Seiryo Tennan, Misao Kuramitsu, and Seina Yamada to be made into their own pages. The point I am trying to make is that since most of these profiles have minor summaries then it would be a better idea to merge them together. I also agree that you should calm down, I mean even though I occasionally get stressed with things that occur on Wikipedia but I prefer to control my emotions and do the best I can to help even when something I worked for such as a type of category gets deleted. -Adv193 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I split the two main character's articles, listing changed to reflect this. --tjstrf 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's the problem here? These are perfectly acceptable article topics, and they don't none of them seem to fail any policies like NOR, NPOV or verifiability, and I'd say notability as well, for all that they aren't that great from various guidelines' perspectivies. --maru (talk) contribs 03:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As is stands, the article I am most in favour of deleting is one of the ones you have specifically not listed - Non-human Kiddy Grade characters. My reasoning being that, these are mecha, not characters (only the few mecha with advanced AI, e.g. Donner and Wirbelwind, could be considered characters), and the information would better serve being merged with the relevant character articles (e.g. merge the CC and Dodo information with the Tweedle Twins page) - provided of course that the character articles aren't actually deleted. Shiroi Hane 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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- A7 --Pilotguy (roger that) 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avtar Chana

[edit]

Vanity. Speedy delete as nominator. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:30, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Microsoft Windows 64-bit applications

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and that's all this article will likely ever be. -/- Warren 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 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Corvino

[edit]

Smells like vanity page. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - John Corvino is not a vanity page. I am not John, and I created it. How can that possibly be vanity? I created it from various sources. He is a professer of Philosophy, an author, and a well-known speaker on issues of homosexuality. He is not only published online, but in print as well. He is certainly very well-known as a speaker and author. I copied the essay bits here only as a way of preserving them. If you don't like them, discuss it on talk. Wjhonson 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essay masquerading as a biographical entry. If more bio can be sourced and it shows notability, I'll reconsider. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I've removed the entire essay. He is still notable and verifiable. Wjhonson 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added his works from his resume, so you can see that he has print publications. Wjhonson 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Keep and expand this is the wrong article to be listing for deletion. A quick search of Amazon indicates that Corvino has been genuinely published quite a few times. The article that should be AFD'd is John Corvino on Homosexuality, for reasons described at Talk:John Corvino on Homosexuality. (Although I must say, this is an interesting response to an edit war.) --Ptkfgs 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Well during the edit war, I was like "Who is John Corvino?" So I started doing some searching on him, and built the article on him from that. Generally I start articles with just snippets, whatever I can find, and them add to them as I go. Some editors are just so antsy to delete they jump the gun. Editors please allow articles to exist for a few *days* at least before submitting to AfD. I mean give us some time to try to collaborate Wjhonson 21:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN prof/blogger. -- GWO
  • Delete on second thought this is just a standard college prof with a normal amount of publications, failing WP:BIO. --Ptkfgs 12:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Assistant professor who doesn't seem more notable than your average professor. It is worth noting that this article started as a word-for-word copy of another article that was already in AFD at that time, and that the same author has since created yet another word-for-word copy of the same material, that is also in AFD. How many times does the same material have to be deleted? Fan-1967 18:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um what are you talking about? I created *this* article from scratch. This article on John Corvino is not the article on John's view of homosexuality or anything else. And *I* only created two articles, AND only recently, and in reponse to an edit war on Homosexuality not anything else. To the closing editor, please note, that almost every comment above is referring to a different article than this article. I wonder if people even read what they write. At any rate, John posted a note on my talk page, and I've added that notability claim. "He has addressed over 100 university audiences" (see my talk). That's above the bar for notability. Wjhonson 22:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can view the two links I posted above and compare them. They are practically identical. The closing admin can review the deleted articles from the earlier AFD and compare that text. Fan-1967 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confused about what article this AfD is about. This Afd is about the current John Corvino article, not any old historic article which no longer exists, and certainly not about some other article, which should have it's own unique AfD. It is the current article that I wrote from scratch. I have already stated several times, that the article on his view on homosexuality was cut from the edit war on Homosexuality. Obviously I did not write that. That article no longer exists in this article. Hope thats clear now. Wjhonson 06:25, 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 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Szwarc

