Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 29

< July 28	July 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete all individual books, and redirect them to the series. Grand master ka 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Idiot's Guide... books[edit]

All of these are books in the "Complete Idiot's Guide to" series (like "Windows for Dummies"). Though they are good books, obviously none of them are in the caliber of From Beirut to Jerusalem and don't deserve articles on wikipedia. There is already an article on the series generally at The Complete Idiot's Guide to....

--Chaser T 00:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional entries added by TenOfAllTrades:

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these three, as none of them gives any particularly meaningful information that can't be determined from glancing at the cover. These are possibly real articles which could be written about these, but these aren't a good way to start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I deprodded one of them, but I see no reason to delete them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've also added some additional entries to the list. A redirect to The Complete Idiot's Guide to... might make sense in their places. The series as a whole is arguably a notable phenomenon, individual books from it are not. (I strongly urge anyone commenting here to look at these 'articles'.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all five. Unless a case can be made as to why any of these are notable in their own right a redirect to the series is a better idea. -- Scientizzle 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These books are notable in general, but not in specific. Crabapplecove 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I don't think your average how-to book or textbook has any reason for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 01:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also utterly pointless for Wikipedia to have any business keeping track of book editions. Sheesh. --Dhartung | Talk 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All These books are notable as well as popular to a niche market. They are good books and are definitely NOT average by nature. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 01:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently, I don't see any reason why we need an article for each book. Perhaps if these can be expanded beyond "This book makes topic x easier to understand for the average person," they might be worth keeping. Otherwise, put them in a list and redirect to the series article. Peyna 01:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete the "xth edition" ones, as they're monstrously unneccessary. Delete the others listed with a redirect to the series itself (that article could probably be expanded with a brief summary of what's in each book, but there's no need for separate articles on each). I'll admit, though, that the Koran one is written by at least one probably-notable author (Toropov), but that doesn't make the book itself notable. BigHaz 01:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot. The books' existence is verifiable, but the articles make no assertion of notability. Looking at the main The Complete Idiot's Guide to... page, there's plenty of room there for any discussion of notable books in the series, or even a complete list of titles (if the editors there deemed it appropriate), but I see no reason for any extra pages right now. Jacqui ^★ 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - should be mentioned in a single, generalised article. Do not warrant individual articles. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and unlink: The Complete Idiot's Guide is a nice, logical spot for mentioning the items in the series. If there is nothing to say about a particular one (and ...to Windows is probably the biggest seller and has the best claim), then this is mere fragmentation and clicking on redlinks that didn't need to be lodged in the first place. Geogre 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I agree with TenOfAllTrades and Geogre. —Encephalon 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Perhaps a footnote in the The Complete Idiot's Guide to... article might be appropriate, but even that could get listcrufty. On their own, they don't belong here. — NM Chico24 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There can be a list of specific titles as part of the article on the series as a whole, but unless a specific book is particularly notable it should not have a separate article. Even if it is notable, it should only be split out of the main article if there are concerns over length, which at this point is not even worth thinking about. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure "delete and redirect" is prohibited by the GFDL, which is too bad, as I agree with the sentiment in a lot of cases.--Chaser T 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into the main article, obviously. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. But list in the main article wouldn't be too bad. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:21 (UTC)
Delete -Should be mentioned in Single. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and stubbify. And let some complete idiot expand upon the given article therein... Black-Velvet 06:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Geogre. Go ahead and add mentions to the main article if they're not there already. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per this whole mess of stuff above. R.E. Freak 08:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Haynes Manuals shows how notable series of instructional books should be dealt with. Uncle G 11:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The books themselves do not have any meaningful or unique content: they are simply guides, all with a similar format. A single article on the series (as expansive as necessary) would be quite reasonable, but one article on every book is ridiculous, unless a particular book in the series was unusually notable. Dark Shikari 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to series Unless there's enough notability and information to give a book its own page, it can be covered on the series page. They can be split if that ever happens, but it doesn't seem to be the case right now. Ace of Sevens 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete --Aoratos 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Stubbify The individual books aren't notable enough, but the series is, and should have an expanded article. --Saralk 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, at best they deserve a mention in the main article. alphaChimp ^laudare 18:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete add any useful content to their main series articles. rootology 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and stubbify, definitely, per Saralk. The individual books - and CERTAINLY the individual editions - are not notable, but the series really is and deserves a much more thorough article. Penelope D 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as we delete these books, we are necessarily setting a precedent and bar for all books. Unless something is particularly notable about a book or an author, WP judges notability by sales volumes; these have relatively high sales volumes that few books will match or beat. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps a good rule to use would be, if a book comes in a series, is its sale volume notally better than that of its series overall? If a book sold very well, but the rest of the series sold equally well, it might well be better to cover the whole series in a single article. (The length of the series in question may also have some influence.) Penelope D 05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's true that ...Middle East is #2,949 at Amazon[1], ...Koran #168,013[2] & ...Iraq #500,655[3]. From those numbers, I'd think only ...Middle East has a strong case for an individual article based upon sales. In this situation the books are part of a larger, notable franchise that, I think, would benefit from a comprehensive review of all titles. This doesn't preclude a future creation of individual articles, but the state of the current book-specific articles is pathetic and the series article is woefully underdeveloped. Fatten up The Complete Idiot's Guide to... and branch off as needed. -- Scientizzle 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all HOWEVER merge any cases of "2nd edition" or "3rd edition". These do not need separate articles. I see no reason why individual books for this series are any less notable than individual articles on fiction series books. I also agree with the above that this sets a bad precedent. Also, I completely disagree with POV reasoning given by the nominator -- just because the nominator feels certain books are not as good as another book, that's no reason to deny an article to said books. It's like someone trying to get the article on "The Da Vinci Code" deleted on the grounds that he or she believes the book is not as good as "Holy Blood and Holy Grail". 23skidoo 23:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did phrase it that way. I should have said none of the books are individually notable, which is what I was thinking (and apparently imagining people were telepathic). I think the way to deal with these is to create a list like List of ...For Dummies books, as I note that even "Windows for Dummies" lacks an article (though perhaps that book is notable enough to have one).--Chaser T 02:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all except edition-specific. Merge editions into a single article for each title. Create a category to make it easy for readers to find the books. Fg2 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the non-edition-specific ones really notable enough by themselves to justify having articles, though? Currently they're just a couple of sentences explaining what the book is about - which the title of the article tends to be able to do adequately. BigHaz 02:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the individual books, but have an entry for the series.Edison 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each individual article, make one article that covers information about the series. Maybe a list of best selling ones. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual articles but maintain a good article on the overall series per others above. Metamagician3000 06:47, 1 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 keep. Grand master ka 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tarrant[edit]

Candidate for the Republican nomination for US Senator from Vermont. Prod was removed to the talk page with the comment "I removed the proposal to delete the Article on Richard Tarrant. The delete proposal is most likely a "HACK"." I don't know the meaning of the word "hack" in that context so I don't know how to respond. Anyway, four reaons were offered for why the article should be kept. My comments appear in parentheses:

#"Richard founded one of Vermonts most important companies." (see third point for reason why this isn't all that impressive) #"Richard is running for US Senante in 2006." (Candidates aren't notable in and of themselves per WP:BIO #"Richard's campagin is one of the leading advertisers in Vermont." (Maybe the article should be merged to Advertising in Vermont?)#"Richard was involved in Vermont's largest accounting scandal." (He testified and wrote an op-ed piece about it. The article does not claim he was charged.) JChap (talk • contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A prod can be removed for ANY reason. Explaining an AfD by posting a rebuttal to the person who removed a prod is NOT the best way to explain why an article should be deleted - that person may not have come up with the best set of reasons. And certainly is unlikely to have come up with a complete set of reasons. John Broughton 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely correct about a sophmoric nomination that was an ill-conceived attempt at humor. The reason why the article should be deleted is that while of his numerous accomplishments each comes close, he has not done any one thing that would qualify him under WP:BIO. His basketball accomplishments were in Division II. Cofounding a company that is later sold for $1.2 billion is impressive, but $1 billion companies are fairly common these days. There are many other high-achievers who do not have articles here. As for his campaign for Senate (and I know we disagree on this), I think the 100 years test is appropriate. With few exceptions, no one in 100 years is going to care about a candidate for Senate unless he wins. The notablility of candiates is ephemeral. It is better to cover them on the campaigns wikia or on Wikinews than here. JChap (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, non-stub article per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, and cofounding a company that sold for over $1 billion is notable in my book. Being a US Senate candidate in addition nudges it over the line. --Dhartung | Talk 01:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, this is a non-stub article with verified content. Secondly, a US Senate candidate is notable in nature. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 01:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, but recreate if he wins the nomination or does something spectacular between now and then. Please note that he is a primary election candidate, and therefore less than notable than your average regular senate election cadidate. Peyna 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I like Fagles' logic better; keep it for now, delete it later if needed. Peyna 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - senate candidate + non-stub = keep. If this article did not exist, this information would need to be in Vermont U.S. Senate election, 2006. There is little doubt that he will win the nomination; if he loses, the article can be deleted at that point.--Fagles 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Senate candidates are notable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let me emphasize that being a candidate is not the reason for keeping, but rather the multiple occasions of hitting the news with scandal and ongoing (yes) suspicions. His name is moderately frequently mentioned with some hostility on left wing radio. Geogre 03:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While I strongly disagree with the rationale "a US Senate candidate is notable in [sic] nature" for myriad reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion, I do have to say that his other contributions (as noted and sourced in the article, as well as the whisperings referenced by Geogre) give me reason to believe he at least deserves a footnote. — NM Chico24 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per NMChico24. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:34 (UTC)
Weak keep. It would appear being a senate candidate is notable, and the article is long enough to warrant it's existence if the aforementioned point is considered borderline. Black-Velvet 06:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many brushes with notability, like he hangs on the fringes of famous people. He's not involved with scandal, but writes about it. He's not an elected official, but wants to be. More to the point, unless there's been an article about the election race itself, I'm seeing a violation of WP:C&E which states elections first, then the candidate. And if this is an article about a candidate, then it needs to be pared down to focus on election issues, not his general bio, per WP:C&E. WP:C&E is only a guideline right now, but I propose it's better than guessing and hemming and hawing. Tychocat 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed an article about the election race itself: Vermont U.S. Senate election, 2006--Fagles 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is a guy who founded a company later sold for $1.2 billion. It's very likely, with that kind of money, that he'll continue to be in the news. And he's odds-on favorite to be the Republican nominee for the Senate seat in the November 2006 general election, so he's not exactly a fringe candidate. John Broughton 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This delete proposal should be removed immediately. Through his advertising campaign Richard Tarrant is on Vermont TV and Radio pervasively. This alone warrants the article. I argue that the delete proposal, is an attempt to discredit the article, because it was added hours after information about Richard Tarrant's oversight failure in an accounting scandal was added to the article. J23 17:43, 29 July 2006
- Just a friendly reminder to always assume good faith. Peyna 22:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless something drastic happens, he'll be the Republican candidate for VT-Sen. That is more than notable. --waffle iron ^talk 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he was the founder of notable corporation. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People go to Wikipedia as a source for NPOV information on topics relevant to their lives. A Senate candidate from Vermont is noteworthy, at least to folks from Vermont. Amusing that we have Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion but apparently no Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy retention. Williamborg (Bill) 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Joy of joys - found it. There is a Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Unfortunately the criterai can't be applied here, but we can always debate revised/expanded "Speedy keep" criteria there. Williamborg (Bill) 23:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, criteria for speedy retention would be a situation where it is very obvious that it will be a unanimous keep, there are no delete votes and the nominator withdraws their nomination. For the moment, Tychocat is the only remaining delete vote. Peyna 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly with only 3 federal representatives for the state (2 Senators and 1 Rep), the candidates for those offices are quite notable to residents of Vermont. --waffle iron ^talk 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is to be noted this is not a vote, but a discussion of issues. The fact that Tarrant is notable to those in Vermont does not make him notable to someone in California, which is a given. If the only factor to notability is that someone, somewhere, might find it interesting, this gives inclusion a whole new meaning and requires a rewriting of WP:BIO et al. However the article ends up, I do not see my points refuted. Shrug. Life goes on. Tychocat 11:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems a bad faith nomination for me. Hektor 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable anyway from his business career and press coverage. --Mereda 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is certainly as important as his Senate race opponents. 71.241.141.57 22:32, 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 speedy delete. Roy A.A. 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe galambos[edit]

Not notable auto-biography of a musician Jmatt1122 00:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Apart from his own personal website, which was pretty much copy and pasted into the article (see for yourself), I can find no real references to him. Additionally, the creator's username suggests this may be a vanity page. Srose (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom rootology 18:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio (as recently created). --ColourBurst 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above. --Cassavau 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Acyso 06:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyvio under 48 hours old. Srose (talk) 21:36, 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 Speedy Delete. Yank sox 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getbroadband.ie[edit]

Not Notable. Attic Owl 00:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as empty: Failing that, delete for saying pretty much nothing that you can't gain from reading the domain and its making no claims whatever for the site's success or significance. Geogre 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Simply stating what the subject exists as in one sentence conveys no context at all whatsoever. — NM Chico24 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:35 (UTC)
Speedy delete. It's not even worth a stub. Black-Velvet 06:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, tagging with {{db-empty}}. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:55, 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. Grand master ka 03:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Zest Solutions[edit]

Non notable company with non noticeable products. There is no mention of the company in indian media. Ageo020 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appeared at this convention. The description at that site I just linked to seems to provide some sort of convincing level of notability. The article is indeed poorly written though. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advertisent for a marketably small un-notable company. WP:CORP Somerset219 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It can't stay like this, and the article offers us no wedge with which to crack the subject open. Investigation shows that the company is not particularly large. The copy is not quite advertising as much as it looks like the replica of the company's website summary. Geogre 04:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Looks like advertising. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:36 (UTC)
Speedy delete. The user who created the page is called Ezest. I think that is enough to discard this article as blatant advertising. Black-Velvet 06:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement for a non-notable company. Unfortunately, advertising isn't a speedy criterion. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The copy is advertising, violating WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 17:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, nn company. rootology 18:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Does not assert criteria based on WP:CORP. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:42, 2 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. Grand master ka 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TatvaSoft[edit]

Another non notable software company with NN products. Just has 30 employees. No mention of the company in Indian media.Reads like an ad 'safest player in business outsourcing' Ageo020 00:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advertising, and there isn't much reason or method for treating the subject in an NPOV manner. It is merely a company doing what companies do. Geogre 04:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What seperates this from any other company? If it is the first to do something, or helps to invent something new... I would reconsider my opinion—— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advertising? -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:37 (UTC)
Delete. The user who created the article is named after the company itself. Blatant advertising. It would appear we're suffering something akin to an epidemic of this behaviour. Black-Velvet 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more vanispamcruftisement. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. —Khoikhoi 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another nn company per nom. rootology 18:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone HomeTOWNboy 20:42, 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 delete its only shred of "viral" spreading through the internet. Grand master ka 04:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Hats Only Productions[edit]

prod removed. Not seeing any notability - claims to have shown locally, and be "viral" throughout the internet, but google and yahoo yield 0 hits for the name. (note that removing "productions", of course, yields something else entirely). As far as I can find, their films are only around on youtube. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertising. When the company claims "viral spread" through the Internet, you know that means us, too. They like to spread the word about themselves, apparently, through electronic means, and, despite that, they haven't penetrated Google as a production company. Geogre 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:37 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, and Wikipedia is not an advertising service, in terms of the viral mention. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In desperate need of Wikification, and doesn't meet notability criteria. Black-Velvet 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. R.E. Freak 08:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn —Khoikhoi 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn rootology 18:52, 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: I have speedily deleted this page. It was an empty page. A CSD tag was removed four days ago and replaced with {{hangon}}, but despite the promise to write "an explanation of the grounds for contesting the speedy deletion", neither such an explanation nor any attempt to add even a word's worth of content has been made in these last 4 days. The title appears to indicate this German film, but in a quick search I was unable to find any sources that may be used to write an article of encyclopedic value. Should the page's creator (or anyone else) be able to do so, they are welcome to try. In the meantime, however, the encyclopedia is under no obligation to hold non-encyclopedic article pages. —Encephalon 04:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Peters (film)[edit]

No content in original; was flagged for speedy deleting, then speedy tag was removed but no content was added... Valrith 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll add some content regarding the film; it appears notable. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I'm having trouble finding what to write. Its IMDB entry and New York Times page threw me off. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he's adding stuff, that's good, but for the record, a removed speedy can be re-added if it still qualifies as CSD (this still does as of my comment). Only prods should not be re-added, but sent to afd instead. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: It's empty and a test article. That's a quick one. The author wants to keep it, but he's not willing to actually write a single word? Well, that's not really something we can address. Geogre 04:06, 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. Grand master ka 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006 Hawaiian Earthquake[edit]

Approximately six thousand earthquakes of this magnitude occur each year (~ sixteen per day). The author indicates that the source states most earthquakes near Hawaii occur near the Big Hawaii Island instead of Oahu, but that alone shouldn't make the quake worthy of its own article. With no damage and no injuries resulting from this earthquake, it's not significantly more notable than other quakes. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article acknowledges that there were no injuries or deaths resulting from the earthquake. While blinds rattled and floors shook, there appears to have been little property damage see [4]. It was too small to trigger a tsunami. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be kept because even though there were no injuries, it is a rare feat, and should not be deleted. Hello32020 02:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the one hand, Wikipedia isn't paper, and the idea that we would include an event only if someone died is appalling; lives surely were touched even if there were no deaths. On the other hand, it appears there isn't really much to mention here (yet?). There's an attempt at notability that isn't terribly notable. So I'm a bit flummoxed. Jacqui ^★ 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The vast majority of earthquakes are not notable, and this one is no exception. Crabapplecove 02:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Viridae ^Talk 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, take it to Wikinews. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Well as Jacqui M said on above, this can be in Wikipedia because This one is important like 1906 Sanfrancisco Earthquake and Hurricanes. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:38 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't rare for that area. Not really worth sending to Wikinews. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An earthquake is an earthquake. If it was given an individual day date in its name I'd probably vote for deletion, but it was given a more broad, monthly name. That, although flimsy, is my argument for keep. Black-Velvet 07:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Okay, why is this event asserted notable? Because it was in a less than expected place? Hmm, well why would that be interesting? ... What is the larger topic? Earthquakes in/around Hawaii. There's no such article. Seismic activity? Nope. A couple mentions of earthquakes/seismism in Mauna Loa and Hilo, Hawai'i, but nothing on the topic of which this article says the event was notable because it was different than the norm. Where is that norm mentioned? Speaking of which, where is this article linked from? Nowhere. I'd vote for merge, as a one-liner somewhere, but there's nowhere to merge to. Shenme 08:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing especially notable happened BECAUSE of this one quake, so why give it a listing itself? rootology 18:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Include further discussion of significance or Delete. Is this an indication that the magma chamber, pipes and vents are shifting in a way significant to scientific understanding of the phonomena fro Volcanoes? Has it been subject of a scientific article? Why should we include this -- except as part of a list if the list has merit? And this from a pretty strong inclusionist. Williamborg (Bill) 20:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tariqabjotu. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete earthquakes, like schools, are not inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 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. If you wish to preserve the POV in amber somewhere, I'll copy that part of the text for you. Grand master ka 04:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ricci[edit]

Vanity. Started and mostly written by Bob Ricci. Fails WP:MUSIC, I think. This might be the second nomination. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 01:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Unsigned, distributed by the website, and estimated fan base is not the same thing as sales estimates. Parody artists have a lot of trouble, I know, and a lot of Dr. Demento sorts of artists can indeed have huge fan bases with no contract, but unless we have some method of verification, both WP:AUTO and WP:MUSIC apply. Geogre 04:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:39 (UTC)
Weak keep. Amazon.com has his two albums for sale, and as much as I'd like to dismiss this article as vanity, there's no shortage of vain musical artists. Black-Velvet 07:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity is not so much the issue, notability is. Fails WP:MUSIC for lacking charted albums, and not having multiple non-trivial articles written about him by third parties. The fact that he has albums for sale does not lend itself to notability either, since anyone with a CD-burner can have an album for sale. Tychocat 08:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom rootology 18:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found third parties writting about this musician as part of the 3,430 ask.com hits.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: Did you add the information to the article and rewrite enough that voters should look again to re-evaluate their votes? Geogre 20:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: No, I was merely doing some fact checking, if you would like me to do so, I will post the relevent sources to the talk page or this disscussion here. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the article interesting, and just what I was looking for. I see no reason for it to be deleted unless someone else has something better to put up first, and then it may as well just be editted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.39.202 (talk • contribs) - first edit since November. BlueValour 02:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete NN. The comment 'his exciting and funny live performances as well as his “ingenious and hilarious” lyrical compositions' should be preserved in amber in case anyone asks for an example of POV! BlueValour 02:09, 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 keep. Whether or not we all agree with their inclusion, there are a significant number of TV-episode articles on Wikipedia. The consensus of the community, thus far, has been to include Family Guy related articles. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Has a Shadow[edit]

Cruft. Is entirely original research (no refrences or links). The opening paragraph is mostly made up of incomplete sentences. Among other things, which I will add as the AFD goes along. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOR, WP:CITE. It has informal statements; uses "the guys" instead of names or a better pronoun for example. And thats about all I can think of. Unfortunately, most episode summaries are worse, so depending on how this goes, I might have to list the uncited articles for AFD. (No this is not a prank, no I don't hate Family Guy, no i'm not crazy).-- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 01:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep against my actual wishes: I don't think there should be episode articles at all, for any TV series. However, that battle was lost a long time ago. Since we let the bleaters in, we can't kick this one out for being better than the usual run. The show has a huge viewership and additional significance. Geogre 04:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to put this on AfD as a test of sorts: if this article (which breaks 2 of the Big Three policies (others even break NPOV)) can be deleted for not following policy, then so can many other policy-breaking, terrible cruft articles. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, you'd be better off launching a new discussion as an aside on the deletion policy's talk page or at the Pump. The problem is that doing a query this way wouldn't lead to a real ruling anyway, and certainly not consensus. Folks would begin complaining pretty loudly if there were serial nominations without consensus. Geogre 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, I'm just not sure where/how. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep, Geogre has it right on ths one. Articles for episodes of notable TV shows are allowed. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~You know, deletion of articles isnt entirely based on notability. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - I'm sorry. I didn'tread your post correctly. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 07:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't get me wrong, I loathe Family Guy, almost as much as The Simpsons. But the article must stay according to policy. Black-Velvet 07:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, what? "must stay"? Bollocks to that! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, where is the policy saying this must stay? -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Geogre. I don't see anything about this article that makes it worse than the hundreds (thousands?) of TV-episode articles we already have. I suggest if Chris has a particular problem with it, he clean it up :-) fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We delete articles that can't be cleaned up, not ones that have problems. Precendent says episodes of popular TV shows get their own pages. Ace of Sevens 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ace of Sevens. --Tu s pm^{(C | @)} 15:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Family Guy episodes have already been AfD'd twice, and kept both times. This article, in particular, is certainly not a great article, but it's incredibly hard to have references and citations for a synopsis of an episode of a television show. I doubt there are many reliable sources that deal with individual TV episodes. The article is certainly incredibly notable (the premiere episode of one of the most well-known TV shows in the world), and whatever isn't up to par can be easily cleaned up. -- Kicking222 17:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Well, if there aren't enough reliable sources for televison articles, then they are not verifiable... Verifiability is policy. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Checking the archives, the same nominator put Family Guy episodes up for AfD less than a month ago- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter's_Got_Woods. Not to start an argument, but why, Chris, is this necesary? -- Kicking222 17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yeah... my memorey slips sometimes. I didn't think that debate worked out becuase I had someone keep telling me that the episode itself is a reliable source. I said that was original research, becuase you can't look at a tree and write an article on it... thats OR for sure. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, that isn't original research. See WP:OR. It says "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." So using primary sources is fine. What you can't do is original analysis. SO you can source a plot summary to the episode itself. You just can't say, for instance, that an episode is a fan favorite without a source. Ace of Sevens 00:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Really? So I can write an article on the tree outside my window just by looking at it? 66.82.9.63 05:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC) _{This post was made by -- Chris is me _{(user/review/talk)} when he was unable to log in}[reply]
Strong Keep Why was this nominated? It's a TV show synopsis, are we starting a campaign to get ride of a monstrous amount of content from Wikipedia now related to television? We're building an encyclopedia without physical limits, this is fine, just needs copyediting and work. Bad deletion nom... rootology 18:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep episodes of TV shows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That tree-example of Chris got me thinking. He's right. Link TV Tome IMDb and the official site at least but only if they serve as evidence to things stated in article, and because I doubt they will Trivia and References must go. COME ON people!! That Hitler - Holocaust thing is terrible and ultimately uncited (and "uncitable"). Goofs can stay (assuming by good faith that they could be true). But than what remains? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 12:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per George above. Adelord 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Kicking222 above. Spongesquid 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Howdy. I'll try to be brief, but such a comment usually means the opposite so...yeah. Ahem. Sourcing is good; We all know that. However, ultimately, the sources are also just as important. You cannot, for example, source a whole article with a fansite—unless the article is about the fansite, of course—and yes, the tree article would be original research unless you can prove your findings. You cannot just say "I've got wood". We'll need pictures and location varification. I digress. Sources, largely, are a form of media. Rarely Multi, but then again, look at Shin MegaMan DS. Okay. Television is a source, as stated above. It's not infallible, but we're not talking about Natural male enhancement or something. We're talking about a popular televised program. If we polled all the Family Guy fans on Wikipedia, they'd vouched for the factual accuracy of this article. That should say something. Futhermore, look at comics and comic books. Now, honestly, aside from the medium itself, what source could be used which details the exploits of such featured article topics as Superman and Batman? Hmmm? Thought so. Same thing here. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geogre and existing precedent. It would be nice if these episode articles were better referenced. Yamaguchi先生 09:36, 1 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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 02:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Baranov[edit]

