Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 29 July 31 >

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 Speedy keep, nom appears to have been vandalism rather than WP:POINT. MCB 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spain[edit]

Poorly written article - NPOV violations - lack of proper sources. --The Aggie Jedi 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This article needs to be cleaned up, but this is a vital article, one of the major countries in the world. Lovelac7 19:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Lovelac7; you can't possibly delete this! I believe that this AfD tag is a mistake; maybe an NPOV tag if the nominator believes so. Thistheman 20:01, 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 Result : Speedy deletion as A8

Rectoversion[edit]

no source given, copyright violation, questionable as a distinct genre or movement Renice 17:30, 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. Sango123 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shy Ghost[edit]

Doesn't meet the notariety criteria from WP:MUSIC. Informative, but too obscure for an entry. Scott.wheeler 15:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salluit Airport[edit]

Passes google test, but a very light article and not a likely topic Wikipedia readers would search for. --How dare you? 04:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, though I would prefer additions be made to solidify my resolve. Michael 04:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming it will someday get fleshed out. --Rehcsif 18:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; airports are usually considered notable, and this one is certainly verifiable. I am a member of WikiProject Airports and I'll see if we are keeping a cleanup/expansion list (I know there's one for airports with commercial service, not sure if this one does). --MCB 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand this article. --Bigtop 06:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and please expand. Hektor 06:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments rootology 08:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the thing so what else am I going to say. Airports, like schools, are notable as such and at least this one has a sked service. I've added some info here. I created stubs for all Canadian airports and was suprised that several of them have been edited by other users. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:16 (UTC)
  • Keep - expansion would help. Williamborg (Bill) 14:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and give it time to grow. If later we find it hasn't grown much, we can always find somewhere to merge it. Jacqui★ 14:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable and per all above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, contingent on the expansion of the article in the future. Acyso 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - intrinsically notable topic. Metamagician3000 11:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. It is unclear to me what the rationale for deletion is. Yamaguchi先生 08:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful information on air transportation infrastructure.--DawnTreader 03:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - bad faith nomination. I wouldn't advise a block of User:How dare you?, but a test2 or test3 warning maybe. --Harrison V 19:31, 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. Sango123 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maghull Snooker Hall[edit]

Delete. Non notable, non encylopedic. Nationalparks 00:09, 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. Sango123 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Maghull Open Snooker Championships[edit]

Delete. Non notable, non encylopedic. Nationalparks 00:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom MarkBuckles 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable event held by a non-notable organization. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. It does appear that this could have been combined as a multiple nomination by the nominator. That's just a tip for next time. Erechtheus 02:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per above. Em-jay-es 07:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. rootology 08:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Michael 08:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 09:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, suspected hoax. Unencyclopedic. --TheM62Manchester 09:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trans-Wiki - Not all that badly written. But even a pretty strong inclusionist has a hard time arguing that it belongs here. Williamborg (Bill) 14:17, 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 Reposted vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Away - Holiday Coast[edit]

I don't know why this article is here, but it appears to be about Home and Away, which already exists. The show isn't even known as Home and Away - Holiday Coast, at all. JD[don't talk|email] 00:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap that, JLaTondre blocked them Yomangani 01:07, 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. Sango123 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening line[edit]

  • Delete This article appears to violate WP:OR and WP:ENC. -- MarkBuckles 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR, not an encyclopedia article. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entirely OR -Colonial One 01:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates WP:OR Michael 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like part of a chapter on writing. Not a stand alone article as is. Belongs in an article on writing. See also: Plot. Setting. Protagonist. Conflict. Suspense. Point of view. Foreshadowing. Character development. Ending.Edison 05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - does not meet WP:OR rules. --Bigtop 06:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rootology 08:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 09:20, 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. Sango123 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jawa Report[edit]

Fails to meet any of the criteria at WP:WEB. BhaiSaab talk 00:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is an article on a section of the website:

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy in Love (comic)[edit]

Delete, this unverifiable vanity article on a less-than-one-month-old non-notable minor webcomic. The article is unverifiable per our official content policies as it has no credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It does not meet the WP:WEB notability guideline as it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, has won no well-known and independent awards, and its publisher (Keenspot) is not both well-known and independent of the creators. The article seems to have been created by one of the webcomic's authors and edited by another Keenspot cartoonist. So, that's the trifecta of unveriifiable, non-notable vanity. -- Dragonfiend 00:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment I reject your assertion that Keenspot is not both well-known and independent of the creators. However, vanity does appear to be an issue and it has only been around a month, so I'm not going to suggest keeping it, either. In any case, it does have a version at Comixpedia: Crazy in Love. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not sure if Keenspot is independent (I've seen it refered to many times, perhaps incorrectly, as a "collective," implying shared control by its artists); however, I believe that while it may be "well-known" to you and I it is not "well-known" in any sort of general sense. -- Dragonfiend 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable webcomic. It's only been around for a month (well, not even that). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why would something that has been around less than a month need an article? — NMChico24 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per well-reasoned nom. --MCB 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the very good nom. Too new to warrent inclusion. rootology 08:16, 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. Sango123 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart statistics[edit]

The content in this article overlaps the content in Wal-Mart and List of assets owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. It is a list of subsidiaries and a store count per country and format, etc., but all content on here is already included in the other two pages. Tuxide 00:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Erechtheus 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant article. — NMChico24 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't think simply turning this article into a redirect was appropriate, since the bulk of the content is on List of assets owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and the word "statistics" is a more general term. To me, the statistics of a retailing company covers sales information and its relation to demographics, and content such as the median age and income of a Wal-Mart customer, etc. Since this article has none of that, I believed a full delete was more appropriate. Tuxide 02:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Tuxide. --MCB 06:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop 06:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and above. rootology 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not to mention some serious Wal-Mart-cruft. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: cruft, cruft, cruft. Acyso 21:14, 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 Reposted vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbours Briggs[edit]

Unnecessary article, a bad attempt to supersede Neighbours, or some other reason... either way, it doesn't have to be here. The article is about something that doesn't exist. JD[don't talk|email] 00:52, 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. Sango123 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake of Rage[edit]

A minor location in one game in the series. No encylopaediac value, badly done page, no reason to keep it. Fancruft, really. GSR 00:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When patrolling New Articles I've seen a number of these new Pokemon additions to Wikipedia. They all follow the same formula: they cover a location in the game that would for one never be covered in a secondary source (except perhaps a game guide) due to its non-notability (violation of WP:OR). Second of all, the location is so non-notable that the article could never be more than a stub due to the simple lack of information about the topic. I suggest a general cleanout be done of these Pokemon location articles to remove all locations that simply aren't important or merge them to a main article. Dark Shikari 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Safari Zone is notable. The Lake of Rage is not. Penelope D 05:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Dark Shikari and Penelope D. It's not notable. --Bigtop 06:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. rootology 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable fancruft. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Pokemon stub that fails the Pokemon test... certainly good criteria for binning it! ><Richard0612 UW 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. AgentPeppermint 18:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Acyso 21:15, 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. Sango123 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho (unreleased Eminem album)[edit]

This isn't an "unreleased album" but a collection of songs that Eminem did in 1999-2000. Someone took these songs and put them together and released them as a bootleg "Psycho". But this is not an "unreleased album" in the sense that Eminem recorded this album but later it was shelved. It's a bootleg compilation and not even a very notable one at that. There are plenty of CDs like this featuring Eminem that are floating around out there. I've even made a couple myself. MrBlondNYC 00:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there's no assertion of notability for this specific bootleg, even though it's bootlegged from the performances of a notable performer. BigHaz 01:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bootleg album would need a lot of sources to establish its notability. --Metropolitan90 17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT a crystal ball. --TheM62Manchester 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that there's any crystal balling going on - the album does physically exist. BigHaz 23:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I support keeping bootlegs but only when they have official support of the artist such as unreleased tracks etc. This seems to fail that criteria. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think even non-official bootlegs can be added/kept if they are very notable. For example one Eminem bootleg was so popular it was reviewed by noted critic Robert Christgau. Or if its an album that an artist doesn't want released but it leaked out. I can't think of any example off the top but it has happened. But this one is definitely not a notable one.MrBlondNYC 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Maybe the album not but the songs verifyably exist and this album tracklist is the most common one over the internet (as I've just recently checked). Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 11:04, 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 delete Vandal created page previously deleted. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home And Away - Holiday Coast[edit]

Not a real television show, made by the same person that created H&A Holiday Coast and Neighbours Briggs JD[don't talk|email] 00:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatos Tarifa[edit]

Subject request, as he asserts that he does not merit an entry in Wikipedia. I have no opinion on this nomination. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Where did he make this assertion? --Nscheffey(T/C) 01:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So a former Ambassador from Albania to several nations and published author is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry? What a disgraceful nomination.--Thomas.macmillan 01:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it is out of a courtesy to the subject that I nominated this. Please give others the benefit of the doubt. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Where is the assertion by the subject that he does not merit an article? In any case, a neutral, factual encyclopedia article should exist for all persons of note, without regard to the their personal interest in the project. — NMChico24 02:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO as an international politician. As for his request, note that WP:AUTO states "People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic.". --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nscheffey, meets WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the above comments and the WP:AUTO citation. rootology 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nscheffey. The argument of a subject deciding if there should have an article has also been delt with in several Daniel Brandt AFDed. (One example). In each case the clear consenus was that he did not have that right and that it would cause a dangerous precedence. This article should stay unless the subject can state a good reason for removal. Edgelord 08:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pleased to see that a former ambassador is modest, but he is noteworthy (googles up quite legitimately). If there are errors in the article, we should correct them. But deletion is not warranted. Williamborg (Bill) 14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nscheffey. There may have been material in an earlier edit that he didn't want publicized, but that's been taken care of through editing. No need to delete an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As notable, however if it can be supported by sources as to why he is no longer in his former position it should be noted in the article as its obviously relevant. The family makeup however is not. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nscheffey, the subject is too humble.  :-) Yamaguchi先生 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable per elements of the bio, however if this person has a good reason for deletion then it should be honored.--DawnTreader 03:30, 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.
Blanked this as a courtesy
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of oil-rich countries[edit]

This page is a NPOV nightmare because of the term "oil rich". It also violates the tenet that Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate information in part and in part is duplicative of the much better chart of oil reserves in oil reserves. I don't even think a redirect is warranted. Erechtheus 01:34, 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 redirect. Sango123 00:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Brzonkala[edit]

non-notable victim of crime. only claim to notability is her rape resulted in the important legal case United States v. Morrison. however, her role in that case is already covered amply in the article on that case; she is not sufficiently notable to deserve a separate article on her --SJK 01:38, 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. Sango123 00:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LonghornLiving.org[edit]

non-notable student run website. Its listed on the main page regarding this it doesn't require its own entry Crossmr 01:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accept, The longhornliving.org media property is its own entity created by Texas Student Media in Feb. 2006 and should require its own entry and not be associated directly with all other entries.....--Btschoepe 01:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Btschoepe[reply]
    Do you mean "opposeKeep"? The fact that the website is an independent one is not evidence for its notability - the site must be sufficiently large and popular, that it warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. This site is far from notable enough for inclusion. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 02:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment the word you're looking for is keep, not accept. As Erechtheus pointed out below, please read WP:WEB and read the guidelines that have been layed out for inclusion of websites. Also read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a web directory or search engine, wikipedia has some minimum standards for various catagories of articles.--Crossmr 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This site makes no effort to pass WP:WEB in its text. Therefore, it does not "require" coverage in this encyclopedia. Erechtheus 02:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable website of use only to students at one university. NawlinWiki 02:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BigHaz 02:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom MarkBuckles 05:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. rootology 08:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn student web site. --MCB 20:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Acyso 21:16, 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. Sango123 00:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashli Molinero[edit]

Systems analyst; I don't see any notability here. NawlinWiki 02:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think she is supposed to be notable for being a systems analyst -- it appears that the article is shooting for notability as an academic. Two publications is not enough, though. I'm less certain whether adjunct faculty can even qualify as academics. Erechtheus 02:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Erechtheus. Being a systems analyst at a university doesn't make the subject notable. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 04:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable bio; does not meet WP:PROF and no other assertion of notability. --MCB 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nom and comments. NN. rootology 08:36, 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. Sango123 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of corporate public relation flubs and disasters[edit]

Delete - POV list and has been around for 3+ months with only 11 entries to date. Brian G 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.A good list with objective criteria in this area would actually be very useful, but this is not that creature and will never be due to the NPOV problem the title creates. Erechtheus 02:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, this one borders on the bizarre with what's in there at the moment. BigHaz 02:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is inherently subjective and ill-defined. I would be surprised if fully objective criteria could be developed, even if the title were to be changed. Agent 86 02:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think the best chance would be a compilation of incidents from peer reviewed journals or something of that nature. Erechtheus 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete' Could be an interesting article, but it is a sparse and uninformative list as is. There have been MANY more PR flubs than this!Edison 05:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 05:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. rootology 08:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the content were not POV, the name certainly is. Jacqui★ 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I hold with Erechtheus. The topic is worthy of a thoughtful article—probably with a more encyclopedic title—and most probably not this one. Williamborg (Bill) 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV; the only way I could see an encyclopedically valid article on the topic would be by reference to a reliable source that made such a list, like a well-regarded mass media or industry media publication. --MCB 21:01, 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. Sango123 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Soccer Tips - Your Winning Guide[edit]

Found on random article patrol. Advertisement for a non-notable betting tips website. Orphaned page created last month, de-userfied by the article creator. The site it advertises has no Alexa rating. Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:47, 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. Sango123 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short Stories by Kids[edit]

Nonnotable (and apparently vanity) story contest. NawlinWiki 02:56, 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, replace by redirect to Gastric bypass. --JoanneB 13:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastric bypass diet[edit]

Procederial nom. PROD tag was removed, and CSD tag placed. Yanksox 03:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Should be deleted. The original author keeps reverting it to a version that reads and sound like an advertisement and a how-to guide, and it also sounds like it is ripped off from a gastric bypass surgery website. The version that was up as posted by me (207.210.15.85) tried to change it to sound more encyclopedic, but it is still not encylopedia material. Should probably be deleted and redirected to the article about gastric bypasses. Rgenung 05:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Former Additional Comments have been cheerfully withdrawn with a reminder that writers are not to take articles for deletion personally or to act in a almost angrily defensive manner.
  • When called a lier and accused of plagrisum you have take it personal.--Supplements 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments in response to Supplements: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. It is not a book of home remedies. It does not take the place of a doctor, and if we were to take on that risk, it would cause the site extreme liability. Jacqui★ 14:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Viridae. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Viridae. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC) On further reflection, delete, it reads somewhere between a how-to manual and diet instructions; factual information can be and is covered at Gastric bypass. I know redirects are cheap and generally harmless, but I don't see this as being a likely search term. 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..--Supplements 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments to User:Jacqui M
This isn't a home based recovery article. This is backed by Doctors, Science, Health industry. The article was edited to remove all the references I have added them for proof this is not what some are making it out to be. This is has just a much a place on this site as the surgery does.
I really can't understand the logic in your lack of understanding this article.
First why not do a copyscape search for it if you believe it is ripped. Saying something is easy when you really don't know what your are talking about....
As far as this article is extremely important for someone to know what to do after the surgery. Having the surgery is one matter this is the recovery and life style after the surgery in steps for someone that has little if any knowledge on nutrition. Kind of figures if the person has knowledge on nutrition would they need this surgery in the first place.
I proved this article was correct and backed by Doctors who perform this operation now, Universities Colleges, and the Health Industry field.
The Gastric bypass surgery has nothing to do with after surgery why would you want to direct this to that page completely wrong.
I see you have removed my references from Hospitals, Doctors who perform this surgery now, and health related fields. I can't understand why this would be removed as well.... I would assume for someone to have an understanding of the article why do you only have up a portion of the article...
Why not have a recovery article with the surgery Like having a heart bypass and not telling the person why or what you can do to prevent this form happening again
  • Delete, I was just about to suggest adding "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual" to WP:NOT. Karwynn (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (advertising and/or how-to guide) and redirect to Gastric bypass (or whereever it redirects to.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done all I could do to keep this article from being deleted because it is totally ridicules this is getting deleted by this group. It would have been good if one of you would have had some background in nutrition. I am sure we could have worked together to come to a common ground but that is not the case here.