[edit]

non-notable bureaucrat (chief administrative officer) in sub-provincial (Region of Peel, Ontario) government JChap (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as copyvio. Some sections are word for word copies of his official bio page http://www.region.peel.on.ca/exec-office/david-bio.htm --DarkAudit 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Alias Flood 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BIO failure. As much as the Kolb decision mystifies me as well, at least he was a mayor. This guy is just another low-level bureaucrat. --Kinu t/c 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These types are the Top Level Bureaucrats since you can't get any higher in public service. Wages exceed $200,000 per year. They are responsible for managing budgets in the Billions of Dollars range. These are the people with the real Power in Canada. Politicians in Canada do not have the same level of power as they do in other democratic countries. These are important and interesting distinctions for Canada and Ontario more particularly which deserve Encyclopedic record and notoriety.WikiWoo 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the CAO isn't a low- or middle-level bureaucrat, he's the top dog of the bureaucracy. If the article had any noteworthy content, I might have asked to keep it. But the editor who wrote this item has gone to great lengths to remind us that CAOs rank below CEOs, and even CEOs have to meet criteria for a Wikipedia entry. The article as it's written falls hopelessly below the bar set by WP:BIO. --Gary Will 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.OzLawyer 19:04, 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 17:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Johnson

[edit]

Seems to be a character on a soap opera that may or may not exist. In limited Googling, I haven't really found this term in use anywhere. The sources mentioned in the article don't seem to mention the term "Unknown Johnson" at all. Delete per those reasons. Wickethewok 23:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The character is the son of two prominent characters on the show. The identity of this missing child has been a major mystery that has gone on for almost the show's entire 7+ year history. He is related to several characters on the show.

    Presumably if the mystery ever is solved the need for the article would go away or it would have to be merged with whoever the person really is.

    Also if someone has a better name than Unknown_Johnson I'm willing to change the name of the article. I picked that name because the child was born out of wedlock to a character named Eve Johnson. Unnamed_Crane or Unnamed_Child_Of_Julian_and_Eve might also work.ksofen666

  • Merge into Eve Johnson, but not necessarily with a redirect there. The articles about Passions characters I have seen seem to mostly list the characters' relatives, with minimal prose content. If Eve has a son, previously thought dead, but who turns out to be alive with an unknown identity, put that in the article about her, which contains hardly any information other than the list of relatives. --Metropolitan90 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't even know if Julian and Eve's son is alive or not. When he is proven to be definitively alive (or, at least as definitively as possible for a soap), the necessity for such an article can be reevaluated. Charity 22:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: no consensus for deletion, but unanimous consensus that these should not exist as separate articles, so all redirected to Demon Beast (Kirby series), and whoever wishes to do a merge can go into the history. Note that merge consensuses made at AfD are not binding and it is up to those supporting merge to watchlist the redirects if they don't want them reverted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Beast (Kirby series)

[edit]

Doing a bundle deletion of articles that could basically either be a single article, or just removed altogether for being fairly unnotable, episodic enemies in the anime. Half of the listed characters are also nominated for deletion, mostly for fancruft, and the fact some of the monsters appear for about 30 seconds at the end of an episode (as reflected by the fact some of them don't even have -names-). Not to point fingers, but to sum it up, most of these articles are made by Kirbyfan103, and include fact and fiction to make paragraphs of what could basically be a two to three sentence summation in a single article. --ArrEmmDee 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Added 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)




  • Keep I'm not sure I like the process in this AfD. Some of those links go to individual articles, some go to "List of Kirby enemies", some seem to have enough content for an article, some don't. It definitely looks like they need attention and a lot of merging, but until I know exactly what we're voting on, I'll err on the side of keep. - Wickning1 14:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The entire collection of articles is on extremely minor characters that hardly have 1 episode each. Also the articles are not written in a formal tone (One of the pictures is subtitled "A very freaky doctor Moro.") If not delete than merge into one big article (that is edited to be more coherent).70.226.21.120 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anime cruft + list cruft = delete the cruft! Cheesehead 1980 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:04, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_24&oldid=1116775182"