Obscure biographical stub - no other page references this one, and the details provided are scant, uncertain and unsourced. Either someone can make it relevant to other pages on Wikipedia, or make it valuable as an article that stands by itself, otherwise I think it is a good candidate to be deleted. Moonshiner 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and tag for expansion: This is a pretty important fellow. If he can make it to my memory through the BBC World Service, he has to have a fairly high profile. Geogre 04:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand [5] Dlyons493 Talk 10:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expansion is possible Avala 12:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Russian (I'm sure lots of local media has covered him). Just because it's not covered in Western media isn't a reason to dump; just needs expansion. Fine stub. rootology 18:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rootology, he is covered in Western media, if not in American media very much. The original author, though, did us absolutely no favors by writing something this rudimentary, so to speak. Geogre 20:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless you think that Stonewall Jackson also deserves to be removed. Jackson was also only a corps commander. Jackson also only fought in a local civil clash in a country then of little signicance on the world stage. And Jackson's wounds came when he was fragged by his own troops (a less auspicious end that Baranov's). I know, I know, too much sarcasm; but let's be a little less first world centric and at least acknowledge the second world exists. This kind of article should NOT get an AfD nomination. Williamborg (Bill) 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have gone to your userpage before I wrote the above. My apologies for the first-world centric remark. But now I'm really puzzled. Why would a Baltic Russian suggest a Russian General was unimportant?
Keep per rootology. Hektor 07:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 09:39, 1 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. Grand master ka 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Grass Don't Grow On White Snow[edit]

poetry book written last year by redlinked poet. Ingvaldsen+"Green grass" gives six non wiki google hits none of them about this book. only things linking here are two redirects with different capitalisations - otherwise an orphan. delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails to assert it's importance, also it only has 1 hit on Yahoo, and I am not even sure if it is about the book.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable book by non-notable poet. The Yahoo hit is a Wikipedia mirror. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable orphan. SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable, nn. Øyvind Ingvaldsen himself doesn't have an article on Norwegian wiki. Dlyons493 Talk 10:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Stephen Spender said, "Writing a poem and waiting for a response is like dropping a rose petal down a well and waiting for a splash." Poets don't get a lot of attention. That leaves us in really dire straits if we want to tell the famous from the vain, so the requirement of the article to offer verification is even more vital with poets. In this case, we can find no trace of author or book, and the title is such an obvious metaphor that the contents of the book aren't very promising. Geogre 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And that's if we take things very seriously. The name of the poet sounds like a joke, and the title is a pretty danged idiomatic one for someone getting translated. Norwegian has "funny" double negatives? (The whole thing looks like a basic joke.) Geogre 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 18:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn rootology 18:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the caveat that we may restore it in a few years. I'd direct the reader to this site which may by Øyvind Ingvaldsen's user page. With luck this work of poetry will win the The Norwegian Critics Prize for Literature and later the The Nordic Council's Literature Prize. Poets should be encouraged! Øyvind, when you achieve recognition in a few years I'd be honored if you'd let me write your article and return this entry about your seminal work. Best wishes Williamborg (Bill) 21:29, 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 Deleted by UninvitedCompany through WP:OTRS, author request. SynergeticMaggot 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)br>[reply]

Gallery North Carmel[edit]

Vanity/advertisement article of a questionably notable art gallery with detailed bios for every featured artist (whom are also questionably notable). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: since notibility is in question, I went ahead and checked several search engines. Google got 64 hits, Yahoo had [53 hits, and MSN had 6 hits.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Advertisement, non-notable. I find no multiple non-trivial articles by third parties to shore up notability, just a lot of calendar listings. I also note the original author is Aaron Kreitman, and one of the current featured artists at the Gallery is Barbara Kreitman, lending itself to the vanity concern. Tychocat 08:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic comment: Thanks for doing all that research, guys. Hope my laziness didn't cause you too much trouble. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:01, 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. These can easily be mentioned in the main article, if notable enough, or in individual articles per SliceNYC, if you wish to recreate this info. Grand master ka 05:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Daytona 500 broadcasters[edit]

Carcruft. As neato as the tabled charts are, this list would be just as easily served by a category. In fact, there is already a Category for Motorsport announcers.Crabapplecove 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mention of Ken Squier and Ned Jarrett should probably be made in the Daytona 500 article's TV section. If articles are ever made for individual runnings of the Daytona 500, the announcers can and should be mentioned. SliceNYC 02:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but add the information to individual Daytona 500 articles should they be created. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Daytona 500 Avala 12:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daytona 500. (Failing that, I prefer keep to delete without merging.) Significant in that context, not an encyclopedic topic on its own. Otherwise we'd quickly be stuck with "List of ... broadcasters" for every event under the sun. Agree with SliceNYC that this info should get split to each year's race subarticle, if someone writes ones that survive AfD. Barno 00:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is an article with good info. If it cannot be kept, it should be merged with Daytona 500. Chaz 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a perfectly good Television section in the Daytona 500 article. Not a merge because this is indicriminate information gathering for the sake of it. A couple of comments on the major commentators would suffice. BlueValour 02:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge The Daytona 500 article is already large, so do not merge. WP is not trivia. The broadcasters article can list which Daytona 500s they have announced. --Royalbroil 03:42, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indianapolis 500 winning numbers[edit]

While I appreciate the great effort of original research someone went to in compiling this indiscriminate list of numbers, is it notable to anyone but the numerologically obsessed? And how do we know any of it is true without sources? Crabapplecove 02:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with winner's number added to List of Indianapolis 500 winners. SliceNYC 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, a shining example of indiscriminate. SubSeven 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SubSeven. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's trivia at best. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A damn fine collection of numbers, but it gets a delete from me per the nomination. R.E. Freak 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. —Khoikhoi 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised someone can't quote Nostradamus to predict the next year's winner. Vegas, baby! Carlossuarez46 21:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. *drew 01:13, 2 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 10:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobile model nameplates with a discontiguous timeline[edit]

Carcruft. Does not establish notability of subject or reason for existence. Crabapplecove 02:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not linked from but a couple other articles. Mentioned in another Afd, perhaps instructively. Shenme 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also original research. I guess there's nothing people won't submit to WP. Has anyone else seen the issue of The Onion which parodies (?) WP as celebrating the Day of Independence on July 25? Knowing what people submit to WP, I had a hard time laughing. Tychocat 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, pointless, etc. Dlyons493 Talk 10:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is pretty darn indiscriminate. eaolson 22:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I added the notice about insufficient context over 2 months ago and I am still none-the-wiser. --HappyDog 22:19, 1 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 keep. No Guru 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament and 2009 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament[edit]

I do not see how a sporting event to be held two years into the future deserves a page. The {{future sport}} template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. Viridae ^Talk 02:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament - all of the venues for the 2008 tournament have already been selected, and are listed on the official web site.[6] (scroll down to the "FUTURE SITES 2008" section). Thus, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does not apply on this particular article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral on 2009 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament as I have not yet found information to verify the venues for the 2009 tournament. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystalballcruft. I have been bold and aded the 2009 tournament. 2010 and 2011 are already PRODded. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You beat me to it - I was in the process of listing it. I prodded these (and the 2008 and 2009 womens ones) and the other ones still prodded. Viridae^Talk 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Prods removed with comment. See below. --DarkAudit 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - All now nominated for deletion. Viridae ^Talk 02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sites for this tournament and others through 2011 are already selected. Crystalballism does not apply. --DarkAudit 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics. Rather than being "ridiculous", the planning for major future sporting events is of interest to most sports fans, is frequently covered in the press and should be included here. --JJay 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all crystalballcruft, including the aforementioned 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics. Crabapplecove 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly there is verifiable and relevent information available for this event. Maxamegalon2000 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too far in the future to keep objectivly informant, at least for an article. Somerset219 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since venues have been selected. SliceNYC 03:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, much information is available and there are pages about future Olympics per JJay. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:40 (UTC)
Keep both and stubify, there is known information here, and these events aren't that far in the future (unlike, say, the 2030 FIFA World Cup). --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all sites selected/verified Nate 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is likely to be of interest to sports fans, and contains verifiable content about what has presumably already been arranged. Two years is not very far ahead for organising a major event, so it is hardly speculative. Jll 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In 2007 college basketball will turn professional. You don't believe me? Why not? Oh, right: it's a prediction! That's why we don't have articles about things that don't exist: they're predictions, no matter how likely. Geogre 17:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. We have many, many articles on future events. This is entirely appropriate and WP:Not even states: Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. --JJay 18:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's wrong to say that. An article on a future event like the 2008 election should and could only be about current campaigning for it (which is in-the-news and therefore not appropriate) or a line saying, "We in the US plan to have one" (which is empty). Otherwise, we ask authors to decide for themselves the difference between sure-things and possibles, and the youngster can swear that a mention on aint-it-cool-news.com of a Rug Rats IV movie is sufficient for a full article. Geogre 20:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely pointing out that we have hundreds if not thousands of articles on the issues surrounding future events. The topic is authorized by policy. You are certainly entitled to want to delete these articles. But your original statement regarding "predictions" was misleading. --JJay 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to pick a fight, and I'm sorry if I seemed belligerant. I won't make appeals to "I remember when we used to delete all these things" or anything like that, and I do bow to precedent when it's strong enough, but I think this one was wrongheaded. We can't blame authors for violating the crystal ball stricture when we allow so many things like this. I'm more absolutist than others, I suppose, but I'm just one "vote." Geogre 01:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having the venues set is not a prediction. It is verifiable fact. --DarkAudit 01:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOt to be picky, but it is still a prediction. It amounts to an agreement, and it is very likely to be honored, but there were events scheduled for spring of 2006 in the Superdome, too. Geogre 01:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, the entire notion of 'future sporting events' should be null and void as crystalballism. The Giants have an agreement to play the Pirates tomorrow afternoon, but who's to say what may happen in the intervening hours beforehand? --DarkAudit 03:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is fine to have, no reason to get rid of it--venues set. rootology 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have 2008 Olympics, don't we? Carlossuarez46 21:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not a good example... there's a lot of controversy around China's politics with regards to the event, and it's the next Olympic event. The NCAA tournament hasn't generated that much controversy (and it's not the next NCAA championship). --ColourBurst 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as substantial information about venues already exists. Vickser 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a useful article with factual details about a notable event. Roswell native 14:39, 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 keep. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament[edit]

I do not see how a sporting event to be held two years into the future deserves a page. The {{future sport}} template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. Viridae ^Talk 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all of the venues for the 2008 tournament have already been selected, and are listed on the official web site.[7] (scroll down to the "FUTURE SITES 2008" section). Thus, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does not apply on this particular article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sites are selected. There won't be much more information on this year's tournament until the season starts. --DarkAudit 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. SliceNYC 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments in other noms on same topic. --JJay 12:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The women are also going to go pro, and the universities will get rid of all sports programs. Don't believe me? Crystal ball? Exactly: I think these future events are very likely, but there is nothing to say about plans. Geogre 17:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is fine to have, no reason to get rid of it--venues set. rootology 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have 2008 Olympics, don't we? Carlossuarez46 21:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The olympics is held every four years. This is held every year - you will notice that I didnt nominate the 2007 one. Viridae ^Talk 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough non crystal ball information for an article. Vickser 22:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful article, notable event. Roswell native 14:40, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament[edit]

I do not see how a sporting event to be held three years into the future deserves a page. The {{future sport}} template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. They have even copied the first line (at least) from the 2008 article including the same dates! Viridae ^Talk 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site for the Final Four is already selected. Since this tournament is played at on-campus sites, the season has to play out before more information can be added. The same can be said for this season's tournament. --DarkAudit 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championship until the venues for the first four rounds of the tournament have been verified. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zzyzx. Restore the article when the rest of the venues are selected. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the other noms on the same topic. Future sporting events are not ridiculous. They are highly encyclopedic and should be covered here. Furthermore, three years is nothing compared to the Year 10,000 problem. I also note that the nom's point about an editing issue is not relevant to a discussion of the article's underlying validity. --JJay 12:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing exists, including the plans. Geogre 17:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is fine to have, no reason to get rid of it--venues set. rootology 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have 2008 Olympics, don't we? Carlossuarez46 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2008 olympics is the next one. This isnt. In fact those that I have nominated have varied between 2 and 5 tournaments ahead - for the olympics that would be up to the 2032 olympics! Viridae ^Talk 22:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shogyo[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article will not expand past its current length, and use of the word "vocational high school" would be much better than using a foreign language term. Belongs in a J-E dictionary, not an English encyclopaedia. Bueller 007 02:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a stub. It can expand, given that someone with better fluency in Japanese can hop over to the Japanese wikipedia page and translate the info there [8]. That article is quite substantial. A shogyo is NOT a vocational school in any sense. It is a particular type of school, not just a dictionary definition, anymore than High school is, and worthy of an article.--Nobunaga24 04:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary merge to Secondary education in Japan and request translation of ja:商業高等学校 on Wikipedia:Translation_into_English/Japanese (Unless article is expanded during the course of this AfD.) --Kunzite 05:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I will undertake to do this translation now. Will update once done. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Abandoned; real life presses and the article requires a fair bit of knowledge of Japanese business terms that I don't possess. Maybe someone else will give it a shot. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article title should be translated also. The word "shogyo" is a popular short form (as the article notes) but the encyclopedia article should have a full English title. Fg2 08:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 13:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/redirect Keep as a stub or rename and redirect the Japanese version. rootology 19:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. The Japanese article is on ja.wikipedia.org. It's not plausable to rename/redirect. --Kunzite 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Someone should translate the rest (the whole) of the Japanese article. It seems to me that its longer and not just list of faculties. Maybe it could become more encyclopedic and notable then. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 12:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, for example by translating from Japanese article or by adding new, encyclopedic content. Japanese article is formatted as a list, but that is not a problem. If the translator doesn't like lists, it can be formatted as text. Fg2 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This article might have more potential than you think. --Gray Porpoise 18:29, 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 no consensus. Before you start to sharpen your knives, I will explain: the only valid deletion reason I see here in WP:NOR and on that there is no consensus. I find that the information is mostly verifiable if not now verified. As such, the lists are not beyond salvage, and any POV could be cured with effort. Overall, I find that WP is better off having this than having nothing at all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobile model and marque oddities[edit]

This is actually several different lists masquerading as one, bundled under a POV title: there's actually really nothing "odd" about most of the vehicles listed here, nor is there anything really odd about the section concepts, like the fact that some cars are not produced for the open retail market. Crabapplecove 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are interesting facts in that article.Avala 12:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is all well and good, but not a reason to keep this specific collection of "interesting facts" by itself. I freely admit to knowing almost precisely nothing about cars, but would it be worthwhile to move the interesting facts to articles on the relevant cars or their manufacturers? BigHaz 13:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found this collection of information quite interesting. There is certainly no specific reason to delete it, and I fail to understand the complaint about these lists being bundled together - they would be very stubby if they were all separated, and probably deleted for that very reason. Bob 16:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a specific reason to delete; it breaches WP policy. This is policy and not a guideline. It is a fundamental principle on which this encyclopeadia is being built. On AfD we are expected to uphold WP policies or there is no point in having them. BlueValour 22:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the title cries out it is WP:POV. If interesting enough it should be mentioned in the individual articles or merged to Marque and a category used. Yomangani 13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's an "oddity" is very much in the eye of the beholder. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bob. The guy who did that obviously made a lot of research and it is quite interesting to read. Hektor 07:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I was "the guy who did that" originally, I by no means am responsible for the majority of the list as it stands, indicating a fair amount of support and interest from other editors. I see no reason to delete it, and the information is ancillary to, and supportive of, the article for marque and others. Perhaps the title is POV and could be changed, I had not thought of that. --SFoskett 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if it is kept any editor may delete most of the content anyway as OR. BlueValour 22:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear case of what WP is not. To address the comments above about it being interesting (and directed to many other AfD as well) there is a major difference between what is interesting and what is important. Important belongs in an encyclopedia; interesting does not.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is four-square, down the middle OR. It is a clear violation of WP policy. Period. BlueValour 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or perhaps temporarily move to somebody's user space and later to a less "serious" site. There are numerous legitimate reasons why the "list" should not exist by WP standards, but as it might be interesting to some readers, it could be published somewhere else. Bravada, talk - 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – slightly reluctantly, because it's well-intentioned and interesting in a quirky way, and I'd hope to see it on another website somewhere. But it includes lots of wooly statements and opinion, not suitable here. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. There is some good information, but it can be said by the title that the article is too POV for Wikipedia. --Gray Porpoise 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV title for starters which is usually indicative of inherent POV within the article (although in this case it doesn't seem too bad); there seems to be no flow or structure to the various sections, and despite the number of factoids in the article, I can see only one cited reference. It does seem to violate the WP:NOT policy pertaining to "an indiscriminate collection of information". --DeLarge 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of dubious entries to be sure, but fixable. Fix, don't delete, that's what I always say. No bullies/gangs. --matador300 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. BlueValour 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yomangani. This information can't be verified or mantained. Gwernol 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, it can. The multi-marque models, unrelated models and identical models in the same market can be verified by the various yearly Automobil Revue Katalogs (published by Swiss publication Automobil Revue and distributed at the Geneva Auto Show, as well as through the Auto Motor und Sport annuals, Global Auto Index and Histomobile. The racing homologation specials require more digging to find the articles published in various automotive publications throughout Europe and the information therein regarding limited production models and the entry of those models in international motorsport competitions, as well as older FIA yearbooks where regulations mention the minimum number of cars required for granting them homologation. --Pc13 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree, the information is 100% verifiable, though there are always some doubts as to the completeness of the lists. The valid reason for deletion is WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bravada, talk - 07:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the info can be salvaged in the respective articles. The homologation specials list can be moved to Homologation. I've moved the homologation list to my personal page's subpage. --Pc13 10:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much per Yomangani, it is not Wikipedia's decision to decide what is odd and what isn't. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:55, 6 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 keep as a verifiable future event. Turnstep 06:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament[edit]

I do not see how a sporting event to be held four years into the future deserves a page. The {{future sport}} template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. Viridae ^Talk 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodded so listed here. Viridae ^Talk 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Given that it's an annual event, four years in the future starts to look like a crystal ball. BigHaz 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics. Rather than being "ridiculous", the planning for major future sporting events is of interest to most sports fans, frequently covered in the press and should be included here. --JJay 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deprodder. The tournament venues have been selected. Crystalballism does not apply. --DarkAudit 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystalballcruft. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and then delete 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics also. Crabapplecove 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship until the venues for the first four rounds of the 2010 tournament have been verified. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Venue information here: http://tulanegreenwave.cstv.com/genrel/070606aaa.html --DarkAudit 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. The venues have been selected and verified. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article is all the proof needed that the venues have been selected. Nate 10:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't arguing proof. I was arguing point. What is ths point of keeping these as their own seperate article when they are so far into the future? Viridae ^Talk 10:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just too far in the future, nothing solid yet. rootology 19:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All this is is a plan, and the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee. Geogre 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have 2008 Olympics, 2012 Olympics, 2016 Olympics, don't we? Carlossuarez46 21:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering this is an annual event keeping this one is like having an article on the 2028 olympics! Viridae ^Talk 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major sporting events with chosen venues are a definite keep. Vickser 22:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as valid future sporting event with verifiable information. Turnstep 06:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament[edit]

I do not see how a sporting event to be held five years into the future deserves a page. The {{future sport}} template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. Viridae ^Talk 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodded so listed here. Viridae ^Talk 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deprodder. The tournament venues have been selected. Crystalballism does not apply. --DarkAudit 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics. Rather than being "ridiculous", the planning for major future sporting events is of interest to most sports fans, frequently covered in the press and should be included here. --JJay 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and then delete 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics also. Crabapplecove 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship until the venues for the first four rounds of the 2011 tournament have been verified. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as indicated by Zzyzx11. SliceNYC 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zzyzx11. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, this one is even sillier. 2011? Anyone want me to make to the article for the 2144 Olympic games to get ahead of the curve? rootology 19:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All this is is a plan, and the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee. (I really suspect people who want to reserve "authorship" of an article but can't say anything about it.) Geogre 20:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have 2008 Olympics, 2012 Olympics, 2016 Olympics, don't we? Carlossuarez46 21:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Having the 2011 tournament is like having one on the 2032 olympics. Viridae ^Talk 22:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zzyzx11 too. Could use a verifiable place of venue first. Kevin_b_er 22:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've got the 2018 FIFA World Cup, after all. Vickser 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until further details as per User:Zzyzx11. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zzyzx11 too. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Big top 20:54, 1 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 keep the cleaned up version, as it addresses the earlier concerns. Turnstep 06:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential third party candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election[edit]

Even without invoking the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this article is nothing but unsourced speculation, opinions, POV and OR, and at this early stage, that's all it really can ever be. Delete until there's actually something to report here. Crabapplecove 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article has relevant information pertaining to a possible election; does not speculate of any outcome. Somerset219 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Political speculations about a future event: "mentioned by some as a possible candidate", "He is said to be considering", "has been frequently discussed", "has been mentioned by some", "has been the subject of ", "has not ruled out running". This is speculation, just as Potential winners at the 2008 Academy Awards. Obviously, an article about official candidates who has accepted nomination would be fine. Thuresson 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above. When candidates firmly commit to running or not running, it will merit mention on 2008 U.S. presidential election. SliceNYC 03:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unbelievable. How is it that the nature of an encyclopedia article appears to be so poorly understood by so many contributors? —Encephalon 04:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with United States presidential election, 2008. Until someone formally announces, they don't need their own article. And there's already a list of third party candidates on this page. Chadlupkes 04:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal-ballism and speculation. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for OR, crystal-ballism, POV. Tychocat 09:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a blog. SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as speculation. Ace of Sevens 14:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep The page seems to have been fixed up nicely. Ace of Sevens 23:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with your reasons to delete the page. For that reason I went through and drastically changed the site to include only names of candidates that ARE running for their party, or candidates that have viable sources for their rumor (they told so-and-so that they are considering). I removed anyone that I could not find a souce for. Including even Ralph Nader (I totally expect him to be back up later). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it was getting to the point that anyone with a name could be added. The arguments here are right. If the page can not be used for serious wikipedian documentation of ongoing campiagns and events, then it is not worthy of wikipedia. SargeAbernathy 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do that it's no longer potential candidates, it's actual candidates and just has an inaccurate namespace. Ace of Sevens 18:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're confused here. This is for potential candidates in the U.S. Presidential Election of 2008. The people listed here are saying they are going to run, yes. But for their PARTY'S nominiation. Just like Democrats and Republicans all third parties must go through a process where the main party elects one person to run. So the people are ACTUAL Primary candidates ... but only POSSIBLE U.S 2008 election candidates. Furthermore this list even indludes names that there is only sourcable rumor to their primary run as well. I removed anyone that had no source SargeAbernathy

Delete: I am a potential third party candidate, and so's my dog. There is no exclude criterion here. Geogre 20:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is basically a list of natural-born citizens of the USA who will be 35 years old, etc. in 2008. Not me, and Geogre's dog, either. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as gross crystalballism. Would anyone have predicted John Anderson two years before his run? Perot two years before his first one? No. This is just unsupported speculation, and too many things can change between now and then. Fan-1967 21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete potential candidates= crystal balling + WP:OR + lots of guessing. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recreate it in 2008 when all these stuff get fixed and become verifiable. Just because a party wants to compete in two years' time it doesn't necessarly mean he will. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 11:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. Why don't we just delete everyone who isn't running and rename it to "Third Party Primary Candidates of the U.S. 2008 Presidential Election", and do the same for the other two pages? SargeAbernathy

Which I just did. The page is now Third party primary candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election, and lists only those people with actual campaign pages. A small paragraph detailing a bit of speculation is still there, but can be removed.SargeAbernathy 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also added "these people are actively" in the first paragraph to disassociate the page from crystalball predictions. These are current campaigns, not rumored ones. SargeAbernathy 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election and Potential Republican candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election are both valid pages that are not designed to predict candidates and winners, but to inform about the announcing of candidates, and the not insignificant discussion surrounding the potential candidates and perceived frontrunners. Potential third party candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election needs to be better maintained, but is a neccessary balance to the pages on major parties. Eliminating the more detailed coverage afforded to third party candidates and movements unreasonably favors the major parties. Deleting this article immediately places wikipedia into a POV stance. I don't disagree that better sources and a more rigorous standard for inclusion are needed, but the fact that an article needs work doesn't qualify it for AfD. --Aranae 06:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This argument has been used before, that it's POV or "unfair" to only cover the parties and candidates that are well-known, but let's face it: Wikipedia is not the League of Women Voters candidate guide, and does not exist to publicize or promote unknown parties and candidates. Of the five parties listed, most people have only even heard of two, and very few have heard of the candidates even for those two. The independent candidates are even more obscure. This looks to me like a list of non-notable people, in addition to the crystalballism of guessing whether they'll matter at all. Fan-1967 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep/~~Move Back~~ While the page needs to have more consistent maintanence than it has in the past, it is both encyclopediac in itself and necessary to prevent POV bias towards the 2 major American political parties. This does not mean that "anyone and his dog" can be listed, rather, people who are considering a serious bid for a political party nomination. Also, as this article's move was improper (taking place during an AFD and without concensus), I propose it be moved back.--Tim4christ17 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that. I should have asked for consensus. However, I feel that "potential" alludes to much to rumor and specualtion and that a clear definition about what the article is and what is going on NOW is needed for the title. If people want to change it back, go ahead. It should have been discussed, but since no one was acting on editing it ... I went after it. SargeAbernathy 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it to its original location - pending the end of the AfD and a concensus on the name/location of this article AND its companion articles: Potential Republican candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election and Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. --Tim4christ17 11:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This article has ~~been moved and~~ had major modifications since the AfD started. Please keep this in mind when discussing further. ---Tim4christ17 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. It's not crystal-ballism or speculation if they've already announced interest in running. And listing the candidates themselves is no more non-notable than the third parties they represent. Schi 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated in the nomination, the article is peppered with POV and OR. --Gray Porpoise 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the POV? I don't see any opinions being expressed, only facts. Though they could use a little more sourcing... --Tim4christ17 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Changing to keep after rereading carefully. --Gray Porpoise 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Dan 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I would encourage anyone who hasn't looked at this page recently to look again. The cleanup is substantial, and to delete this page seems to imply that the Green Party, Constitution, Libertarian, et al aren't worthy of pages. (Fan-1967 only confirms my suspicion with his honest comment.) There are really obscure non-notable candidates. A candidate that gets 0.31% of the popular vote--thousands of thousands of thousands--is not a "non-notable person". Possible removal for the "Independents" section, as those listed tend less notable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. alphaChimp ^laudare 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic Theism[edit]