Doing some research I found this article on University of Wisconsin Bariatric Program Kind of strange they think it is so important to have pretty much the same information and yes the call it Gastric Bypass Diet... UW Health Gastric Bypass Dietary program What is posted on the surgery page about nutrition after surgery is misleading inaduquate, and incorrect. --Supplements 13:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to move this to discussion under the heading "University of Wisconsin", I hope that's ok with you. Karwynn (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, file a Third opinion for the edit dispute According to this article's history, User:Supplements has reverted a large amount of edits that were an effort to wikify the article and bring it away from being some sort of health guide. I do not see anyone making The fact that all parties let this escalate to an AfD is an unacceptable way of going about it. If you want to solve an edit dispute, you do it by solving the dispute....not destroying the source of the dispute. No one has given this article a fair chance to become what it can be....so is it really fair to file a deletion? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:10, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parker T. Williamson[edit]

Non-notable individual: "Parker Williamson" achieves less than 700 google hits, while layman.org has an Alexa ranking of greater than 330'000. Prod tag removed. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 03:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:BIO, one book is self-published the other is published by the company.--Crossmr 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. ---J.S (t|c) 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I relatively puzzled by the logic here. Since when is 700 google hits too few? Especially since they rather firmly establish that the claim he was the editor was valid-you can read the editorials. And the notoriety earned which resulted in his expulsion is also noteworthy. I'm hardly fond of religous types, but that doesn't make them unnoteworthy. Unequivocal keep as meeting WP:NO. Let's put the prod back. Williamborg (Bill) 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the fact that there are only 131 [2] or so unique hits (my name for example gets well over twice that and I stopped going) and he fails to satisfy WP:BIO, as an author or otherwise. The two books are not published by any notable company.--Crossmr 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is limply established in the article, but it needs to be firmed up and verifiable sources added. This is a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Until the notability is established per WP:BIO it IS a candidate for deletion.--Crossmr 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is work to be done but there are hundreds of articles in the same general shape as this one. Stormbay 01:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no provided evidence that he passes WP:BIO, and using other articles in a poor state to justify another is not a valid argument.--Crossmr
I believe in the collective time spent on this discussion, each of us could have taken an article like the one in question, and given it the elements needed to prevent this type of exercise. I stick with my original reason. Stormbay
Unless you're going to go out and generate notability for this individual I don't see what work is to be done here.--Crossmr 22:30, 3 August 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 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete He'll never pass WP:BIO as it stands. I had a look around to see if I could fix this article up, but even referencing the current facts wouldn't help, and I can't see that his books have received multiple independent reviews or awards which might have saved him. That said, WP:BIO is only a guideline, so I could be swayed if somebody did a really good job on him Yomangani 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, as I see nothing that would put him in the ballpark of WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primarily self-published and no evidence of wide readership
  • Weak keep as per refs belowDlyons493 Talk 01:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He sounds like an interesting schismatic, in the tradition of Marcel Lefebvre and various antipopes. I think he's notable, particularly in light of various theatened or real splits in the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition. His 1996 book shows up in the Library of Congress catalog http://catalog.loc.gov , but not the later one. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. -AED 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know enough about theology to expand the article in sensible fashion, but he's got a pretty respectable number of media mentions.
  • "Presbyterian activist seeks funds cutoff", The Washington Times.[3]
  • "Passages: Deaths, promotions, and other tidbits from the religion world.", Christianity Today.[4]
  • "Standing Firm: Reclaiming Christian Faith in Times of Controversy", Theology Today.[5]
  • "PCUSA unit may void gadfly's credentials", Christian Century.[6]
  • "Minefields of pluralism - General Assembly Council of the Presbyterian Church decides not to censure pastor for his remarks", Christian Century.[7]
  • "Presbyterians address salvation issues", The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.[8] (brief mention, but cited as expert)
  • "Feminists' crusade sparks holy war: a national conference designed to bring women closer to God by questioning traditional worship only caused greater alienation", Insight on the News.[9] (brief mention, but cited as expert)

There may be more, but those were enough to satisfy me, so I stopped. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I second Hit bull, win steak and others, this guy has grown to become a prominent spokesman for an important dissedent wing of his church. If he merits inclusion in all these articles from respected journals and newspapers, he merits an article on Wikipedia. technopilgrim 19:14, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dav boys school gopalapuram[edit]

Advertisement, fails NPOV, no assertion of notability. BoojiBoy 03:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I moved the page to it's correct title at DAV Boys Senior Secondary School. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Less of an advertisment than when I removed some of the severe NPOV failures. ViridaeTalk 05:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant advertisement/vanity, plus insufficient context to expand. This one is almost a CSD A1. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per vanity. Michael 08:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we can verify that the school exists, there's no verifiable information here to work with. It'd have to be started from scratch. Delete this one, and if someone writes a better one later, we can have this conversation again. Jacqui★ 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it does seem to be verifiable. However, this article is vanity, and its claims are unverifiable with reliable sources. Start over from scratch if there is to be an article on it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one might potentially have verifiability problems; the only stuff on the web of interest that I could find was [10], and the only encyclopedia article one can write out of that would be "DAV Boys Senior Secondary School is a secondary school in Gopalapuram. Its principal is C. Sathish.", and I just added those two sentences to Gopalapuram. So, delete (I'm not convinced of the utility of redirecting because of the incorrect title and the fact that I didn't copy any information) unless references added before end of AfD, in which case keep. JYolkowski // talk 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone in the Schools Wikiproject wanted to create a factual and verifiable article under "DAV Boys Senior Secondary School" I would not object. BoojiBoy 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verifiable Jaranda wat's sup 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iff reliable and verifiable sources for the article can be provided. Otherwise, we all know what must happen. Silensor 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jaranda, article text is not verifiable. Yamaguchi先生 08:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High schools are notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:59, 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 Delete. Yanksox 14:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor Miller[edit]

Non-notable article JD[don't talk|email] 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This and Annie Gonzalez should have been combined nom-wise. -TrackerTV 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Erechtheus 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entire category of "JamXKids", apparently created just for these WP:VAIN and/or WP:SPAM jobs. --Pagana 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entire category. --Missmarple 13:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot of 'em. Speedy if need be. No notability other than membership in this group asserted. --DarkAudit 14:06, 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. Yanksox 14:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Gonzalez[edit]

Non-notable article JD[don't talk|email] 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This and Chancellor Miller should have been combined nom-wise. -TrackerTV 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It would appear the whole troupe is non-notable and should have been given a combined AfD. Erechtheus 04:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entire category of "JamXKids", apparently created just for these WP:VAIN and/or WP:SPAM jobs. --Pagana 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Michael 08:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as does not assert notability. Molerat 11:17, 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 article in question was speedy deleted. Srose (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Anne Parales[edit]

Non-notable article JD[don't talk|email] 04:05, 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. alphaChimp laudare 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Moesha[edit]

Next to no information; if it's notable it should at least be deleted until there's more information. JD[don't talk|email] 04:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep on the grounds that it seems to be common practice to have articles on individual episodes of TV shows. I don't know enough about this particular show to have a stronger opinion than that. BigHaz 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any useful content into a trivia bullet somewhere at the end of the main Moesha article. Poorly written fancruft like this is spreading through this project like a cancer. Moesha was a good show, but this is not good Wikipedia editing. --FuriousFreddy 05:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have tens of thousands of articles on individual episodes of tv shows. This one appears to have been nominated simply because it is a stub. Being a stub article is a reason for expanding an article, not deleting it. Why is this episode any less notable than any of the 100+ babylon 5 episodes, the 400 simpsons episodes, the hundreds of south park episodes, etc., which we have articles on? --Xyzzyplugh 07:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge that which is significant into the article on Moesha...Surely if someone thought it notable enough to make an article on, it is worthy of inclusion in her article. Michael 08:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technical comment. It's either "delete" or it's "merge and redirect". Tyrenius 11:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The precedent is set: TV episodes are in, especially for notable series. I wouldn't be caught dead watching this one, but it's still notable. Needs expansion, not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is precedent to the contrary. Many editors have argued that individual soap opera episodes do not warrant individual articles, for example. Uncle G 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Much as I hate it, it looks like we are stuck with TV episode wikis. Needs expansion, not deletion. -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep episodes of TV shows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.There are already many television episodes on wikipedia.Other users can expand the article because it simply a stub.--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per precedent. It might be a good idea to rename this I Love Moesha (Moesha episode) as at first glance at the article title I thought it was a gush page or something. 23skidoo 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plainly consensus has long held that individual eps of popular shows are article-worthy. RGTraynor 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individual episodes of television shows are notable if the rest of the world has deemed them so. The way that we can tell that the rest of the world deems them so is that individual episode guides have already been written and published by multiple sources independent of each show's creators/producers. "All episodes of type T television shows are notable" is just as flawed as any other "All X are notable" criterion. Notability is not a blanket. Wikipedia should reflect the subjects that the sources cover. Uncle G 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G, are you suggesting we look for reliable sources independent of the show's creators, or just any sources? I could be wrong, but it seems doubtful to me that many television episodes have really been covered in much depth by mainstream media. The multiple sources that one finds on simpsons, babylon 5, star trek voyager episodes, and so on, probably consist of fan web sites, blogs, personal web pages, and message board postings. (on the other hand, we can find reliable sources for the bare bones details of most any tv show episode) --Xyzzyplugh 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should look for multiple non-trivial published works that are from sources independent of the subject. With your doubt will come surprise. Many of these shows that people want to argue "are notable enough for articles on individual episodes", but don't have a firm basis for doing so other than a feeling, actually do have independently written non-trivial works published about them. Babylon 5 has the famous Lurker's Guide. There are umpteen detailed episode guides for Simpsons, Star Trek, and so forth. If you are arguing that because the sources that you can readily locate are on the World Wide Web, we have no reliable sources that give episode guides, then I suggest that you attempt to counter that FUTON bias and look at books such as ISBN 1590920376, ISBN 0440223857, and ISBN 1590920392. Sources for "bare bones details", such as a broadcast date and so forth, do not satisfy the "non-trivial" part of the criterion, which is there precisely to ensure that individual articles aren't mere directory entries.

        So the question to be answered here is "Are there episode guides for Moesha?" Or is this article original research that is not based upon sources that have already analyzed this episode of this television series? Instead of arguing "All X are notable" (a deeply flawed argument), editors should be citing sources. Uncle G 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • Comment: Oh, for pity's sake. Want a source? [11] - there, that's one. IMDB's got separate entries for every ep of every TV show now, and frankly, anyone deeming himself informed enough to vote on cinematic AfDs has to know about IMDB; half the media articles on Wikipedia link to it. As far as the general consensus that individual eps are notable, you could always lead (or join) a fight to change it. RGTraynor 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TV is a cultural fact and a single episode can change pop culture for good. More details, please. -- Jdlow 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wikipedia is excellent for this kind of information. - Richardcavell 03:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per existing precedent. I have never watched this television show, but it does appear to be a popular program and we have several other series of articles like this one. Yamaguchi先生 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Okay, I've added and cleanup the article a little.But like I said, there are many articles about episodes and this can/may be a stub. --Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 04:44, 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. Sango123 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budley[edit]

I suspect this is a hoax. Can't find any support on Google for the word or for this "legendary" person. eaolson 04:30, 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. Sango123 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SimCity 5[edit]

All of this is speculation. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless something verifiable can be found, like a press release from Maxis. Antandrus (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Antandrus. I'm also on Simtropolis, so I'm at a good position here. -TrackerTV 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless Maxis has confirmed this, it's failing WP:V. That's not to say that it won't be a good game...it's just that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. alphaChimp laudare 04:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 05:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, fan speculation is not notable enough for an article. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 05:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Acyso 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - click here for more information. --Bigtop 07:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Michael 08:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:25 (UTC)
  • Delete speculative Ace of Sevens 12:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alphachimp. Jacqui★ 14:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should be expaned though. Ric36 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain your keep. This is a discussion, and unsupported "votes' may be discounted. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Stellmach 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep as The article for the Sims 2 Pets started out EXACTLY like this, was never considered for deletion, and thus is unfair to the creator of the article. --Moped 04:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I'm sure you will be more than willing to supply documentation of the existence of this game? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you've forgotten about the announcment made by EA in Germany confirming that a SimCity 5 is under production. --Moped 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Why take the page down? It's a bit of text. Who's to say there won't be a SimCity5 (if you think about it...SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000, and SimCity 4. Is it just me or is there a pattern going on here...) Plus, what do we accomplish if we delete it? Save a few kb on the wiki servers? What if something does come out? Boom, it's up there.
  • Very Strong Keep ^ Ditto
  • Delete Our job isn't to provide up-to-the-minute updates on game rumours. Once reliable sources report on its production, it can have an article (if it happens). See crystal ball. --Wafulz 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If source for EA statement is found, then change my vote to Keep.
  • Delete So far there is no verifiable evidence that the game has been announced. Also if it is announced in the future the article can easily be recreated then. --Edgelord 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy --Pilotguy (roger that) 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean tatum[edit]

Non-notable singer/band PresN 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regain[edit]

non-notable software PresN 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a project started 2004 in Germany running on the website of one of the biggest european mercantile concerns. We try here to inform the international community about this well structured project. Some (up to now mostly german) reviews / references are:
nuke webmaster forum, place 12 among top 25 downloads of the month, good ratings 1, 2, link to (brief) reviews1, 2, 3,
Comment - I had a quick look at the articles you listed, I would support a deletion on those - many are very advertise-ish and also do not seem to have any verifiable sources. To your claim you have no chance to improve this article - you have at minimum 5 days (more like 7 or 8 with the backlog). In regards to using del.icio.us and blinklist, I had never heard of them before now, and in reviewing the links provided, I get the feel they are blog-y/discussion group type sites rather then sites that fall under WP:RS.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:48, 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 --Pilotguy (roger that) 15:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil B. Gresham[edit]

I speedy-tagged this page, but the author put up the holdon tag. His reason is given in the talk page, as well as in the article now. I don't think that this page fits the guidelines whether or not the guy is real. PresN 06:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - this meets the criteria outlined in db-bio for a non-notable person. Fabricationary 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn "inexistant" person. One could argue that whoever decided that This Wikipedia page is created to provide a point of interest along a guided tour of the life of an inexistent person, part of the terms of an undergraduate course at SDSU, San Diego, CA. is in violation of WP:HOAX. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - violation of WP:BIO vanity project or non-existent subject 219.77.151.59 13:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Tagged as such. Sanction whoever assigned the project as promoting Wikpedia vandalism. --DarkAudit 14:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, so tagged, patent nonsense because of admitted hoax. NawlinWiki 14:46, 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 delete. Sango123 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Comics Journal[edit]

Non-notable. Search on Google ("smash comics journal") produces 27 hits, including this Wikipedia page and copies of it. Acyso 06:30, 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 Speedily deleted by Uncle G.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob the Builder's Backdoor Pool[edit]

Who is Bob and why should I care about his pool? Newspaper98 06:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Fabricationary 06:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as deliberate misinformation. "Bob the Builder" is the (animated) star of a popular children's program. He constructs numerous structures, but it is unlikely any have been filled with "poo". Author is perhaps thinking of his/her own head. --Pagana 06:39, 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. Sango123 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nishitetsu Busjack[edit]

ROM hack Newspaper98 06:41, 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. Sango123 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Nightmare[edit]

Super Mario Brothers ROM hack. Not Notable. Newspaper98 06:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable unless there's an super-significant importance to Mario community, which I doubt. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:23 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ROM hack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not my area, but we must have criteria for noteability for video game material, no? Wikipedia has criteria for everything else. Perhaps we should be citing the criteria in making this decision. Williamborg (Bill) 15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We usually keep video games, but ROM hacks are not video games: they're vandalised (or otherwise altered) changes to the game code so that a game will appear differently using an emulator. They're a small subsection of emulation fandom, and not well known among gamers in general. They're not sold anywhere (obviously), and the video game press doesn't review or cover them. If you really want more proof that this is utterly non-notable, it gets 33 unique Google hits and many of them, oddly enough, are random uses unrelated to this ROM hack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a ROM hack. Anyone can make them, and there's no evidence this had a significant impact on any community. If anything, one could say it is non-notable software, but that would be a stretch. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It won the two Annual Hack Award Awards at Acmlm's,

http://board.acmlm.org/archive//thread.php?id=9217&ppp=20&page=0#180603 as seen here. And Acmlm's is pretty much the main community in the world of ROM-Hacking. Also, while it's agreed that the main site itself is not-notable, it's because not even I really link to it, it was just thrown in for completeness. Shadic 20:27, 31 July 2006.

  • Delete Unfortunatly, inferior awards from something minor are not notable. If it were an award from something major then it would be considered notable. Sonicandtails 04:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, considering how it beat the "Hack of the Year" for the catagories in which the two of them competed against eachother. Also, show me a bigger rom-hacking community that has annual awards. Shadic 22:00, 31 July 2006.
  • Delete. They don't exist. And that's the problem; the ROM hacking community just isn't big enough for an article like this to be notable. An article on this is just ridiculous. It's even a stub. To be fair, some ROM hacks are very much notable, and I wouldn't say to delete the Mario Adventure article, or anything. On the other hand, this is no Mario Adventure. Stylish Alastor the Stylish 05:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it may be a good hack (I haven't played it, so I don't know) but it's certainly not a popular one. As I stated in the Mario Adventure page, few hacks are famous enough to deserve their own page, and this isn't one. Maybe a page could be made for all SMB3 hacks instead. 64.231.193.187 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Acmlm's Annual Hack Awards are hardly the definitive awards for ROM hacks. This isn't notable enough for it's own page. --Drjayphd 17:51, 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 article in question was speedily deleted as a recreation of a previously deleted article. Srose (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finley Donoho[edit]

It's just a baby. He's got no notability of his own. Reyk YO! 06:52, 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. Sango123 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Korea[edit]

Not notable, at least in English language media and sources. Better for the Korean WP. No hits on Google for (RS) news sources that I saw, just a few blog mentions. rootology 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Pum[edit]

Not notable, unsourced. AfDing it as the creator took off my speedy tag (and on the redirect to the article). rootology 07:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete rootology 07:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:21 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. The author should have placed a {{hangon}} tag on the page if they contested the speedy deletion, not remove the speedy tag. Molerat 11:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7, per nom. I've re-added the tag and warned the author with {{drmspeedy}} about removing speedy tags. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:17, 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. Sango123 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BoomBox and Electrobe[edit]

Not notable, unsourced. No hits on Google. AfD as creator removed Speedy. rootology 07:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete rootology 07:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. --Rogolo 09:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:20 (UTC)
  • Comment Original author keeps removing the AfD notice. rootology 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete per nom. VoiceOfReason 21:56, 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. Sango123 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Techniques in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo[edit]

Not worthy of a separate article. I attempted to merge this content into the main article and Prod it, but the prod tag was removed and the content was removed from the main article (by different people) Xyzzyplugh 07:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom...pretty weird... Michael 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. If anyone cares, it's a really, really, REALLY bizarre anime show. rootology 08:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; useless stuff. Kalani [talk] 08:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. Danny Lilithborne 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for fancruft. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:20 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless fancruft. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shave entry out of Wikipedia...I mean, delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 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. Sango123 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about body parts[edit]

nn listcruft. I can't see any situation where it'd be very useful and it's unwieldy too. –127.0.0.1 (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was listed before on Apr 26, 2005, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about body parts, results was no consensus. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:19 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ViridaeTalk 10:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Body parts, while often hilarious, don't really require this kind of coverage. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 11:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Baby got back"? Please... -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'd hesitate to consider this encyclopedic, though I'd like to thank the editors involved for the time they put into the article. Luna Santin 13:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure how I feel about the subject matter being encyclopedic or not. It certainly would help a person doing research on, say, sexuality in popular music. But I don't really feel strongly about it either way. The one thing I do think though -- those song quotes in the page have got to go! Jacqui★ 14:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Short, attributed quotes are acceptable; you must identify the writer. As I understand it, what brings one into copyright violation space is quoting a significant percentage of the song. Or is it the "boarderline obscenity" of a couple of them that you're concerned about? Williamborg (Bill) 15:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I didn't make myself clear: I'm not concerned about copyright, and Wikipedia is not censored for minors. But the quotes don't explain anything and sound merely frivolous; the tone isn't right for an encyclopedia. Jacqui★ 02:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since the heart is a body part, this list could include thousands of songs. NawlinWiki 14:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NawlinWiki pretty much sums it up. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've Got Tears In My Ears (From Lyin' On My Back In My Bed While I Cry Over You) and agree we should Delete as unmaintainable listcruft. Fan-1967 16:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Allisonmontgomery69 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That's just weird. per nom. -Royalguard11Talk 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the fact that I frequently search encyclopedias for lists of songs about body parts, I must reluctantly agree with the consensus to Delete. VoiceOfReason 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 03:13, 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. Mailer Diablo 23:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Menshouse[edit]

nn local person, 49 unique google hits rootology 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete rootology 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:19 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep because she was Miss Kentucky in 1997.NawlinWiki 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: removed the "weak" from my vote because she has another reason for notability -- she sued[13] the pageant committee for failing to pay all of her scholarship money. I've added that to the article. NawlinWiki 16:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Weak artilce, but Miss Kentucky is a reasonable page with a number of links (including links to similar state sites). I've never seen a pageant and hope I never see one—but they are common, newsworthy and followed by many people worldwide. If we are going to delete all the Miss America & State pageants links that already exist out there (just follow the links from Miss Kentucky) we've got a tremendous amount of work ahead of us. That so many folks think it is encylopedic probably indicates there is some merit—guess the merit is in pop culture. Williamborg (Bill) 15:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I see nothing notable in a lawyer filing a lawsuit, nor in a pageant contestant per se ... I doubt, for instance, that anyone here could tell me who was last year's Miss Kentucky without looking it up. She had her fifteen minutes of fame, now she's done. RGTraynor 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as dual-winner of the Miss Kentucky and Miss Kentucky USA pageants and for the scholarship suit. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Definitely notable for both sourced media coverage and for winning both Miss Kentucky and Miss Kentucky USA. Allisonmontgomery69 23:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winner of notable contest. Attic Owl 01:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of meeting WP:BIO standards. Additionally, the only facts in the article that are verfied (as opposed to verifiable, which I haven't tested) are the name, the two wins, the total scholarship amount and the lawsuit. We really should remove all other facts from the article until sources are provided. GRBerry 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NawlinWiki; subject meets the standards for notability, if barely. VoiceOfReason 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new sourcing... rootology (T) 08:47, 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 Delete. Yanksox 14:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Quessenberry[edit]

Violation of WP:CSD, (A7, unremarkable person). Also, it is unsourced, formatted incorrectly, and contains grammatical errors.

  • Delete unverifiable, non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 10:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:18 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Rob (Talk) 11:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Molerat 11:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete almost certainly an attack page, nobody would write about themselves like this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this should have been deleted without vote. -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as attack page. Tagged as such. --DarkAudit 13:58, 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. Sango123 00:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skasas paradigm[edit]

This is apparently something out of a work of fiction. If so, it's not notable enough to merit its own article. If not, it's nonsense. --Graham 10:20, 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. Sango123 00:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret avengers[edit]

Article dedicated to minor, unofficial detail in a recent comic book, so growth is highly doubtful. Does not differentiate between real world and fiction. Complete cruft. Chris Griswold 10:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Avengers
Agreed... delete as unsubstantiated fancruft. -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No effort, no data, no real team. Delete. --Goldenboy 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. --Newt ΨΦ 00:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This can be mentioned in the Avengers article, and it's not the name of a comic proper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 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. Sango123 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funhoney[edit]

Utter spam, not notable website. ViridaeTalk 10:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam. Rob (Talk) 11:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as already-deleted spam. I prodded this in July 25, it got deleted on July 30, and apparently got listed for AfD less than two hours later? I don't understand how this article has a 5-day page history if it has actually been deleted. ~ Booya Bazooka 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind, I got confused by the capitalization change. FunHoney with a capital H got deleted, but I didn't realize Funhoney was still here. Anyway, my vote is still to speedy it per the successful prod on FunHoney. ~ Booya Bazooka 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spamvertising. NawlinWiki 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per duh, and I renew my plea for a speedy way of dealing with this kind of thing. VoiceOfReason 22:03, 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. Sango123 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awakened lands[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. NN online game ViridaeTalk 11:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, though a game about a homeless guy who works at a fast-food place is original, to say the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also WP is not a game-guide, or webhost for their advertising. Tychocat 08:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Peephole 15:23, 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 delete as a nn band and copyvio. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InVersion (Band)[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BAND. (Note there is two exact copies of this page - the other one, InVersion, is marked for speedy as already existing) ViridaeTalk 11:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as no notability is asserted. Band also claims copyright of page. Molerat 11:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't notice that. Keen eyes you have :P ViridaeTalk 13:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete due to the copyright issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as per above. Ac@osr 13:16, 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. Sango123 00:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January Malkus[edit]

This looks like a copyvio, especially since it came out perfect in one edit; but I can't find anything on the internet with a Google search of random phrases. JD[don't talk|email] 11:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 157 ghits [15], incidental mention in 1 gnews hit: [16]. IMDB profile looks unattended to and lists only one filmography credit [17]... which itself has questionable notability [18]. I'm not convinced it passes WP:BIO at this time, though I'd like to thank the editor for their contributions. Luna Santin 11:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rob (Talk) 11:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced claims. --DarkAudit 14:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shadow1 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete The article is now was marked copyvio. Don't know how voting on an AfD I started would look though... JD[don't talk|email] 14:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a copyright violation, even though the CSD tag has been removed. —JD[don't talk|email] 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The CSD for copyvio is only valid for the first 48 hours. --DarkAudit 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know; I was told to tag articles anyway if they were still copyvios. What happens now, they just stay? —JD[don't talk|email] 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • They should be tagged with the big 'POTENTIAL COPYRIGHT VIOLATION' sign, and blanked. --DarkAudit 19:17, 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 speedily deleted by Yanksox. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Brianna[edit]

Next to no information, and the article doesn't explain her notability outside this JammXKids club; or even in it for that matter. Information is also possibly copyvio. JD[don't talk|email] 11:10, 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. Sango123 00:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adelita bar[edit]

Was prodded as non-notable and under Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but prod was removed twice without comment or improvement. Also contains a lot of POV and what could be construed as original research. Also nominating:

as a connected article and for the same reasons (though that was only deprodded once). ~Matticus TC 11:16, 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. Sango123 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ontheball[edit]

Article seems to promote an online game. From the article: "As of June 2006, the game had over 1300 coaches [i.e. players], each with his own virtual club. The game is completely ficticious and players are randomly generated when clubs are created. Ontheball is in its 6th season and has been running since 25 November 2002. The game is currently still under development and continues to be badged as being Beta until the game is stable." These claims don't impress me very much; in addition; the game's website has no Alexa rank. My judgement is: no evidence of notability, delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, borderline advert. -Royalguard11Talk 01:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Search of "ontheball"+MMOG gets three hits, no non-trivial third-party articles to verify notability. Tychocat 08:45, 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. Sango123 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God of War (band)[edit]

No vote, procedural nom. Article apparently a vanity for a demo band, but it does assert that they were signed to Universal Music Group. Whether this is true I cannot say. You decide!- CrazyRussian talk/email 12:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their myspace page at http://www.myspace.com/godofwar states: Record Label: Looking.. Of course, maybe that's out of date. Per the article they've signed with a subsidiary of UMG, whether that makes any difference. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. They are most likely not signed to Universal. The article creator changed the record label from "looking/negotiating" to Universal after his article was deleted the 2nd (or 3rd?) time. The rest of the article is biased band-member advertising and ridiculous claims like "Over the next year, Nyx now renamed to Chambers of Nyx redefined and perfected a unique metal style all their own... etc." Prolog 13:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is any concrete indication that they're signed with UMG, we need to keep the article (per WP:BAND). Barring that, however, the article should be deleted. alphaChimp laudare 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless and until the UMG connection can be verified. Jacqui★ 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of claim that they're signed to Universal. Even if they are signed, they have not yet released an album on said label, and thus appear to fail WP:BAND at this time. If the claim that they are signed to Universal is false, the claim may have been made because Universal bought the rights to the God of War video game for purposes of making a movie [19] - maybe it was thought that we wouldn't look closely at our Google searches and believe the news was about the band instead? --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 01:26, 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. Sango123 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCF Virtual[edit]

A non-notable web advertising company. I don't think it meets WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Created by Stevepcf (talk · contribs), who also created Aloha Shoyu Company and is making advertisment changes to Soy sauce. Middenface 13:05, 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.--SB | T 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q Ashfaq Ahmad[edit]

It doesn't appear to me that, outside of a small local community, this individual bears the noteworthiness for a wiki. The data hasn't been updated since April 2006, the links are broken, and there are no wikis for the local organizations this guy is identified with. Delete. -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity article. Not notable outside the muslim community in sydney. Has not won any community service award in Australia. Very few google hits. --Ageo020 21:17, 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. Sango123 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tails Doll Curse[edit]

A completely unverifiable "curse" which allegedly applies to one character in one game on one platform. Original research and almost certainly complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, especially the bollocks part Lurker talk 14:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nearly patent nonsense. Clearly complete bollocks. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolutely unfounded. Hyper Anthony 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Torch it, if only for the fact it's the lamest urban legend I think anybody could bare to drudge up. And, er, yeah. That whole part where it's completely made up by a bored Sonic fan probably doesn't help it's case any. BlazeHedgehog 20:58, 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 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Shoyu Company[edit]

A non-notable local soy sauce company, fails WP:CORP. Submitter Stevepcf (talk · contribs) also created an article for web advertising agency PCF Virtual, also on AfD, and has been heavily promoting this article on soy sauce. Middenface 13:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as partial copyvio from [20], although some wording has been changed. Tagged as such. —Whomp t/c 13:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The submitter has identified himself as the webmaster of that company. -- Middenface 13:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that out. Still, delete as a blatent advertisement. —Whomp t/c 13:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to represent a hawaiian soy sauce.. this is legit as it gets.. sorry if it seemed to ad heavy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevepcf (talk • contribs) .


honestly Im a noob.. please try to at least post anything appropriate from what i subhmitted.. I didnt even see the talk area till just now.. thanks and sorry for disturbance.. was just trying to learn system.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevepcf (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete. I'm sorry, we always try to welcome newbies but you must understand that Wikipedia is not free advertising space. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Welcome to Wikipedia, and sorry that your first edits had this outcome. Go make a splash in the world, and come back and we'll celebrate you :) Jacqui★ 14:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an ad. GMcGath 23:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting school[edit]

Seems to be an ad for a blog, combined with copyvio text from [21]. --Staecker 13:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable blog, advertising. *drew 15:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, especially because of the text lifted from CMU's website, as noted above. This article is also ill-focused: is it talking about accounting schools in general or one specific online school? —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Maybe this is salvageable after the copyrighted info is removed. Medical school has an article, why not Accounting school? Medtopic 23:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Medical school" is the common term for the post-baccalaureate education that aspiring doctors receive. "Accounting school" is not such a parallel term, at least not in the States. I will concede that a redirect, as Whpq describes below, could be appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 04:21, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows and Linux[edit]

POV; not encyclopedic (well, not very). Not much really has to be said about this article. –127.0.0.1 (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I believe it is a good thing to inform Windows- and Linux-users of the incompabilities and downsides of each operating systems in order to equalize the percentage of use. Currently a big majority hold to Microsoft's operating system. --Karmus 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You're never going to get a NPOV on this and still have it be a quality article. Some paragraphs are entirely "Windows users claim x. Linux users claim y. Windows users counter-claim z.", which doesn't make for good reading or good information. Anyone can claim anything and post it on a website, that doesn't merit its inclusion in an article. Particularely since most of the claims are from nebulous 'linux users' or 'windows users', which are hardly good sources. If the article was whittled down so that all these claims were of the form "<reputable independantly funded study> claims x" then it would be more interesting and informative than reading every gripe that every linux or windows user has ever had with the other OS.

Bongle 13:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Weird bug - it's redlinked in the page but this page exists and all :/ –127.0.0.1 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - no, it'll never be fully NPOV, but it has lots of references, crosslinks, etc, that show it has a lot of potential to mature. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It certainly does have the potential to mature and become more NPOV. People do want to read a NPOV article on this. --Bduke 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. By definition, it cannot be NPOV, ever. –127.0.0.1 (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's far too broad of a subject to be able to cover with the kind of standards expected of Wikipedia articles. For those looking to keep this article, please review Wikipedia:The perfect article and think about how a single article comparing -all- of Microsoft Windows (and I mean *everything*, not just Windows XP's shell and web browser) to -all- of Linux could possibly be written. Have a look at www.xvsxp.com, which attempts to do a fairly balanced comparasin of OS X Tiger (one version of OS X) and Windows XP (one version of Microsoft Windows); the site is quite large, certainly much larger than any Wikipedia article we've got, and yet that site aims to be far less all-encompassing than "Windows" vs. "Linux". They didn't even try to address "server" issues... and imagine how much more complex this will become once Windows Vista comes out... No, this kind of article really needs to go. If someone wants to start more focused articles comparing a specific aspect of each operating system (such as the user interface, or included applications), then I would support that. -/- Warren 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't see a problem with the title or concept. Deet 11:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article doesn't have to be comprehensive in order to exist; it just has to be well-sourced and verifiable, which it is. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if someone actually wants to know the difference between Linux and Windows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01001 (talk • contribs)

  • Then they'll probably want a page that isn't just a rehash of every "Micro$haft vs Open source" forum flamewar ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongle (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Should there also be articles comparing to other operating systems, such as those used on Macs? Would it be possible to create one article for a comparison between all operating systems that has headings such as "Kernel," "User friendliness," "Market Share," etc? --Wafulz 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Comparison of operating systems. This article is biased & has WP:OR and WP:V problems. However, it does have some useful info and references which the broader comparison lacks. --Karnesky 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anything there should be a comparison of open source as opposed to proprietary systems. As it is, GNU/Linux is the most popular open source and Microsoft is the most popular proprietary system, so the page is probably just about right at least as far as needing to there.01001 19:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the main "comparisions" is ok for tabulation, but merging all would make it way too big. The answer to NPOV in this case is to put both POVs, the pros and cons of each. Ace of Risk 14:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there doesnt seem to be anything wrong with the article and its staying at a neutral point of view --Alegoo92 23:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems pretty encyclopædic to me. No reason why this should be deleted. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 00:41, 7 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 23:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hotel End[edit]

This article should be deleted as it is about a rather minor website, and was created by the administrator of said website *Delete NJW494 13:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - totally NN. Not quite speedy criteria, but next time you may want to consider prod instead - I'm not imagining much discussion on this AfD. ;) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment prod was used, but was removed (without any other edits) by the original author of the piece, hence I listed the article on here. NJW494 14:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My apologies, just trying to 'spread the word' ;) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 15:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perfectly alright mate, you were right in assuming that I'm new to all this stuff though! NJW494 15:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --MCB 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints[edit]

A non-notable church study group. Not an actual "church" as suggested in the title. IceCreamAntisocial 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - more of a NN sect in my eyes, but NN is the key. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the hell out of this one. There is only ONE valid Google hit [22] and that's to a Wikipedia category referencing LDS denominations. There's no Google ref to "James Taylor Smith" either for anyone in Utah. This has to be the all-time AfD record for non-notability. RGTraynor 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor. NawlinWiki 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. -Royalguard11Talk 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment. Are we sure it's not a church? The article said it was founded by a study group, not that it is a study group. Deet 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I doubt it's an active church, simply because a Google search would have pulled up some manner of street address, but in the end it's irrelevant. Church, breakaway, study group, whatever, this is supremely non-notable. RGTraynor 19:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not clear, but I believe Deet is right in that this is a breakaway from the LDS church. But with no sources to back this up, it appears to be ratehr minor, and for all we know consists of 5 people. -- Whpq 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor. Deet 06:29, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bridges in Singapore[edit]

WP is not an arbitrary list of pages that do not exist.