This is a neologism and is subsequently a logical fallicy. Agnostics take no position on religion. it is not cited Somerset219 02:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a self-labelled agnostic I get irritated when second-year philosophy majors tell me that I'm not "agnostic," I'm either "agnostic theist" or "agnostic atheist," or perhaps "gnostic theist" or "gnostic atheist." Still, I must concede that these terms are all used regularly in religious and philosophical discussions. It's most certainly not a neologism. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~It's not a logical fallacy~~. Moveover, Google search gives a respectable result [9].__earth ^(Talk) 05:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An agnostic theist is one who disavows knowledge of God's existence but chooses to believe in God in spite of this. However, you need knowledge of him to form a belief. Agnostics ignore the question of theism until there is absolute proof. If you believe, your'e a theist, if you don't, your'e an atheist. If you don't know if god exists, then you don't believe in him. In other words; knowlegde, wether it's accurate or not, dictates belief. Thats why it doesn't make sense/ logical fallicy. Plus, google results wiki sources/ blogs. No credible sources. Somerset219 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days, many believed that the world was flat, despite the fact that they didn't know it for sure. Hence, the page Flat Earth. The point it, while it's logical fallacy, it's a belief and logical fallacy itselt is not a reason fro deletion. __earth ^(Talk) 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need knowledge of the concept of God, which is entirely different to knowledge that God exists. I know about concepts such as God and unicorns, but I don't know that they exist. I might still believe in them, anyway. Also, you are confusing different meanings of "Agnostic" - the sort who withholds belief is only one meaning of the term. Mdwh 11:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment please see belief; if you believe in something then you know it's true. If you don't know they exsist, then you don't believe in them. You are making a state of doubt, then stating that it's a positive assertion; that makes no sense. Somerset219 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's your POV. Many people disagree. Many people have beliefs about things, even though they do not know it is true. Mdwh 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether the term makes sense or not, it is certainly commonly used. The article could use more citations, but the fact that it's used in George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God, written in 1974 and pretty well known, shows that it's not a neologism. The paperback edition has a sales ranking of 11,150 at Amazon; it's a reasonably common book. AfD is not for debating the validity of a term, it's for debating the viability of an article. Philodespotos 05:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agreed; for purposes of this AfD, the focus should be on whether or not the term exists, and it seems that it does so verifiably. Debate over any possible inherent fallacies in the term and its use should be saved for philosophy forums. If anything, more sources could be added, but I'd guess that some philosophy-oriented Wikipedians will have a pretty easy time coming up with some print sources. . Also see this Google Book search[10] which has T. H. Huxley attributing the term to first-century Jewish philosopher Philo. -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God, this book is used as a criticism against the term, he actually states the term does not make sense. Somerset219 21:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Philo. Also 470 google hits and 443 Yahoo hts (both set to english only and phrase). That is not bad at all considering that the term is not in popular culture. (just providing this to show that the term does exist).—— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, though the article should have more references. -- SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, Remember lack of references is not a reason to delete, (unless there are none to be found). Now if there were no references to be found, period, then delete is the correct option. Here, I know that references can be found, the philosophical types on wikipedia will have no problem doing so. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not about agnostics, but about a particular sort of theist. I've encountered several people like this, who believe in God (and are therefore theists) but claim that it is impossible to know anything about God (agnostic). It is a peculiarly irrational viewpoint, but they do exist. --StoatBringer 11:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue should not be about whether we think Agnostic theism is a "logical fallacy" or not. That is a POV, and if people nonetheless fit this description, it should not be discounted (I think many religious beliefs are a logical fallacy, but clearly that's not a reason to delete the articles!) The issue is notability and verifiability, of the term and/or the concept. Mdwh 11:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The prohibition on neologisms only applies in cases lacking a credible source, or dictionary definitions. And there are plenty of articles about supposed logical fallacies. Btyner 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment please define agnostic theist on google. all articles of agnostic theist are from blogs and Wikipedia's own sources. This term is used as an accurate philisophical term, and it's not. If its a religion or pop culture thing than it should be defined that way. Somerset219 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, google scholar gives 8 hits for this term, including one from the Journal of Religion. If academia has accepted this concept then who are we to question it? Btyner 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep If we deleted articles on religion because of logical fallacies, we'd have no articles on religion left. Stev0 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to agnosticism: Despite the fact that the term is used, it is used primarily as a species of agnosticism. Further, what it describes is a state of doubt rather than an active and positive philosophy. I think the subject is better understood, better found, and better discussed in the context of agnosticism in the 20th century. Geogre 20:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The issue of whether the term is logically inconsistent or not is totally irrelevant. It's widely used, therefore notable, and it's distinct enough from the beliefs of most people who identify as simply agnostic to deserve a separate article. Penelope D 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I was puzzled enough by the article that I wasn't going to vote until I read User:Stev0's comment above. Some how it reminded me of Halldór Laxness' quote, "All gods are equally good except the god that answers prayers, because he is nowhere." Which convinced me that Agnostic Theism is not an incredible concept (albeat difficult for my weak brain to encompass); if it is not utter nonsense, it warrants discussion. Williamborg (Bill) 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a long-standing theological position, and no less coherent than gnostic theism. It's also been associated with a wide range of influential thinkers, from Pascal to Maimonides. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is interesting in itself, though somewhat confused in places. Agnostic Theism may or may not be an active and positive(?) philosophy, but it is a philosophical position that is not unsuited to a deeper level of description than might be provided on the Agnosticism article. (Incidentally, agnostic theism is not necessarily a "state of doubt". The two may coincide, but one can be an agnostic theist who is certain of God's existence while recognising that there is insufficient justification - certainty is a psychological state, knowledge is not) --Atob 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article seems to represent a completely valid and existing stance. Star Ghost 04:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everything in this world is logical, especially not peoples beliefs. This term is far from a neologism --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article has many editors and adding more sources shouldn't be hard as many more edit it in future. Stephen B Streater 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But what’s up with User:Somerset219 making major deletions of the article's text while we are still discussing it here? --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 03:29, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Peer Group[edit]

Seems to fail WP:BAND. The article admits they only ever released one song. Quite happy to be corrected on this though. Viridae ^Talk 03:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Horribly fails WP:BAND (look at their "Gigography"). --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coredesat. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not meet WP:BAND; also a good a mount of WP:OR and WP:POV in the writing (though that is more of a content issue). -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - passed WP:MUSIC "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". The notable member is Peter Prescott (American musician). I suggest merge. --Royalbroil 03:53, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick cameron[edit]

County judges are below the notability bar. Fails Geogre's law. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a county judge does not inherently make you unworthy of a Wiki page but Judge Cameron himself fails to establish uniqueness or notability. 2nd-youngest active judge in Wisconsin at the time of appointment doesn't cut it. SliceNYC 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is my first attempt at submitting an entry, so I will not be hurt by any decision rendered on my efforts. I will make the case for keeping the entry as Judge Cameron presided over a case that found its way to the State Supreme Court and was named "Case of the Month" by the Wisconsin Court System. Peace be with you all.--Wonderfunk 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, Geogre's Law. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am leery of blanket claims like "All x are/are not notable", since that leads to lengthy arguments of the "Are not!" "Are too!" variety. Sticking to policy issues, the article fails to establish notability under WP:BIO, for not having multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. The fact he had a case go to the State Supreme Court is not particularly notable since that happens a lot (it's why state supreme courts exist); and, at most, it makes him notable only in Wisconsin (not a bad thing, but the rulings obviously don't bother anyone outside of State lines). Congratulations on the "Case of the Month" award, but as I understand the nature of that award, it will always be awarded, so it's not exactly a particularly demanding criterion. Tychocat 09:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep (note that this too fails Geogre's Law). If the article can be strengthened by more detail on why the initial ruling was noteworthy and why its being upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court is also noteworthy then it warrants retention; but keep is conditioned on strengthening the article. And come on folks—Geogre's Law is like Moore's Law—it is empirical and not predictive—I presume we only cite it in humor and certainly not as a serious reason for tossing an article. Williamborg (Bill) 22:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose it's graceless of me to mention my law, so I won't, but I'm honored to be in such august company. Yes, it is humorous and empirical and a statement of correlation, but it's also predictive, because any article at a miniscule last name can't stay there. In other words, the least we can do is move the article to a proper spelling, so we'd pretty much have to motion for merge and redirect to Roderick Cameron (which doesn't exist yet). I think judges can be significant enough, and especially those who manage to get publicity through their rulings. This particular article does not offer verifiable evidence yet of such. Therefore, I move to delete with absolutely no prejudice against a properly lodged and verifiably significant article at the proper location. Geogre 01:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Kinu. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:43, 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.

Dear Sir, I respectfully request that the word Kuatagh will not be deleted. It's term firstly used to describe the alumni of MRSM Kuantan, an elite school in Malaysia but the term is also used as an adejective to decribe coolness of intellect.

Thank you.

Kuatagh = cool, calm intellectual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajim61 (talk • contribs)

New User account, only edits are here — NM Chico24 07:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuatagh[edit]

Notability/importance in question. Article has been A7'd before, however the author disputes this as it is a translation from another wiki. The original article is just as short, so I'm sending here for wider consensus. Ghits: [11] — NM Chico24 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to assert the importance of this group. Why is it any different from any other group of people. Has it done anything that would make it important? Also, I found the following: 129 google hits and 362 hits on Yahoo. both fairly low numbers (for a specific search for hits in the english language).—— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eagle was generous with Ghits, since out of the 125 only 25 were unique. Some nice photo blogs, but no non-trivial third-party articles about the group to establish notability. Article also written by kuatagh which looks like violation of WP:VAIN, and lack of citations therefore makes article look like Original Research. Tychocat 10:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry about my "generousity", I was using the alpha version of WikiVoter. It does the search engine checks automatically, I just tell where to put the results, and sometimes I have to tell it to use more specific search terms. So sorry about not checking for unique hits, and thanks for catching me!—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is without context, so it could be speedied as incomprehensible due to lack of context, but that wouldn't be my argument. There is nothing in the article that suggests that the group is actually achieving anything, except growth. As Edward Abbey said, "Growth for its own sake is the ideology of the cancer cell." Granted, he was talking about something else, but there is no notability asserted, and the article can't be understood. Geogre 01:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI, Kuatagh is an alumni for our college in Malaysia called MRSM Kuantan. Probably one of you can edit for me please. Thank you. Regards, Kuatagh 04:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too few too fictional. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 12:20, 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 Speedy Delete as reposted content. Yank sox 07:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wario the Quario[edit]

Supposedly an internet meme, "popular" and "circulated on myspace". Generates 3 unique GHits, 11 total outside Wikipedia. I generate more hits than that. Fan-1967 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I first saw this, I saw some value in it; so I think it is notable. --24.208.241.169 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we should keep this since "Wario the Quario" almost gets 300 Yahoo hits. --Clarenceville Trojan | contact 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Above user is the article's author. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ of course. Only 3 unique Ghits? Only 311 views on YouTube, including my visit to see how many views there were? Certainly notability is far from established. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Delete, all of my above reasons still stand, but this has also been deleted three times (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wario the Quario and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wario the Quario (2nd nomination)). One of the deletions was apparently a speedy, making this the 3rd AfD on this topic. Consensus each of those times was that it failed notability, and I see nothing here to show that this has changed. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per HumbleGod. Danny Lilithborne 06:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy del per HumbleGod. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. It's still not a notable meme. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:14, 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 speedy close. Let me count the ways ...

AfD is not the place to go if you want to propose a merge.
You can perform a merge yourself, anyway. Be bold!
Once the article has been merged, it cannot be deleted. No, really, it can't. Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL; using content without performing the bare minimum that Wikipedia's guidelines require (in this case, redirecting to the merged article) is theft.

In summary: don't nominate an article for deletion because you want it merged, and don't ask for the deletion of the source of a merged article's content. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sotsugyou[edit]

Wikipedia is not a (Japanese-English) dictionary. Article merely translates the word sotsugyou and goes on to describe (in detail) its use in a Japanese TV program that is little known in the English-speaking community. Suggest merging the TV-related info into the show's page itself and deleting this article. Bueller 007 03:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The English-language Wikipedia isn't supposed to be limited to topics from the English-speaking community; that's an example of systemic bias. Crystallina 03:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but I'm not sure that that justifies having this article separate to the show it relates to. I'd suggest a merge of any non-duplicate content to the article on the show and the deletion of this article. BigHaz 03:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to Sotsugyō per Hepburn romanization required by WP:MOS-JA. A couple citations from reliable sources would be nice; will hunt for some in the morning if no one has provided any by that time. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:28, 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 - there were two sides saying non-notable and notable. I didn't see any attempt documented in the article to substantiate notability, which I feel tipped the balance.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for your life[edit]

Prodded for non-notability, de-prodded without any explanation. So little content that I'm tempted to use {{db-empty}}, but just enough that I'm not sure if it qualifies for speedy. It is, however, pretty much just a glorified external link. There's nothing here that would be any kind of loss if someone wanted to re-create the article later with some actual content. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the phrases we should never hear on AfD is "de-prodded without any explanation". It doesn't have any relevance to your rationale for deletion, and only serves to increase the perception in the minds of other Wikipedians that de-prodding articles is a Bad Thing, when in fact it's one of the cornerstones of the process. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But deprodding without addressing the concerns felt by the user who prodded it is never going to achieve anything. Viridae ^Talk 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it will. For the person who thought the article wasn't worth deleting ... it won't be deleted (at least, not by PRODding). Voila! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While a lack of explanation is not reason enough to go ahead and delete something, I don't agree that it shouldn't even be mentioned. I see "failed prod" in AfD nominations on a regular basis. If an article was de-prodded, then I want to know why so I can take that into account when "voting" in the AfD. It's easier if the nominator gives me that info here so I don't have to dig through the history (which, depending on the article and the edit summaries, might take plenty of digging indeed). If an article is de-prodded for a stated reason, I'll include that in my AfD nomination, too. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we see it in AfD nominations all the time — and that's a Bad Thing. The general atmosphere is not so much, "I think other AfDers would be interested to know why the PROD tag was removed, so they can share in the de-prodder's indignance", but more along the lines of, "some utter PRICK removed the tag, so I'm forced to waste all y'all's time with an AfD nomination. If we delete this article, we'll teach him a lesson!" I appreciate your bone fides here, and I agree with you that if the de-PRODder gave a reason for removing the tag it should be noted somewhere in the AfD discussion. However, if it's removed without discussion then it's not particularly relevant — and we see far too many annoyed nominations complaining about de-PRODders. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable campaign. -TrackerTV 03:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep It is quite notable and quite prominent in Australian media. It is a rebirth of of the Life. Be in it. campaign. Viridae^Talk 05:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't merge and redirect make more sense at this point, then? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The campaigns are seperate. The State govt has just started up a new campaign using the premise of the old (what I meant by rebirth) Viridae^Talk 06:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - For what it's worth, you meant "premise". fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks. Viridae ^Talk 23:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        For once we agree on something /cheer -- 153.2.246.32 22:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Every state/region etc. has an advertising campaign for one thing or another. I can't think of any reason why we should include articles on those campaigns here. At best, merge to article for the region. --JJay 12:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable campaign in Australia. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much more to say about it --Astrokey44 13:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be enough material about this campaign. It was associated with promotion of the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and as above. Especially agree with JJay that there are many ad campaigns by governments all around the world, and there needs to be justification for including a campaign. Many of them have slogans, and most are not encyclopedically notable. I don't see any special reason to include this one - it is not even a national campaign. Bwithh 00:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, allow for organic expansion. -- 153.2.246.32 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable campaign at this point.--Peta 04:42, 1 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. I think it's pretty clear what the end result is; let's save the eventual closer (and any bandwagon-jumpers) a bit of work, eh? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 90[edit]

Every case in volume 90 is a red link. This is listcruft. TrackerTV 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ per nom. Wasn't there an AfD listing of a similar list of cases a while back? BigHaz 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh. On second thoughts, change mine to keep in light of the precedent (I'd strike it out, but can't figure out how to do that quickly). BigHaz 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Click "edit this page" to see what I did. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I thought I'd tried that myself, but knowing me I must've stuffed up the syntax somewhere in there. BigHaz 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We just went through this with volume 35 [12]. I have no idea what you know regarding these lists, but there are well over 80 of this type. The consensus last time this was up for debate (about a week ago) was a speedy keep. I'm asking that this nomination be withdrawn, as there is already consensus among the Wikipedia community as well as consensus among WikiProject:U.S. Supreme Court cases that these lists remain the way they are. If you have any further comments, please list them here. --MZMcBride 04:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I was the last one to nominate a pile of red links, and I withdrew (I knew it would come back to bite me!). SynergeticMaggot 09:43, 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 Speedy Delete by NawlinWiki. Srose (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Smith[edit]

No indication given of notability. "Underground" is a key word in the article. Google returns nothing relevant. Crystallina 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Underground and fringe artists are always tricky, but this one seems to be a pretty clear-cut case. BigHaz 03:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, so tagged, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Molerat 09:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Hatamikia[edit]

This page has been listed on articles needing translation for seven days now, but it's still in Arabic. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's in Persian, actually. See fa:ابراهیم حاتمی کیا. Apparently, someone has started to translate it into English, but most of it has not been translated yet. If the partially translated portion is correct, the subject is an Iranian filmmaker, but looking at his IMDb entry I'm not convinced he's notable. [13] ~~This is the English Wikipedia, so delete.~~ --Metropolitan90 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In recommendation of the translator's efforts, change my recommendation to neutral as to the current English-language version. --Metropolitan90 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if someone started to translate, why are we nominating. At the very least notify the person who is translating before you delete this. (will do this in a moment). Frankly we chould allow the Persion, Arabic, or whatever language encyclopedia deciede whether or not this is notable. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. We should apply our notability criteria. They are independent of country. Uncle G 10:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:Um... how can we tell notibility if the thing is not translated? Frankly it is notable as it is the only aribic (persian) language article I have seen in a while. (meant as a joke). Let the translator translate the thing, then bring it back here. If a move is nessacary to get the title into english, do so and let the translator work. He/She is doing us all a service (one that the majority of us can't do). —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest that you read the notice on the article and the PNT discussion. I also recommend that you look at the article's history. Uncle G 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, translate, and move to Ebrahim Hatamikia. Notable director. He won an award for best film at the 24th International Fajr Film Festival[14]. His movies have been covered by several newspapers; see [15] for example from the New York Times (full text restricted). I discovered the following links that can aid a translation effort: [16] [17]. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri| 16:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if translated, otherwise delete, as this is the English Wikipedia. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and translate otherwise delete per nom. R.E. Freak 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in four different languages. If the translator wants to try again later, have him/her use their sandbox. Tests go there first. SynergeticMaggot 09:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the usual grace period. Quoting from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English: "If an article has been listed here for two weeks and is still untranslated, it should be moved to AfD." --Lambiam ^Talk 12:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why an English-language article about this fellow would be inappropriate for English Wikipedia. It seems very strange to me that someone could actually look at this IMDb profile and come up with "not notable enough". fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this to whatever it is in English, then userify it to whoever is doing the translation. Out and out deletion seems to waste the effort already undertaken to translate... but until it's in English, it doesn't belong in mainspace, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for one more week Process must be followed. Keep for another week and then resubmit for afd. Bwithh 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use the phrase "process must be followed". It makes experienced Wikipedians' teeth itch. One of the things about process on Wikipedia is that, if there is a good reason to ignore process, then following process is actually the Wrong Thing. Let's not fetishise it, eh? Instead explain why the result you want should be the result attained. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use it that phrase if I like, thanks very much. It's an entirely reasonable position. I'm a deletionist who tries to be fair, and upholding process is one of the things which keep the more strident aspects of my views and other different strident views of other people in check. I'm modestly experienced at Wikipedia, there's no need to condescend and dismiss me as a newbie either. My explanation of my reasons is good enough in this case, as the nomination clearly states that it is specifically about the grace period for translation. I don't know what you think the nomination is about. As for as I can tell, you're suggesting that for unexplained reasons, this untranslated page doesn't deserve the full amount of grace period suggested by guidelines, and so we should apply WP:IAR and WP:SNOW arbitrarily. Bwithh 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not suggested anything of the sort. All I've said is that "process must be followed" is the Wrong Thing to say: it's anti-Wikipedia and anti-common sense and profoundly silly. That doesn't mean I disagree with your view, that the article should not have been nominated so early. It just means that I think a better argument than "Process says X, and I am a fan of process" should have been provided. Process is good only when there is a good reason to follow it; in such cases (and I don't make a claim either way as to whether or not this is such a case), it's better to state that reason rather than simply rely on the magic word "process", which, as I said, makes people's teeth itch. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and second what Mark said. Deleting untranslated articles is to stop people from dumping text only to never return; clearly someone has already started work, so the untranslated content hasn't been abandoned. If, in time, it becomes clear that the rest is not being translated, then trim away the untranslated part. --bainer (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care on the redirect; keep Ebrahim Hatamikia, moving all untranslated content to the talk page. Subject is clearly notable. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the redirect and keep Ebrahim Hatamikia per Kelly Martin. Some process is more important than others, and the two week's grace for non-English material is a hard rule that ought to be reliable. Smerdis of Tlön 16:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - He's notable; I've seen his films in the international film festivals; we should be so lucky as to be that notable. Cleaned the article up a bit. Added some additional material. And there are standard forms those of us who translate use; we commment out the material until we can get back so as not to set off this alarm; I applied that technique. Williamborg (Bill) 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, article in its current form as of today doesnt contain the persian anymore. Shouldnt have been listed for another week after it was anyway, there is a process to follow that allows for people adequate time. Thank you to whoever was working or still is working on the translation. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The nominator deleted it out of process before, I restored it so it could have a chance to be translated and become the useful stub it is now. I think he is notable enough. Grand master ka 09:44, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fetal rights[edit]

Article is original research. Factual content is skeletal and unsourced. The remainder is an unencyclopedic essay. Severa (!!!) 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP verfiable sources, vague interpretation of "original research". content is under-nourished, can be developed. Somerset219 04:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Sources are included, just need cleanup and development. -- Imoeng 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it just needs work. - Richardcavell 05:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable concept at the heart of the abortion debate and various legal cases. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs work but the concept seems useful. --MichaelMaggs 08:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as legal rights go, this would have to be country specific, and Wikipedia does not only serve the USA. As far as ethical rights go, I agree about it being an unencyclopaedic essay. Byrgenwulf 09:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move part, delete rest - first part of the article could be a stub for something along the lines of Laws asserting fetal rights in the US. Second part is POV. SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fetal protection would be a better location, I think, being a pre-existing stub article. -Severa (!!!) 17:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article on this topic (with, of course, the spelling corrected) would undoubtedly be useful. However, it would need to be a) far, far less biased towards the USA; b) more general — discussing the concept and its remifications rather than the current, almost list-like format we see now. The article needs improvement — a lot of improvement (gosh, isn't it easy to say that sitting here with no intention of actually editing it yourself) — but not deletion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the spelling is American English, and now I have looked at the Fetus article is actually the spelling preferred by the English-speaking medical community regardless of dialect. Jll 17:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most articles I've read preserve the Latinate spelling over the pseudo-Greek "foetus" for etymological reasons. Refer to Talk:American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Fetus.2FFoetus. -Severa (!!!) 17:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree that Wikipedia needs an article on Fetal Rights, but not this one. It is so POV in its perspective that a big "cleanup" tag is not enough - it would be easier start again. Jll 16:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I agree that the article could and should be improved, the subject should be covered at Wikipedia. We need one or more experts in the subject (I am not one) to work on this. Tagging as needing expert input would be preferable to delete. Gwernol 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is little more than a series of forks from various other controversies. WP needs a Rights of the fetus article, but this is not the kernel of it. It is missing the most fundamental piece: there is no coverage of how the laws of various countries treat whether a fetus is a person, just a few examples without discussion of whether these examples are the norm or the outliers. Best as I can discern from a quick snoop over the internet, which is always caveat lector: in some jurisdictions, a fetus is treated as a person for inheritance if its dad dies, it shares with the already born children; it's not a person for driving in a high-occupancy vehicle lane; it's a person if the mother is killed; it's not a person if the mother aborts it if abortion is legal; it's not counted in a census and is therefore not "represented" in the Anglo-American governmental sense; it is a person for tax purposes (so it pays the same death duties as the living siblings if dad dies leaving an estate); etc....This is the stuff we need in this sort of an article. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The article is sourced, some of the article is underdeveloped and it would be good to add in sections concerning fetal rights in law in other countries besides the US, also Wikipedia doesn't have another page on fetal rights and the article on fetal protection only deals with one aspect of fetal rightsJfraatz 21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ or merge. Evidently, I did not give sufficient explanation in my original post. The fact of the matter is that there were no clear, accessible sources listed in the article before User:Goldom amended a formatting error. The numbered citations were deadlinks and the "External links" section was assumed to be just that — an external links section — not a "Reference" or "Source" list. Users above have expressed NPOV concerns despite Jfraatz's insistence that all such issues have been resolved. WP:NPOV is a founding tenant of Wikipedia, and an especially important rule among controversial, hot-button articles, so it is unacceptable to let non-neutral, emotively-charged terms like "unborn child" or "fetal person" slide "for the sake of the argument" as Jfraatz has suggested. It is my belief that the current version of Fetal rights is too brief to warrant a seperate article; it should be merged to fetal protection, abortion debate, or person. -Severa (!!!) 23:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've decided to help build this article, so, I'm changing my vote to merge to Fetal protection. -Severa (!!!) 05:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. *drew 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But keep it NPOV by avoiding reference to "fetal persons." Doesn't belong in the abortion article. Right wing politicians and some religious persons want to give fetuses increasing rights, so it is an important national issue.Edison 04:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Hyphen5 06:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, alas. Per all the above. Metamagician3000 11:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Rewrite This article is horribly POV, instead of exploring the topic and debate its instead making a point for fetal rights. It mentions one easily dismissable objection and then does away with that objection and continues to push for fetal rights. Even the listing of laws are all things that support fetal rights, and nothing opposing the notion. Either a big POV tag needs to be slapped on this article and it needs to be rewritten or its needs a fresh start. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:00, 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 speedy delete as an attack page. Although, strictly speaking, the article does not constitute solely an attack, I am exercising a little discretion in light of the unanimous delete opinions below. The article starts by grossly insulting several groups of people and then descends into an scatological essay written in the first-person about a "unique and somewhat unprecedented philosophy". The attacks combined with the explicit admisssion that what isn't an attack is original research make this something that simply isn't an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 10:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbilism[edit]

Original research Fg2 04:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has WP:BOLLOCKS been made official policy yet? This is a textbook case. --Joelmills 04:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV The most NPOV thing is the use of "I" word there. -- Imoeng 04:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1 --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and stop abusing that criterion. Uncle G 10:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criteria. Crystallina 05:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this sort of thing is speediable under current policies (though I wish it were). - Richardcavell 05:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete bollocks. Sadly, it's not patent nonsense, but it's a thin line. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no-brainer.SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as basically OR and because it's impossible to pin down what is a comedy song. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of comedy songs[edit]