  • Delete as nom. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists in wikipedia need not be composed only of items each with their own articles.--Huaiwei 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We could use more coverage of Singapore-related topics (per WP:CSB), and the red links on the list will encourage future expansion. I would prefer a restriction to bridges that are notable in some fashion, however. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you bring up a very good point - how many of these non-existent links will then be up for AfD for being non-notable bridges? — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And how many of these bridges are non-notable according to your knowledge? While the flyovers are usually non-notable, practically every bridge spanning the Singapore River are considered architectural heritage icons locally. Should all of these be deleted just because of non-notable flyovers? As for the flyovers, precisely they are non-notable, that a list is the most viable location to talk about them collectively. You dont just flag lists for deletion for a whole lot of red links. Remove those links if you must instead of going the easy way out.--Huaiwei 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems completely pointless and not notable. Not to mention I have never seen so many red links in an article, and those pages are not likely to ever be created. xompanthy 19:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Folks, this violates black-letter policy here. "Wikipedia articles are not ... mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." I see no article here; there is no basis whatsoever for voting to keep on this one. RGTraynor 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Huaiwei's and Hit bull, win steak's comments. Allisonmontgomery69 23:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also no notability stated, implied, or even attempted. Tychocat 08:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and turn it into a category. If the bridge is of sufficient note to have an article, it can be included via category. If it isn't, then it doesn't show up in the category. -- Whpq 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The said category already exists, and no, it dosent tell you which river they span, nor what type of bridge they are unless you are proposing subcategories for all variations.--Huaiwei 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Why is this detail needed? If one goes to the individual articles, all of the information about which river, and structure type would be available. If the number of bridges in Singapore are so numerous as to need subcategories, then by all means go ahead and create them. -- Whpq 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. And why should that detail be unrequired? What else does a bridge do? Sure, anyone can go to specific pages for those details, but you are assuming wikipedia cannot do summarisation for cross-comparison so much so that all details can only appear in their respective articles? I see lots of assumptions there on expected user behavior and needs, and I am not so sure if I am agreeable to all. So, all users would prefer going to every single article in Category:Bridges in Norway to find out their Norwegian names, instead of seeing them all in List of bridges in Norway? Or visit all articles in Category:Bridges in Montreal just to know which rivers they span, instead of in List of bridges in Montreal?--Huaiwei 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flyovers are probably pushing it, but the bridges over rivers are certainly all "notable" enough. This should be kept, just like list of crossings of the Ohio River and other similar articles. --SPUI (T - C) 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this "structured list to assist with the organisation of articles". Kappa 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 12:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While I would normally give it the benefit of the doubt, I do notice this particular editor has more often than not voted "delete" on Singapore-related RFDs with no better explanation than "per nom".--Huaiwei 14:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I do not see how the fact that this editor thinks the nominator's reasoning is sound calls this editor into question. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; useful list; many such lists exist in WP. --Vsion 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have such lists like List of bridges in the United Kingdom and List of bridges in Australia, this is an encyclopedic list, the bridges are notable and articles will be written. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 11:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the list appears to be encyclopedic, and I'm sure many of the bridges are notable. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:39, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Pigg[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, WP:BAND - this article has been speedied at least once already, so here it is. Rklawton 14:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, speedy if nom withdrawn. Major label artist, multiple television appearences, multiple pieces of non-trivial media coverage... is it just that the nominator hasn't heard of the subject? PT (s-s-s-s) 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's got just one album that's been out less than a week. Where's the notability in that? Not everything RCA produces is notable, and the requirement for inclusion here is notability first. Rklawton 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He already has mulitple pieces of non-trivial media coverage. He is making multiple television appearences on major networks this week. There are lots of music acts on Wikipedia deemed "notable" that do not have the same coverage. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's getting the coverage due to RCA's marketing machine. Let's wait to see if this is all flash or if he's got any substance. In the mean time, we don't create articles based on speculation. Rklawton 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with PT and think it's notable. Artist had some media coverage, and it looks like it's probably going to continue. xompanthy 18:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't look at what might happen. We should look only at what is verifiable. Rklawton 19:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What part of WP:BAND do any of you claim this fellow fulfills? Maybe two weeks from now he might ... and maybe he won't at that. In any event, he does not now fulfill any, and Wikipedia still isn't a crystal ball. RGTraynor 19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has gone on a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media. He's on All Music Guide, billboard.com, vh1.com, and 418 unique Google hits ain't shabby, either. This isn't my first music-related AfD, boys. Don't be willfully ignorant when the information is right in front of you. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the second time you've accused someone of being ignorant in the Pigg AfD. That's a violation of WP:CIVIL and I ask you to stop immediately. Rklawton 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As that is irrelvant to the discussion about this topic, please refer to our respective talk pages for the continuation of any discussion on the subject of my civility, your ignorance, or the lack thereof of either. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: really? What national concert tour would that be, now, and in what sources precisely would that be reported? Whether this is your first music-related AfD or not isn't the issue -- although it isn't "my" first one either, to the degree that I can claim it to be "mine." It's whether the claims are verifiable. Mind doing so? RGTraynor 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's in this AfD and the article, too. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The VH1 and Billboard coverage are both reprints of Allmusic material, but he's on their radar, at least. Worst case, some researcher for VH1 finds this in 15 years for a "Where are they now" special. :) —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Brand new artist isn't notable enough. Allisonmontgomery69 23:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's going to be on Late Night with Conan O'Brien in two nights, will be on Last Call with Carson Daly next month, had a song on Grey's Anatomy [23], and Radio & Records shows nationwide airplay [24]. That should be enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC criteria (barely). —Stormie 10:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment read the article. Then read WP:MUSIC and tell us exactly which point he satisfies. Rklawton 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the adds + Conan + Grey's Anatomy easily do it. Since you're pressing me, a look at his website shows even more television appearances, he's doing a radio tour currently, and multiple media mentions (Teen Vogue, Glamour, Perfoming Songwriter). Easily meets the guideline, a guideline which states "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted." --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And absolutely none of that is in the article. Rklawton 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is now. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments: (1) Isn't that really just Ashton Kutcher? (2) Damn it pisses me off that these stupid mega lables can make somebody notable, but it is pretty obvious that if he doesn't meek criteria now, he will pretty soon--and that isn't just crystal-balling Joelmills has cited it all above. no vote -MrFizyx 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the possibility that we've all been punk'd by RCA. (OK, OK, I'll knock it off) -MrFizyx 18:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point by Point Analysis
    1. Pigg has one album. WP:MUSIC calls for two.
    2. Pigg's music is on Grey's anatomy. WP:MUSIC calls for a theme song, and if that's the only claim, it suggests a redirect. Pigg has one song that appears in two episodes – and not as its theme.
    3. Pigg is in a national rotation. WP:MUSIC calls for a rotation on a national radio network. Pigg is in a website rotation and not a radio network.
    4. Pigg has talk show bookings. WP:MUSIC makes no allowances for publicity tours.
    The short of it is that he has one album out, it's been out not even two weeks, and his article has been speedy deleted once already. Maybe he'll make it big. Maybe he won't. Lot's of big-label new releases fail. It doesn't matter. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Rklawton 17:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me refute these:
      1. No debate here. The Raconteurs, Anna Waronker, and Be Your Own Pet only have one album out, too, but meet other criteria, much like Pigg does.
      2. WP:MUSIC actually says "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." A theme is an example, not the only rationale. His music has been performed on shows, and he's done live performances on notable media. He certainly meets this criteria.
      3. This is tough to say, although registering as a major add on Records and Radio make this an arguable one.
      4. WP:MUSIC simply says national tour. A national publicity tour is still a national tour.
    • Crystal ballism simply doesn't apply here, as we can verify his past and future appearances per the WP:NOT guideline. The article is fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the rebuttal. I think we are now clear about the cause of our disagreements, and that's a great step forward. My summary then is that Pigg's song appears on two episodes of one TV show, and he has/will perform live on his national publicity tour. I strongly suspect that "national tour" was meant to mean "a tour that people would actually pay money to go see." I think we should all resist a big label's attempt to buy an encyclopedic article for one of its performers without him/her actually earning the privilege through talent and hard work. Rklawton 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps it did. He still meets other criteria, and whether it's "a big label's attempt to buy an encyclopedic article for one of its performers" is irrelevant, really. We base encyclopedicness on a series of subjective criteria, and he meets it, so I'm not sure where the protest comes from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The protest comes from the discussion of the points we've had above. If there are other criteria not already discussed, please note them. Rklawton 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rklawton, you chided me earlier for making "assumptions." You are making assumptions about this performer and his talent/hard work or lack thereof. I also think you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, though certainly not to a high degree (AfDs are infamous for these kind of discussions... I'm just not sure why you're so passionate in this particular case). At this point, both sides have been presented, and I think it's time for other editors to have a turn to make a decision for themselves, and perhaps we should suspend our contributions to this discussion and let the AfD ride out. No reason for the people who have already commented on here to harp on further about their opinions. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm looking at his article and it's bleak: one album, two tv episodes playing his song, and a publicity tour. The assumption is that this somehow makes him notable. Rklawton 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • How many more times do you plan on repeating yourself? PT (s-s-s-s) 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, of the points above, we have one agreement, one disagreement of the interpretation of the touring requirement, and one where you were incorrect and he meets. None of your points discuss the multiple media mentions that are clearly linked and displayed on his website, either, so we have two absolutely certain ones. I also haven't had any luck finding past tour information for him, but I have a feeling he's actually done a tour on his own, too. That's two definitely verifiable parts of WP:MUSIC he meets in any case, and, past that, I'll re-paste what WP:MUSIC says here: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted." Given everything we know about him, deletion seems misguided. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I grouped the multiple media mentions under the category of "publicity tour," and argue that publicity tours are not notable - they are a routine part of the entertainment business. The fact that you think he's had a previous tour is certainly not verifiable and not grounds for passing WP:MUSIC. Lastly, and for the sake of honesty, let's share the whole quote: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Rklawton 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • "I also haven't had any luck finding past tour information for him, but I have a feeling he's actually done a tour on his own, too." Excuse me? That's "verification?" Our feelings are completely irrelevant. Either he has -- and you can verify that -- or he hasn't. Wishful thinking cannot come into play. RGTraynor 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK, the arguments have been made. Maybe the four of us should let other editors comment now? This page is getting crowded! (P.S. MrFizyx, you should write an article about the Ashton Clone Conspiracy. It's obviously everywhere, we just need reliable sources to cite to prove it!). ;) PT (s-s-s-s) 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I knew I shouldn't have mentioned my suspicions of the tour (and I wasn't trying to pass it off as a rock-solid rationale, for the record). My point is simple - he has multiple media mentions (even outside of the tour) and has had his music performed on notable media (Conan, Grey's Anatomy). Take it as you wish, Isuppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously fulfills WP:MUSIC per information cited in the above discussion. Amazinglarry 19:14, 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. Mailer Diablo 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Saucedo[edit]

One of many JammXKids pages up for AfD. Some have already been speedied per A7. This one makes claims of notability, but with no sources to back them up. Home page of the group is unreadable via Ubuntu & Firefox, so I can't check for potential copyvio. --DarkAudit 14:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete It's marked copyvio now. JD[don't talk|email] 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Speedy period had expired, so now it's got the other copyvio tag on it. --DarkAudit 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't make anything of their website on IE either. No independent assertion of notability. BlueValour 03:11, 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 article in question was speedily deleted as a copyvio. Srose (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Domingo[edit]

One of many JammXKids pages up for AfD. Some have already been speedied per A7. This one makes claims of notability, but with no sources to back them up. Home page of the group is unreadable via Ubuntu & Firefox, so I can't check for potential copyvio. --DarkAudit 14:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as most GHits don't seem particularly notable. Shadow1 14:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Copyvio. JD[don't talk|email] 14:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sora (lion cub)[edit]

I think this article should only be a section in Sora (Kingdom Hearts) if needed. This is just a form of this character, and the information isn't substantial enough for a brand new article. It should be deleted. Chris1219 14:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom, unnecessary fancruft to the extreme. I am bashing my head on the desk as I type this. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Must... keep... typing... Tychocat 08:53, 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 article in question was speedily deleted as a copyvio. Srose (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Erasme[edit]

One of many JammXKids pages up for AfD. Some have already been speedied per A7. This one makes claims of notability, but with no sources to back them up. Home page of the group is unreadable via Ubuntu & Firefox, so I can't check for potential copyvio. --DarkAudit 14:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 405 Ghits, most of which appear to be sites where anyone can contribute the names of actors. Shadow1 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Marked as a copyright violation. JD[don't talk|email] 14:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD A8/G2/G7. Technically, this is too old for A8 to apply, but the uploading user was very confused about copyright, and her pattern of uploads continued until today. She admits her mistake with regret. Xoloz 15:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbe' J. Thompson[edit]

Notability definitely asserted, but this reads like a publicity bio, and as such violates WP:SPAM. The JammXKids page is an unreadable mess via Ubuntu & Firefox, so I can't be certain if there's a potential copyvio here as well. Only outside link is IMDB, so verifiability is also in doubt. --DarkAudit 14:31, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myitforum.com[edit]

Nonnotable IT website, Alexa ranking below 142,000 NawlinWiki 14:38, 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. the wub "?!" 11:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collective Punishment of Civilians in War[edit]

Contested prod. While the subject may be important, it is nearly impossible to treat it with NPOV, especially when the subject is in the news. The article seems to have been written for the primary purpose of expressing dissatisfaction with one side's actions in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, and uses an almost comical repetition of "critics argue" to pretend to a neutral point of view. A serious dearth of sources rounds out the picture. A complete rewrite by an extremely skilled editor might salvage the article, but absent somebody willing to undertake such a task, I recommend deletion.VoiceOfReason 14:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'd agree. There aren't any great sources, it smacks of POV difficulties, and might even qualify of OR. Since WP:NOT free hosting, we can't host this opinion piece. alphaChimp laudare 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article, but start over with the specific article in the Geneva convention pro-scribing collective punishment. I have no doubt there are many useful scholarly discussions about this article and its application in war. Rklawton 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR, POV violations. That there might be useful scholarly discussions about this article is irrelevant; that's the proper province of discussion forums, magazine articles or academic symposia ... not of Wikipedia. Ravenswing 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor point "by scholarly discussions", I meant published academic papers of the sort we thrive on here at Wikipedia. Rklawton 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Hyphen5 19:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I agree with nom that a complete rewrite by an extremely skilled editor could salvage this. I think it's a legitimate subject, but has WP:V and WP:NPOV problems right now. If deleted, perhaps someone more objective could reincarnate this with better sources? Allisonmontgomery69 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Collective punishment is a term used in article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. I think the article title makes sense, but should be applied only to countries found guilty of violating article 33. The article now is just speculation. Deet 11:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with Deet. As it stands, the article reeks of NPOV and I'd like to see some more sources too.
    • The above was me - I forgot to sign. Acyso 23:33, 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 merge into AJ McLean. --james(talk) 10:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny No Name[edit]

Article on a alter ego of a boyband singer. NN as its not a real person, nor a notable fictional character Lurker talk 14:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define notable fictional character. Kramer (from TV's Seinfeld) is listed, and he isn't all that notable to me personally.
You may not consider Johnny No-Name to be notable, but AJ McLean's fans do. --WhenInDoubtFollowYourHeart 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has this character been in a book, a film, a TV show? Does he have any existence outside AJ mvLean's head apart from being mentioned in interviews? Lurker talk 15:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with AJ McLean. It's not a real person (thus failing WP:BIO), but it possibly deserves mention in the AJ article. alphaChimp laudare 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main McLean article. This is an interesting parenthetical footnote to his career, but nothing more. RGTraynor 19:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the AJ McLean article, because it is an important footnote to his philanthropical ventures during his music career.
  • Merge or perhaps redirect. HawkerTyphoon 09:48, 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 Deleted at sole editor's request. --Aoratos 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People quoting Israeli and Zionists[edit]

(NB the title has changed from 'Controversial Israeli and Zionist quotes' since nomination)

Whilst well referenced quotes may have a place on wikiquote, the only place they should be in wikipedia is in relevant articles where they can be contextualised. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection .... . A quixotic collection of inflametory zionist quotes, cherrypicked from around various sources, cannot be anything other that POV, as I suspect the creator of this User:Striver is aware. Read the introduction to the article - and this [25] otherwise unsolicited comment he has made on the talk page. Delete or transfer to wikiquote. --Aoratos 14:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is common knowledge that Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection" and that we have wikiquotes. But i argue that the nomination is flawed in its logic. The article is not indiscriminate, it describes and represent a real phenomena that it sources to (1) David Ickes website, (2) Radio Islam, (3) whatreallyhappened.com, (4) CounterPunch, (5) Rense.com (6) islamonline.net and more. Within those sites, each one (except whatreallyhappened) having their own article here on wikipedia, it can not be said to be a "indiscriminate collection", rather, its a well organized and intentfull collections of quotations aimed to achieve a specific aim. And that is why moving to wikiquote is not appropriate either. This articles main objective is not to present the quotes, rather to represent the phenomena that the practice of using this quotes represent. The quotes are there to give examples of the phenomena, which is evident since every quote is sourced to its main source, or it stats that it lacks such, and then proceeds to show what secondary sources use them to defame Israel and Zionist. The quotes in the article are not cherrypicked, they are picked from list that cherry pick: A huge and important disstinction. The quotes being inflammatory to Zionists is totally irrelevant. --Striver 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you'd be OK with List of nasty things muslims have said about America or List of Anti-Semitic remarks made by Arabs? As I say, an article about controversies that gave quotes as examples would be fine. Bringing them together is not neutral. --Aoratos 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actualy thinking about creating a counterpart, maybe Controversial anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist quotes, and put them both on the "Arab-Israeli conflict" template. I have absolutly no problem with that. Only questions that needs to be answered is if Zionist proponens have the same practice of listing anti-zionist quotes. I do not understand " an article about controversies that gave quotes as examples would be fine. Bringing them together is not neutral", could you elaborate on that, so i understand? Thanks. --Striver 15:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. I do not find Striver's reasoning convincing, and there is ample precedent for deleting information whose organization depends on subjective judgement. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What part is subjective, the quotes being controversial or being used to defame Isreal/Zionist? --Striver 15:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Move any that can be verified to wikiquote Lurker talk 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May i ask, are you arguing that the phenomena is not real, or that it should not be represented? --Striver 15:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Striver's arguments are compelling. Why would one delete this article. We need more. Williamborg (Bill) 15:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is possible to collect only those facts which support a particular point of view, such that even a presentation of facts can violate our NPOV policy. This appears to be one of those times. The page is also orphaned, which speaks to the "indiscriminate collection of information" point - a pretty specious collection of data, really. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the impresion that this article tries to "prove" that Zionist are evil. If that was the case, you would be right. But that is not the case, the article clearly stats that it is portraying the phenomena of people doing so. In other words, your support for the deletion is based on a missrepresentation of what the article is about. --Striver 15:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article may need developing, but it hasn't been up for long.--MostlyHarmful 15:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right, i has only been up for 90 minutes before being afd'd. Now, that speaks a lot in my view. --Striver 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The truth hurts - that's probably a motivation behind advocating the deletion of a very useful article.--MostlyHarmful 16:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and avoid speculating on other people's motives. It is about as useful as if I were to speculated on Striver's politics because he created it. I nominated this because it doesn't belong here, that's all. --Aoratos 16:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete say what, Striver? Lists that cherrypick? What is the point of having this? Wikipedia is not a fricking blog! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it is not. But it desribes the phenomena of blogs, see: Blog. In the same sence, this article desribes this phenomena of creating cherrypicked anti-Israely quotes. In other words: No valid reason for deletion is provided. --Striver 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No arguements? Just a opinion? --Striver 16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with ESkog. ED MD 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in that case, could you please show me were the article is trying to advance the view of Israel-Zioninst being evil/bad? --Striver 16:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know enough about the situation to give an informed vote, however if kept the use of the word "controversial" in the article title is POV and should be changed. 23skidoo 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, i have no problem with a rename. I would actualy appreciate some suggestions on better titles.--Striver 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
maybe Quoting Israeli and Zionists? --Striver 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, wholly unencyclopedic arguing and POV pushing. David Icke's web site is an encyclopedic source now? And I would suggest article creator get out of the habit of leaving inappropiate talk page comments[26]. Weregerbil 18:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a very appropriate cite regarding what the cite contains. The cite is not used as a source of facts like "Israel is bad", it is used as a source of the fact "David Ickes site lists quotes", and that is a 100% correct use of the source. Anyway, What pov is the article pushing? Give a example. What part of the argument is unencyclopedic ? I feel there is a lot of sweeping statements that might not be possible to specify. Again, you seem to be under the impression that this is the "Israel is bad" article, while this is the "People like to give this kind of quotes" article. --Striver 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is unencyclopedic. I would consider a collection of hand-picked (i.e. WP:OR) out-of-context quotes unencyclopedic. Re "what is POV pushing": the choice and editing (context and lack thereof) of the quotes. Please do not speculate on other editors' motives, your guesses tend to be wrong pretty much all of the time anyway. Whenever you find yourself typing "you seem to think..." the "delete" key is a pretty good choice. (I still don't think the reptilian humanoid hunter guy is a particularly reliable source...) Weregerbil 19:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, a list of quotes might be POV, OR, out-of-context or whadever. BUT. It is not the article that originaly researched the quotes, the quotes in the article are prominently used in the lists of quotes describes. Let me put it this way: If i was to take a biblical verse, and claim it to be false, it would be OR. But if i quote the Qur'an doing the same, then it is ok. You understand my point? "Doing OR" = Wrong, "Reporting on OR" = Right. If i was to create a list of quotes out of thin air, that would be POV, OR, out-of-context or whadever, BUT i am NOT doing that, i am REPORTING that some PEOPLE are doing that. And THAT IS encyclopedic. Maybe you are arguing that it is not encyclopedic to report on those peoples habits of creating list of quotes? And by the way, just not liking to see the list is not a reason to argue to delete.
Yes, I understand. My disagreeing with you on the encyclopedia-worthiness of this article is due to disagreeing, not lack of understanding. Thank you for explaining it though to make sure I understand. Weregerbil 19:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then we understand eachother. Peace.--Striver 21:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People, please, can you stop missrepresenting the article? The article is not about stating anything about Israeli and Zionist, its about representing what their detractors do. --Striver 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above ... and while I'm at it, perhaps User:Striver might consider that it isn't that we don't understand his position ; we just don't agree with it. The article's lack of fidelity to Wikipedia guidelines has nothing to do with the creator's intent ... which, incidentally, given his long history of Islamist POV, can't readily be described as neutral. Ravenswing 19:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is not neutral? Why is it not neutral to report that some people have that habit? --Striver 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't seem to be terribly POV, but basically reports that people are being quoted by other people. If there is some significance to this practice, then that needs to be verified by a non-Wiki source, or this article is original research. eaolson 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of the quotes are exceptionally racist and without any source. They are just attributed to the said person. Merge some of the quotes with soucres to the said person. --Ageo020 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for several reasons: besides being an indiscriminate collection of information (Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes; there's Wikiquotes for that), the selection of quotes is inherently a POV act; and more importantly, the sourcing -- that is, the verifiability the the quotes are genuine -- is either nonexistent, or completely unreliable. Sites like Rense.com are not even remotely reliable for Wikipedia purposes. --MCB 21:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The soulution to that is to state it in the article. The unrliable factor is what makes the article notable in the first place, that people go to such length to state their view. If the quotes were comon knowledge, it would not be anything special and would not merit a article. Its like a modern day version of the protocols, if you will. The protocols are even more unriliable than this, in this case you can just go to the library and check it out. But still we have a article on the protocols.--Striver 21:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment guys, if its the quotes that are sitcking in your eyes, then delete them, not the entire article! If you look closly, i have added that some of the quotes have more than one sorces, making it questionable if any of the sources are accurate. That is inline with having a article on the phenomena. But you give in to your gut-reaction of "rasist-bs" that you rather delete the entire article rather than help editing it, or just remove the quotes. It really should not be any problems having them really, as long as its clear that they are not presented as factual, rather, as examples of what people list...--Striver 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the article deserves a POV tag. The title of the article is somehow strange! --Aminz 22:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--Zereshk 23:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ignoring for a moment the quote farm (which should go) & the website list (which should also go) as editorial issues - and ignoring the strong POV this article completely hinges on whether or not one can consider a series of websites selectively publishing "controversial" quotations as a phenomenon. This is really the crux of the article. Deeming these "Israeli and Zionist" quote sites a "phenomenon" is not WP:V; i.e. there is no external source provided (and I could not find one myself) that has documented the "phenomenon" of this type of quotation. That being said, This makes the very central point of the article original research, unless sources are provided that this has been documented as a "phenomenon" by reliable sorces. Drop the contention that this is a phenomenon and you are left with a link farm and quote list... both violating WP:NOT. There are of course websites that selectively choose quotes to publish, but this is a general practice, not limited to sites quoting Israelis about Zionism. I could find you dozens of websites that only mention the witicisms of H.L. Mencken, while completely ignoring his racist comments. That doesn't make an article called People quoting H.L. Mencken selectively an encyclopedic article though. Without sources that this is documented as a "phenomenon" the very contention of such is original research and what is left is an indescriminate collection of information.--Isotope23 04:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Very well said. One wonders what response Mr. Striver will have to that one. And frankly, the title change makes it MORE POV, if anything. This sure as hell isn't an article about "People quoting Zionists." It's an article about inflammatory anti-Arab quotes. Ravenswing 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good comment, the first one i read that makes a compeling argumentations for deleting. I will userfy the article and put a speedy tag on it. Thank you for taking the article afd seriously! Peace.--Striver 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. As Isotope23, above. Also, this appears dangerously close to original research -- the author is attempting to describe a phenomenon by citing instances of that phenomenon and not commentary about it in secondary sources. And finally, allowance of this article would mandate an inappropriate POV article fork for its anti-Israeli counterpart 'phenomenon'. Serpent's Choice 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Isotope23. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete w/ Comment The user has moved the page into his userspace. [27]--Jersey Devil 11:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Isotope23, and also because wikipedia is not a festering ground for racist drivel and conspiracists-- Nesher 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we speedie end this already, the article is deleted on my request, no point in wasting wikipedia resources. --Striver 13:33, 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 keep, despite nonsense from socks, there's enough evidence that he meets WP:BIO according to the arguments -- Samir धर्म 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pradip Somasundaran[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Note to editors: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts should be tagged using <small>— Possible '''[[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|single purpose account]]''': [[User:username|username]] ([[User talk:username|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/username|contribs]]) {{{2|}}} has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.</small>.

May fail WP:BIO and seems pretty certainly to conflict with WP:VAIN Seidenstud 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I no longer believe this is a hoax, but it's still not meeting WP:BIO per nom. alphaChimp laudare 17:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm just going to go with my original vote. After considering the many sock arguments, I just cannot see any significant notability emerging (other than "he is a hero to the karala people"). The sockpuppets and personal attacks have to stop. It's getting a little ridiculous. alphaChimp laudare 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alpha. Do not take a hasty decision. All are not socks. Many admins and some like jyothis are genuine editors who are from malayalam wiki.I may be new here but have sincere intentions and am here to expand the music section with many more articles on singers of kerala (Already started one on Gayatri Asokan). Jyothis has given many more links to clear the notability issue. Also please could you explain why this should be deleted? You already might have known that he is a hero for the kerala people. If so he should be notable! The huge response is natural as he has a big fan following in kerala. There are also some other people like Amit Sana who have an article. Why are you all silent on the many comments on amit's article? Sock or no sock you should have a reason. somasundaran's article satisfies so many wiki guidelines while only one is required to qualify it. So what is the problem here? Anyway jyothis has come out with so many links to prove credibility, notability and verifiability(see down). You can also ask him (anyone) to improve or modify the article.Also understand that the section on playback singers from kerala is very weak. Don't we need to improve it? Also seems the so called pradipsomasundaran who wrote the article first was just a fan who was after some fun and is no more on this scene. But fact remains that he has just managed to bring this unnessary controversy by putting up a half baked article in the first place. But we feel that this wonderful artist should not be disgraced further due to this imposter's mistakes and by people such as Angeo who seem to have stooped to low levels of personal attacks. That's why all are pained. This has become a fight for dignity for all of us from Kerala. Also now the article has some dignity and now the vanity issues should not be insisted as the original editor has run away. Please remember that we are all judging on a wonderful singer in his absence!The only way we can end this seemingly unending ridiculous war is stopping this on a good note with dignity restored for the singer.But we should give praise to all who managed to bring up so many information on the singer. Let's take all relevant and useful info and use it to put up a good article instead of turning a blind eye to their efforts.

Latest news of Pradip Somasundaran performing in a Music and Dance festival of National Repute Where the Best in India Participate-Swaralaya-2006

If he was not notable then he would not be participating in such a reputed program in kerala! I feel like a fool in having to show you such links to make you and others believe that pradip is one of the most popular singers of Kerala who is very very busy. (Are the knowledge of the respectable Admin's in Music and Musicians of Kerala worth it?) What more is there to prove?? --Gluewhale 09:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above link will prove the contention on "Lata Mangeshkar Trophy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradipsomasundaran (talk • contribs)

Comment. You might want to read WP:BIO in regard to your case. Are there any notable newspapers attesting to you? alphaChimp laudare 17:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the singer may have won the trophy but its not a trophy well known to other indians. Some of the famous singing competitions at that time were'Sa re Ga Ma' and 'Antakshiri' which were not won by this guy. Also no professional fame was acquired by this guy. Also I have not heard of any notable film songs sung by this guy in malayalam or tamil. --Ageo020 21:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just deleted 2 "votes" that were from the same IP: 59.93.32.243, the first one of which contained abusive ad hominem aspects. Can anyone confirm or deny if this IP is a sock of Pradipsomasundaran? The reason I ask is that the two users (anon IP and registered) happen to be the two users who are responsible for the authorship of the article in question. -Seidenstud 02:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seidenstud, an IP is not a sock puppet. --HResearcher 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: It is pitiable that the person above who has commented on winning "antakshari" does not realize that antakshari is a musical game and not a (singing)talent scouting competition. Pradip did win the Meri Awaz Suno singing competition and has been singing for many movies consistently down south from then groomed by none other than the Great music director Late Shree Raveendran.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andholanam (talk • contribs)
  • Do not delete : Mr Pradeep Somasundaram is a genuine singer and he has won several prestigious prizes. He is well know person in Kerala and to the whole of Malayali community which comes to millions world-wide. I myself was a witness to many of his achievements.Please do not delete as some ignorant person has posted some wrong information about him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotcompals (talk • contribs)
  • Do not deletePradip Somasundaran or also spelt as pradeep somasundaram has sung many songs, even for Illaiyaraja!
He has many albums too in malayalam. Does many T.V programs too.
has sung for 1) ravindran 2) johnson 3) vidyadharan 4) mohan Sitara 5) kaithapram
6) Balabhaskar
Some links to his credit
http://www.musicindiaonline.com/l/20/c/singer/ http://www.musicindiaonline.com/l/20/m/singer.2808/
http://www.kalakeralam.com/music/playback.htm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0355735/combined
http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/03/stories/2006010303880300.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/07/stories/2005010718020300.htm
http://www.thehindu.com/2005/10/02/stories/2005100206690400.htm
http://www.raaga.com/channels/malayalam/movie/M0000374.html
Manjeera Dhwani. Language. Malayalam. Director. Bharathan. Year Of Release. 1998. SongID. SongName. Singers. :SG002533, Mohini Enikkae, Pradeep Somasundaram ...
raajangahm.com/ric/film/FL001011.html - 4k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
He is also a FSF supporter and linux enthusist! http://gnowledge.org/pipermail/fsf-india/2001-July/001564.html
He is a very famous personality in Kearla! We do not want his article deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.32.28 (talk • contribs)
  • DO NOT DELETE Pradip Somasundram has indeed won the contest mentioned and is well known in the Malayalam Music scene. His other professional commitments do not allow him to be a full time singer, that does not take away his merit as a singer of repute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.12.174 (talk • contribs)
  • Do not delete :Pradeep Somasundaram from kerala, was the first one who achieved the Lata mangeshkar award for the program " Meri awaz suno".It was the first ever popular hindi music show conducted throughout the whole year by the TV channel Doordarshan. Famous hindi play back singer Sunidhi Chauhan introduced to films only after winning the title of Meri awaz Suno " along with Pradeep Somasundaram.
Pradeep has won several awards on music and he sings in Hindi,Tamil,Malayalam etc.
The following links shows his authenticity.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2003/02/13/stories/2003021300960400.htm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0355735/combined
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunidhi_Chauhan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.73.89 (talk • contribs)
Comment I believe this guy is genuine. But I don't think he has achieved enough fame to merit a wikipedia article. The links provided which go the newspaper The Hindu were verified by me. Some of the article just mentions his name with a long list of other singers which just say that he is going to sing at this function/festival/programme. Also the IMDB article mentions that he has just sung for one film which is Manasam. Some of the singers which this page has mentioned such as Sunidhi Chauhan have sung in many fims/albums. Also they are known throughout India.
Furthermore, some of the comments mentions that he has worked with well known music directors such as Kaithapram and Ravindran. Google shows absolutely no hits regarding this. Google hits must not be used as a basis for an article but it could mean PS has worked with them in one movie or a song.

Finally, Pradeep Somasundaran's google hits show it to be 901. But on further inspection, there are just about a dozen sites which really mention this guy. --Ageo020 21:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete Pradip Somasundaran is genuine, very much so! 'Meri Awaaz Suno' was probably the first every Indian TV competition for singing talents and was endorsed by the likes of Yash Chopra. This show was hosted by Anu Kapur, and was one of the very few popular programmes on Doordarshan at the time. It is true that Pradip did not get a major break in the Hindi music scene, even after being a clear winner on a national stage. However, he has worked with some of the great music directors in south indian languages like Ravindran and Ilayaraja.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.31.106 (talk • contribs)
Comment. I understand you desire to have an article on Wikipedia. How about just placing the article in your userspace and dropping the whole matter? It'll show up in people's google searches, giving you what you're looking for. You have yet to cite some notable news source asserting your significance. I'm thinking something like BBC, New York Times, etc - something Wikipedia users have heard of. As for flooding this AfD with anonymous opinions...it's just silly. Anybody can see through the pattern of edits. Quite frankly, your interests would have been best served by posting one clear, well written opinion regarding your notability. I'm just saying. alphaChimp laudare 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably qualify that post. Looking back on it, I'm not sure it was assuming good faith as much as I'd like. If you are really all separate editors, then it's great that you are expressing your opinions. The pattern, however, seemed to suggest the contrary. alphaChimp laudare 22:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Do Not Delete
Alpha Chimp,

With due respect for the pain the administrators and other wiki evangelists take to maintain this, Let me note my comments on the matter. let me state that we are not in here to fight, but to determine the credibility of the article and person in question. Please note the points below, that I would like to present for your kind perusal.

1. According to the WP:BIO,point 1, "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field ",
He is a noted playback singer of south india, who has won the prestigious national level singing competition, Meri awaz suno, conducted by the Indian government's official Television channel called Dooradarshan. The show was anchored by noted theator and film actor annu kapoor. he has sung in south indian movies and albums (I'm not listing it again, as people have already done a few above) and is recognized as a playback singer in the south indian film industry.
quoting the part under success stories in [29]yashraj film's page on mary awaz suno,
"Pradeep Somasundaram (a mega final winner): Pradeep is an established artiste in the Malayalam music industry and has sung a number of songs in South India."
2. According to WP:BIO, point 4, "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers"
On top of the above mentioned points, He has played an active part in the revolutionary online free music movement called blogswara [30], which is even compared to the opensource revolution in the computing world. He is a very popular figure in the public programs and musical functions alike. Also, he has been a guest in television shows in south india as well.
3.According to WP:BIO, point 6, "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers "
The Hindu is a national daily, which has showcased the artist in
a. [31], which says
"Nine singers, led by Pradeep Somasundaram and Gayatri brought alive nearly 28 songs, with a couple of drama songs also thrown in for variety."
b. [32] which says
"On these days, from October 6-15, that is, the Navarathri season, Kairali provides two and a half hours of dance and music each day. Noted dancers and singers from all over India will take part in it. Some of them are Alarmel Valli, M Jayachandran, Pradeep Somasundaram, Chitra Iyer, Sarat, Gaurav MajumdarSudha Raghunathan, Padma Subramaniam, Lakshmi Gopalaswamy. There are other dance-dramas too. "
c. [33] which says
`Technofest' begins at Thrissur
THRISSUR: `Technofest,' the annual State level cultural festival of the engineering college students, was inaugurated at the Thrissur Government Engineering College here on Friday by Lonappan Nambadan, MP. Singer Pradeep Somasundaram was the chief guest. The inauguration, scheduled to be held on Friday, was postponed following the death of a student of the college. As many as 2,500 students from 65 colleges are participating — Staff Reporter
d. First time malayalam podcasting service, podbazaar :[34] has showcased the person. according to podbazaar, "Pradip Somasundaran needs no introduction for people from Kerala and for those who have heard/seen the first of its kind musical program Meri Aawaaz Suno in Dooradarshan some years back. He won Lata Mangeshkar award for the best Male singer. And the best female singer was Sunidhi Chauhan. Now he sings for the movies and albums. A great singer and a cool and humble person."


I disagree with Ageo's comment on the Saregama and Antakshari, as this program was the trendsetter, which set the stage for a lot talent search and musical programs, including Saregama, which appeared in the time followed in various channels in the country.
On these basis, I believe that it fits WP:BIO requirements and hence I request the wiki team to not to delete the article.


Thanks!
--Jyothis 00:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to disagree on some of the above points. This may seem like a wiki war but please bear with me.
1. If he is a noted playback singer, why does IMDB list only Manasam as his only credit. Being a notable singer, why does he only feature in only 3-4 articles in the Hindu. Why doesn't he come in other South Indian newspapers like Malayala Manorama, Deepika, Indian Express or Mathrubhumi. (please consider that this is not an attack on the reputation of the Hindu)
Answer: See here. http://www.musicindiaonline.com/l/20/c/singer/ This lists more songs. Still this is not complete

These have malayalam fonts and do not appear in searches. Simple fact! If you want more articles just on this person enough can be provided as he he performs all over the state.

IMDB is very unreliable for judging the significance of Malayalam film personalities. It may be used to argue that someone is notable, but never than someone is not. It lists five films for Baburaj and two for Dakshinamoorthy while the actual number is well over hundred for both.
2. Google hits on this guy are very few. A noted playback singer must generate atleast 1000 hits. Even though he has 901 hits, only 10-12 actually mention his name as a singer. The rest are just hits for the surname somasundaran.( sunidhi chauhan, PS's co-winner in MAS generates 160,000 hits)
Answer: See searching the name pradeep somasundaram. He is also listed in this name.This will give you another 900 odd results. Then the total make it almost 1800! So that will get you to your magic number of 1000. After all who brought this rule that a playback singer ought to have at least 1000 hits? Strange!
3. The site blogswara just has below 8000 hits. And there is no mention of this site in any national newspaper comparing it to open source revolution. Also please note that the site has just about 10 songs to be downloaded, one of which belongs to PS.
Answer: Did you except all songs to be sung by Pradip? The site clearly tells that this is a joint effort. Not a single persons album.Silly argument which does not guage a person's popularity. If so all films & albums would have songs only by single persons.
4. Podbazaar is the audio version of Youtube. Users actually upload a songs or interview and write an article about it. It means that a user can write anything about it. It's not necessarily reliable. Also note that podbazaar is not in the top 100,000 sites according to Alexa.( it is around the 1 million mark.)

--Ageo020 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: We are not talking about Podbazar's popularity here.
Please do answer this question: Is there a meter by which you can guage a person's popularity? No. Have you lived in Kerala since 1996? Have you heard this person's songs? Then why do you say that he is not popular? Based just on the Internet searches?