For one thing, this is a pretty subjective list and possibly OR. For another, there's not a page on comedy songs, and it's generally considered bad form to have a "list of..." page when there's no subject page to reference. Third, even if this isn't considered subjective or OR, a category would work just as well here, if not better. I'll admit this isn't one of my more certain nominations, but it really doesn't seem to fit WP. So consider this a weak delete vote. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are articles on parody (which most of these songs are) and on comedy. I wouldn't say it's subjective, I can look at songs here and find them unfunny, but they were meant to be funny and just sucked. I wouldn't be against replacing it with a category. --TheTruthiness 06:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How does one define a comedy song? Does it differ from a parody? How about a novelty song? Whereas those two terms are fairly well-defined, a "comedy song" is not really an established term. If it is a catch-all for anything that is supposed to be humourous, then the natural question is, how much of it is supposed to be humourous? What about normal songs that with obvious puns and jokes included? As there's no generally accepted definition for "comedy song," this list cannot be NPOV. GassyGuy 07:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should've thought of novelty songs; that might be a good destination for merge and redirect? Or are some of these entries distinctly "comedy" but not novelty? -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't merge them all in, in my opinion. Some of them wouldn't be novelty songs as far as I can tell (I Wanna Talk About Me, the very presence of which shows the unclear criteria, isn't really a novelty song, and neither is "The Bad Touch," to name two. If somebody felt like sorting through them all there might be a few, but there're already a lot of examples at the article to which you linked. GassyGuy 04:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand. Major work needed. Avala 12:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective --Astrokey44 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list would eventually be enormous and have to be split into chunks too small to be much use. Say 1% of all the songs performed by notable groups? How many is that - ten thousand, a hundred thousand? It's also a bit subjective - e.g. is a song with one funny line a comic song? Jll 15:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, I could add all hymns because I find a measure of humor of people singing the praises of a (probably) non-existent deity, then leaving church and acting entirely contrary to the words and spirit of what they just sang: just the picture of a bunch of hawk congressmen/generals/etc. choking on Xmas carols about "Peace on Earth" and such is a comedy, equal in my POV to Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the article does have some obviousky structurial flaws it is a good start and maybe with a few introductory paragrapgs could greatly improve.Dhawk1964 03:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Next time, make it an article on "comedy songs" including a section on "song parodies" as well as "comedy dialect songs" such as "I Yust Go Nuts at Christmas." These date back to the very first records by Edison. As a raw list it is not compelling. It does not even give the year, and how many are from the 1950's or earlier? Most of the songs are unfamiliar and the titles themselves are not generally funny. Come up with the top selling comedy songs, what made them funny, changing standards on aceptable stereotyping ("The Preacher and the Bear" for instance).Edison 05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GassyGuy. --Hyphen5 06:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a Category:Comedy songs, and I've added a few of these to it. Categories are a much better structure for this sort of thing. This list seems very subjective. With categories the actual editors of articles get to decide and non-notable entries get weeded out in the normal way. -MrFizyx 02:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do we determine if some thing is comedy or novelty? I just found Category:Novelty songs, which some seem to feel is a distinct genre. -MrFizyx 02:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 11:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetMalaysia[edit]

non-notable, spam, advertisement, vanity. Choose your favorite reason. __earth ^(Talk) 04:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom __earth ^(Talk) 04:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since AfD is not a vote, I'm at a loss as to why you felt it necessary to add this. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote? __earth ^(Talk) 12:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete altho actually I was "prod'ing" it when you created the AfD--Diogenes00 05:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

beat ya to it =p __earth ^(Talk) 05:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MichaelMaggs 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Blatant spam. SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy it all the way to planet Malaysia. –127.0.0.1 (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm boogrrs[edit]

Notability in question. ghits: [18]. Alexa rank 5,872,017 — NM Chico24 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:WEB. Yank sox 05:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. BigHaz 06:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eww, delete per nom. Non-notable webcomic. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 08:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, patently non-notable, fails WP:WEB, is in essence WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gogo Dodo 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, does not meet our content policies (unverifiable through reliable sources). -- Dragonfiend 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Copied over to Comixpedia at MMM BooGrrs. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:21, 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 speedy close; inappropriate to nominate an article for deletion because it's been merged. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 12 2006 incident[edit]

POV fork which has already been merged Tewfik^Talk 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incomplete nomination, I am completing nomination now. I will also remove the prod & prod2a tags from the page as an AFD nomination trumps a prod (per WP:PROD). Prod concern was "Article content is already in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict page". My prod 2a concern was "Title also represents a POV fork problem. This whole situation is too recent and should be confined to a minimal number of comprehensive articles until some persepctive is possible." The title issue has been fixed by moving, but if this page goes the redirect at Ayta al-Sha`b incident needs to be attended to and the half dozen pages that point at it (including a template) also need attending to. GRBerry 05:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prod and my prod2a rationale provided above. GRBerry 05:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since it was merged, it can't be deleted. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural redirect. The final step of a merge is a redirect, not deletion. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Access Information Technology[edit]

no other notability other than being recognised by Indian Govt. and Reserve Bank of India. Every It company in India has to be registered and approved. Also no notable products. Ageo020 06:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked it and listed it on WP:CP since the article was almost a carbon copy of the only linked website. Besides that, there's no claim of notability and no references beyond their website (and the term "Access Information Technology" gets around 19000 hits for me on google, and only the wikipedia entry is about this company), so it should probably get deleted in any case. - Bobet 15:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Access Information Technology is too general of a term to apply a google test. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:03, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Soft Infosystems[edit]

Very small company.non notable really. Revenue is around $3.2 million. It does have 500 employees which is not verified. Article looks likeit has been copied from the company website. Ageo020 06:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to have done anything unique, or invented anything. Also weak search engine hits. (364 from google, 591 from Yahoo!, 642 from MSN, and 494 from Ask.com Note, all the searches were made in English only, and phase mode). Frankly important companies are capable of much higher hits and search engine gaming.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:25, 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 delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bigel Entertainment[edit]

A little known production company which has very little history (founded in 2004). The article lists movies prior to that which are acually produced by Bigel/Mailer Films. Note that each of these almost unquestionnably falls in the B-movie class and none of them have any independent notability. Furthermore, the article was created by Jordanbigel (talk · contribs) which raises suspicion of vanity. As a company I think it's safe to say it fails WP:CORP and the google test returns 306 hits, although only 93 unique hits which is not a whole lot for a Hollywood based production company. Pascal.Tesson 06:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? The production company is new but in the film industry the banner you work under is less important then the credits you have to your name. In this case Daniel has produced 10 full length feature films and has just become a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (a fact which I do intend to add to the article). The fact that I am related to Daniel should in no way bear on the decision to remove the article.

If the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia rests on some evaluation of the quality of the films then I would refer to Daniel's most recent release, the Kevin Bacon film Loverboy which is also Mr. Bacon's directorial debut. This film as well as several other films produced by Daniel Bigel already have entries in Wikipedia. For example Harvard Man, Empire and Black and White (1999 film) are all included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanbigel (talk • contribs)

Comment The requirements are not really on the quality of the films although that would not hurt. Of course a production company with a long history of films would be notable enough but in the case such as this one where the company is very young (even including the Bigel/Mailer era) then the quality, impact and success of the movies is important. Loverboy has gotten mostly bad reviews [19] and has been a commercial flop. The same can be said of Empire [20] and Harvard man [21] (which went essentially straight to DVD).

As for the fact that you are related to Daniel Bigel, it in fact does matter. Please refer to WP:VAIN for a detailed explanation. Pascal.Tesson 07:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity. They only have four employees. Definitely not notable. ~~If this can be verified with reliable sources, I'll change my mind.~~ --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you might as well change your vote right now. The company undeniably exists and even IMDb should have it somewhere (or maybe only Bigel/Mailer). The google search I posted in the nomination will give you decent sources. Pascal.Tesson 07:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removed that part - I seem to be blind this evening. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. Admitted WP:VAIN, and article therefore looks to be Original Research. Tychocat 10:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Daniel Bigel has not just become a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as stated above. He is not on the list of persons invited to membership in 2004 [22], 2005 [23], or 2006 [24]. --Metropolitan90 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is obviously notable as a merger of two other significant companies, their combined catalogue includes movies we have on Wikipedia. Its almost as if you disavow AOL/Time Warner after the merger, before their first earnings quarter, as a company that hasnt made anything. Or if George Lucas left his current company to make another and it was AfD'd for not having any movies made yet. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A smattering of news items on variety.com which sound part crystal ball, part trade wire pickups. 3 films annually with budgets of $10-25m doesn't instill confidence either. Maybe once they get a big splash. I have no idea where zer0faults comes from, it seems like Bigel went off on his own with the company. As for the George Lucas comparison, T&E:FEQ. ~ trialsanderrors 22:27, 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 speedy deleted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of signature phrases[edit]

This article was deleted before as part of an AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of catch phrases. It was re-created, and I tagged it with {{db-repost}}, which was removed, so now it's here. This is a potentially limitless and unmaintainable list, with no criteria for inclusion (anything could be construed as a "signature" phrase). Some of these are obvious, yes, but the list is completely unsourced. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as recreation of previously-deleted material, new name or old. -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above and my original nom. Yomangani 10:37, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Gunderson[edit]

non-notable conspiracy theorist, fails WP:V —Hanuman Das 16:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. —Hanuman Das 16:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. NawlinWiki 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yank sox 06:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 09:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found some of the WP:V sources. Just have a look through the 12,000 google hits on "Ted Gunderson" conspiracy theorist. If you would like me to pick out the individual sources for you, leave a message on my talk page.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FPSBANANA[edit]

I can only see a lot of biased (POV) unencyclopedic blabla.--Jestix 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also, it includes a list of members which is unencyclopedic. Kalani ^[talk] 07:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete complete nonsense Selmo 07:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frag (delete), ad for non-notable web forum. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
taking shrapnel upon Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 09:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Headshot (delete) this article as soon as possible. Dark Shikari 11:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed there are several "aliases" as simple redirects for this page also ... I will just add them to this afd discussion if thats okay. --Jestix 11:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with redirects, as per nom. SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and kind of like an advertisement. --Tu s pm^{(C | @)} 15:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the largest customization resources for FPS; Half-life based games especially.

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Transit Commission subway map[edit]

I don't think a ASCII of the TTC Subway map is really needed Selmo 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't an article. It is different representation (textual) of another site's info. And how could this article be more current than going to that site to get the PDF? If there is a need for this representation, perhaps the TTC people ought to be notified? Shenme 07:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you want a map, make a real one and upload it as an image that can be used as part of articles. This isn't the way to do this. Grutness...wha? 07:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an article in its own right --MichaelMaggs 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially no content. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron 22:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the map itself it very well done, there is no need for it to be on Wikipedia. The main TTC articles already include many coloured maps of the subway network and its future expansion. Snickerdo 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless it is demonstrated that there is something encyclopedic about this particular subway map. Jkelly 02:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's some pressing need to have a TTC subway map on Wikipedia, do up a real one and upload it as an image that can be put into the TTC's article. I can't believe somebody actually thought this would be useful enough to warrant putting work into it. Delete. Bearcat 07:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless Wiki starts to embed character-made maps. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! The ASCII version was a help to me. If you want to get rid of it, post an image of it. Until then, leave a version on this website. I don't have PDF viewer either, so it really came in handy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlanetBoredom (talk • contribs) July 31.

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

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

The result was merge to Meg Cabot. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Cabot Book Club[edit]

Alexa rank of 826,000. It does not appear to meet the criteria set in WP:WEB. Hbdragon88 07:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the intro and "Features" sections into Meg Cabot, Delete the rest per nom. -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Meg Cabot per above. Pages that are merged can't be deleted (in order to remain GFDL compliant). - Bobet 15:25, 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 speedy A1. Roy A.A. 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar the Last Airbender:Conqueror from the other world[edit]

Patent unverified nonsense Mystyc1 07:47, 29 July 2006
AFD nomination was not complete; fixed afd2 segment. -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no sense whatsoever.--MichaelMaggs 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this a movie or a cartoon. certainly i;s not there in the cartoon series. can't find an article for this imdb --Ageo020 09:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable original research and possible hoax. I will also note that the original author of this aritlce does not have any other edits outside of this article. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A1. Yeah, it's probably about a movie, but it doesn't explicitly say what it is... hence, no context for expansion. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walden West[edit]

There has been a notability warning on this page for some time now, but in spite of that no-one has managed to find a single independent source, nor even simply to allege notability. Plenty of time has elapsed for the page to be fixed up, and it should now go. MichaelMaggs 08:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI found some links on google: [25] [26] [27] [28] 400,000 students in over 50 years is a lot. If we're going to keep high schools, I think this is probably worthy, too.--Chaser T 08:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with User:Chaser, I think this may be notable enough —Mets501 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability verified. --Royalbroil 04:02, 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 keep. Hordes of single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Loy[edit]

Non-notable and reads as a vanity entry Stevenscollege 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Weak Keep The page does read like blog-promotion. But the fact that major old-media outlets (NYT etc) turned to a personal blog as a source in a time of major national crisis is kind of significant to the history of media -- just because it was probably one of the first times that had happened. However, merging the info into a section on "Media coverage" (which I'm surprised to see doesn't exist yet) on the Hurricane Katrina page would be fine--or maybe put it in the blog article. Minus the puff-quotes of course. Dybryd 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems Mr. Loy is also featured in Spike Lee's new movie about Hurricane Katrina.[29] -- 137.53.94.17 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion As the subject of the article, I'm not qualified to express an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. However, I just want to say that it is NOT a "vanity page," if I understand the definition of that term correctly. I did not create the article, and I have no idea who did. Nor have I participated in the revert wars that have happened in recent months; I've watched them with some amusement, but have remained on the sidelines. Anyway, if the Wikipedia community thinks it's not sufficiently notable to be included, that's fine, but I would appreciate it if people wouldn't imply that I created an article about myself when in fact I did nothing of the sort. -- Brendan Loy, Aug. 18, 2006, 11:14 PM EDT
Keep Seems newsworthy to me. -- Anon, Aug. 18, 2006, 11:57 PM EDT
- IP's only contribution is this AfD -- Scientizzle 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems from the coverage that this blog was never used as a source for any news; just in the scores of articles about Katrina a couple noted his coverage of it. And nothing of any note has happened since then, nor does his blog have enough readers to meet the standards of notability. Not to mention that he has now made an entry on his blog about how his entry is up for deletion--insisting that it is not "meatpuppetry," naturally, but simply informing his readers (who are, as far as I can tell, his parents and a few college friends) of the "interesting" fact that it's up for a vote. Nautikale 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only contribution have been to this AfD -- Scientizzle 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Solid case for notability provided with verifiable & reliable sources. Alexa gives a current rank of 227,116 (3 mo. average), but also shows a recent spike (last week) to ~51,000 and a peak of ~25,000 during the Katrina days. -- Scientizzle 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am also surprised a "Media Coverage" section on Hurricane Katrina does not exist yet. While I do not find this article to be a vanity post, the information contained in this article would be much more relevant as part of the Hurricane Katrina page. Ravenkatie 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only contribution has been this AfD -- Scientizzle 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be the most I would agree with. The only arguable notability of the blog was a few puff pieces related to Katrina a year ago. The only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage, and it was not enough attention that an account of Katrina would mention Brendan Loy other than perhaps as a minor footnote. Wikipedia should reflect that. I still think he's not worth a mention at all, but if he merits any Wikipedia mention it should be as a minor footnote to Hurricane Katrina, not an entry of his own. Nautikale 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, look. I again reiterate that I am expressing no opinion about whether the article is notable. That's a decision for y'all, not me, to make. But I'm not going to let blatant untruths and character assassination go unchallenged. First of all, the implication that I'm engaging in meatpuppetry, despite my repeated, straightforward, honest statements to the contrary, is a flagrant violation of "assume good faith." Secondly, the assertion that my readers are my "parents and a few college friends" is laughably false. Really, I'm flattered by the assertion that I have thousands of "college friends," but it's just not true; I wasn't that popular in college! :) Before Katrina, my blog averaged around 1,250 unique hits per day; during and in the immedate aftermath of Katrina, that shot up to 7,500+ per day, and as many as 20,000-33,000 on some days; and since November of last year, after Katrina, it's hovered around 2,000 per day (see for yourself here), with occasional higher bursts (last week, for example, I received a ton of traffic because of widespread blogospheric discusison of my commentary on the Lieberman-Lamont election (and, to a lesser extent, the London terror plot). That leads to my final point: "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage" is simply, flatly, verifiably untrue. See, for example, this list of 69 links from InstaPundit since February 2003 -- only about 20 of them related to Katrina. Other topics covered on my blog that have received significant attention from multiple prominent bloggers: my coverage of the Bush-Lieberman "kiss" (try googling "bush lieberman kiss," without quotes, and see what comes up); my commentary on John Kerry's deficiencies during the 2004 election; my coverage of the South Park controversy back in March (check the Wikipedia entry and the link to "Internet clip" in paragraph 4 of "Real-life censorship controversy"); the Lieberman-Lamont election and the London plot, as I mentioned (see for example Technorati); and there's plenty more. Technorati notes I have recevied 737 links from 310 blogs, by the way. Also getting plenty of attention: my coverage of USC and Notre Dame football generally, and specifically my videos of the USC-Notre Dame game last fall, taken from the ND student section, which have gotten repeatedly linked by fan sites for both teams. Oh, and if you want non-blogospheric sources of "attention" ... I was on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal and mentioned on Fox News nearly two years before Katrina because of a Lord of the Rings-related story. And, two months before Katrina, I was in the South Bend Tribune just for my blog generally, not for any specific topic. Now, AGAIN: I am not asserting that this level of "attention" makes me "notable" -- that's for you all to decide, not me. I'm simply refuting the false statement that "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage." My intention here is to correct the factual record, and nothing more. Whatever you decide, I simply hope you'll base your decision on verifiable facts, not unverified and untrue assertions. I also hope you'll assume good faith and not attack me for leaving this comment here. The mere fact that I don't appreciate being the subject of factual untruths and character assassination doesn't make the article a "vanity entry." (And, if I were into sockpuppetry, wouldn't I leave this comment under someone else's name?) -- Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 3:48 PM EDT
    - Ok, wow. Please make sure you understand the terms you are using before reacting so vehemently to a discussion. I reiterate that I just don't think this person or blog meets any of the guidelines of notability, either people or websites. Instapundit is a good comparison: that's a website that has attained enough of a readership and notoriety on its own to merit an entry. Having been linked from it does not make a blog of the same stature. Nautikale 20:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - My "character assassination" reference was to your unsupported, false, assuming-bad-faith allegation (at 05:17 today) that I was engaging in meatpuppetry. If you'll withdraw the allegation, I'll withdraw my use of the term "character assassination." As for your reiterating that you "just don't think" the subject of the article is notable, that's fine, and for the umpteenth time I am not expressing an opinion about that conclusion -- I'm just saying that you need to stick to facts and not state things which are blatantly and demonstrably false, like that my blog's readership is limited to friends and family, or that "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage." Those are both factually incorrect assertions, as I've demonstrated above, and if you're not going to either acknowledge their falsity and retract them, or else attempt to refute or somehow explain away the factual citations above which discredit your unsupported statements to the contrary, I don't see why anyone should take your contribution to this discussion seriously. My response is "vehement" only because you are assuming bad faith and making false assertions of fact about me, neither of which have any place in Wikipedia. --Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 6:00 PM EDT
      - P.S. For informational purposes only: you may find this page helpful in assessing the extent of the Katrina-related media coverage about my site. Please note, the page does not include non-Katrina-related articles. --Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 6:07 PM
Comment I have expanded and cleanly referenced the article. I think it stands up to WP:BIO & WP:WEB pretty well.
- WP:BIO: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Check.
- WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" Check. -- Scientizzle 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Check.
- WP:WEB: "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." Check. -- Scientizzle 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pure vanity page as evidenced by the fact that the subject has updated it himself and constantly posts here vigorously defending his honor against 'character assassination'. Writing a blog is decidedly unnoteworthy no matter how much it is temporarily popular. 24.63.250.152 10:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IP's only contributions are to this AfD and a personal attack on Talk:Brendan Loy -- Scientizzle 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Loy's constant presence in this discussion is rather indicative of his personal investment in this vanity page staying up. Regardless of whether the subject wrote the entry himself or not, whoever the author is has an obvious non-journalistic interest in Loy. 82.69.72.36 18:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Jaffa[reply]
- IP's only contribution is this AfD -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My presence in this discussion is indicative of no such thing, as I've repeatedly made explicitly clear. My only "investment" is in correcting the factual record and preventing untruths from being passed off as truths. Do what you want with the damn article, but if you say things that are demonstrably false, I am going to correct them. If that's wrong, then I don't want to be right. Your assumption of bad faith on my part is indicative that you don't seem to have any respect for Wikipedia's most basic principles. The same goes for everyone who insists on ignoring the verifiable facts I've presented and focusing only on the ulterior motives that you ascribe to me, notwithstanding that my actions are perfectly reasonable and justifiable without any ulterior motive (and thus assuming good faith is dictated). (Brendan Loy) 67.133.222.170 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While Loy may deny his personal investment in keeping this page up through words, his incessant replies to almost every entry seem to indicate otherwise. His rebuttal to "blatant untruths and character assassination" reads as a veiled attempt at advertising and making the case to keep. This page has been nothing but a pissing match between Loy's supporters and his detractors. To merge as part of a wider look at blogs or Hurricane Katrina would be acceptable. It is not worthy on its own.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.65.55 (talk • contribs) .
- IP's only contribution is this AfD -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Scientizzle. Dionyseus 05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A review of the subject page, coupled with comments by both Loy and his college friends ( I believe user Scientizzle is a close personal friend) reveals that the blog is, in fact not designed to inform per Wikipedia's standards, and, in fact, is being used by Loy and his friends to publicize his blog. In addition, it is worth noting that the entry has been subject to frequent edit wars, which indicate that it is being used as a forum for his friends and detractors to air personal grievances. The entry provides little to no value as a scholarly enterprise —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.117.18 (talk • contribs) .
- The article being subject to frequent edit wars is not a valid argument for deletion, otherwise George W. Bush or anything else here should be deleted... -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am friends with Brendan. That does not change the fact that almost none of the anonymous IPs (and new accounts) that have commented here have presented a valid, detailed argument against keeping (by addressing the relevant policies and guidelines). You may not think the subject is notable, but Wikipedia has two established notability guidelines (WP:BIO & WP:WEB); I have detailed above 4 criteria from these two guidelines that the article appears to meet. I believe I've objectively come to my "keep" vote and properly supported my conclusion. Additionally, while Brendan Loy has been (in my opinion) overly zealous in defending his honor here, there have been several specious and demonstrably false claims made in support of deletion. I honestly wonder where all these anon IPs and new accounts with no Wikipedia edit history are coming from. Please stick to the facts, make sounds arguments, and avoid personal attacks. -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I appreciate your contributions to the discussion and your evident hard work on the entry, although I still disagree with your conclusions. But I disagree with any characterization of the previous discussions, including my own, as "demonstrably false claims" or personal attacks. You will notice that I qualified the statements I made with things like "as far as I can tell" and "seems like." This is because I am not friends with Brendan Loy and know only what I read online. For example, I said it seems like the only attention his blog got from outside sources was connected to Katrina--and I stand by that, qualified by the "seems." It's great that Mr. Loy can give an exhaustive account of every time his blog has been linked by another blog, and I wish him the best in expanding his readership, but the average user on Wikipedia who does not read his blog regularly would not know or care about a two-day spike in traffic to his website last month. Nor would they particularly care that a fake South Park video clip linked to by another Wikipedia entry happens to be hosted on his blog in one of the two places it is linked to on the page. The only larger significance that the blog seems to have achieved was in relation to Katrina. This is not a claim that nobody has ever linked to the blog in relation to another topic, or that I'm committing character assassination on Mr. Loy by failing to recognize his achievements in other areas. I just don't think, as a casual reader and relatively new acquaintance of the blog, that it has significance of the type generally required by Wikipedia. I have referred to Wikipedia's guidelines previously, but to repeat: Brendan Loy does not meet the guidelines of Notability (people)(WP:BIO). He has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field. He is not a published author with multiple independent reviews of or awards for his work. He has not achieved renown or notoriety for his involvement in in newsworthy events. At best, he has achieved minor note for assembling information on Hurricane Katrina, so at most I think it it would be accurate, if generous, to mention his blog as related to media coverage of the hurricane. He has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Brendan Loy does not meet the guidelines of Notability (web)(WP:WEB). I do not consider the handful of what I would call puff pieces on Brendan Loy multiple non-trivial published works. No disrespect meant, but I do not believe articles headlined "Weather nerd" are non-trivial pieces. His website has not won a well-known and independent award, nor is it published by any site independent of Mr. Loy himself. Nautikale 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything here that's worthy of an ecyclopedia article. Sounds more like some guy with a blog looking to do some self-advertising.-66.254.235.231 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Self-stroking glamour post, just like his blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.101.208 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 August 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 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reflexive user interface[edit]

A Google test reveals that the term "Reflexive user interface" is almost universally used to refer to IBM Reflexive User Interface Builder (which generates the majority of the 805 Google hits). Overall, the article lacks clarity and context, does not cite sources (with the exception of a link to the aforementioned builder, which does not use the term itself), and resembles original research. - Sikon 09:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete does admit to the use of IBM Reflexive User Interface Builder, and has one other source, but it looks to me like it is re-covering material from other articles rather than referring to its topic. It obviously needs some work, but hasn't been touched since 2005. I could be persuaded to a Keep if anybody rallies to its cause. Yomangani 14:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Strong Keep, in which I rally to the cause. This is a very common term in IT circles (and edu circles, to a lesser extent). By the way, would anybody like to guess what I stuck up my butt today? 71.101.225.225 15:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The description doesn't make sense. It's possible that there's an article there, but this isn't it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 11:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Technolabs[edit]

Advertisment for non-notable company. Created by editor with the same username as the company name. Lurker ^{your words}/_{my deeds} 09:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an advertisement purpose. I am a customer of it. And i feel that it is worth notable & emerging company in india. So, i have started this article.

Don't delete -It should not be that creating article has anything related to name. It is good to notify about such company with user name like it. So it is not a promotion. Not any advertisement. It is injustice that anybody won't able to post article about site which one author doesn't know about.

Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. And per the pleas of the advertiser to leave his ad up on Wikipedia ;) Dark Shikari 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; does not assert notability —Mets501 (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an opinion piece which is not encylopedic. Nothing in the article asserts to meeting any of the guidelines listed above. Vegaswikian 22:34, 1 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 11:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Stollar[edit]

Yet another election candidation/local councillor Timrollpickering 10:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn, reads like vanity. Martín (saying/doing) 10:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jll 11:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self publicist. Linesman 16:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Strike 1.6 Guide[edit]

Delete per guidelines: Wikipedia is not the place for tutorials, manuals and how-tos Lurker ^talk 10:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Tonywalton | Talk 10:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jll 11:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Park3r 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wish the contributing editors nothing but the best, and thank them for their efforts, but that's not the sort of content we're looking for. Luna Santin 13:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per clause 8 of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 15:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The clearest case of game guide I've ever seen. Ace of Sevens 15:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gogo Dodo 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not GameFAQs. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ace of Sevens. It even has the word "guide" in its title. ;) RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that covers it. Tell the guy to move it to Wikibooks or something if he gets angry.--Planetary 08:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woah, a game guide AFD for an article that's actually a game guide! -- gakon5 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Stellmach 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow. Universal deletion! If only things were that simple elswhere.--Planetary 19:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Combination 14:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even pretend to be an encyclopedia article. AMHR285^(talk) 06:33, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Bennett[edit]

Non notable person. Lots of people are in talent shows Pally01 10:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most relevant thing I could find (and it's Google's first hit, too). I think that page makes a clear case for Ms Bennett being insufficiently notable at this stage (see also WP:MUSIC). However, I wish her luck in her career; perhaps one day she will prove to be the Britney Spears of the West Midlands area. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and wish her the best of luck for the future per ~~nom~~ fuddlemark. Tonywalton | Talk 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be recreated if she is notable in the future. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:31, 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 speedy close. I wish all who want to argue about the matter good luck in their proposed merge; but that's not what AfD is for. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dormston Centre[edit]

This is already dealt with at Dormston School. Maybe merge? Pally01 10:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge Jll 10:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, small mention which is already at Dormston School is plenty —Mets501 (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tekken 7[edit]

Was prodded as crystal balling (since nothing has been officially announced, and even Tekken 6 isn't completed yet), was deprodded without addressing the issues raised in the prod, and has since only had the assertion that "a friend of a friend of a friend knows this is going to be made" added since. While I'm sure there will eventually be a Tekken 7, this article does not belong on Wikipedia just yet, especially in its current form which reads entirely as a hoax (claiming it to be a dancing game in development by Nintendo for the Atari 2900, due out "tomorrow"). Even if made into a serious article there is nothing at all that can be verified about the game yet. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That article treads on the boundary of "nonsense" with its "friend of a friend" statement and the like. Dark Shikari 11:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 'friend of a friend...' statement about sources says it all, really. The article can be recreated when there is an official announcement or press release. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. It's worth noting the presence of an image. It's also worth noting that the image in question is Tekken6.jpg. Luna Santin 13:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball. Re create when there's actual info. Ace of Sevens 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal balling and unverifiable. A Google of "Tekken 7" only turns up comments from webforums. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (aeropagitica), because a friend of a friend of mine told me so. :) RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 14:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Combination 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Assuming there will eventually be a Tekken 7, the page can be recreated when it's officially announced. --SevereTireDamage 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LOL "A friend of a friend told me..." -- gakon5 14:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 15:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this clairvoyant scrying into a crystal ball? Or (as the phrase "friend of a friend of a friend told me" leads me to wonder) humorous jocular irony? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsensical crystal-balling. Unverifiable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN. --Kuroki Mio 2006 19:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Stellmach 18:32, 1 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 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia haruyama[edit]

Vanity article on non-notable person by booster of organization she heads. Katr67 11:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verging on speedyable non-notability, unless the author would care to explain what's notable about the friends group at Hoyt Aroretum. Very weak merge to Hoyt Arboretum Tonywalton | Talk 11:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's already on there. Delete and delink the entry on the arboretum article. Tonywalton | Talk 11:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely certain why this couldn't be redirected. If anyone's interested in this person, whose only notability (it seems) stems from the Hoyt Arboretum, then a redirect to the Arboretum article would be more useful than a redlink. I've taken the liberty of setting up the redirects now. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:56, 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. No Guru 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DatingHall[edit]

keep I liked it.S4u
Keep The only one 100% free service online. bakss

Advertisement. Fails WP:WEB Alexa rank 400,000+. All google hits self published promos. BigE1977 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same articles were kept here. bakss

The above comment was left by the article's creator. Srose (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free internet dating service was created by the same author and thus also is included here for debate. BigE1977 11:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged that with {{db-copyvio}} (see article for URL). Luna Santin 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article is also a mess —Mets501 (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also delete the jpg file (screenshot of the website). SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Avala 12:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SPAM. Luna Santin 13:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB. Srose (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spamvert for a non-notable website. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:31, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Jones[edit]

The most notable thing in this person's career appears to be that he has testified before a commission and a committee. Is that enough to satisfy notability? Weregerbil 12:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jones is already mentioned on at least one other Wikipedia page, and the fact that he has testified before Congress on several occasions makes him a notable public figure. If the article needs to be rewritten in order to emphasize this significance, I'll be happy to do so; suggestions would be appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NoDepositNoReturn (talk • contribs)

A major figure in the world of electronic voting with dozens of journal and conference papers to his name, who has influenced the election policies of multiple countries, been quoted in the New York Times and Scientific American, and appeared on NPR, certainly sounds like a notable individual to me. NoDepositNoReturn

Comment Weregerbil, would you like to correct this page so we know why you are nominating the article for deletion? I guess it is for lack of notability but it's a bit strange to have the argument started with no nomination. Yomangani 14:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:NoDepositNoReturn added his comment at the top; now moved down. Weregerbil 16:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jones is well-known within the field of electronic voting. He certainly appears to rise to the level of notability, especially given this subject's importance to the world nowadays. (ObDisclosure: I work with Jones. However, you can certainly verify what I'm saying just by Googling for "Doug Jones" and "electronic voting". Please note that one of the hits comes from Professor Ron Rivest's homepage, which links to Jones and describes him as an expert on electronic voting.) Rob 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Non-notable per WP:BIO. The only test he gets close to in the guideline is: Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field, but I doubt the article qualifies under that as it stands. I suggest adding the references from the NY Times and Scientific American to try and establish notability. Yomangani 22:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You refer to the "guideline" like it is a prescriptive policy. If something doesn't fit under it then you should not even refer to it. Make your own judgement based on the actual 5-6 real Wikipedia policies, like verifiability and neutrality. You did not refer to them at all, as if this is just a notability exercise. Ansell 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment - since non-notability was the reason for the nomination, I think it is reasonable to refer to the guidelines when suggesting improvements to get the article to a 'Keep' status. If you notice, I added 3 references before giving my opinion but, since these were essentially sources from the subject's website, I suggested adding the other references. I could have just as well referred to WP:OR and WP:V but felt this was redundant. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion to keep if the policies are met, but don't want to see this get another AFD in a couple of months for the same reason. Yomangani 11:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The NYT articles were on 28 July 2004, 2 March 2004, 9 November 2003 and 26 September 2003, and are thus only available for purchase now. Same thing for the SciAm article. Should links to purchase them be provided? I'll add a link to the NPR interviews, as they are freely available.
Keep The person is sufficiently well known to have verifiable material written on them. Why go any further with establishing "extra notability" Ansell 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. If testifying before congress makes someone notable we are gonig to end up with thousands of articles of people who just testified in front of congress. Being cited or asked a question in a newspaper does not make the person notable, the articles arent written about them, but about voting. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is well known within the field of computer science, and regarded as one of the leading experts in the field of electronic voting. He also has an extensive peer-reviewed publication record. --Rabbi 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has been verified. --Royalbroil 04:09, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tepa x3[edit]

Does this famous notable gang exist? The article claims a 50-year history, hundreds of members in prison — but apart from a MySpace page[30] and a few incoherent chat posts[31] google doesn't seem to know them. The two books cited as sources aren't on google either. Weregerbil 12:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's a gang, it may be hard to establish notability, but given the research of the nom I smell something hoaxy. Delete. BigHaz 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 502 ghits [32] (starting with such noteworthy sites as Youtube and Myspace!), 0 gnews hits [33]. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Luna Santin 13:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:BIO apply to groups or purported groups? Just curious, more than anything else. BigHaz 13:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a perfect fit, but in this case I'd say it gets the same points across. For some discussions, WP:ORG would be more appropriate. That's my opinion, anyway. Good question. :) Luna Santin 13:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO a gang would have to generate at least a few news articles to be worthy of an article. Has to be something that's known not just in one city of area. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's nonsense. --Big top 04:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable street gang. Do we have wikipedia guidelines on notability for street gangs? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:20, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Smallman[edit]

Yet another election candidation/local councillor. Timrollpickering 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Martín (saying/doing) 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candadate=non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:35, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Fox[edit]

Yet another election candidation/local councillor Timrollpickering 13:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Martín (saying/doing) 14:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candadate=non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

User:Xn4

But we can fairly ask who this deletion is requested by. It seems to be by a political opponent called Martin Tiedemann, a former Labour Party councillor from the London Borough of Croydon.

My suggestion would be to keep the article but to delete the more barbed comments in it, which no doubt were entered by another political opponent. Bridget Fox is still a leading London Liberal Democrat. —The preceding comment was added by Xn4 (talk • contribs) 31 July 2006.

Comments

Firstly, I did not propose this AfD - Timrollpickering did. I just support it.

Secondly, evidence of POV outside Wikipedia is not evidence of POV inside; you'll have noticed from my profile and contributions pages about my extensive work creating, improving and categorising politicians from all parties in three countries. And no, I don't think it is legitimate to 'fairly ask' or make a judgement based on who proposes AFD, unless there is a history of abuse of process, etc, inside WP.

Thirdly, I have frequently proposed and supported deletion about Labour councillor articles too (e.g Melanie Smallman, because I believe that being a councillor alone is not grounds for notability, nor being a run of the mill losing parliamentary candidate. If she had been Leader of the Council, or ALG Lib Dem group leader, I may have supported her retention. Having been a councillor myself for eight years only confirms non-notability for me. Martín (saying/doing) 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this deletion along with several others as part of a process of clearing up articles on candidates. Numerous articles on people who've been election candidates/local councillors from all parties have been nominated for deletion for insufficient notability - you'll note that on the same day I nominated this article I also nominated past candidates/councillors from the Conservatives, Labour and Alliance, and I've also nominated Greens for deletion in the past. Many others have also nominated AFDs on candidate articles - indeed Wikipedia:Candidates and elections emerged precisely because of the deluge of candidate articles. Timrollpickering 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Borough councillors fail WP:BIO. BlueValour 04:01, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Cleverly[edit]

Yet another election candidation/blogger Timrollpickering 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Martín (saying/doing) 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has plenty of hits, but they are of him talking. Not of others talking about him. 38,700 google hits.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candadate=non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am not sure how this works. Mr Cleverly is now running to become the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London - http://www.jamescleverly4london.com/

Strong Keep:

As a candidate for Mayor of London, Cleverly is in the public eye and as such, an article on him will be of interest to a relatively large number of people. If anything, we should be expanding this article, not deleting it.
Cleverly is one of the very few non-white Tory politicians, surely adding to his notability.
Wiki is not paper

Soobrickay 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of anything notable /achieved/. This is one of those cases where the article for the race should be created first. BlueValour 04:07, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Whitbread[edit]

Yet another election candidation/local councillor Timrollpickering 13:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Martín (saying/doing) 13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable candidate. Gogo Dodo 00:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candadate=non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local councillors are not notable. BlueValour 04:17, 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 Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margot James[edit]

Yet another election candidation/local councillor/internal party office holder. Timrollpickering 13:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I am normally inclined to delete these, but James has a relatively high profile as a vice-chairman of the party and symbol of the new breed of A-lister Tory the leader is hoping for. Martín (saying/doing) 13:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High profile candidate, and likely to get a shot at a safe seat next time round. Catchpole 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Local councillors are notable. With the recent "A-list" discussion we will have to reinstate the page soon enough if we delete it now. – Kaihsu 08:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - local councillors are most definitely not notable. The guidelines are, national, state, provincial etc but not municipal. BlueValour 04:14, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Father Physics[edit]

Uncommon neologism [34]. See talk page for rationale given for removing prod. Note that many of the Google hits do not refer to this concept (Liberatore, 2006). 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:OR, cites the same source from a forum on both the article and the talk page (see WP:RS) and the rest is the editor's opinion. Yomangani 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reason above. --Cassavau 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I'm a little ambivalent. This is a weird usage. Didn't expect to find much on Goggle, and didn't find a lot; but when you google "father physics" you find there is indeed some usage (note the quotation marks). So on the WP:OR test. It does not introduces a theory or method of solution; It does not introduce original ideas (they can be found elsewhere); It does not define new terms (although it does define one I'd never heard before); It is not a new definition of pre-existing terms; It does not introduce an argument that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It does not introduce an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It attributes the neologism to a "reputable" source. Granted it is front end material; there is always danger that putting front end material into WIkipedia will give it momentum; but if we worry too much about that we'll put nothing in Wikipedia at all. I judge it passes WP:OR; and since I frequently come to Wikipedia to understand emerging pop culture, there is value to it. Williamborg (Bill) 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case the article is introducing a new idea (clearly covered by WP:NEO#Articles_on_neologisms) so must be supported by reputable primary or secondary sources. The source is not reputable under WP:RS since it is a web forum, and even if it was, it is a source for the usage of the term, not the accompanying opinion. Yomangani 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or... Merge. There are other Google hits for "Father Physics", even once you eliminate "father's physics lab/class/student/text/book", etc. And certainly more hits than for "Father Science" (though there was a "Father Science and Mother Art" :). There's even a soliloquy addressing the figure of Father Physics. But ... I just don't think it has near enough currency to have its own article. Moreover, nearly all the usages I found explicitly or implicitly link "Father Physics" with its mirror, "Mother Nature". I have to think that until there are enough usage/example references, apart from mere dicdef's, that this can be nothing more than a footnote to the Mother Nature article. I'd say add a mention there and redirect. Shenme 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being on a fourm doesn't make it notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:39, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravityball[edit]

This article appears to be a vanity page created by Max Magoonian or by someone on his behalf.

The only such person I could find in Google is a fraternity member at Michigan State University. There is precious little about any pitch called a Gravityball on Google, and what there is is recent and links to this article.

--Cassavau 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a big thud. NawlinWiki 16:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Magoonian gets only 4 Google hits and the pitch is likely a slang term. I searched the SABR archives (I am a member) to make sure I wasn't missing something, and no results turned up there either. SliceNYC 16:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteball. Unverifiable vanity. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per likely WP:HOAX. - RPIRED 22:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmm, I don't know which to pick; WP:HOAX, WP:NEO, WP:VAIN, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yeah, probably in that order. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:52, 2 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 keep, but tag for cleanup. alphaChimp ^laudare 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Tech (philosophy)[edit]

neo tech is a scam sent through the mail and this article promotes it this article should be deleted fully and forever never to plauge wikipedia again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grogyboy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 July 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was a previous AfD of this article, under a previous title, at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Neo-Tech. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and Keep Neo tech is certainly acceptable as a notable internet meme, there are quite a few adherents, websites, etc etc, which mention Neo-tech. It is appropiate for this reason, however, to keep a third party point of view regarding Neo-Tech and I suggest a strong clean-up. I can't vouch for Neo Tech being a mail order scam or not, but it is a succesful mail order scam if so, and historically relevant in that case, i.e. one of the first 'internet' marketed ideologies. Sometimes I can't tell if it's tongue in cheek or not, as some of their arguments lead to the quite rational and reasonable to the quite bizarre, but this is a personal assesment and my vote is not dependent upon mine or any personal view of what Neo Tech is.User:Tumbleman
Keep and Cleanup per above. Also here are the search engine hits that show that this is used. (search terms were, "Neo-Tech" philosophy) google = 15,500, yahoo = 4,500, MSN = 4,702 and ask.com = 2,900.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zap if no one cleans up. In case that's not allowed, just zap. I agree the best thing to do is to have a major clean-up of the article, however I'm worried that there may be no one who's up for the task -- seems what's needed is someone who knows Neo-Tech inside out and isn't predisposed to or against Neo-Tech. In case such a clean-up isn't feasible, I propose to move it somewhere under Neo-Objectivism. Bi 11:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unfortunately. Being impossible to clean up is not grounds for deletion, and it's a WP:Notable, WP:Verifiable scam. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neotech is notable. By the way, it's not a scam. It's a philosophy. Some of the stuff may sound far out and the marketing techniques from the publisher sound scamish but that's intentional. They try to make the philosophy sound magical and mystical in order to lure in mystics looking for an authority to tell them how to have easy wealth and happiness. But what they are actually trying to do is transform them into non-mystics. They teach that the individual has to be his own authority and there is nothing that can get them wealth and happiness but hard work and making your own decisions instead of waiting for someone to show you the way. Or worse yet, waiting for death in order to have immortal life and bliss. That is the whole point of the philosophy, to eliminate mystics. From reading around on the net it looks like the publisher even buys mailing lists for subscribers to Christian magazines in order to turn them off to mysticism because they know they are an easy target as people looking for external guidance over their lives. JoeMystical 20:25, 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 keep. I've tagged the article for wikification because of the absence of links. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British winter of 1946-1947[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article adds nothing to its primary external source, which was easily substituted for it where appropriate in articles that link there. I don't think we want articles on every "notable" meteorological season in history. Tcatts 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do - if appropriately referenced and construed encyclopedically. In any case, inline linking in this manner is not the preferred style. — Zanaq (?) 14:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. More notability needs to be established rather than various records being broken. At the beginning it is mentioned in a post-World War 2 context. If that was expanded on and the authors proved why such a harsh winter affected England any more at that time than normal, I might change to keep. SliceNYC 16:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some references here that could be used in this article. The subject is interesting, and this enclyclopedia has plenty of space for it (unlimited actually). Here is a link to the 14 MSN hits. In them you should find several non-wikipedia clone articles about this. Also note, as this is older than the web, a better place to look would be in the public library. I am sure that sources exist, and this looks important to me. Remember that just becuase an article needs improved does not mean that it needs to be deleted, that is why we have {{cleanup}} tags and the like.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As google is not the repository of all knowledge. Lots of records were broken and the post-WWII angle is an interesting one. Vickser 22:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was an exceptionally severe winter in UK and therefore notable. However this should not become an excuse for an article on every winter. Peterkingiron 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the top handful of most famous events in British climate history. Piccadilly 14:26, 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 delete. Keep arguments are in the main from unregistered users, users with very few edits and unregistered users masquerading as accounts via fake signatures, while the arguments for deletion are very well grounded in Wikipedia:No original research. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox 360 games without region encoding[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

wow this is bullshit. People like you are eventually going to run down wikipedia's ubiquity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.64.90 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole modus operandi of the page seems to be for the editors to check these games in their Xboxen, then update the chart accordingly. That's clearly orginal research. Ace of Sevens 13:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an extremely important catalog of information regarding Xbox 360 games. I see no reason for it to be deleted. 72.177.178.193 07:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Ericco[reply]
Keep. Of course keep the page. What´s going on with wikipedia - on a deletion rush??? I need this page permanently ... Joblack 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a person, who owns a Xbox 360 NTSC/U console on a PAL region (Finland) I really have use for this page, as the page helps me to make purchaces, and be confident, that the games I buy (while working for minimum wage) do NOT go to waste. Guest 12:15 31 July (GMT +2:00)
Keep. WHat are you guys saying? why would you want to delete this? I access this page almost everyday! KEEP! If you dont have a use for it randy wang, maybe it's time you thought about the other people that HAVE a use for it! GUest 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 14:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not at all encyclopedic (do we really need this article?), in addition to concerns regarding original research. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 14:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure this is really a necessary article either, but I wanted to mention that the primary external sources are 2 links to a forum (very bad) and one link to an online retailer (semi-legit). This is probably more appropriate on a gaming wiki such as egamia. --SevereTireDamage 14:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. Combination 15:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Skinmeister 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion, not a vote. You have to explain why to have any influence. Ace of Sevens 15:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, goto another personal site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.21.170 (talk • contribs) .
Keep. If they are testing the games and seeing if they work on different machines, they are compiling information into a useful format from primary sources. This is not original research within the meaning of the policy. (. . . (R)esearch that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.) The article could use more context and background, but I'm not convinced that the information is useless, or that it is original research. Smerdis of Tlön 16:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also the issue of it being useless. I've watched this for a few weeks and there are frequently nos changed to yeses and vice versa. Due to the lack of easy availabilty of the primary sources, this isn't easily verifiable and there's no way to ensure accuracy. Ace of Sevens 18:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. By Smerdis of Tlön's reasoning, nothing would count as original research. --Geoffrey Spear 20:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He's saying that OR only applies to opinions and conclusions, not raw data. Reading the policy, that appears to be correct. However, I thinkt ehre are plenty of other reason for deletion. Ace of Sevens 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd argue that editors trying different games in different machines is qualitatively different than collecting information from existing primary sources. If the games themselves were labeled by their manufacturers as having no region encoding, I'd agree that this falls under the above-quoted part of the policy. --Geoffrey Spear 20:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Nova Prime 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I use this list all the time, it really is usfull information for 360 owners.--DELTAsnake 05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the above is the only edit by this user.--Geoffrey Spear 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very comprehensive listing here that is constantly being updated. I refer to this list as the authority on cross region operability. --MortimerSmythe 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia shouldn't be the authority on anything. That's pretty much the opposite of references. Ace of Sevens 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- The above "vote" was made by User:83.146.13.253. There is no user named "MortimerSmythe". --Geoffrey Spear 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this list is quite usefull. You should keep it definitely. --bigdrbrain 12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above "vote" was made by User:84.173.249.171, and is the only edit made by that IP address. There is no user named "bigdrbrain". --Geoffrey Spear 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i like to check this list every other day or so!!!! KEEP IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.234.228 (talk • contribs) .

Delete One of the sources appears to be a fourm, which would constitute WP:OR. Otherwise, WP:NOT a collection of indistriminate info. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information may be useful to somebody, but whatever else Wikipedia is not, I'm pretty sure it's not Consumer Reports. Unencyclopedic. --Stellmach 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the keep votes seem to be saying to keep because it's useful. I think this is true so far as the information is accurate (which I have doubts about). However, plenty of things are useful without belonging in an encyclopedia. Can anyone explain how this is encyclopedic? Ace of Sevens 12:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't List of Region Free Xbox Games be considered for deletion too? It's basically the same thing AStaralfur 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant policy violation. ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see how the nom's assertion is original research. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not encyclopedic?

en·cy·clo·pe·di·a (n-skl-pd-) n.

   A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

this is just that, whats not encyclopedic about it? if wikipedia starts deleting things like this that i reference daily then to he!! with wikipedia i say.

Keep Useful information, we have lists of other things, and I see nothing wrong with this list. Havok (T/C/c) 15:58, 5 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 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Dex Award[edit]

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

Keep - this award has gained quite a bit of publicity in the media, and notability is not a good criteria anyway. I can expand on that later but have to go now :D Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh, has it? First I heard of it having gained publicity! Well Bravada, you're the one fixed on references :)) - therefore this article needs appropriate references which show the fact that the award has had publicity. I guess this is offline publicity, because a Google search returns little beyond what is written on fan websites. As it stands, the article does not assert the importance or significance of the topic, so currently fails WP guidelines. How's your hand? EuroSong ^talk 14:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB and general notability policy. doktorb _words^deeds 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. Skinmeister 15:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... an award given by a website that fails WP:WEB doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but add eurovisionhouse.nl to the Eurovision Song Contest links section.