Info on the net is based on what info we feed into it. Kerala is very bad in internet density. Broadband started here only in 2005! So it will take some time for people in Kerala to be internet savvy. Please take all these facts into consideration.--59.93.35.130 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment
Ageo, I dont know on what basis you say that other major dailys has not recognised the person in question. The Hindu has a good online edition and I believe that you will not be searching in the native language, say malayalam or tamil. the problem with the current system that uses the ascii fonts used by individual language dailys are custom-built, which takes out the searchability. hence, I would think that the argument which says he doesnt generate google listing does not hold much good.
Also, I would like to know how many movies are listed in IMDB, with a comparison to the actual number of movies released. this is to identify the authenticity of the argument that says that IMDB doesnt have any records.
Please note that the blogswara recorded 5000+ hits and 300+GB downloads within no time of release of its first album, in which the person is a part of.
Its my bad that I mispresented the part of podbazar. It was mpod [35], which I should have mentioned.
On the point that Sunidhi chauhan generated that many, please note that she sings in Hindi, which has a wider audience level and reachability in the net. whereas the other languages are yet to make their way into the internet community in the level as hindi has.
I feel that the Searchability on the net may not give an actual picture on the subject.
Comments and questions are welcome.
--Jyothis 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately being mentioned in a list of other people, all of whom performed does not constitute a "feature" as in "Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers." A "feature" is (from wiktionary) " 1. An important or main item." Being listed in the context of many others who participated in an event that was features does not constitute a "feature." As far as the unreliability of search tools to properly reflect foreign-language sources, this may have to condemn the article to unverifiability (WP:V). Seidenstud 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Is this a wiki war? Seems like one of your mods Ageo is bent on making it so! He seems to be from Kerala and still bent upon to discredit a person about whom he does not know anything. Hey accept the facts. The other mods are more mature.Have a broader outlook.
contention1): Why is pradip singled out when the abhijit sawants/amit sanas all have articles here?

I am a press reporter & writer based in Kerala and know this singer since 1994. I think it's time to close this discussion.Most of the supporting comments are from amateur fans. I am a passerby and was alarmed to see so much talk based on just news from internet! Net or google is not the final word on any person's popularity or talent it also gives incorrect and incomplete facts many times.There is more to a celebrity than google. Has anyone of the mods here has ever heard this man's voice? You can judge his popularity from his music blog. It's unfair to comment on a person's talent & popularity from factual materials just from the Internet without taking a round up of other important factors like regional popularity and support.So thought of giving some clear facts without any bias as one of the mods here has suggested.

A celebrity is more than internet news. It takes just minutes to be one and years to sustain it.Pradip became a celebrity for all malayalees in 1996 and is still going strong after 10 years.

contention 2): I found articles about Kazi, Abhijeet Sawant, Amit Sana

(http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Amit_Sana - This man does not have any material to support any claims as per this wiki but still he is there!)and even just some participants of the Indian idol/ program on your wiki who are here just due to this single T.V program! Some have not even sung a single film song or any album to credit!

Who authorised this article to stay without even an iota of supporting facts as pradip has?

Then why should pradip not be here? (Just a contention)

Contention 3) The same rule should apply for everyone.He is a celebrity since 1996. Some

of his achievements are as below.

1) 1991-President's Gold medal winner in A.I.R National level Light Music

competetion

2) 1996- Lata mangeshkar Award for best male singer of India in Meri Awaz

Suno, the first National level Televised Music competetion.

3) 1997- The prestegious TOYI (Ten Outstanding Young Indian Award) given by

JCI International which is recognition to his contributions TOYI Award

4) 1998- Best T.V Playback singer of Kerala award for the

song"Ennakkaruppin"

5) He is a regular in many T.V programs and has done a listless number of

Albums.

This list is endless and they are only some of his major achievement..He has

performed all over India & in all the gulf countries many times.

So your first requirement of having won atleast an award of National repute

is satisfied as he has won three such awards.

He was one of the few Indians selected by the Indian & Japanese Govt. to participate

in 1) Ship for the world youth program-1994 http://www.swyaa-india.org/Pprofile.asp 2) Renaissance-World Youth Prog-2003 http://www.iyeo.or.jp/Ren/2003/edu/profile.htm

None of the above music competetion winners have such a brilliant profile of

international stature and varied interests!

The finding by one of the mods about singing in only one film is not true.
The list is incomplete as he has been signed by Sandeep Chowta to sing in a

major Hindi Film! This list which too is incoplete has many of his songs: click on the singer pradip and you will find more films in which he sang.

http://www.musicindiaonline.com/l/20/c/singer/
He permanently appears on this T.V program in Kerala:
http://www.amritatv.com/html/anjali.php
Mod's: The list and details about Indian Playback singers is very new and

without much indepth info. Why don't we all try to expand it rather than closing out such talents. You should also expand to wider areas of information other than just basing your findings on the number of google hits.

  • An encyclopaedia should try to bring comprehensive info on even the smallest info.

Wiki should also be about trying to find real talents(who do have contributed in their fields) who need to be introduced to the whole world. Let's not shun away from expanding knowledge and throwing light for the world. No one should be discriminated against.Let's give credit to the people who introduce such new faces to the wiki. Isn't the whole existence of the wiki based on expansion of such new info?

I have presented a comprehensive writeup based on my available knowledge. I

do not know why all these facts were not mentioned in this article in the first place by the creator! If still this does not warrants merit then God save the person who started this article!

Radhakrishnan
--59.93.15.182 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pradip has been on the music scene since 1996 since he won Meri Awaz Suno. This music show was the forerunner of the many later music shows such as Sa Re Ga Ma and Indian Idol. Also note that he is a major celebrity in his home state of Kerala. Also according to WP:BIAS not many people outside South India will know him. Hence, he is culturaaly significant for him to merit an article over here. --202.150.117.156 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep : Pradip Somasundaran is truly Self-made. He is very talented and has many achievements to his credit. How Popular are Internet and Google in 1996 when he won the talent show for Meri Awaz Suno which was famous and broad cast all over India on television channel.

Indian national Newspapers like to sell their stuff based on political news . We are discussing about talent here. Wiki needs to introduce people of talent instead of repeating something already on the net. His contribution to music in Kerala is remarkable.

  • Keep He is a well known singer in Kerala. Google hits on him will be far and few. But that doesn't mean malayalam and local newspapers don't cover him. The Hindu is one of the major South Indian newspaper which keeps a good online record. Also local TV networks cover him regularly. He has worked with great music directors such as Ravindran and Illayaraja. Some of his music albums are all the rage in college campuses throughout Kerala. At the time of his victory in Meri Awaz Suno, he was interviewed by every TV network in South India. But as 10 years have passed since then, not many people will remeber him. One of the users is hell bent on destroying his credibility, I am sorry for him --130.216.191.84 23:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This IP address is likely associated with the vandal Nilmar1--see below. -- Scientizzle 23:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The people of Kerala are quite angry with the harsh treatment of one of their favourite sons. This discussion is not even needed. Pradip is being harassed by some people who don't even know him. I hope the editors have enough common sense to keep this article.--Nilmar1 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nilmar1 was just blocked indefinitely for vandalism. This account was likely used from IP address 130.216.191.84 (above), as the edits are very related. -- Scientizzle 23:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - He is a notable Singer and a TV personality known all over Kerala and amongst all keralites all over the world.His name is not usually referred to as Pradip Somasundaran but it is either Pradeep Somasundaram or Pradip Somasundaram . - Bharatveer 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi All, As a wikipedia user and music lover I know him since 1996's Meri avaz zuno. He was notable singer since then. Becasue this was a famous program. And after that he sings for malayalam movies and Albums.I modified the article Pradip Somasundaran .I think now it is better than before.But one thing is that this is the first time I am hearing his name is Pradeep soma sundaran rather than Pradeep soma sundaram.

Rgds Jyothish Jothishkumart 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete - PradipSomasundram(n) is a well-known playback singer. He bacame famous through the TV program 'Meri Awaz Suno'. He won the State Award for the Best Playback singer (TV awards; not for a feature film). -- Rajith Mohan :) (Talk to me...) 07:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I am going for a keep here. Pradeep Somasundaram (sic) appears somewhat notable, though not very much so. As per the musiconline link provided by someone above, he has sung in atleast five seperate movies. One significant role/song in a movie, or minor ones in five is good enough for me. "Pradeep Somasundaram" gets just over hundred google hits and the first two pages contain a few good links. Tintin (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep "Pradip Somasundaran" gives 751 google hits and add to the 100 odd hits of "Pradip Somasundaran" makes it almost 850 strong hits. Both are the same person. He has international youth exchange programs to his credit as per some hits and links above. What is his drawback here? I do not understand.

No way to ignore such a multi talented personality. --59.93.39.205 10:35, 2 August 2006 (UT

  • Do not delete: Pradip Somasundaran is a well know artiste in south indian music industry(especilay malayalam).He is known by his performance in "Meri Awaz Suno"
  • Week Keep - I myself am from Kerala, but I confess I've never heard of him before. As the Musicindiaonline link shows that he has sung in nearly 5 movies, I think he is quasi notable. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK12:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE:Pradip Somasundaran is a well known music figure in the state of Kerala and across India afterhe proved himself by winning the Lata Mangeshkar trophy for the best male singer in India. I wonder why this article is considered for deletion!
  • Strong Keep I am a member of FSF from Kerala. I know this guy very well. When R.M.S was here in Ernakulam he was there with us. He entertained R.M.S with his melodius songs and R.M.S played the flute.

From all the above mentioned information, the following points are enough to merit his article here 1) He has sung in many Films (only some are indicated in Internet as database is old) . Heard he sang in a new film of for Ramesh Narayan. Saw the news from papers. So he is a playback singer and active. He is a life member of M.A.C.T.A (Malayalam Cine Technicians Association) 2) His songs appear on Television channels almost every day! 3) He has two Awards of National repute 4) He has a music blog which is live proof of his activity in music field and his blog is listed the fifth in it's category in India Indian Bloggers Websiteand touching 6000 hits in a span of 3 months! 5) He has participated in International Youth Exchange programs two times. 6) He propagates the use of free software in Kerala. 7) He is an eminent lecturer who teaches Electronics which makes him special and different from ordinary singers All these show that he is a multifaceted personality. I found even lesser mortals having articles written on them. Whay have you not gone after such people? So let there be sanity. Let talent courtesy and vanity get it's worth. Make your judgement on what has been mentioned on the article and whether it well supported by people who have opined and facts available. Anoop --59.93.33.147 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete - I am a malayalee, and I have heard of Pradeep Somasundaram. I have also seen his performance in Meri Awaz Suno. He is not a very famous playback singer (musicindiaonline.com search reveals this), but definitely has the talent. Let's keep the article after giving it a through edit - Anandpiyer 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - I am not a regular contributor to the English Wikipedia, but I regularly contribute to Malayalam Wikipedia (See My contributions). In my view, Pradeep Somasundaran is a singer well-known enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Umesh 21:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I is a person who works in Dubai and have seen this person's live stage programs there many times. He came there many times with East Coast Vijayan. His song Ennakkaruppin Ezazhagu is a hit there. We see his songs almost daily on doordarshan, Amrita, Asianet and Kairali T.V.

His Symphony program on Kairali was exceptionally good. Also the song "Porumo En Shya Megame" on Doordarshan is now a legend for malayalees all over world. Also his ghazal programs and Stage showas on Asianat and ACV are very good. We also regularly watch Anjali and Ghazal on Amrita T.V there. I speak for thousands of gulf malayalees. Do not delete this article because one foolish ignorant malayalee who has not seen Kerala or lived here does not know Mr. Pradip. Thousand of malayalees in kerala and abroad cannot forget Meri Awaz Suno. He is the only malayalee who won a hindi singing competetion.

George Philip-Dubai-On leave--59.93.34.122 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)—[reply]

  • Strong Keep

WP:BIO Notability

says that:

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:

Multiple features in popular culture publications or national newspapers

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

An independent biography

Name recognition

WP:MUSIC

says that:

  • A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
  • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).
  • Has won or placed in a major music competition.
  • Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
  • Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.

Hence any small child could see from all the presented facts that he qualifies more more than one of the above when only one of the above is required for his inclusion.

So I request the administrators to end this unnecessary discussion and let the article be improved with further info on this person with mistakes which as per your rules removed.


Regarding Newbies

  • As per the above newbies are to be encouraged. Here some admins like Ageo are violating this basic spirit.

Personal attacks

  • As per the above personal attacks are unwarranted. But Ageo is waging a personal war with this person and his huge fan following as I could see. This attitude is very immature and below the dignity of a WIKI Admin.

He should admit his impulsive action and gracefully admit the article and take the help of Pradip in improving music related articles on the Wiki. A truce and positive action is the need of the hour and an end to this unnecesary discussion. Mr Pradip does not seem to be a terrorist or a thief. He seems to be a multi talented person with a huge fan following. So take his help in getting more info to the wiki than discouraging such eminent people.

Mad Max:--59.93.4.180 10:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - quite notable... i have heard of him from the time he won the mucic contest in doordarshan. --Raghu 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pradip Somasundaran is indeed a playback singer. The (auto)bio that appears in this article is almost accurate. I know this man very well and his brother was a colleague of mine. His "Meri Awaz Suno" feat was front-page news for almost all dailies in Kerala at that time.

Pradip Somasundaran is not very famous nowadays. As you can see in the article, he was on a roll till 1998; limelight has eluded him since then.

That said, let me admit that I am a bit surprised seeing him in Wikipedia. As I said, he is not that famous; yet he is not an ordinary keralite either. Let me say, for a brief period of time, he was a somewhat-well-known guy.

Overall a very funny situation..is he famous enough to get into wiki? Mind you, to an ordinary (non-netizen) keralite he will be more famous than wiki!

However, I think this article should be deleted. Reason? Take a look at it's history. A pathetic attempt for fame and publicity. It's a pity he couldn't do it in any other manner. --Sandeepmdas 15:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - More Info added:

Mods, Please note that I have added more information on the page Pradip Somasundaran. Please take a look before reaching a decision. All these are verifiable with the concerned authorities. I humbly request you to consider the fact that The internet doesnt contain any information, unless we, the users add them to it. As we cannot measure the talent and popularity by scale, google should not be the final word on adding new and valid information on to the wiki. I strongly believe that this article should not be deleted, just because internet doesnt have enough information available. Thanks! --Jyothis 20:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete pradip used to be famous in the mid 90's but now not that many people have heard of him. I would have voted Keep, but the reason I am voting delete is because the article was started by the user User:pradipsomasundaran. Its high odds that Pradip himself created this article. Hence I would say that this is a vanity article. + This comment is deleted as the user has been banned from editing any article and seems to be a sock of Ageo--RonStoppable 02:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Also the many unregistered users who have voted here suggests to me that someone is using sock puppets and voting over here. - But some of them have given some good points such as Jyothis, But overall I would say Pradip has barely sang a film song in the last five years , hence delete this article. - Also some other article created by pradip are en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Malayalam_playback_singers. - I would like to rebutt Jyothis one point i.e. Talent doesn't get you a wiki article. Fame however does. Pradip is just nominally famous.--RonStoppable 02:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note : RonStoppable was blocked five hours after he added this comment above. Tintin (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He has won awards. Probably because he is notable. --HResearcher 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in these caes of doubt I go with the expertise. If an Indian wikipedian advises that he is not-notable that is good enough for me. In any case hee seems to have no international recognition or local major award. BlueValour 03:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

With Due respect, I disagree to some points noted above.

1. user User:pradipsomasundaran is not Pradip himself. I had contacted him enquiring this earlir and he has confirmed this. I know that it is not a fair practice, and I have checked that out at the first place. As he is a teacher, I wouldnt have had to collect and add the informatiion in Pradip Somasundaran today. Whoever created the page used his name as his id.

2. Unregistered IPs does not denote Socks. Most of the people who comes by and participate in this discussion does not know that you need to sighn with a login. South India is not much wiki literate yet. I dont think a normal user knows to IP spoofing or chainings.

3. BlueValour, I dont think many indian wikipedians knows Taranath Rao too. (No offence intented). everyone will have their area of interests and knowledge base. India, especially South India is not much wiki literate yet. People hear about wikipedia, when they get out of the state or country. Wiki norms does not require you to win the international recogintion. Also he is definitely way famous than Prof. R. Bindu.

Comment: Even Prof. Bindu is not a Professor. She is a just a selection Grade lecturer(Professor post does not exist in colleges. only in universities as per UGC norms)and a petty local body politician Who the hell actually gave permission for such irrelevant articles. The admin's should resign for this!

Ron, I have added the list of songs he has sung. Please take a look. I accept that talent does not get you there. I suppose you misread my statement.

Thanks.--Jyothis 09:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep - Indian wikipedians are not Gods and they are not the masters of wikipedia. Also any wikipedian who lives outside Kerala and has not been in Kerala for more than two years cannot claim to be an authority in this matter. Some contentions like "he was famous then" "he is not famous now' are very immature in the case of celebrities in music, acting, film direction etc. Oce a celebrity is always a celebrity. here there is no need for any concern as somasundaram is very active in giving live shows, T.V programs all across kerala. I even saw his program on Kairali channel yesterday and on doordarshan almost every day! His program Anjali on Amrita T.V is still continuing after 2 years and has won two state level awards. Hence the knowledge of our admins who are away in far places from kerala and those who do not watch television but go on typing on their keyboards though very sincere in this matter is mostly half baked and outdated. So they cannot be blamed.
He is also a regular participant in Swaralaya Music & Dance festival at Palakkad and is performing there this october too! Fact can be cheched from their website Swaralaya. He is also to perform for a fund raising program by the Malayalam Film fraternity in Cochin. So who says that he is not active in the first place? Such reckless opinions are only personal opinions and not the truth. If he were not famous now he would not be invited again and again for programs all over Kerala. SO this amounts to deliberate attemopt to defame the singer and is serious matter. The fact is that any famous artist has highs and lows in his career. Right from Michael Jackson to Whitney Houston and the great Rafi in India had bad phases. Jackson and houston have had long times when they have not had any new releases. So will our wiki admin's delete their pages? This is rubbish and immature thinking. If it were such we would have to remove articles of all such people and dead people since their current contributions are nil! Once a person attains celebrity status it is for his whole life. He or she stays in the heart of millions of fans for a particular reason which is for keeps. They may sway between active and passive phases of their career. Anyway this guy is only around 40! He also seems to have up's and downs. But seems quite stable with so many albums awards and achievements to credit. What the hell more are you looking at here? The article also says that he sang for "Art of Living International" which is indeed prestigious if true. Some articles mentioned above like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_sana are stupid in that they do not have anything on the person concerned. He has no album to credit and also their is no award list or any material that would be termed suitable for his qualification for a wiki article. "Many believe that Amit Sana is a superior singer to Abhijeet and that he only won due to female support but Amit remains great friends with Abhijeet they made a special appearance in season 2 of Indian Idol where he and Abhijeet along with Aditi Paul performed a song together" These are the wordings used in this article! The admin's who are keeping their eyes shut to such rubbish hearsay should hang their heads in shame! So who put it there and why there is no hue and cry about this one??? He has not even won an award. He is just a runner up! There are so many singers in Kerala like Manjari, gayatri who have only 100 and 6 hits in google! So does that mean that they are not celebrities or playback singers ? They are State Government award winners. It is foolish to says that a playback singer has to have 1000 google hits. Who made this rule? Gayatri and manjari are the leading female singers in Malayalam. If an some wiki admin who lives abroad did not hear about them does it mean that they do not exist?
Shame on such Admins. They should be reported to the arbitration committe for such immature comments and shouls not be allowed to function as Admins.
As for me somasundaran (even if he started the article which i doubt as the first version was like some of his fans one trying to have some fun) satisfies all requirements of having an article here in wiki WP:BIO Notability WP:MUSIC Both the above norms more than satisfied in his case.