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Zacharia[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, tagged for Speedy but tag removed. They guy is a CTO for a non-notable company, few Google hits, etc. Rklawton 14:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:VAIN, and WP:AUTO VoiceOfReason 14:54, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zidane-Hsu Investments[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, adverSPAM, etc. Rklawton 14:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references, 0 google hits on the company name or Kerre Zidane, plenty of hits for Chun-Nan Hsu but none seem to have anything to do with this firm, therefore in my opinion the article fails WP:V. - Bobet 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 16:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP, no WP:V, assumed WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn - if one of their investments tanks, do they headbutt the CEO? NawlinWiki 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Boooh. Fan-1967 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the funniest arguments ever. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spamvert for a non-notable company. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:35, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Anderson[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 16:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:36, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Bayes[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:38, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Brace[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Totally non-notable with an electorate of maybe 10,000. Although I wouldn't object to this bunch of nominees for AfD merged into one article Kettering Councillors. --Richhoncho 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing that makes this person notable is that he is a "district" politician. That is not to say that he will aspire to more in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (in that sense). -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:46, 2 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Civil[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Totally non-notable with an electorate of maybe 10,000. Although I wouldn't object to this bunch of nominees for AfD merged into one article Kettering Councillors. --Richhoncho 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is already Kettering Borough Council which gives their names, party and ward, and election dates, which is more than enough info on each. Martín (saying/doing) 14:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 16:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:40, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Corazzo[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Totally non-notable with an electorate of maybe 10,000. Although I wouldn't object to this bunch of nominees for AfD merged into one article Kettering Councillors. --Richhoncho 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 16:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:42, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Freer[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Happy to delete other Kettering councillors, but I think being Council leader is just enough to assert notability. Martín (saying/doing) 14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Leadership of local council not encyclopedically notable. OMG, I just realized they have all have this huge template box too: Template:Kettering_politics. Suggest that be nominated for template deletion after we're done with the individual councillor articles. Did someone in the Kettering Town Hall IT department suddenly discover wikipedia? Bwithh 16:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, sorry, but not even the leader of the city council of a small city is probably not encyclopedically notable enough for inclusion. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leadership of the council is sufficiently notable to deserve an article. Davewild 08:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No it isn't. ~ trialsanderrors 18:42, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Groome[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 16:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:43, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lamb[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 16:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:44, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Parker (politician)[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 16:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. Damn, is the entire city council on here? --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:44, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smith-Haynes[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable.Bwithh 16:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:44, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Titcombe[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Martín (saying/doing) 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable.Bwithh 16:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:44, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Whyte[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. (pant pant) Bwithh 16:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:45, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Varos[edit]

This has been prodded by two different editors and removed twice by by the same editor. So I am bringing it here for discussion. My opinion is still Will O'The Wisp although a re-write is definately necessary, together with some classification.--Richhoncho 14:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - speaking as the original prodder. Punkmorten 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 09:20, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lip Smacker[edit]

Unsourced, unverifiable list of lip gloss flavors. A lot of the ones on here I can't find anywhere, like the arctic flavors. Delete as unverifiable. The article Lip gloss has a decent enough summary on Lip Smackers already. Metros232 14:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Yomangani 15:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable brand, hopefully it can be cleaned up and made more an article and less a list. Notability is not in question: I get 81,900 Google hits for "Lip Smackers" (in quotes) and a further 32,800 for "Lip Smacker", (also in quotes). The actual official name seems to be just "Smackers", which brings 329,000 hits but many unrelated. It has a 1200+ member fanlisting, and even gets a handful of Google News hits (pretty trivial ones, admittedly, but it does get press). Definitely notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info:it had a wikify tag put on it nearly as soon as it was created and hasn't been touched since (admittedly that was only 10 days ago but that's nearly a lifetime on WP), so I don't see much interest from anybody cleaning it up. Yomangani 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft and for WP:V issues. Also mention in the main lip gloss article is fine, but not notable enough for its own article Bwithh 16:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lip Smackers used to have an article [35]. But on April 19th this was changed to a redirect to lip gloss. Metros232 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On that basis it seems this article is wrongly named. Also, it appears to be an inferior version of the article that was merged without opposition. Yomangani 23:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft. AgentPeppermint 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a pretty wretched article, but the brand is notable and its a worthy topic. Vickser 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the contents of this article don't form a decent base for improvement. Nothing to salvage. Delete and start again if anybody wants to try. -- Whpq 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice against an actual article at this title. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:55, 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 Redirected to Emmerdale until he performs in something more notable. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Webb (Emmerdale actor)[edit]

Non-notable actor, article innapropriate for an encyclopaedia Skinmeister 15:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not a notable actor Bwithh 16:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emmerdale due to the minimal content of this article. If an Emmerdale fan wanted to learn about this actor, this one-sentence article would not be of much help. If an editor later finds enough information to create a full article, that editor could then change the redirect into a proper article. --Metropolitan90 16:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emmerdale per Metropolitan90. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:46, 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 keep. Starblind should be commended for his superb job improving the article. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axhandle hound[edit]

Utter lack of citations, no evidence for existence of creature given. The drawing is from 'a friend', and the statement that it is thought to survive on "axe handles that had been left unattended" is biologically infeasible. In addition, the author lists it as a "Fearsome Critter", which is not a recognized category of creatures. Interested2 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete, tagged, patent nonsense OK, I see the context now from looking at the link to Fearsome Critters. I agree with Andrew that it's still a delete unless/until sourced.~~ Keep per Andrew, below (nice work!) NawlinWiki 17:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, (formerly ~~Neutral~~, see research below). I believe this to be a creature from american folklore, probably lumberjack folklore. I'm pretty sure I've read something similar before, but I wouldn't know where to start looking for it now. Probably should be deleted unless referenced. It's not a speedy candidate though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I think about it, I suspect this might be from Cox's Fearsome Creatures of the Lumberwoods, which has a lot of this sort of thing in it. I'm going to have a look and see what I can find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. Very little luck. It's not in Fearsome Creatures of the Lumberwoods, it's not in Mysterious Creatures, and it's not in the index (volume 24) of Man, Myth, and Magic either. The only thing on Google is a government site stating that there's a place called Ax-Handle Hound campsite in Minnesota. That's all the research I can do without a trip to the library. I still think this is lumberjack folklore, although apparently fairly obscure. Hopefully someone will put in a reference before the AfD is up. :( Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hurray! Getting warmer... I tried googling some alternate spellings, and found enough under "Axehandle Hound" to have someplace to start. I did find a blog post (I know, I know, keep reading) with a stock description, and also states from where it was sourced: "Carol Rose's book" (by which I assume they mean Giants, Monsters, and Dragons: An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend, and Myth and the T-L The Enchanted World: Magical Beasts volume (wouldn't you know it, I have three volumes of that series but not that one!). I'll try to check these books and see what I come up with. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - HELL YEAH! I found it, I found it, I found it! In The Book of Imaginary Beings by Jorge Luis Borges. For proof, go to Amazon's search-inside thingy, type "axehandle" in the little box, and there you go! Yesss! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after my research (above) showed this topic to be verifiable, I gave the article a pretty-much-complete rewrite and considerable expansion. Please note that the article is very different now from when it was originally nominated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After your revisions, I revise my opinion to a tenative Keep. Interested2 20:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn good rewrite! This is the type of thing we should see more of in the Afds. Well done! Williamborg (Bill) 22:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everybody above. Molerat 20:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — We have some amazing pop cultural material on Wikipedia (every rock band that ever got a passing mention in Rolling Stone and every Anime known to mankind). We must be able to find some room for historic pop cultural material too; especially when it is sourced. Williamborg (Bill) 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It's always nice when we find out things aren't nonsense. Vickser 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, most excellent rewrite. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep fantastic re-write (and I like the pic included.) Viridae ^Talk 13:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Good expansion on folklore topic - worthy inclusion PChoate- - 17:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks much better after the rewrite. Interesting little article. Kafziel 16:43, 2 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death penalty paradox[edit]

Pure original research essay that cites no sources. Was originally created as a POV fork and then abandoned when the creator left the project. Nandesuka 16:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe the main parts of the theory, if presented in a NPOV format, can be added to the capital punishment page. SliceNYC 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into capital punishment. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 12:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging any sourced material that can be salvaged. Nandesuka 15:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not merge since OR should not be merged. In any case the 'paradox' is flawed. Murder is the intentional, /unlawful/, killing of an innocent person. So, an execution of an innocent person, carried out lawfully, is not murder. BlueValour 03:58, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make Socialism History[edit]

Delete not notable Linesman 16:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially a blog, nonnotable. NawlinWiki 16:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do we need an enty for every blog? -Royalguard11^Talk 00:47, 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 speedy delete. Roy A.A. 21:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attero silicis[edit]

Nonnotable 14-year-old unsigned, aspiring dance musician; three unique Ghits (2 from Wikipedia, and his homepage). NawlinWiki 16:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Adding speedy tag per author User:Jimbo91uk's request to delete, below. NawlinWiki 17:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 17:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You've made your point, Wikipedia. Go ahead and delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo91uk (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:MUSIC and Geogre's Law. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as author requested deletion. Would otherwise be delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:25, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X3m games[edit]

Non-notable game company Em-jay-es 17:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is odd, Yahoo! has the most hits at 489 with google having 16 and MSN with 13 hits. Thought I would note the low search engine hits. (companys are normally good at gaming these.)—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article text is garbage. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm having trouble making sense of the article, but as far as I can tell, they make games with major sports licenses, even though they do not actually have the rights to these lcenses. This would preclude and sort of real distribuition. The fact none of their games have pages doesn't help. Ace of Sevens 11:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gibberish. --Stellmach 17:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem notable at all. RobJ1981 16:53, 2 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 Userfied and deleted. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celia pleete[edit]

Reads like a vanity page and was written by the user Celiapleete. Has been proded, but the tag was removed without explanation. Also, it's unsourced. - Bootstoots 17:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy, not notable enough for article but perfectly ok for userpage. NawlinWiki 17:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:Celiapleete as per NawlinWiki. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above comments. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above. AgentPeppermint 19:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tag was accidentally removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.186.124.143 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Userfy and delete per all above. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:51, 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 Deleted by Freakofnurture. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PulpBits.com[edit]

Electronic commerce company, founded in 2002 - and their website has no Alexa rank. No evidence of notability - delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, NN. Combination 18:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and Alexa. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:WEB. Jacek Kendysz 23:27, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newtown Weather[edit]

Non-notable local interest web site. No claim per WP:WEB. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - website of purely local interest. BlueValour 03:39, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmberNet[edit]

Small IRC network. Prod tag removed by creator without explanations. Fails WP:WEB. The google search for ambernet + IRC gives 103 unique hits and most pages seem to be just listings or advertisements. Pascal.Tesson 18:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Delete per nom. —Whomp t/c 18:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mm Let's try again to edit this page and add my comment.

I wonder why the AmberNet page should be deleted if an EFnet, an undernet or an Afternet do can have there page on Wikipedia?

Is this because AmberNet is just a small network? And if so .. wow .. speak about discrimination.

Isn't wikipedia all about getting as much information to visitors? And why I removed the Prod tag? The second after I submitted the basic page you put that comment up. I was still working on the page!! --Alcately 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's nothing personnal and you should not feel attacked by this proposed deletion. Yes Wikipedia is open to a lot of content but it is not an Internet guide. It's not about discrimination against smaller networks, it's about recognizing the encyclopedic value of large ones. Pascal.Tesson 04:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks references from reliable sources, and by the look of the Google results, none are likely to come along anytime soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing new to say that hasn't already been. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 21:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete per above. People have heard of EFnet. Fan-1967 21:47, 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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New nsider[edit]

On a free web host, so its Alexa rank of 683 would be misleading. Seems to be pretty new, thus article is promotional. Daniel Case 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque 04:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 370 members is not notable. --Rory0 96 05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 370 members? Really. Non-notable. --Kinu 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - does not meet wiki guidelines at all VirtualSteve 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad for a low-traffic forum. Snurks ^{T C} 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You should have seen how bad it was written before I changed it up :P Teabagged 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per member count. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Elfguy 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:38Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Yanksox as G4/A7. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New nsider[edit]

Article is about a non-notable website, and the subject is similar to another article that was recently deleted. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and protect after deletion. I don't know what the old page looked like, but as this is the second time this article has been listed under AfD, it should be protected so it won't have to go through this process again. AgentPeppermint 19:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a recreated deleted article. --PresN 20:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and for goodness sakes Protect it this time! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above, and looking at the creator's contributions, it's a clear case of using Wikipedia for vandalism. Ban. Danny Lilithborne 20:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4. Some of the content could be consolidated into Nintendo NSider Forums. Being a former member myself, the removal of the RP board turned a lot of people off, including me. I left two months earlier for Simtropolis and then WP on 12 November 2005. TrackerTV 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete and protect from re-creation, absolute textbook G4 - the editor forgot to remove "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" from the article! --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:53, 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. There is already a term "hood rich" in the transwiki queue, which refers in its text to "nigger rich". I've put the text from this article on the talk page for that transwiki'd article. Nandesuka 14:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger rich[edit]

The only reference is to the Chapelle show and it's wrong, in that show the family's last name was "niggar" and they were white so it was "niggar rich" and not "nigger rich," which the article's title is so the Chapelle reference doesn't count. "Nigger rich" sounds like a neologism. It should get merged at the very least. Vanity article, not notable. Stronglightzeoe 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being a dicdef of a non-notable neologism. It's not even worth a merge, as I don't see any evidence that anyone actually uses the phrase (which is good, because they shouldn't). -- Kicking222 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. It certainly isn't a neologism. If it's anything, it's a paleologism. It's an obsolete, obviously racist epithet for someone who squanders money on flashy status symbols while remaining poor. I've heard that it dates to the Harlem Renaissance, not the Civil War, and was one of many nigger-X compounds to come about during the early 20th century; to name a few, "nigger-flicker" (a bare blade wrapped with tape in lieu of a handle), "nigger-luck" (undeserved success), "nigger-steak" (offal), etc. As a piece of historical slang likely to be encountered in the literature of the period, it deserves to be listed on Wiktionary, but it certainly doesn't merit its own encyclopedia article. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And put in some dictionary of derogatory slang, with cites as to first usage and examples of appearance in literature.Edison 05:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kicking222. --Hyphen5 06:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - it belongs in Wiktionary. Yes, this is a horrible term - but it's definitely real and therefore needs to be defined. I know it's neither pleasant nor informative to read or discuss this term - but if someone needs to know what it means, they ought to be able to find it - understand it's meaning - and find the history of the term. But I don't think it's an encyclopedia entry - Wiktionary would be a better place. I would prefer that people get a fair and unbiassed definition of the term and it's roots and typical usage than to come away with the idea that it's a neologism. The Chapelle show were using a pun on the term to describe a parody of a family - that's actually confirmation that the term is real - you can't make a pun on something that's not an actual term. It passes the 'Google-test' too. It's not a neologism because we know it dates back 100 or 150 years. And it has been used in print (not least in the novel "Growing Up Nigger Rich" by Gwendoline Y. Fortune SteveBaker 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - To wiktionary. Believe it or not, in the small towns around in my area, it's still used as stated above.
Merge into Nigger per reliable sources. Transwiki ok too. ~ trialsanderrors 21:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really, really keep. I learned something from that article (where I actually landed from a completely irrelevant Google search). And I can’t imagine a Wiktionary copy would preserve the potential richness of etymological backstory. —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:46, 6 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 keep per consensus between registered and unregistered users. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Dynamics Engine[edit]

The article has a link to a wikipedia article and some company page, but that's it--no see alsos. It needs a newspaper article before it can pass wikipedia's requirements. Vanity article, not notable. Stronglightzeoe 19:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose : (I have nothing to do with the ODE team - and my only contribution to the article was a bit of trivial Wikilinking about a month ago). Open Dynamics Engine is a well respected and widely used software library. It is at least as worthy of a Wikipedia entry as (for example) OpenGL and OpenAL - which are comparable libraries in related fields. OpenAL in particular is at a comparable level of development to ODE and is used about as widely - it's article is vigerous and useful - there is no reason to presume that Open Dynamics Engine will not also become so once someone with the right knowledge takes an interest in developing it. It certainly isn't a 'company page' - ODE is an OpenSourced effort with no significant commercial ties. If everything in Wikipedia needed a newspaper article - we'd be down to a few thousand articles and this would be a much less useful service. The worst this article is guilty of is being a stub - but we don't go around deleting articles just because they are stubs. In fact there is actually some useful content here. This AdD needs to 'go away' - I move for a speedy dismissal. SteveBaker 22:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I just mentioned this to a colleague and he recalls a couple of print magazine articles on ODE - one (we believe) was in Gamasutra (a well respected game developer magazine) less than two years ago. SteveBaker 22:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be in fairly wide use, and certainly doesn't fail the Google test (53,400 hits). RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep THe article needs expansion, but this seems to have enough use to be notable. Ace of Sevens 12:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. An open source physics engine being used in full-fledged commercial products and many indie games seems notable enough to me. Of course, the article does need work. --SevereTireDamage 14:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is being used by a lot of projects; libode0c2 has rank #4065 per installs in Debian popcon which is pretty good, actually. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ODE library is open source! So please keep this article. If was interrested in physics engines, then i went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_engine, clicked ODE and then with one further click i came to the ODE homepage. This is fine like that, so please keep this article!!! --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.126.170 (talk • contribs)

The ODE has very wide use and it's default way of doing collision detection and physics in OGRE engine so please keep it.

Keep per SevereTireDamage. AMHR285^(talk) 06:31, 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 Merged in to Code Lyoko and deleted. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time travel (Code Lyoko)[edit]

Time Travel already has its own page, as does Code Lyoko. The information in this article should be included in one of those. This concept of time travel is not significant enough to warrant its own page. The reverend 19:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all useful content to revelvent articles—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deus ex machina, er, I mean Code Lyoko. Danny Lilithborne 20:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, love the reference. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Code Lyoko. Penelope D 21:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:36, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshopmajic[edit]

Simply put, use of a word by "two to three people" counts as a non-notable neologism. Meanwhile, no hits on Google. Delete per WP:N. —Whomp t/c 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PresN 20:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Molerat 21:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT for something made up one day. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 17:09, 2 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 as the consensus appears to be after relisting. Mailer Diablo 08:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Majesty[edit]

Non-notable cable access show.--Crossmr 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lol. I was just writing this nom. This is what I was going to say:

This article is a stub for a Dungeons and Dragons TV Show that airs on public access television in New York and LA. That's awesome, but there's no assertion of any sort of notability (per WP:NN, I guess, I don't know the particular standard for this). The author removed my prod (and the reprod by another). Alphachimp ^talk 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this. It's a major cabel access D&D show. Within the community of TV D&D shows, this is the major one. Airs in LA and New York, as well as on the internet. If you have any doubts, see this [36] By the way, the essay referenced by AlphaChimp says this "This is an essay expressing the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians. While it can help explain and understand existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not an actual policy or guideline." Carfiend 07:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as far as WP:NN goes, it mightn't actually be a policy or guideline but it certainly tends to be followed a fair bit. BigHaz 07:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By sheep, maybe, but not by people committed to Wikipeida policy. Carfiend 07:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

watch your tone many people find that an offensive term.--Crossmr 07:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chill. Read WP:NPA and think about what you're going to say before you say it. Insulting other contributors is not allowed on Wikipedia, period. Captainktainer * Talk 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

policy?? They should chill. Carfiend 07:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate delete. 990 Ghits [37]. Never heard of Kubla Con, which doesn't have its own article -- while that's not the strongest point, I think it's fair to note it. Given that their main claim to fame seem to be web-based, it might be reasonable to apply WP:WEB, and I'm not convinced that they pass. Judging from the website, it's a public access cable show with about three or four episodes, which is what really settles it for me. May well be notable in the future, but I'd need some convincing. Luna Santin 09:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen this, and it is remarkable. It is not primarily a web phenomenon, it's public access tv. Kubla Con should definately have it's own article btw. Trollderella 17:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're not debating how good of a show, we're debating the fact that its not notable. Those google hits peter out at 237 and most don't look remotely related to the show, as a web phenomenon it certainly doesn't pass, and as a cable access show in only 2 markets, it certainly doesn't have notable exposure.--Crossmr 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as pointed out about, the concept of notability is not notable. Or, erm, what was the word? Deletion policy, that's it. Notability is not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't point that out, Bighaz did. He also pointed out that regardless of whether or not its a policy or guideline people do tend to follow it quite a bit. They apply it to subjects that aren't already covered by guidelines like WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and other notability guidelines. Lets also not forget its got a total of 3 episodes, which again would make it fail any kind of notability test. With such little exposure, this could be seen by many as just a way to try and advertise the show or gain notability.--Crossmr 17:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a pernicious myth. Let's follow policy - there is no reason to delete this useful information. Trollderella 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats your opinion. Others don't find it to be such a myth. In addition advertising is covered by policy. Were notability not considered, everyone could create a wikipedia article about thier pet project.--Crossmr 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my opinion" that notabilty isn't policy, it's a fact. Trollderella 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its your opinion that its a pernicious myth. Not that its not policy. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge, therefore there must be guidelines on what can and can't be included. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox (Self-promotion) (which is policy) directly links to the Notability page. Policy or not, its relevant per that policy.--Crossmr 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NN is an extension of WP:NOT, which is policy. A very large number of editors vote along lines of notability -- without notability, it becomes increasingly difficult to find reliable sources, at which point the articles are far more likely to contain original research, and fail to pass verifiability tests. Notability guidelines are the only thing between Wikipedia and a vanity article (or six) for every man, woman and child on this earth -- they're important. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; if we include an article for every club, ever, the whole system breaks. So there has to be a filter, there has to be a line. We can debate all day about where the line should be placed, and whether this article is above or beneath that line, but I feel the line itself is necessary. How many hundreds or thousands of public access shows are there, in the US, past and present? The whole world? Can we afford to list them all? What's unique about this one? What sets it above the rest? I'm not saying there's nothing unique, I'm just saying I and a few others need a little more convincing. My delete vote isn't a vote against the show; I'm sure it's great, and I'm sure people enjoy it, and I hope they do. Luna Santin 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is well intended, but wrong. If an article is not properly sourced, then we should delete it. I see no reason to delete this public access show simply because you have issues imagining how we would deal with articles about other shows. Can we afford to list them? The simple answer is yes, if they are well sourced, verfied, and neutral. WP is not paper. Carfiend 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could just as easily say the same of you -- well-intentioned, but wrong. :) Ad hominem proves little. In my eyes, this is one of the "other" shows. Well-sourced? The only source I see used is the group's own website -- the only claim to notability I can find in the article is itself an apparently unsourced statement. There's almost no content in this article, "this is a show, these are the five cast members' names. Trust me, it's notable. Here's some links!" Three sentences and a five-bullet list. Are you honestly proposing that a few hundred thousand articles like that are a good idea? Luna Santin 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Let it be, and it will grow. I'm not judging those other articles until I see them. Again, notability has nothing to do with deletion policy. Carfiend 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has everything to do with deletion policy. The connection has already been made twice for you. As for telling us to let it be, see WP:OWN. The article isn't yours to control. Its not being deleted because its a stub. Its being put up for deletion because other than a mention in a year and a half old tv show, its not even on the radar. One common theme for notability is being published in multiple non-trivial credible publications. You've got one with G4techtv. Blogspot, myspace and earthlink don't fit that criteria.--Crossmr 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your points in order - notability is not part of deletion policy. There's no way to make it sound like it is. Someone above listed it being very short as a reason to delete it. I am not claiming to control the article. "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete it either. Carfiend 06:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:SPEEDY and specifically this part "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages." has nothing to do with notability? It has everything to do with notability, and this [38] which clearly states: "This category is a collection of possible criteria/policies/guidelines for inclusion or deletion of articles". Deletion is closely tied with notability. Whether or not its stated in full bold letters on the deletion policy page. In addition to that as someone pointed out there aren't enough reliable sources to build an article on becuase this is so far off the radar. --Crossmr 15:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I thought that this was AFD, not Speedy deletion. I was under the impression that Speedy applied only to speedy deletions. Carfiend 00:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy is part of the deletion process here, and notability is part of that. Thus your connection between deletion and notability that you were seeking. Also the second link I provided had nothing to do with speedy and all to do with deletion and inclusion and notability is mentioned throughout. --Crossmr 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy is part of the speedy deletion process, but not, actually, AFD. That's quite clear. There are many things that apply in Speedy but not AFD. That's why there are separate policies. The second link you provided does not, unfortunately, provide a link to any AFD policy that says anything about notability. Carfiend 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm not convinced that this has achieved enough notability to provide us with enough sources to write about it with a neutral point of view. My interpretation of notability is that notability exists to serve actual Wikipedia policies, and I think in this case we just can't source the claims that it's highly regarded, and I'm not certain we can be sure that it's aired where the article says it's aired. Captainktainer * Talk 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of evidence that it exists, and it looks like it has quite the following. Gravitor 16:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it exists is irrelevant. It is just an entirely WP:NN subject. αChimp ^laudare 16:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Au contrair. As someone else pointed out, WP:V is the gold standard, whether or not it is 'NN' is irrelevant. Gravitor 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The notability guideline is used extensively throughout WP:AFD. In almost all cases, an article can be verified but not notable. That's per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is an official policy. αChimp ^laudare 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't indiscriminate, it's very discriminate. Gravitor 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not remotely discriminate. By saying this should be kept, you're saying anyone who makes a 3 episode cable access show should be able to have an article on wikipedia. Discriminate is setting notability guidelines for inclusion so that every idea for a show that was ever executed doesn't end up here. You'd end up with thousands upon thousands of articles with that criteria. That is indiscriminate.--Crossmr 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying no such thing. I'm talking about this article, not the thousands of others that you are speculating about. BTW, we already have thousands upon thousands of articles. If they are neutral, verifiable and well sourced, that's a good thing. Gravitor 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not saying that, then this article should be removed. The sole credible source is a year and half old mention on G4TechTv, its had no other coverage by credible sources. Notability requires multiple non-trivial coverage in credible sources. This doesn't meet that. By ignoring notability, you are saying just that. Anyone could fire up a website for any cable access show for a few bucks and then base a wikipedia article off that. That is indiscriminate by not applying any other criteria to its inclusion and is a violation of WP:NOT.--Crossmr 19:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that, not notability. Which, as has been pointed out, is not part of AFD policy. Carfiend 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the notability connection to Deletion has already been pointed out twice and in several places. The fact of the matter is notability is often used to decide whether or not articles get to stay here and this fails terribly.--Crossmr 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people have pointed to things that are not policy, claiming that they behave as if they are policy, but frankly, the fact that you made a mistake before doesn't mean that you have to make a mistake again. Time to mend your ways! Carfiend 03:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mend my ways? People have pointed to several things that are policy that reference notability. WP:NN also references a long standing precedent of articles being removed on the grounds of notability. As such notability is a perfectly acceptable reason to put an article up for deletion. If you'd care to address the issue of notability, I welcome it.--Crossmr 03:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'issue with notability'. It's not part of AFD policy. WP:NN is an essay, not even a guideline. Carfiend 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. That is why its here. Others have other opinions.--Crossmr 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 'my opinion'. Notability is not part of AFD policy. WP:NN is an essay, not even a guideline. Whether policy matters may, in your mind, be a matter of opinion, but that's as far as the room for argument goes. Carfiend 05:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been shown numerous examples of notability being tied to inclusion and deletion as well as policy, so no its not.--Crossmr 05:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that it crops up in essays, in other policy that does not apply to AFD, and that people think that it should be, but I have not been shown that it is actually in AFD policy. To me, that means something. Carfiend 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to cut in late, but you still didn't address how this is not in breach of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm not sure you understand the boundaries standing between someone and creating a public access tv show (none). Are you advocating having an article for every single little thing that ever appears on a television? αChimp ^laudare 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about this article, which seems to me to be neutral and verifiable, and not to have offended against any wikipedia policy. Please remember that WP is not paper. Carfiend 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. its also not a directory. One thing to differentiate an article between being encyclopedic and being part of a general directory is notability. That is also part of WP:NOT. Almost anything can be neutral and verifiable (and no it wasn't neutral with statements like ...and Riley Swift - the dungeon master! it read exactly like a vanity page or ad. Which is what it is.). Neutral and verifiable are not the only criteria for inclusion. Some people feel that way, some people feel the other way and that is why were here. --Crossmr 06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why "...and" is not neutral, but hey. It's odd that some people don't think that policy is important, but you're right, that's why we're here. Carfiend 06:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because its not the proper tone for an encyclopedia. It reads like an ad or sounds like someone announcing something flashy. And yes policy IS important. There are more policies than WP:V and WP:NPOV. You just took the time to quote WP:NOT by saying its not paper, read the whole policy. You can't use part of it to justify the existence of the article then turn around and ignore 2 other parts of the same policy that would say it doesn't belong here.--Crossmr 07:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mikeeilbacher 00:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,--Crossmr 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. If the girls can ramp up their popularity in a major way, then maybe. But at the moment, less than 1000 ghits suggests that this show has not attained critical mass. Their youtube audience is pretty underwhelming[39]. True, the girls seem to have only tentatively embraced youtube, but 400-600 views per clip after 1 month is tiny by youtube standards (there are over 1 million youtube videoclip views a day[40]) Bwithh 20:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty inclusionist when it comes to TV shows, but that doesn't extend as far as public access. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cited sources seem to be blogs, forums, the show's own website, etc. I don't think it is possible to write an article about this that is anchored in published sources meeting the reliable source guidelines. When it is mentioned in something like Wired it will be time for an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment it was mentioned on the Screensavers like 18 months ago, but that single mention I don't think brings it near enough notability. At least another mention or two plus some actual indication of viewership (i.e. big numbers on youtube) would be more in line.--Crossmr 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Viridae ^Talk 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many above, especially Bwithh (no notability, on TV or on the web) and dpbsmith (no reliable sources). -- Kicking222 23:33, 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. Sango 123 00:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gilbert[edit]

Teenage rapper recording albums at his home studio, unsigned, no indication of notability at all - I'd say he fails WP:MUSIC by quite a bit. Prod removed; some attempt at establishing the artist's notability on the talk page, but still doesn't appear to make it. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 8 hits on Ask.com and none of them seem to be about this particular rapper. 10 hits on google, with one appearing to be a Record of the Week for a British rapper. Not sure if these are the same rappers though. If they are and this article can show inpotance, I may change my opinion. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, so tagged, two self-produced albums by a 14-year-old does not count as an assertion of notability. Re above comment, this person claims to be from New Zealand, not Britain. NawlinWiki 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt the speediable aspect of this as this does attempt to assert importance. It is up to AfD disscussion to figure out that it is or is not important. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as Eagle 101 (sort of) points out, it does count as an assertion of notability. Silly billy! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons already stated. Seemingly no evidence of an indie label of any significance, no awards, no articles written in periodicals about the artist. -Bkessler23 20:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, vanity and NN. The only external link is "Alex Gilberts Music Store" at BlogSpot. It points to Wikipedia for "Go here for Alex Gilberts Bio". --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy. Fails WP:MUSIC by a mile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity article of a non-notable --RMHED 13:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Strong delete ~~per CSD-A7~~. The album covers look like they were made in MS Paint. Fails WP:MUSIC. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per norm. --Yunipo 01:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta Say...Delete. ReverendG 04:29, 5 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bum Runner[edit]

Is a 9-minute film notable? On the plus side they apparently had a $7000 budget[41]; apart from that is this anything more than some guys with a camcorder? Weregerbil 19:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shot on film. Notable as Fred Berry's final film. Production company has supplied several films to Troma. Kkolack 15:57, 29 July 2006 (EST)

No vote yet - per question in nomination, can a 9 minute film be notable, shorts win awards at notable film festivals all the time - the real question is, is this film notable. If the mentioned award win can be verified then I think it would meet the nobility requirments. - I will watch and see how things change.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Delete - the film festival (as provided in the link) that this short won at happened one year only, 2002, and according to my read - this film did not win, the winner of Best Short, comedy was Curiosity killed Brian.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The award can be verified, but I don't feel that winning an award at a non-notable film festival (the official website of which has now been replaced by a spam linkfarm) can make a short film notable. I can certainly envision a 9-minute film achieving notability, but this one doesn't. --Geoffrey Spear 20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winning an award at a festival that wasn't notable and no longer exists does not make this film notable, also "finally a film about..." in summary by creator —WAvegetarian•(talk) 21:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies[edit]

Vanity: the page author seems to be involved in the comic book, and it doesn't meet notability reqs. The movies aren't Buffy parodies (and the article even says that about one of them). Most of the text about the movies is cut&pasted from the sources listed, so the article is mostly a copyvio. Pornspam, too, do we really care about the umpteen other "Buffy" movies that have nothing to do with the TV show? "Parody" means more than alluding to something in the title, and these movies aren't parodies. VivianDarkbloom 20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vanity: Please do not mislead voters Vivian:

(1) I am the author of the article, and am not involved in the comic book, I simply named my login name after the comic.

(2) The comic, Boffy the Vampire Layer is an adult parody of Buffy (TV series), and the movies Buffy the Vampire Layer, and Muffy the Vampire Layer are both parodies of Buffy (TV series/movie). All of these three parodies contain young teenage slayers obviously parodying the character Buffy Summers. Muffy the Vampire Slayer is the only movie which in its content does not parody Buffy (TV/movie), simply it's title does.

(3) The text is not cut and pasted.. The sources listed were used for the story descriptions, but there was no copy & paste involved and comparisons between the wiki-article and the sources will result in noticing there is complete rewording.

(4) Because of the points above, I do not see any genuine justification for nominating this article other than a dislike of adult content, but please review WP:Not#Wikipedia is not censored —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boffy Layer (talk • contribs) .

Delete or compress into a sentence or two and merge with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where there is already a Parodies section. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom . parodycruft Bwithh 23:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as excessive Buffycruft. Maybe a mention can be added to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, this is a renomination that was just discussed less than a week ago. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Layer had half a dozen editors arguing to merge these articles here, and not delete them. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, it's not a renomination. This article didn't even exist when the nomination you're talking about was made. And, besides, the copyvio problem would be cause for deletion alone, and that wasn't discussed before. The one guy who writes all the Buffyporn articles has been adding extra copies of "his" "work" under different headings. VivianDarkbloom 19:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re: Comment Actually I created the articles about Buffy adult parodies, and rather than expanding as implied above, I took on board comments from VivianDarkbloom and reduced the number of articles (to only a single article: the one up for deletion; Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies). -- Boffy Layer 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Because this article did exist less than 24 hours after "Buffy the Vampire Layer", was up for deletion at Afd: Buffy Layer and there was already a general concensus for several days at that deletion forum to keep the merged article. -- Boffy Layer 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not exactly a re-nomination; in the previous case, people were expressing a desire that the individual film not have an article, but this was not created as a result of the debate, just during it. However, (1) I found very limited copyright problems, and fixed them, so that should no longer be an issue, but (2) this article is actually pretty good, and it's not cruft at all, but rather a fleshed-out list of examples of adult parodies of Buffy. Actually interesting; much more so than the endless books and episode articles. Plus, this article is very new, and can probably continue to be improved. Mango juice^talk 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've carefully looked at the article and it's sources and come to the conclusion that the article is well written - more so than most articles on Wikipedia. Therefore I'm a little puzzled that it's even up for deletion apart from the fact it includes adult content? -- Buffyverse 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Majin Gojira 21:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author for this article has clearly put a lot of work into this article resulting in the parodies being verifiable. Furthermore I see no original research, and I see a neutral point of view. When the article is not breaking anything in the official "WP:Deletion policy" isn't it unfair and against WP policy to delete it because some view it as 'cruft'? -- Paxomen 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paxomen's above comment. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a porn directory.--Peta 09:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you won't find that over at 'What Wikipedia is not'. You will instead find the official policy, Wikipedia is not censored. It includes this text: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography.." -- Buffyverse 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if it is porn or not, its the fact it is a crufty list. The buffy editors need to get their own wiki like the star wars and star trek guys did - this kind of stuff is not encyclopedic.--Peta 12:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that interested in many of the science articles on Wikipedia, but I'm not gonna suggest the Science editors get their own Wiki instead. In its ambitious mission of documenting the sum of all human knowledge, what is 'not encyclopedic'? My understanding of Wiki is that non-encyclopdic articles are the ones that do not follow the 3 core policies (verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view), or articles that are listed on WP:Not; the deletion policy says as much: "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research), editorial approach (neutral point of view), as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing" and advises that articles that are not fulfilling these official policies are instead deleted. Also the deletion guidelines for admins advises that "the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines".

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia meaning it doesn't have the same kind of practical limits but, also that it does not have have to cover topics that are tradiationally seen as 'academic'. Wikipedia does not rely on peer-reviewing, and it is not made just for academics, that's why it can cover almost anything including popular culture and even pornography (in this case the article draws from both). That's why the front page can even feature an article about a fictional food product made from alien worm-like creatures. Yet so many continue to look down upon popular culture here trying to believe that Wikipedia is a professional encyclopedia that shouldn't be dealing with such matters of 'cruft'. However IMO part of the appeal of this encyclopedia is that it has the ability to overcome the idea that knowledge can be monopolised (by religious orders, governments, academia..). Having read the article and through the comments on this page, I see only 3 reasons people have voted 'delete': First, because they were influenced by the nominator's accusations before I responded to such accusations. Second, because the article references pornography. Third, because the article is not of interest to them because they are uninterested in Buffy. In conclusion, there is no real basis for the deletion. And IMHO it's actually better-cited and better-written than most articles here. -- Boffy Layer 19:15, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Earth Center[edit]

Nonnotable website, not to mention original research. NawlinWiki 20:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete not notable in any way, and is definitly WP:NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmatt1122 (talk • contribs)

Delete - contravenes WP:OR. BlueValour 03:26, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most famous female rulers in history[edit]

Inherently subjective and entirely a matter of opinion. Impossible to measure "fame", let alone relative fame between two famous people. Other subjective criteria are "ruled effectively", "influential" and "deemed important". Absolutely no objective criteria presented, or even possible. Agent 86 20:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no article about Female rulers. Why not? Because Female rulers is not an encyclopedic topic. There are exceptions, but in general there should not be a "list of X" article unless there is an article on "X." The "list of X" should begin as a section of X and should not be broken out until it gets to be too large. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete POV inheres: no Golda Meir, Corazon Aquino, Isabel Peron; I guess the third world doesn't count in famousness. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most rulers are men. Therefore female rulers are comparatively ususual. By all means add others including Golda Meir, Corazon Aquino, Isabel Peron, if you think they should be there. Of course, who is most famous involves a POV, but so do many things. Perhaps this should be converted into a category, 'Female rulers'. However we should not have the converse -male rulers - ther are too many of them. Peterkingiron 23:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleeet is in the house. Inherently POV - it's like one of those magazine "100 greatest X of all time" lists that are only useful for provoking arguments among people who can't find the names they expect. You know, sort of "Where's Ranavalona? What about Medb? Why no Christina? Why didn't they rate Joan of Arc? What about Eleanor of Aquitaine?" etc etc etc. As for a category, we already have two and a full list - they're all mentioned at the bottom of this article. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned above. The informational need for names of female rulers is satisfied in various other categories and lists. SliceNYC 03:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no citations showing that these are the most famous women rulers in history. Therefore it must be original research or just plain made up. --Hyphen5 05:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, and who defines what is famous? -Royalguard11^Talk 00:53, 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 Merged in to La Salle University and deleted. (aeropagitica) (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Basil Court[edit]

This is a dormitory with no claim to notability. Geoffrey Spear 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all useful infomation to the main article on the university.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And I would also suggest deleting McCarthy Stadium, St. Miguel Court, and Tom Gola Arena for similar reasons.
Merge this article and all the others that the previous voter mentioned. --Missmarple 13:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reason as [Articles for deletion/North_Dorms]. Same author, same non-notablity. The building is less than 3 years old, anyway. Pacdude 03:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and non-encyclopaedic so no basis to merge. BlueValour 03:21, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorin Cerin[edit]

Was prodded but users objected on talk page so I'm listing it for deletion. My argument on the proposal was that, as an author, his work from two year has a sales rank around 2 million and his more recent work just published still doesn't have a ranking. On the talk page, an argument was made that he was notable due to his mention on the deleted (admittedly, by me as nonsense) Neo-ontology article and there were concerns that Amazon sales rankings are useless in determining notability for a philosopher. However, a Google search on him shows little information. I don't read Romanian so somebody who does maybe sees something on his page there that will help determine verifiability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I read the Romanian article, and apparently the man is only "notable" for having *probably* been threatened with physical harm by the Romanian ambassador in Australia. The links for his novels don't appear to be functional anymore, the book relies on obscure references to "acclaim", and the man is likely to be ignored by all but five Romanians (as I am sure he is completely ignored by Americans, Chinese, etc.). Dahn 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Repeating my remarks from the talk page:
I have no way from reading this entry to see whether Cerin is notable. I would agree with one remark made above: Amazon rankings are a useless measure of whether a contemporary philosopher is significant. Virtually no contemporary philosopher has significant book sales.
The question is: what is the positive evidence of notability? Is he being taught in the curriculum of at least one major university? Is there a review of one of his books in some reputable publication, either a significant specialist publication (for example, one of the many listed at [42]) or a generalist publication (New York Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, etc.) or even a review in a significant newspaper in almost any language? If not, can the person who suggests keeping this give some other evidence of notability beyond her personal opinion? - Jmabel | Talk 22:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with that point. I did look at google first and while I didn't mention it in the prod summary, given a very small online footpoint (I can't even find a biography of the man anywhere, even from a website of his own), I doubtful of any material that would be useful for verfiability, not alone to argue notability. I think the fact that the website that was listed for him in this article consists of free webhosting service which has now cancelled the account speaks for itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anittas was kind enough to send along this link to an article in Clujeanul, a newspaper from Cluj. In Romanian, sorry, but it basically says that he has sold only 10 copies of his book, has lied in Romania aboug it being a best-seller, and that noted Romanian publisher Humanitas called his novel Destiny "unpublishable". - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has 32 Google hits in English. [43].

There are 2 Google book references referring to his own book [44]. He comes up empty on Google Scholar [45] and Google News [46]. In short, he fails to meet our verifiability guidelines as there are no reliable third-party sources available to write an article about him. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I am adding the following, which was posted to my user talk page; I think, however, that the Clujeanul article cited above casts enormous doubt on this. Also, the idiosyncratic punctuation somewhat resembles that shared by "Alicia ,Yale University", so sockpuppetry is a possibility, though by no means a certainty.

Again, despite the Clujeanul article, if he is being taught in the curriculum of at least one major university, if there is a review of one of his books in some reputable publication, or even a review in a significant newspaper, I would consider. However, it is clear that any article on him would have to include Clujeanul's accusation of bogus self-publicity.

Va scriem din partea unui grup de intelectuali romani din America de Nord si Europa care va multumesc.Am urmarit cu frenezie fenomenul Cerin .Era cat pe ce sa-i fie stearsa pagina din enciclopedia engleza daca nu a-ti fi intervenit dumneavoastra.Motivele invocate erau pe cat de puerile pe atat de banale.Numar de carti vandute ,etc.Mai trist este ca tocmai un roman a sarit sa afirme ca despre Cerin nu se afla in enciclopedia romaneasca decat episodul Australia.Daca noi ne batem joc in fata strainilor mintind numai de rau despre valorile noastre cine sa le apere,tot strainii?Mai ales ca un filozof nu este mare prin numarul de carti vandute cu toate ca Cerin a vandut destule in anii trecuti avand alte sales rankuri pe Amazon,[www.sorincerindestiny.go.ro]ci prin propria sa teorie unde introduce termenul de neo-ontologie.Putem fi contactati prin comunitatea romana din Sacramento California.R.Vidu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.104.189.107 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2006.

I'll do my best to translate the above. If I get anything wrong, someone can feel free to correct me.

Attempted translation:

Mr. or Madame Jmabel
We write you on the part of a group of Romanian intelectuals in North America who thank you. We have finished with the wild phenomenon Cerin. The page in the English encyclopedia would have been stearsa [sorry, don't know this word & cannot find it in the dictionary, I presume "erased"] if you had not intervened. The motives invoked were the most puerile and banal as well. The number of books sold , etc. The saddest is that a Romanian in particular has leapt to affirm that there is nothing about Cerin in the Romanian Encyclopedia other that the Australian episode. If we mock ourselves in fron to foreigners meaning only bad about our values, who sa le apere [again not sure of this "will appear" or some such?], all foreigners? [I may have misunderstood that; correction welcomed.] Besides that a philosopher is not big through the number of books he has sold, with all that Cerin has sold just in the last year having a high sales rank on Amazon, [www.sorincerindestiny.go.ro] but through his own his own theory where he introduces the term neo-ontology. We can be contacted through the Romanian community in Sacramento, California. R.Vidu

End translation. - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sa le apere="to defend them". The following two words translate as "[are] the foreigners yet again [to defend them]?".Dahn 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess can we assume from the blanking of the article here by a user who uses the initials S.C. that the author agrees to deletion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: given that we have an explicitcitation from a generally reliable source claiming that he is a minor figure for whom exaggerated claims have been made in the past, and that there has been nothing like a reliable source cited to the opposite effect, can we close this and delete? If someone comes forward with belated evidence of notability, we can always undelete. - Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:the man is not *probably* "notable" for having been threatened with physical harm by the Romanian ambassador from Australia.Sorin Cerin is notable by works,like 'The origin of God',etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2006.Added after debate was closed

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

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

The result was speedy delete by William M. Connolley. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freya Smith[edit]

Non-notable person, vanity article PresN 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as such William M. Connolley 20:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - falls under db-bio. I had originally tagged it as such but an anonymous user removed the tag. The tag has been restored, and the page should be deleted shortly. Fabricationary 20:39, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relyna[edit]

Appears to be fancruft/vanity. I can find no mention of this character in any related Avatar: The Last Airbender resources. Same for the "First Appearence" entry in the article's infobox:No such episode exists. A Google search leads only to this article. Colonial One 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my nom. Colonial One
Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 17:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 09:17, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pug-Club[edit]

Delete as it is a vanity article and does not meet WP:WEB. The forum has 580 registered users with about 1/2 having posted any messages. the prod tag was removed by the authour/major contributor without comment. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. It's even written in the first person! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 09:17, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National stereotypes[edit]

This article seems to be very biased, totally uncited and rather offensive to a lot of people. Tawker 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - junk -- Tawker 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Stubify/Rebuild As it stands, this is an outrageously bad article, with little concern for verification beyond the few fig-leaf book references and obscure web links (only related to a few items on the list) at the bottom. There is even less concern for context or sensitive treatment of a controversial subject.There are some descriptions which are just outright offensive and idiotic - the idea that "Most Africans have AIDS and will kill anyone for food" is not a stereotype in general circulation, but it seems, a vile expression of some random editor's own twistedness. It appears that the article creators/editors just find it amusing to list as many stereotypes as possible. This article as it stands is a threat to Wikipedia's reputation. The article could be rewritten encyclopedically, but more than a cleanup is required. I recommend deletion of this article and leaving it as an open stub for rebuilding - with community monitoring by responsible editors Bwithh 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree, this is very informative to what general perceptions are on various groups of people. Anyone can edit it from all around the world so it reflects various viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not an open internet forum for the ignorant-minded people from around the world. Bwithh 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large group of people hold these opinions, is that not a fact? And this is not much different then Criticism pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs)

* As I understand you, you're seriously suggesting that the article should stay as it is. As it is, the article dramatically fails WP:OR and WP:V, and only gives lip service to WP:NPOV ("racism is bad, but now we're going to go through a long detailed list of offensive stereotypes just so everyone knows what they are, but we're going to barely give any context or serious commentary at all."). Bwithh 21:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to AfD this myself when I saw it appear in recent changes. The nom sums it up nicely. While being offensive isn't a valid criterion to delete, it is impossible to cite that any of these are widely held views or stereotypes. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just plain ridiculous. As far as the actual policy, it violates WP:OR. GassyGuy 21:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in spite of anony. Danny Lilithborne 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not so naive to believe that some people hold these views; I've seen some of them expressed; we've all seen some of the expressed. An article that is well documented about what % of XXX thinks of YYY might be useful; this isn't. Carlossuarez46 22:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly uninformative. --Cassavau 23:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Original research, POV, unencyclopedic, and painfully ignorant. Written entirely from the perspective of a rather un-worldly American: observe how all Africans are lumped into a monolithic ilk of grotesque savages, yet the USA is diligently divided into eight subsections. This article's creator obviously spent some time working on it. I hope he didn't seriously think it would be found acceptable. If it weren't so disturbingly earnest and prosaic, it might be a candidate for BJAODN. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But revise extensively. An article on stereotypes and racial and national prejudice is quite appropriate. Since any such statement of a stereotype will offend someone, detailed citation would be required, rather than a list of 5 books and articles at the bottom of the page. Show how it is Prof so and so's research, then it isn't OR, is it? Cite those books, by page number, with footnotes, or deleted the stated stereotype.Edison 05:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my original opinion was Delete, Stubify and Rebuild. I'm not saying that the article subject is not worthy of an article. I'm saying that the current content is irretrievably appalling and a threat to Wikipedia's reputation. It would be easier and more effective and safer to simply blast the whole thing down and start again Bwithh 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison. As a defeatist cheese eating monkey, I find this article quite interesting and well researched.Hektor 07:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender-monkey, surely? ;-) Tonywalton | Talk 12:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with revisions, per Edison. Tonywalton | Talk 12:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pages like this, which presume to catalogue opinions and subjective impressions, are impossible not only in practice but in principle. Unlike facts, stereotypes are completely unverifiable, inherently subjective, and may differ dramatically from one person and one locality to another. Who is to decide whether a given stereotype is common, or merely a peculiarity of an individual? Certainly not the person presenting the opinion. We lack the ability to conduct scientific surveys and interviews, which would be original research anyway. Since we admit that most of the opinions currently listed on the page are unfalsifiable and unverifiable, we would be forced to accept any offered opinion, however factually groundless or bizarre. "Jews are made of chocolate? Hey, it may not be true, but if someone believes it..." Vandalism would be indistinguishable from earnest contribution. Bigotry is boundless: can you imagine how large this page would become? Moreover, even if it can somehow be reliably determined that a particular group of people has an established stereotype of another group of people, our policy of countering systemic bias will require that we also mention how other groups of people view the latter group, how the latter group views the former, etc. Accordingly, articles like this will never be anything more than a storehouse of often conflicting personal biases. This is true whether they reflect the view of one person or a thousand persons from all over the world. Because personal impressions don't reflect facts, they can never be formed into any kind of coherent article, especially if they are presented anonymously and out of the context in which they were acquired. A fact may be objectively reported, but an opinion cannot be regarded without a full knowledge of who holds it. Obviously, this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Bhumiya (said/done) 15:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless every stereotype has a reference. "Canadians are dependent on the government. They are fond of beer, love hockey, and hate Americans. They end almost evey sentence with the question, "Eh?". They are also know for eating their famous 'Kraft Dinner' and saying 'aboot' instead of 'about.'" True, but WP:OR. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR only if the article writer says "People from country x have typical trait so and so" But if the article says "In a scientific Harris Poll July 15, 2006, 90% of US residents expressed strong agreeement that People from country x have typical trait so and so," then it is a verifiable source AS TO THE BELIEF, not its truth. Do you see the difference?Edison 21:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How aboot (

Allen, Harold B. 1989. Canadian Raising in the Upper Midwest. American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage 64.1: 74-75.
Chambers, J. K. 1973. Canadian Raising. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 18: 113-135.
Chambers, J. K. 1989. Canadian Raising: Blocking, Fronting, Etc. American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage 64.1: 75-88.
Dailey-O'Cain, Jennifer. 1997. Canadian Raising in a Midwestern U.S. City. Language Variation and Change 9.1: 107-120
Thomas, Erik R. 1991. The Origin of Canadian Raising in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 36.2: 147-170.
Vance, Timothy J. 1987. 'Canadian Raising' in Some Dialects of the Northern United States. American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage 62.3: 195-210.)

eh? (

Avis, Walter S. 1972. So eh? Is Canadian, eh? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17: 89-104.
Gibson, Deborah. 1977. Eight Types of 'eh'. Sociolinguistics Newsletter 8.1: 30-31.). Per http://www.yorku.ca/twainweb/troberts/raising.html

Tonywalton | Talk 11:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we'll only need about eleven million citations. Where do we find the citation about Africans wearing loincloths and killing people for food? Bhumiya (said/done) 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National geographic?

Delete offensive and inviting to vandals. TehKewl1 06:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison This can be improved. Add references. If vandals come in, revert. That's how Wikipedia works.

--Planetary 08:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable original 'research'. Strongly agree with many of the reasons to delete above. The stereotypes here are a random selection with a US bias and no serious commentary. It seems impossible that this list could ever develop into a well-sourced article with an international perspective (NPOV), but if someone does write one, the page could be re-created.--HJMG 11:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-heavy editing Tawker's orginal complaint that this article is biased, ... and rather offensive smacks heavily of censorship and conflicting bias. However this article does need some heavy editing, specifically regarding the previous comments that stereotypes are normally held by one group of people about another group of people. Therefore it must be stated, and cited, which people hold these opinions. In my not so humble opinion the content of this article has a much bigger impact on humanity that the vast majority of other wikipedia articles.--Ben 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete/stubify unless heavily referenced. [ælfəks] 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Patently offensive and unverifiable. Unencyclopedic by default. And VERY offensive besides. --Mithunc 00:00, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilford Island[edit]

A ROM hack with nothing but graphic changes. ANYONE can do that, and this hack does not stand above the rest. Newspaper98 20:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated above, it s a simple ROM hack.--Kenn Caesius 21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the concept is hilarious but still. Danny Lilithborne 21:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ROM hack. Only gets 38 unique Google hits, some of which are Wikipedia and mirrors, others are unrelated. Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gogo Dodo 00:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 06:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Ace of Sevens 12:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like other similar ROM hack articles. --Stellmach 17:14, 1 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckles in Sonic the Hedgehog[edit]

A ROM hack that simply changes Sonic to Knuckles with graphic editing does NOT deserve its own article, anyone can do this. Newspaper98 20:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Strong oppose/Merge. Graphic editing? What are you talking about? Have you ever played this hack? It's so much more than graphics editing. Not many people know that hacking Knuckles into Sonic 1 was (and is still) considered one of the most difficult tasks ever in the Sonic community. For SEVEN YEARS, no one was able to do it, even though it was attempted. It is widely regarded as the "Holy Grail" of Sonic hacking. -- RattleMan 21:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you kidding me? All you have to do is copy Knuckles graphics and colors into a Sonic 1 Rom, due to the programs that are available today, and your done, I could do this in less than an hour. If it takes 7 years to do a simple task, then you need to find a new hobby. And besides, this is technically like a fanfic, and does not deserve its own article. The end. And besides, if more popular ROM hacks like Pokemon Brown (which got deleted yesterday) and Mario Adventure (Which will probably be deleted tommorow), were hacks that people actually put time in, and they get deleted, then this deserves to get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newspaper98 (talk • contribs)

I am not sure if I can bring other evidence into this, but this user just joined three days ago and went on an AfD spree, some regarded as bad-faith by other users that responded to them. -- RattleMan 21:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologized for that already, now im only putting articles that deserve to be deleted. Im just trying to help keep this site clean of worthless articles, but now i know WHICH worthless articles to nonimate. Like this one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newspaper98 (talk • contribs)

Delete - The Holy Grail of non-notability is still not notable. BoojiBoy 21:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit). --Kuroki Mio 2006 21:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom is a bit keen on bringing articles to AFD but this fails WP:OR. Yomangani 22:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since the Sonic the Hedgehog 1 article already has a dedicated hacks section, I have been bold and merged the article into that. However, I will wait until consensus is reached in this AfD before taking further action such as redirection. -- RattleMan 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call (still needs references though). Suggesting relevant merges such as this is an alternative to AFD. Yomangani 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as per RattleMan. Viridae ^Talk 22:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rattleman, you might like to check Somari to see if that is worth merging on the same basis (as it is also up for deletion). Yomangani 23:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ROM hack. The question of whether hacking ROMs is easy, difficult, takes lots of time, takes no time at all, (etc.) has no bearing on whether to delete the article. Digging a ditch is long hard work, too, but it isn't something that gets in an encylopedia. Instead, we need to ask whether it's verifiable using reliable sources. Given that it has 48 unique Google hits, and quite a lot of those are unrelated phrases (example: "You may now play as Knuckles in Sonic the Hedgehog 3." referring to an unlockable feature in the Sonic Mega Collection), I'd say this is not notable/verifiable enough. Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's just a ROM hack. It doesn't seem to be verifiable with reliable sources. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ROM hack. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What's the big deal here? --Hyphen5 06:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, ROM hacks tend to be unverifiable by their nature. The mention in the Sonic article should be sufficient. Ace of Sevens 12:02, 30 July 2006 (*UTC)
Merge with Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit) Although it doesn't deserve its own article it is still a notable accomplishment and should therefore have a mention on the Hacks section of the page --El cid the hero 13:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge This is a immense acomplishment. It is a full Knuckles in Sonic 1, not just graphics, and for me, it makes some levels actually clearable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blah2 (talk • contribs)
Comment Ok he changed some levels, big whoop. Pokemon Brown got deleted a few days ago and every single map was changed, so changing maps obviously doesnt deserve a page.