Musicians and ensembles There are a lot of bands, singers and other musicians and musical ensembles with articles in the Wikipedia (see Category:Musicians).

  • A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  • Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.[1]

Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country.

  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
  • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).
  • Has won a major music award.
  • Has won or placed in a major music competition.
  • Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.(He is a graded Radio and T.V artist)

He satisfies all the above requirements SO IS HIGHLY NOTABLE. So why have you put this article for deletion in the first place? So close this matter now. All other personal likes and dislikes like whether he was popular before, is popular now or will be in future, is nonsense as THERE ARE CLEAR GUIDELINES TO GUIDE US ON THIS. So all personal references like "I have not heard this guy", "he should have won all major competetions in India", etc. do not hold any ground at all.

WHETHER HE IS POPULAR NOW OR NOT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE AS SOME PERSONS ARE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO SHIFT ATTENTION. THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER HE SATISFIES ANY OF THE CRITERION AS PER WIKI NORMS.All other personal comments of what someone thinks on his poularity are to be ignored. There is no meter for poularity and this cannot be acertained mere google searches and by people who are away and are not living in kerala. Let this be decided by we who live here!

Hope the more mature and experienced Admins/mods like Seidenstud & Alphachimp show maturity and take this off from the deletion page without delay--Gluewhale 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. I'm really alarmed by the level of sockpuppetry on this page. If at all possible, I'd like to solicit the opinions of more Wikipedians by extending this debate for another day or so. alphaChimp laudare 14:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So far the regular editors who have commented on this are yourself, Bharatveer, Jyothiskumart (not Jyothis), Rajith Mohan, myself, Deepujoseph (thunderboltz), Ageo20, Anandpiyer, Umesh (who is active in ml.wiki), Raghu.kuttan, Sandeepmdas, Bluevalor and HRsearcher. Seidenstud has commented but I can't see him give his opinion. I don't know where Bluevalor and HResearcher are from but of the rest, all except you are from Kerala (and hence are supposed to know what this is all about).
Alphachimp, Ageo20, HResearcher have voted for a delete, myself and Deepu confess our ignorance but go for a weak keep, the rest are for retaining the article. So the sock/meatpuppets needn't have taken all the trouble. Tintin (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi All, Please read the given below sentence is from NDTV message borad. First read it.

Re: Best Indian Music Director - Sent By: reemakaran (jaipur,india) i am not agree with ur choice abt ilaya coz i never heard abt ilaya raja so how can u say that ilaya raja is best indian music director [ http://www.ndtv.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=333&tablename=Music&id=565946 ]


I think now some wikipedia users behave like this sender. Coz i never heard abt Pradip so how can u say? Don’t be behaving like this! A real wiki pedia user who interested in music should know about all singers. He is really a good singer. He is really multitalented like a Teacher in Electronics dept and a singer.

we can never compare him with Yesudas or MG Sreekumar. And he is not a notable Play back singer. But he is a notable singer. And he deserved for this article.


I never say to delete this article. 

But need modification. I think there is no need of maximize the article with his all details. And maximum try to minimize the article with necessary details.

Rgds Jothishkumart 14:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Who is this comment addressed to ? Tintin (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to address a perticular user. I felt some users behaving like that. Don't confuse with user jyothis and jothishkumart. I am user jothishkumart .Jothishkumart 06:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment

TinTin,Alpha Chimp,Mods, I am a malayalam wikibooks Contributor. I agree that I dont do things here. You can see my work here Sorry that I did not mention it earlier. Thanks. --Jyothis 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alpha Chimp. This is not an article about a Mozart or a Beethoven, only about a singer who now as seen from the info and various comments is notable through his awards and T.v programs. So even if there are socks they have been very informative and have countered vague arguments very well. So I think they can be excused.I think we should give the credit to Jyothis who has compiled the facts. Tintin I think this writeup is not too big. Have see many huge articles like here. Eric Clapton, and here Jayachandran(which is more hearsay,over descriptive and not neutral. It also smacks of hero worship). Also since the credibility of this person was in question, Jyothis did the right thing by making the article more comprehensive, and wiki friendly.He has laid out only the facts and information about this singer who has been mis-understood by many wikipedians who are not in Kerala.After all this is our job, bringing out the truth and compelling the people who want such articles to be published to be more accurate. So now Admins please go after the Amit Sanas, Prof. Bindu's and such people. let the people who started this article heave a sigh of relief and improve upon it. Enough time has been spent already debating on this. Admin's take a decision now without going for the extra day.--Gluewhale 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I find that there are too many socks here, who support/delete this article. Some of the registered users like gluewhale, jyothis, pradipsomasundaran have just created articles for pradip somasundaran in the english encyclopaedia.--Ageo020 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Ageo, I Think the first and foremost thing that needs to be done is take you off from wiki list.

YOU HAVE FAKED TO BE AN ADMIN WHEN YOU ARE NOT. YOUR EXISTENCE IN WIKI IS ONLY FROM MARCH 2006.

  • This was found on ageo's talk page which confirms this.
  • Quote

Hi! I noticed on your user page that you identify yourself as an admin. Since you aren't an admin, I strongly suggest you remove you the box. JoshuaZ 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, please explain why you made the claim. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

About my page in which i made an admin claim, I'm sorry. I just copied that section from another user's page. I line checked the code but i think i may have overseen this. Really sorry if this caused any trouble. Thanks User:Ageo020 --Ageo020 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Its ok. Don't worry about it. JoshuaZ 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Unquote

You do not have any basic knowledge of wiki! You have made all silly references like 1) 1000 hits in google to be a playback singer 2) Close up Antakshari being a music talent show.

From your Quote "" *Delete the singer may have won the trophy but its not a trophy well known to other indians. Some of the famous singing competitions at that time were'Sa re Ga Ma' and 'Antakshiri' which were not won by this guy. Also no professional fame was acquired by this guy. Also I have not heard of any notable film songs sung by this guy in malayalam or tamil

This was your silly comment in the begening where you wanted this person to win all singing competetions in India (Are you his mentor?)

You said you have not heard him. What importance does this have here on this discussion. You might not have heard about many persons. That shows your ignorance and arrogance not knowledge.You do not have any proven competance in music to prove professional competence of this person. This has been already done by the people who gave him so many awards and made him sing in so many films, albums, T.V shows and live shows in India and abroad. This is not your job. Your job was to see whether the article satisfies wiki norms and you had no business to poke into competance and poularity polls. YOU DID NOT DO YOUR JOB IMPARTIALLY AND WITH NEUTRALITY. Thousands of malayalees including admins here know him and have heard him. Now you want to shut their voices by this last ditch futile attempt? There is also a complaint that you sent anonymous hate mails to the singer's blog and some nasty campaigns making this a personal war. We have proof that you sent personal invitation to other wikipedians from your page to help you in this hate campaign which is below the dignity of any wikipedian. You do not have any right to do so. Your actions speak for your sick mind!

Ageo's actions from his talk page and from the page of user pradipsomasundaran

Quote

This is a message to all Category:Kerala Wikipedians

I want your opinion on this particular person Pradip Somasundaran. He claims to be a famous singer in Kerala. Now being a Malayalee, I have not heard of this person before, so I wonder whether or not you have heard of him before and set this issue straight. If so, then please let your opinion be counted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pradip Somasundaran. Please note that by voicing your opinion as a Malayalee/Keralite will add more weight to your words.

Many Thanks --Ageo020 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey PS Yes, you are right. I have not lived in Kerala in the past 2 years. That doesn't mean I am not familiar with it. Now Amrita TV is not a TV channel watched by the masses. They watch Surya, Asianet or Kairali. If you have been seen on this channel, it means to me in my biased opinion that you are not too famous to have an article in wikipedia. Also remember that there are many singers who have cut their own records. That doesn't mean they have to have an article too. 

  Plus I am a frequent listener to malayalam film songs and I have certainly not heard of you. Do not waste your time ranting about whether the article should be deleted or not. Instead focus your energy on singing and becoming famous and then having someone else to have an article written about you. This letter may make you more angry, but I am sorry.

Ave --Ageo020 03:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unquote

I found these messages on your page and on the person impersonating as user pradipsomasundaran. These clearly show your immature dirty mind and illegal actions. This also proves that all your comments are biased as you yourselves have admitted to this here! You have used abusive language with intent to disgrace defame and provocating a person. If the real Pradip Somasundaran finds this out you will cut a very sorry figure for yourselves! This is enough to file a case against you in the arbitration section man!

Admins: Remove this person soon. He is a disgrace to wiki. He is just an editor(counter vandalism unit member?) and claimed to be an Admin with an Admin box on his page which was removed when some one reported this. He also is a novice who started editing in March 2006 and yest behaves as if he is the owner of wiki.


The outcome of this this discussion will be decided on merit not your ego! After this is over your actions will be reported to the arbitration committe. Except you all the other people who have commented, including admins have behaved sensibly with reason and dignity.

All your silly arguments have been put to rest by many many of the people who commented here. Now that you do not have anything to say, rather than replying to the observations you become a mouth for some other admin and be a cry baby and say that "hey, all the supporters are fake!" You have not replied to the Amit Sana issue so far. Why are you showing double standards?" When you started spreading lies did you expect others to be quiet? Now you will tell that even the other admins are socks. This is a futile futile attempt again. Where were you all this time?

Let's stop trying to disprove the already proven celebrity status of one of the most talented young singers of kerala who still has a long way to go. No other singer in kerala sings so well in so many languages and so many styles! He does not have many film songs but he is not retired and is only around 40. He is also very active as a singer with many programs. There is nothing we or he can gain or loose in this unnessary debate. Let's show maturity. Enough material proof has been provided by many for his credibility. He satisfies more than one criterion for an article here.

Have you all editors and mods from kerala seen how many singers from malayalam have a decent page here? And we call ourselves malayalees??? Only K.J Yesudas has a terific page here in wiki standards. P. Jayachandran also is o.k. But none of the singers gave a good article here! Is it because they all do not have 1000 google hits? Time to stop this silly argument. All the playback singers including kamukara, udayabhanu, unnimenon, venugopal, gayatri, jyotsna, rimi tomi, vidhu pratap, manjari who are loved and adored by lakhs of malayalees do not have a page here! Let pradip's page be an eye-opener to all those who want to take up this issue and make the section of malayalam playback singers strong. Why is it so that malayalees are the biggest "paras" to malayalees?(sorry this usage will be understood by malayalees only. Not in wiki dictionary) Let's all forget personal ego's and get to improving information on all the great playback singers in Malayalam instead of degrading them. I am here to give my sincere contributions to wiki not to degrade any person.--Gluewhale 01:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have started my contributions with a page on Gayatri Asokan--Gluewhale 07:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This man is not an ordinary guy. He has participated in two International Youth exchange programs too of the highest levels! Well I have added the links below for verifiability.--Gluewhale 18:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ageo, All I did was to collect all the info I could find on him and update the page so that the people here who discuss can see before they comment and conclude. Please point out the exact reasons (As the people who suggested the keep) why we should delete this article. I'm standing on the facts that I know for sure. Those information can be verified thru the corresopnding agencies in Kerala and India. Looks like you have taken things personally. Please take a look at this Picture. This is a bunch of albums/movies we could find that Mr. Pradip Somasundaram has worked on. you can see that some albums even has his photo on it. Please call up your frineds in Kerala (as you claim to be from kerala, I suppose you have people there too) and verify.

Thanks. --Jyothis 01:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update

More photos and proofs. If at all we have any 'Real' Mods around, Please see this.

International Recognitions & Citations


To know more on this program click here > Ship for World Youth program

Above 3 links were added by: --Gluewhale 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Awaz Suno

Awards

In the news

Misc

Above 3 additional Links added by --Gluewhale 10:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If Alpha Chimp or other admins still feel that I am a sock, I can give my direct contact information. I work in a facility that has stringent security restrictions and background checks including FBI fingerprint verification. I'd be more than happy to prove my identity, if at all I have to.

It is quite sad to see such remarks, as you are tracking the IPs. Also, as I have stated above, I contribute to Malayalam Wikibooks.

--Jyothis 02:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pradip is a well known singer of kerala.He has done many albums in malayalam.And one of the most commenting thing about him is i think no malayalee sings hindi songs as good as him. So there is no need for a deletion. [User:Tharanath R] 04:30, 5 August 2006


Request to the new editors (especially Jyothis and Gluewhale) who added their comments here : Since you all seem very passionate about articles related to Kerala, I wonder whether you guys would like to hang around a little longer in Wikipedia, instead of disappearing the moment this AfD is over. There are not many articles about Kerala and even those which are, are mostly not in a good shape. We could do with a bit of help in improving the articles. If you have any questions, feel free to ask in the Kerala noticeboard. (PS : Just noticed the new article that Gluewhale created yesterday. Thanks) Tintin (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I end my defense of this article by presenting a comprehensive list of verifiable documents above along with what has been presented by jyothis from various sites which PROVES BEYOND DOUBT that he is a very very notable guy. Not only a great singer of Kerala but a multifaceted talent who has spread his knowledge & talent not only in Indian but also abroad. The Govt. of India has sent him two times abroad to Japan for his talents (we lesser mortals do not even have heard of such programs!). Other than the "Lata Mangeshkar Trophy" he has been honoured both in India and abroad two times, one by by the JCI with TOYI and other the Dubai Kairali Kalakendram for his contribution to music. He has won two awards in Kerala too for contribution to music. He also won an International talent competetion. He has done shows abroad and is still actively doing music shows, singing in films, singing in albums, singing in T.v programs, propagating linux, technology in India and abroad. Now what more do you want from this person?

  • Quote: ( From the blog comments page of pradip)

I chanced upon your blog from wikipedia, i have always been a big fan of yours for many many years, i have been following ur singing in "Anjali" in Amrita channel and the hindi songs you render are absolutely brilliant.

Hope to visit your blog more often.

Posted by Praveen to Pradip Ki Awaz Suno at 8/05/2006 11:43:01 PM '

  • Unquote:

This is just one of the hundreds of comments that I found on his blog today! If a person can find his blog from this article then it should be good enough! The hundreds of comments there prove his popularity as a singer. Kerala is a small state and people of his breed are rare.So he is one of our heroes! Now you decide whether to keep your ego's in tact or to keep this article! We cannot undo a person's contributions by just shouting foul 100 times. Thank you...I retire...from this defence for dignity and justice and hope justice and sanity prevails over false ego's!

"You will not see light if you shut yourselves out in your room. When you come out in the open you will see light! Knowledge is light. Ignorance is darkness"

I do not have anything more to say. --Gluewhale 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A blog having hundreds of comments does not make it important. alphaChimp laudare 19:43, 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 and merge the content back in to the main page. As far as the deletion independent of the PETA article itself: all of the people on the page are notable in and of themselves (by virtue of them being real,established articles). All of the entries have references, and the wording at the top gives a fairly clear criteria. So I'm not seeing any reason to delete this page without a merge.

The main arguments for not having the information on the parent page itself are "space" and "POV". The space reason is very weak, given the size of the parent article. The POV argument seems to have been mostly addressed in the talk page, and the criteria at the top of this page nullifies a good part of the arguments against the section's inclusion in the parent. I recommend merging the section back in, and taking further problems with it to the talk page or to one of our fine dispute resolution systems (this is really not an AFD issue anymore). Since this obviously draws out strong feelings, I'll refrain from deleting the article, pending the inevitable deletion review of this controversial page. Turnstep 07:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable supporters of PETA[edit]