Newspaper98 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNo levels were changed. --Blah2 13:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in complete agreement with Andrew Lenahan. Not notable. --Stellmach 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what the fuss is about. It's an intresting secret, and I think many sonic fans would be intrested. Who really cares if it's unverifiable It's just for reading and it's fairly unlikely anyone can or will attempt this. Except maybe people in the field of hacking. I didn't know this existed untill reading this article, that is why I love Wikipedia, it has the stuff few others have other than a few scatterd web-pages. People get to learn more cool secrets about their favorite mascot, just leave it, it's not like we are publishing Wiki Books for the mass patron to buy and put on their shelves. No one is going to flip out over a article about a ROM HACK Game. --ShortShadow 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability is one of the base principles of wikipedia. For something to be included in the encyclopedia it must be verifiable. Viridae ^Talk 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is verifiable. I could give you a link... --Blah2 13:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, let's see it. Ace of Sevens 13:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...a link to someplace you can download it, or a link to a reliable source? Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information on exactly what we mean by reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT.--Peta 09:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN, and WP:NOT. I also feel that the deletion of Pokemon Brown has set a precedent for deleting these kinds of articles. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:41, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Jam 6[edit]

Another Pirate/ROM hack with nothing but graphic changes. These kinds of games do not deserve their own article, because any one over the age of 4 could do this. Newspaper98 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pirated game = more notable than a ROM hack, but not by much. 59 unique Google hits. Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gogo Dodo 01:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' ditto all above. -Colonial One 01:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DELETE IT???— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.122.135 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 July 2006

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe mention in another article, btu not suggesting sufficient notability for it to have its own page. Plus, there are verifiability problems. Ace of Sevens 12:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Kuroki Mio 2006 19:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Non-notable. I would like to point out however this AfD doesnt list a reason for it to be deleted, not a valid one at least. Because many people can do it, is not a legit reason to delete articles. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Stellmach 17:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given for deleting all rom-hacks: WP:NN, WP:NOT. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:44, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somari[edit]

Another Pirate/ROM hack with nothing but graphic changes. These kinds of games do not deserve their own article, because any one over the age of 4 could do this. Newspaper98 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess that, hypothetically, pirated games are more notable than ROM hacks because they're at least sold in stores (albeit "under the counter") as opposed to just passed around on Kazaa or whatever. Still nowhere near notable enough for an article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gogo Dodo 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Ace of Sevens 12:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible Speedy - Somari only returns 225 000 hits on Google[47]. --Kuroki Mio 2006 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Non-notable. I would like to point out however this AfD doesnt list a reason for it to be deleted, not a valid one at least. Because many people can do it, is not a legit reason to delete articles. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do NOT delete. This article does not contain anything promoting illegal behavior, or an explanation of how to do so. Just because something is illegal doesn;t mean it's existence shouldn't be documented.

Comment Were not deleting it because its illegal or not illegal, the fact is its just Sonic with the graphic of Mario. Anyone can do that. Newspaper98 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Stellmach 17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's one of the more notable hacks/pirates, has had mentions on bigger sites, such as Sonic Cult, and anybody who says "It's just Sonic with Mario" doesn't know what they're talking about, seeing as it's also running on NES hardware. Shadic 14:58, 1 August 2006.
Keep as per consensus in 2004 deletion nomination, for same reasons- it's notable now, through emulation, it doesn't promote, describe, encourage, etc. illegal activities, it's an impressive programming feat, etc. And 225,000 hits on Google seems like it should be notable enough to warrant some mention on an infinitely large encyclopedia. Notability is carried way too far sometimes. But I digress. CrossEyed7 03:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably one of the most notable pirate games. Also, it was sold commercially (even if illegally,) and has recieved some media attention (as evidenced by the 225,000 google hits.) Were it one of those hack pirate games like the ones where only a character were replaced (I remember one pirate was a hack of some action game and they just changed the character graphic to Mario and called it "Super Mario Bros. 9" or something like that,) I would vote delete. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 04:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most well known pirate cartridges, and isn't a simple sprite hack, as they ported Sonic onto the NES, with some pretty impressive results. I simply don't believe a 5 year old could reverse-engineer Sonic the Hedgehog and port it to a piece of hardware with worse system specifications. The nomination is under the assumption that this is a simple graphics hack, and that's simply not the case. -MysticEsper 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto. Infamous hack, this. AMHR285^(talk) 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Peta 09:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just isn't notable. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:36, 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 nomination withdrawn. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga[edit]

Proven to be a hoax. http://landofthelegend.net/?get=newsview&date=227&lan=en http://www.zeldauniverse.net/content/view/472/1/ Feel free to post other links that prove this is a hoax if you want. But this is not real. Newspaper98 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per speedy keep 6, this is the third nomination of this article, and the most recent one from less than 5 weeks ago was a consensus keep. The article notes it's a hoax, this is tiring. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's ok that it's a hoax, because the article does not talk about it as if it is real, but rather describes the hoax itself. Also, last AfD just recently concluded it was notable enough. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important hoax. It's about the hoax; the article isn't the hoax. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Vote Ok, I guess I didnt realize that this is what it was about, sorry. Feel free to close this AFD Discussion whenever you feel like it. Newspaper98 23:33, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanpaul Ferro[edit]

This article was previously speedily deleted. I think the speedy deletion was overly hasty, since the article does make an assertion of notability, so I've undeleted and am listing it here. As currently put it may fail WP:BIO, but perhaps it can be improved. Either way, consensus is preferable to speedy deletion. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 21:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the article can be made to pass our notability guidelines. Note that I have deleted this article twice. Also note that it is an autobiography. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (But Add Sources) A basic Google search reveals a plethora of artistic works and acclaim, quite enough to establish notability. The author should provide sources for this piece. Such documents should be found quite easily using a routine Internet search engine, as the artist in question seems to have generated a bit of attention for herself. History21 05:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]
Delete Per Zoe Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick look seems like his work has been reviewed in poetry journals and has a published book. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Having "a published book" does not meet the guideline at WP:BIO. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BIO states that it "is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." I'd say, given the limited access to reviews i've seen so far, he comes close enough for me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small-press author whose book is found -- according to Worldcat -- in 6 libraries worldwide, counting the Library of Congress. *Nominated* for Pushcart Prize, which ain't the same as winning. The editor just above once again mistakes Wikipedia for the telephone directory. --Calton | Talk 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to substantiate that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean your "Every Sperm is Sacred" attitude? See above -- or see most of the nonsensical reasoning you use on AFD to justify keeping the most worthless scraps of data. --Calton | Talk 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I thought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable poet. Has published several hundred poems in many magazines, say the outside sources. Pushcart Prize not a trivial award, nominations are considered notable by many. Even if his book's not notable, that doesn't mean his poetry isn't, and 200-300 magazines say otherwise. VivianDarkbloom 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Calton. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. And your proof that he's published "several hundred poems in many magazines"? Not a breath of that in the article, nor for the "200-300 magazines". --Calton | Talk 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per History, Jeff, and Vivian. Notable enough for a stub. rootology (T) 18:54, 2 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 Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cound hall[edit]

~~Non-notable structure, doesn't assert its importance apart from being old, which doesn't really count on its own. Not sure if it falls under CSD A7 so listing here. Erath 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn. Erath 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is an early 18th century manor in Shropshire less notable than the concrete platforms and staircases at the Jordanhill railway station in Glasgow? BTW, it seems that Barbara Cartland probably lived there for some time. At least her first husband, Alexander George McCorquodale, owned the place at the time of their marriage in 1927 (ODNB). up+l+and 17:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- May I draw your attention to Wikipedia:No personal attacks - the second sentence of which reads, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Your comment about Jordanhill railway station is clearly a comment on me as the contributor. Erath 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am sorry if you take it that way, but I actually thought of the Jordanhill railway station (as another UK structure, and since I happened to look at it again the other day when reading this article) as a useful comparison, without having looked at your userpage. If a railway station is inherently notable just for being a railway station, even one (as far as I understand) without any actual building, I don't see why a 300-year old manor couldn't be notable just for being an old manor. I question the consistency in including one and excluding the other. You are welcome to address that point. up+l+and 11:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to this BBC page, it is a grade 1 listed building ("buildings of exceptional interest"). Here, at the English Heritage website, is a large colour picture and a detailed but nearly unreadable description with references. Here are some more pictures. up+l+and 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Grade 1 listed buildings in the UK. The correct heading, nts, is Cound Hall. --Wetman 11:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly of national importance, especially as England has so few Baroque buildings. It would have taken the nominator less time to wikify and tidy it than list it here! I do wish people would check for notability before wasting everyone's time here. Giano | talk 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already warned one contributor about a personal attack and I don't want to warn a second. I don't know the first thing about architecture, but I saw an article, it looked in a delapidated state and didn't assert any notability. Now that the article has been improved, fair enough, turns out it is notable. And we now have a better article for all the debate. Tell me, whose time was I wasting? Erath 21:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not entirely necessary to accuse everyone of personal attacks, you know. Notwithstanding that there over 6,000 Grade I listed buildings (according to our article on listed buildings), this one is more notable than a minor railway station, irrespective of who wrote what, and it would have taken less time to wikify it than list it here.
I am rather surprised that you think an article on a substiantial country house could be a candidate for speedy deletion, as a vanity article.
Most articles have a habit of improving over time without being listed at AfD. In my experience, most manage to improve without being listed at AfD. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest it was a vanity article. I was suggesting that the article didn't assert its importance. Since it's not a band, group of people, or such, I didn't think the criteria applied - and I was right. Had enough of a go at me yet, or would you like to continue? Erath 23:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not having a go at you personally - I am commenting more generally. A7 refers to "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages" - I suppose an article describing the limited merits of my modest home would be vanity, but this is clearly nowhere near that. Anyway, enough said. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's clearly no future for this debate (outwith bashing me) so I'm officially withdrawing my nomination. Erath 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The article now clearly asserts the importance of the building by stating that it's a Grade 1 listed structure. This is the top listing classification used in England, and all Grade 1 buildings are notable for that reason alone. There are few enough of this quality in the country not to worry about swamping Wikipedia with large numbers of articles.--MichaelMaggs 12:37, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cat International[edit]

Magazine shop with a cafe owned by a former university professor. Umm... not important, not verifiable. Does not meet WP:CORP. -- JamesTeterenko 21:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete per nom. can't find anything on that particular "Black Cat International"—— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a person who bought more than my fair share of newspapers there during the Sudbury phase of my misbegotten youth, I can personally confirm that there's nothing particularly notable about it; while it is a cool store, it's of no real significance to anyone who doesn't live in the Sudbury area. And I'm not even going to ask how the graphic ended up touting the cafe's "Freshly a e ies" instead of whatever it said originally. Delete. Bearcat 07:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --Ardenn 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Satori Son 18:33, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byaaaah![edit]

Term is from a non-notable Chappelle skit. Either merge with the Chapelle show or delete Wildthing61476 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 06:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD removed by author, have replaced. Wildthing61476 14:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Peta 09:14, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sims 3[edit]

Complete speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There has been no announcement that this game is under development or even that development is being considered. eaolson 21:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Viridae ^Talk 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculative. --Cassavau 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every sentence of the article pretty much admits nothing is known. Agent 86 23:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No article should begin with the words "[article] is a fan speculated..." RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this does come, this is the wrong capitalization. Ace of Sevens 12:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal balling. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that 2 design companies pulled listing for Sims 3 after EA asked them too since it was not officially announced. It seems the game is in development, just not officially stated to be worked on. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Stellmach 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, naturally. Combination 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even pretend to have a source. AMHR285^(talk) 06:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Sims 3, although most likely coming out, has not been confirmed by anything and this article is completely speculative and unencylopedic. Knowitall 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep THE SIMS 3 IS COMING JUNE!

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rev. Eric J. Freeman, MA Theological Ethics[edit]

It borders on the speedy delete criteria, but some may feel an asseration for hosting a radio show and being a pastor. Sadly, however, there are millions of of religious ministers out there, and what wikipedia is not is a collection of biographies on everyone. Last, it reads like an advertisement/publicity piece for the man in question. I apologise to The New Capernaum Church. There's nothing wrong, its just wikipedia doesn't have an article on every person. Kevin_b_er 22:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree. He doesn't seem all that notable. --Natalie 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would be inappropriate. I'd invite the community to reconsider. Rev. Freeman is a notable minister and community activist responsible for work that has influenced thousands of lives. He is also a notable motivational speaker to include work with the South Carolina Black Family Caucus, the NFL Players Association, Keynote Speaker for Super Bowl XXXVIII pre-game worship service, etc. Perhaps his notablility needs to be more clearly stated for those who are not aware of his significant contributions to the community. I'd also suggest that we consider the guidelines for speedy deletion: "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." In conclusion, I would suggest, if necessary, that the article be rewritten to avoid any "vain" intimations. --MINEJF1906 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Also WP:VAIN. --Hyphen5 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another embarassing vanity article. Byrgenwulf 11:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Cassavau 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. There isn't much here, so recreating it would be easy if he becomes notable. --Royalbroil 04:18, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greased Lightning (product)[edit]

Advertising for something that might be a fuel additive or the like. No evidence of notability in the article. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising, it's not a brand I regognise (sic). There's already an article on PTFE which covers its properties. Yomangani 23:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert. Acyso 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Greased lightning is a pioneering product which is unlike other products on the markert. I feel i have written it in such a tone that it does not present itself as advertising. If you disagree maybe you could improve it not delete it. ➨ Darren

Have added a second side to the story to dismiss any claims of it being advertising ➨ Darren

Just because a story has both sides doesn't mean it's not advertising. In any case, it doesn't appear that the product is notable enough to warrant a WP entry. Acyso 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for sure. Not notable. --Cassavau 23:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 09:12, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K. Massayan Sorsor, Sr.[edit]

Apparently a non-notable politician who lost some election. Fails WP:BIO. Dreprod2'ed without comment. -- ReyBrujo 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Admittedly it was a rather important election for the country concerned. BigHaz 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently a vanity page, no less Cassavau 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Underneath it all, he's a defeated candidate for the Liberian Senate and apparently runs a large rice farm. I'd like to see more sources, and it needs some serious cleanup, but I think he does make the notability hurdle. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates.--Peta 09:11, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Dale Cearley[edit]

Looks suspiciously like Gastroturfing; this is an author whose principal claim to fame seems to be a book which is claimed as a "historically based refutation" of one of Jack Chick's tracts. According to Weregerbil, this guy publishes through a vanity press. Oh, and he was prominent in the Hanoi darts league. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Playing darts in Asia isn't notable. C56C 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should we delete his organization, Libertarians Abroad? It brings less than 150 hits from Yahoo. C56C 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've gone ahead and prodded it. Molerat 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a dart to the triple-20. NawlinWiki 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable vanity publishing. And using David Icke as a source doesn't help. Dlyons493 Talk 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Kafziel 19:15, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets Hit It[edit]

WP:WEB 2+million on Alexa. Notably non-notable. Rklawton 22:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, perhaps speedy, as non-notable. Fails not only WP:WEB but WP:AUTO as well: only contributor at this point is the new user Letshitit. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 23:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, List of Internet stations lists quite a large number of seemingly non-notable stations which nontheless have wiki entries. Cassavau 23:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that there are many articles on other non-notable Internet stations does not mean that this one should be kept, too. --Missmarple 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, Alexa rank 2,034,479. The existence of other worse articles is never a reason to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Peta 09:11, 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 delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M Sarki[edit]

Non-notable poet published by print-on-demand publisher Authors Choice Press. Probable vanity page by new editor.

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

In rebuttal: M Sarki's book ZIMBLE ZAMBLE ZUMBLE (ISBN: 0595250920) was published in a limited-edition-handmade edition by elimae books of Dallas, TX. A paperback trade edition was published by Author's Choice Press. Authors Choice Press offers an important service to writers whose books have gone out-of-print. They are a subsidy of I-Universe.

M Sarki's book LITTLE WAR MACHINE (ISBN: 0972332979) was published in a paperback trade edition by Ravenna Press out of Edmonds, Washington.

M Sarki's MEWL HOUSE (ISBN# 0-9770377-1-1) was published in a limited-handmade edition by Rogue Literary Society.

A poet cannot be listed in Poets and Writers if the journals and book publishers do not check out. M Sarki is listed in Poets and Writers. Perhaps this person accusing M Sarki of being a vanity writer has some bone to pick with the poet.

To say that M Sarki is not a notable poet would tell me that this person does not know poetry, nor the movers in it.

Roguebooks 00:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The user has less than 40 edits, majority of them to M Sarki and this AfD. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,WP:NN, likely WP:VANITY. All a writer must do to be listed in Poets & Writers is fill out an application. I completed it in less than six minutes. I direct your attention to: P&W Application. In regards to Sarki's published works, self-published works are considered vanity. If there are other published works, are there ISBNs for the works? In addition, the list of published works in the article link to non-literary pages. I was unable to locate any literary publications by the names listed. M Sarki is not a notable poet, not yet. -Colonial One 01:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every link in the journal listings now work. Please check them out. Also, a Google search for M Sarki will show countless publications where the poet's work has been published. As for the books, there are isbn numbers for every work published by M Sarki. (See above titles with added ISBN numbers.) Sarki was nominated for a 2003 Pushcart Prize [48]. There have been critical reviews written about the poetry (see elimae.com [49].

Roguebooks 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This is not a vote, so votestuffing is pointless. Even more so if you make it plainly obvious that you're voting multiple times... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If these personal (and idiotic) attacks are what Wikipedia is about, then Sarki won't want to be a part of this anyway. To think it may be you two people who decide whether Sarki is a notable poet, or not, seems ludicrous. Better to be gone than be a part of this. It is hoped Wikipedia's people can see through your pointless attacks and check the real poet out. Nobody is votestuffing, simply trying to learn the system here and defend a simply factual encyclopedic entry.Roguebooks 14:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not take AfDs personally, and calm down. This is hardly constructive. We're not here to attack the subject any way, we're only discussing whether or not the subject is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Statements for or against are duly noted. (And if you're not votestuffing, please explain the two extraneous keep comments above. You only need to state your recommendation once - perhaps you just weren't aware of that fact?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

didn't know they were votes. meant as statements. declarations. since removed. excessive editing caused by unfamiliarity with system. i fail to see any statements above that are constructive, except the facts listed by "roguebooks". there is no basis for any of the statements above by "deleters". every question has been answered and fixed. nobody, obviously, has checked them out to their facticity and offered revisions to their prior views. i do believe the attacks have been personal because there are judgments being made by others who have offered up no credibility in this field. M Sarki is also a Finn.Roguebooks 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we appreciate the referencing done in the article. Nobody is attacking the article, we're trying to come to an impartial conclusion on whether it is notable enough to be a Wikipedia entry. The books clearly exist but they all are with small publishers with limited distibution (out-of-print, paperback trade edition, limited-handmade edition). Nomination for a prize is some claim to notability - how prestigious is the prize and what's the status of the nominator? Nobody has bone to pick with Mr Sarki. I do have some reservations about this being a promotional campaign by Roguebooks. Dlyons493 Talk

How can the M Sarki main page be misconstrued as "promotional" when all it states are the facts? If you research and read what many others have said about Sarki you could come to the conclusion that there is some merit here to the claims on the "articles for deletion" page that Sarki is in fact "notable". The mere fact that Lish is involved with the poet ought to tell you something, unless you are not familiar with Gordon Lish, and then there is absolutely no reason for your remarks to be merited. There are many writers out there who wish not to be involved with big publishers. There are some writers who do not care about money, nor do they care about rubbing elbows with their ilk. This page on M Sarki is only offered as a link to persons interested in finding out more about the poet. It certainly is not about prestige. It is certainly not about self-promotion. For what? It is becoming all too clear that this Wikipedia is a community of something other than what it claims to be. Roguebooks 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With Pushcart nomination, the author is clearly noteable. As for self-published: Walt Whiltman self-published Leaves of Grass and more recently Christopher Paolini's Eragon (Inheritance, Book I) began as a do-it-yourself before Knopf picked it up. Jdlow 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Always good to see a new user taking an interest in AfD. What's a Pushcart nomination and should I AfD this self-published Whiltman guy? Dlyons493 Talk 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pushcart Prize Roguebooks 09:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for that link. As I read it, any small press can make up to 6 nominations annually. For some small presses that'd be pretty much their annual output. Thousands of writers have received an award so I'm not sure that even receiving an award (let alone merely being nominated for one) would represent widespread notability. But it's certainly a step in that direction! Note that, as far as I can see, Sarki is an interesting poet and one who probably deserves wider recognition but the nature of Wikipedia is to record the already famous rather than the deserving. Dlyons493 Talk

Try this new link. Frank Lentricchia solicited Sarki for some poems he could publish in Duke's SAQ periodical. Sarki obliged. Lentricchia wrote the following for Sarki's book LITTLE WAR MACHINE. Is that notable? If it isn't, nothing is. Learn who Lentricchia is. Then, let's talk.

"Yeats wrote, 'Words alone are certain good.' Read Sarki and experience the truth of what Yeats wrote." — Frank Lentricchia Roguebooks 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More notes: The critic B. Renner wrote this piece for elimae about M Sarki. On that page there is also a piece by Gordon Lish about Sarki and how he compares him to the great American poet Wallace Stevens.

"If the poems in Zimble Zamble Zumble [elimae books, 2000 had been previously published in The Paris Review or The New Yorker, M Sarki would by now have been hailed as a marvelous home-grown successor to Charles Simic and the book itself offered by Knopf or Farrar Straus. But the poems have instead appeared mostly in online magazines, such as elimae and 5_Trope, and Sarki is virtually unknown. Which may be just as well, for the time being, because the comparison to Simic would be misleading and maybe even harmful. For one thing Sarki's poems owe more to the not quite Dadaist tendencies of Wallace Stevens than to European surrealism; for another, Simic would give his third eye to write poems as wonderful and delicious as the best of these. I frequently have no idea what Sarki is talking "about," but his language both astonishes and amuses me. Zimble Zamble Zumble gives more pleasure than the last dozen Pulitzer Prize winners all together."

--B. Renner]

One other thing: The Pushcart Prize allows six nominees from each approved publication (journal), of which there can be as many as twelve issues or one per quarter. That means there can be as many as hundreds of pieces to choose from in each journal to literally thousands. (There was one poem nominated of Sarki's out of who-knows-how-many others.) Obviously this person discounting the Pushcart Prize nomination does not know what he/she is talking about. It is a fine, and very prestigious academy. It is a disservice to all writers to discount it. Roguebooks 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something else notable from Canadian novelist and short story writer Ken Sparling: Ken Sparling Interview Ken Sparling: The exquisite poet and venerable human being M. Sarki once emailed me a quote that shifted something inside me, almost violently. I liked the feeling. I'd felt it before, and I hope I'll feel it again. I emailed back to him and said, “That's beautiful, Sark, but what the hell does it mean?” He emailed back and admitted he had no good idea what it meant, but he said he thought it had something to do with getting the words wrong. Which didn't actually clarify much for me, but made me love Sarki even more.>>>The Danforth Review

Roguebooks 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Putting on one side the fact that I don't understand a word of his poetry the key pount is that he doesn'r seem to have established notability. BlueValour 04:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability demonstrated.--Peta 09:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~Keep with major rewrite Notability not established. Also, the article is lacking details. Is his first name "M" or is "M Sarki" an assumed identifier like "Prince?" Where and when was he born and raised? What cultural influences and other factors led him to write what he wrote? Did he attend college? There is only a reference to someone's "tutelage." Consider if the "John Keats" article were as lacking in details as this one. Include more to establish notoreity and provide some info about the person. Whether his poems make sense to a self appointed Wikipedia article reader/deleter is irrelevant.Edited to add: "Woodshed" is awesome. Great poems appear sometimes on refrigerators in the form of little magnets, no? Edison 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note Edison's recommendation has been changed by anon 71.228.11.251

What it originally said was:Delete or major rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 00:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason "notability" and "vanity" are invoked as criteria for deletion is less that they are an extension of "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection" then because of real concerns that the subject of the article is so obscure that he/she/it will in all likelihood not attract a good mix of involved, semi-involved and univolved editors. Chances are the article will always stand as a POV piece written solely by partisan editors with a strong involvement with the subject, failing WP:NPOV and often WP:V and WP:NOR to boot. This article is a perfect example why notability should be a concern. It's a gush piece, it's scraping the bottom of the barrel with a rusty spoon what reliable sources are concerned, and it's even signed by the main author who seems to be the publisher of the subject's poetry if not in fact the subject him/herself. ~ trialsanderrors 22:07, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solo travel[edit]

A really cute article, but... encyclopedic? Nope. --Missmarple 23:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Solo travel is a bit of a trend lately. Loads of Google hits and news mentions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR seems to be an article written to act as header for some external links. Urgh. Yomangani 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it belongs anywhere, Wikitravel would be my guess (and yes, I know transwiki-ing to there isn't too good an idea to recommend). BigHaz 01:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cute but with an 'M' : cut'em! Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 11:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Peta 09:09, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall University Science Fiction Society[edit]

Prominently stating that a thing is notable does not make it so. Whosasking 23:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:OR. It's a nice approach though, shows the editor realised it should be notable to merit an entry. Yomangani 23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nice try, though. --DarkAudit 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, good effort just the material isn't there for an article to exist. MLA 17:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 09:09, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive enterprise[edit]

Brief article that seems to exist mostly as a corporatese advertisement for the Sense and Respond website and methodology. — NM Chico24 23:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, seems to be self-promotion. Cedars 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This is a very common buzz-phrase in the IT industry these days, particularly from HP. So it probably deserves an article of some type. — RJH (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a footnote in another article, but I fail to see how this can be expanded in any meaningful way. The article isn't really talking about the buzzword itself. It's promoting the Sense and Respond methodology, which makes it much more like an ad. — NM Chico24 02:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a concept that is used in varying ways. This does not seem an encyclopaedic account, rather, one useage. BlueValour 03:09, 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 speedily deleted by Yanksox. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chillin sandwich[edit]

Neologism. Zero GHits. Gogo Dodo 00:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - a couple guys having fun on a saturday night. SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails WP:NFT, WP:VAIN, and WP:NEO. This could possibly be speedied for no context, since it doesn't say what distinguishes a "chillin sandwich" from a normal chill session. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Obviously. --Natalie 01:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Dude, we're totally on Wikipedia! Duuuude! -Colonial One 01:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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