It's a list of names and external links, usually to PETA websites. It's not an encyclopaedic article. The PETA article would be the place for this sort of information, not a whole new article Lurker talk 15:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep- Actually, this list was spun off because it took way too much space in the main article and imparted a POV spin on the article dedicated to the organisation (which is itself controversial). It was the opinion of several editors of the article that this list doesn't belong in the article per se. It was created as an alternative to simply removing the list from the article (which was in danger of causing an edit war). Spinning it off seemed like an acceptable compromise. --Ramdrake 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The PETA controversy is certainly encylopedic (although allowing too much unbalance is not). Not sure there are existing criteria for this particular case, so I detect a new criterion emerging—articles which faciliate maintaining the NPOV designation of the main article are worthy of retention. If so, I struggle with the merit of that approach, but... Williamborg (Bill) 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then just compare it on its merits like any other list on Wikipedia. PETA is notable, and so are those celebrities. The information is sourced and verifiable. I think everything is there. --Ramdrake 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. A category might be the next step here. SliceNYC 16:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- Please don't put this back in the main article. Read the discussion page on the PETA article and comment there before nominating this for deletion.L0b0t 16:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No. If an article is judged by the AfD process to be unencyclopaedic, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Creating an unencyclopaedic article to deal with unencyclopaedic material in another article is passing the buck. This article should be judged on its own merits, not by the wishes of the contributors to another article Lurker talk 10:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Celebrities' affiliation with this controversial group is considered very notable by the media, so it's fair game for a list like this -- just so long as the names are cited and verifiable. Let's not label someone as being PETA if they aren't. But this list does indeed cite sources. 23skidoo 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Could the list be converted into a collapsable template within the main PETA article? Punkmorten 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this would fully address the issue. Please read the talk page.--Ramdrake 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ramdrake. xompanthy 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd call those external links "references". Also reccomend a speedy keep, since the nominator seems to be asking for a merge, and no one has voted delete. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into the main article; that's where it belongs. Moving the content to a new article because it was controversial in the main article is not a good means of solving a content dispute. It's short, it's self-contained, and it should be a section in PETA. None of the arguments on the talk page there are convincing as to it being a separate article. --MCB 21:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Unencyclopedic list with little objective criteria. What makes each supporter "notable" enough to be on the list? "Supporter" is also not defined. This gives rise to serious POV issues and may constitute original research in some respects. Most importantly, I fail to see how this list is any more encyclopedic than List of celebrities with links to the Conservative Party of Canada (and three other Canadian political parties) (see the AfD Discussion here), or the equivalant American lists, List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party and List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party (see the AfD for those here). Agent 86 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please read the discussion on the PETA page to see why we CAN NOT merge this back with the article.L0b0t 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Having an article in Wikipedia is in itself "proof" of notability. The list does not contain anyone without an article. -- Petri Krohn 23:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The prior comment is incorrect. When discussed, we keep articles on notable topics that also meet all of our other policies. AFD is a process in which we decide about what is notable, and we only hold AFDs for articles, so the fact that there is an article is not a proof of notability. At the most, the existence of an article proves only that at least one person in the world thinks the topic is worthy of an article. GRBerry 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment If you mean to say that some or all of the names on the list are non-notable, then one should logically also name the articles pertaining to those persons deemed non-notable for the AfD process. Disputing the notability of the people on the list without first disputing their Wikipedia articles is logically akin to putting the cart in front of the horses (or oxen, depending on your ethnic background).--Ramdrake 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. As per Agent 86's comments. Articles on Wikipedia get contested for notability everyday. Having an article in Wikipedia is not "proof" of notability. If it were, contesting notability in WP:AfD wouldn't be possible and every vanity page out there would be validly notable, just because it's here. Allisonmontgomery69 23:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Vanity pages are written everyday on Wikipedia, and AfDs to get rid of them are also written up. However, most of the names in that list are well-known and notable. PETA is itself notable, and all names listed have references as to what exactly they did for PETA. Are you contesting the notability of 1)all names on the list as non-notable 2)some names on the list as non-notable or 3)PETA itself as non-notable? --Ramdrake 23:54, 30 July 2006
      • Comment even if you assume that everyone on the list is "notable" (which is always open to review and is subjective) and PETA is "notable" (the latter of which isn't under dispute), how do you quantify "supporter"? How notable do you have to be to be on this list? Does the person have to have a membership? Have tossed some money into the coffers? Said nice things in the news? It's too subjective as it requires one to make an assumption about a person's state of mind. Agent 86 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment "Supporter" is defined by the fact that they agreed to be part of one of PETA's campaigns, with a link to a proper cited source for each notable person listed.--Ramdrake 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Actually, let me take that back. I defined in the introduction the meaning of "supporter" in the article and made clear how to look up what each personality specifically did for PETA. Hope it helps.--Ramdrake 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a useful encyclopedia article, it's a celebrity endorsement list. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic content. Should not be merged back to original article. Lists of celebrity endorsers are non-encyclopedic no matter what they are endorsing nor whether it is done for pay or for free. GRBerry 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And don't put in the PETA article, it doesn't belong there either. Skinmeister 21:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've found this article useful, and I don't see how POV is an issue in this case. All the celebrities mentioned in the list have been vocal about their support for PETA. Also, PETA and its celebrity supporters are often in the news, so this is also notable. --musicpvm 03:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- The info is factual and verifiable. It's not up to some users to decide what is useful for everyone. Several writers say they have found the list useful. Those who advocate deleting the list can only be acting out of an anti-PETA POV. kibi 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This list was moved from the main article as a way to settle a contensious npov issue. As such it probably break with pov forking guidelines. But no objections was raised to the move on the talk page, and this was a hot issue, so it's safe to assume it's a fair compromise between notability (the article has a small section concerning celebrities support pointing to the list) and npov. Jean-Philippe 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs a bit of work to change it from just a list into something useful. It should not be merged back into the main article due to the articles size, however it could provide a useful set of information if done right Localzuk (talk) 06:38, 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. Of the "keep" "votes," most were from very new users or anon users. Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Geoffrey Smith[edit]

Generally non-notable geographer per WP:BIO. Major claims to fame in article are being "author of the Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Sharing Standard for Geodetic Monumentation" and "director of Geospatial Information Technology" for a non-notable company. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Until there is some concrete thing he has done that is incredible, earth-shattering, and magnificent, he fails WP:BIO. alphaChimp laudare 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO; in fact, it's a borderline speedy (A7). --MCB 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteIt appears he's a good citizen. It also appears he hasn't done anything to merit a wiki bio. Bayou Banjo 23:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Wow. It looks like a bunch of folks got on wiki today just to find this article. 3 new users found it their first day on wiki and voted to keep it! I must have been wrong about this article all along. Bayou Banjo 04:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per the guideline 4 (The person has published a significant or well-known academic work). [36]] and guideline 3 [37] [38]Doctor Bruno 23:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Guidelines cited above are for academics (WP:PROF), which are still proposals. Because of their status as guidelines, the above citations do not alter my nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have asked few question in your talk page for which there is no answer. It is 1000 times easier to delete an article, but as a Global Encyclopedia, our aim should not be in deleting articles (except Advertisement and Hatred articles) but in making articles. Doctor Bruno 05:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The question asked on my talk page was without sufficient context to obviously link it to this AfD. Accordingly, that discussion stays there and not here. —C.Fred (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this individual is well known in geospatial technology, having developed agencywide architecture for federal agencies and having held leadership positions in the premier engineering and surveying organizations nationally and statewide. The only potential concern is the bio is short and potentially outdated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.81.239 (talk • contribs) .
Comment. None of the individuals currently recommending deletion appear to have any relevant background, knowledge or expertise in this individual's area of expertise (geospatial technology). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.81.239 (talk • contribs) .
Comment. It should not take knowlege in field to be able to recognize the article subject's expertise. Ultimately, the article needs to stand on its own (aided by the sources it cites). If the article can't explain that the subject is notable, then, for Wikipedia purposes, the subject isn't notable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cornell, Ketterle and Wieman won the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics for "the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases of alkali atoms, and for early fundamental studies of the properties of the condensates". I have no idea what that means, nor do I know who Cornell, Ketterle and Wieman are, apart from this contribution to science. My mere personal opinion and lack of knowledge on this subject does not qualify me to suggest that they or their work is not notable. This should be relegated to domain experts for informed comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tenzing347 (talk • contribs) .
Comment If his work is so well known and important then several other sources should cite it as a reference. A

literature search reveals that this does not seem to be the case. Bayou Banjo 16:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - He holds or has held statewide office, with an appointment by Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell, per WP:BIO. Non-compliance with WP:PROF does not merit deletion, as it's still pending. If anything, the article needs some cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tenzing347 (talk • contribs) .
Comment - State governors make THOUSANDS of appointments a year. That by itself does not merit a bio. If this person is so important, why does a Google search yeild so little? I can google myself and get a lot more hits, and I'm not planning to start an article on myself, that's for sure. Bayou Banjo 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Remember that there is world out side Internet. As far as publications and media in languages that do not use the Roman Script is concerned, they may yield no result in Google. Hence just because some one does not figure prominently on Google (especially those from non English SPeaking Countries) it does not mean that he is not notableDoctor Bruno 06:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure what Bayou Banjo is searching on Google; a search on David Smith yields 227M matches, David G. Smith yields 82.5M matches, David Geoffrey Smith yields 11.9M matches, and I don't even want to go into the other permutations of Dave Smith, et cetera. It's starting to look like Bayou Banjo may have some personal beef with this individual, as opposed to any merit to his argument. This is not the appropriate forum for that kind of personal vendetta and begins to go into the realm of inappropriate article vandalism/controversy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tenzing347 (talk • contribs) .
Comment - Your outrageous accusations have no basis, you have absolutely no basis to accuse me of vandetta. Please familiarize yourself with WP:PA. You obviously do not know how to properly perform a Google search. Try putting your search term in quotes. You will not get many hits. Quit changing the subject, this article is cluttering up wiki. I do not know this person, and I've never heard of him until now. In searching for additional info, it quickly became clear that there wasn't much to find. That is precisley why the article needs to go. Bayou Banjo 23:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How many of those 11.9M matches are actually for this individual? If they all are, as you claim, then it's reasonable that 1% of the matches would be from major news entities or other verifiable sources (i.e. not blogs, personal pages, etc.). That would still be 119,000 sources to quote, and there are no references to major news/media entities in the article. Having a common name does not equate to notability. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this person, has distinguished himself, based on several items extracted from the information posted to the bio. I would submit as examples:
    • This person has demonstrated a leadership role in IT at Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is one of the largest IT and advanced technology contractors in the world.
    • This person has demonstrated a leadership role in a $700M IT contract. That represents one of the largest federal IT acquisitions of the last 10 years.
    • This person has demonstrated a leadership role at a Federal agency, in developing its enterprise architecture. Specifically, this person has demonstrated leadership at the US Environmental Protection Agency. Mapping and environment are joined at the hip - for example, the commercial market segment leader in geospatial technology is named, not by accident, "Environmental Systems Research Institute". Doing this kind of work for the national environmental agency of one of the most powerful and technologically advanced nations on earth places him near the pinnacle of that profession.
    • This person appears to have been actively involved in the development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for over 20 years. Modern computer-based GIS in its' current incarnation hasn't been around for much more than 20 years itself, placing this individual among its veterans and pioneers.
    • This person has demonstrated leadership at a statewide level, with development of statewide interagency technical standards, as well as holding statewide quasi-judicial office.
    • This person has several published works.
    • This person is a member of NCEES. NCEES is the national organization which sets national policy for the engineering and surveying community, and which defines the yardstick for professional licensure. Only a fraction of one percent of engineers and surveyors are ever eligible to be members of NCEES.
    • This person has excelled and demonstrated leadership in not just one field, but in multiple fields at a statewide and national level. --DawnTreader 03:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems an extrordinary coincindence that the last 3 Keep votes come from users with no history of contributing to Wikipedia until today, whereas all but one of the established users is voting Delete. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Just trying to estimate the odds, and like, wow. 1.2M pages on the english Wiki, and 3 newbies just happen to gravitate to this obscure one and edit in the same day. Amazing. Bayou Banjo 04:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too many words; too few hard facts. Not-notable for me. BlueValour 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's plenty more articles, far more skimpy, about far-less notable people, things and events in Wiki than this one... Besides, it does meet WP:BIO, IMHO. Get a grip, folks. --66.126.216.118 01:43, 7 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 23:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vacchiano[edit]

Vanity, notability questioned, only contribution by Mvacchiano (talk · contribs). President of Association for Nature, Photography and Alpine Culture Research, but it is not clear how notable this association is. Need some italians to check whether the editorials where he published are notable. -- ReyBrujo 16:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gala Theatre (Durham)[edit]

Delete NN theater. Deprodded. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:50, 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. Previously deleted on July 26th 2006. Can be recreated when character appears in first-run episode.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet (Lost)[edit]

According to accepted practice within Lost editors, characters should only get their own articles if they have flashback episodes or if the actor/actress that portrays them is listed in the opening credits. The bulk of this article's information comes from one link. This article should or should not be recreated in October, but not now in July. -- Wikipedical 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. -- Wikipedical 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's basically empty, and anything added to it would violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. alphaChimp laudare 16:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -- PKtm 17:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article says her episode count is zero. --Metropolitan90 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because she will be listed in the opening credits in October, and if we delete this page, it will be recreated anyway. --Demon Hog 16:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -- Lumaga 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she is a new character, and the entry will be expanded on later. --ChinaNailStorm 13:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can always re-create later, for now, the article is useless and will remain so for some time. -- Banes 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when such a character actually appears and generates significant content, then she may be deserving of an article.--LeflymanTalk 07:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She will be featured in the opening credits soon, and the article WILL be recreated anyway. Rose has her own article and she only had one flashback. Why waste the time recreating it again in 2 months when it is here right now. It's not bothering anyone, and it lets people know that this character will be important in the upcoming season. There's no really reason to delete it, and it will be recreated anyway... 216.108.207.53 19:01, 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 redirect to MMORPG terms and acronyms. It's a neologism, but it's already mentioned in the target article so redirecting seems to be the obvious choice. Nothing useful to merge either. - Bobet 16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Looting[edit]

After looking, I can't find any Reliable Sources for this, and apparently nobody else can either, since it's been tagged as {{unreferenced}} since January. The content also seems unencyclopedic. I don't see that the suggested merge to MMORPG terms and acronyms is a viable option, since none of the mergable content is verifiable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not verifiable per nom. alphaChimp laudare 16:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not a hoax or anything, but it's such a minor aspect of the game that it's much better off in a game-specific wiki. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would like to say merge, but no good sources are listed. xompanthy 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its an incredibly common term in the game World of Warcraft and you will probably fin it all over thier boards at the very least--Stilanas 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep or Merge into something. I've never heard this term used, although it is a real thing in online games (note that I'm not part of any MMO communities, although I've just gotten into WoW, so I'm guessing it's a valid term). I think with some forum research something could be dug up. -- gakon5 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forums are not considered reliable sources. You need something more along the lines of a book citation or a magazine article about it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forums are not considered reliable sources for alot of things but given that the claim is whether or not people on internet communities use this term and that its notable, then I would say the fact that its slung about so much on message boards is evidence enough. --Stilanas 03:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're concerned about it not being mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, there's a brief dictdef (minus all the unsourcable stuff) already present at MMORPG terms and acronyms. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MMORPG terms and acronyms I guess, but that is a horrible article. Kotepho 06:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MMORPG terms and acronyms since there is already short info about it there. Crazysunshine 09:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I cannot possibly explain the usage of this term in almost any MMO where people have to loot. There are maybe 20 million people a day using this term oddly enough. Its probably the most common MMO term to date spanning titles of WOW EQ etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fnd me a pair of Reliable Sources and I'll be happy. If it's really notable, then it shouldn't be that hard, right? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary has an entry [39] although I guess UD has an entry for everything. World of Warcraft wiki (wowwiki.com) has an entry for Ninja Looting as well. The [somewhat] almighty Google Test yields us 105k results; putting it in quotes lowers that down to 20k. Although in it's defense, a lot of people just use the term "ninja" in the context of ninja looting. -- gakon5 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary is not a Reliable Source, and neither is the World of Warcraft Wiki. Books and magazines are what we're looking for here, or at worst online articles with reputable news organizations. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we're dealing with internet jargon, the kind of things you probably aren't going to find in paper sources (more gaming jargon than internet I guess, but still internet to an extent). -- gakon5 06:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its so notable that companies that create MMO's have policies regarding it by name [40] I am sure if you searched Gamespot or IGN or better yet Penny-Arcade you will come up with tons of sources. How can anyone say its not notable and not even search for the term, ninja loot, ninja looting, etc--zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just that easy to find sources, then I'll withdraw the nomination if you can find two sources for "ninja looting" that meet WP:RS. Otherwise, I have to stick with my position. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It's not verifiable really, so it can't be kept, and it'd just be a dicdef anyway, but yes, it's a widespread term that any gamer would know, and can be merged per Zer0faults above. --PresN 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I don't even play mmos and I know what it is, and the trouble it can cause (even If I think it's over the top). There seems to be alot of hostility towards gaming terms, mods, games and associated things from my time editing wiki. EDIT Sorry, forgot to sign. Macktheknifeau 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hostility specifically toward gaming/gaming terms (at least on my part), so much as hostility toward entries that are purely dictionary definitions, and entries which can't meet our policies on verifiability. This one is both. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you stating that 1000's of google hits doesnt show verifiable proof that the action of ninja looting exists? That MMO developers have a specific policy on it does not show that it exists ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct: Undifferentiated Google hits do not satisfiy Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:V. You may also find Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources to be helpful, since it explains why the vast majority (if not all) of those Google results are irrelevant for our purposes here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food avoidance eating disorder[edit]

Unsourced, unverified article on a disorder of debated status. Discussion on the article has included whether the name of the disorder is even appropriate. In light of lack of sources, delete the article. Starting fresh with good research later is, of course, always an option. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article, as it is, smacks of Original Research. Unless someone can find some mention in a medical journal, I'd say delete it. alphaChimp laudare 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! OR or possibly a hoax. Google found nothing at all except this article and a mirror from Answers.com. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no Ghits on the abreviation (FAED) or on the title , not in the DSM-IV, no sources.--Dakota 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Eating disorders are a serious subject. There is a great deal of information available in the medical/psychological literature on the issue that can be referenced in a serious article. There are definitions and terms in DSM-IV - the diagnostic manual used by mental health professions that describe the diagnostic criteria for various types of eating disorders. This term is not one that is recognized in the professional literature. Mattisse 15:13, 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 23:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Mudo[edit]

Recognizing that outsider music groups definitionally exist outside the mainstream, this article still fails WP:V. I can't find any Reliable Sources such as published interviews or performance reviews, they aren't mentioned at AMG or Pitchfork, and ("Macarron Chacarron" "El Mudo") is only good for 633 google hits. I can't find any other information that'd lead me to believe that it passes WP:BAND either. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better justification can be found. I just did a search of Spanish pages via Google, and for a Mexican band, I was unable to find anything of note. Yes, it's a cute song, but that doesn't make it worth keeping in WP.--み使い Mitsukai 17:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable only as a minor internet meme. Merge to the list of internet memes if you must. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mfinsight[edit]

Delete as the corporation is non-notable as it fails WP:CORP. Prod tag removed by author without discussion. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:36, 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 KEEP. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groin attack[edit]

All the relevant information regarding someone being injured in the genital region belongs on the pages devoted to those portions of anatomy. The page was originally created as a joke to link from Steven Seagal. We don't need this page any more than we need a page called "shin kick" to detail what happens when you kick someone in the shins. Halloween jack 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but add sources and clean up a little. I think the page has grown substantially from being a joke page. The cultural and self defense references add to the encyclopedic value this article could have---however, they do need to be properly sourced and a little better formatted. Agne 18:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agne summed it up. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 18:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It might make me cringe, but it's pretty well written and referenced, and I can't see what's unencyclopedic about it. RGTraynor 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though it pains me to say it, Keep. Love the biblical quotation! An attack on the groin seems to have specific (and referenced) legal, social, and cultural implications, but for some reason the name doesn't quite sit right with me. If anyone can suggest a better one, I'd recommend a rename keep. Ziggurat 02:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a joke page -- believe me, groin attacks are no joke!!! --Ghetteaux 06:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the picture should probably be removed, it is very difficult to make it out. Yamaguchi先生 08:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the topic has social relevance far beyond that of a "shin kick", which, to my knowledge is not Biblically punishable by dismemberment, nor does it feature as a scene à faire in comedy. That this attack is both forbidden and a frequent source of humor is worthy of explication. bd2412 T 12:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


for teh second nomination, please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groin attack second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox chronicles[edit]

Self-confessed crystal balling for a currently unreleased machinima series, which in any case is unverifiable and not yet notable. Prodded as such and deprodded without addressing issues. ~Matticus TC 18:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now I am actually one of the people working on it right now, but at the current stage it is not notable to merit an article and doesn't even have an ep out yet... --DA Roc 18:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. And thank you; that's a refreshing attitude from the hordes of "But this is the graetest thing EVAR!!!!" we usually get from those invested in the subjects when AfDs crop up. RGTraynor 19:02, 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 - not even funny. DS 12:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogantology[edit]

Pretty obvious hoax eaolson 18:15, 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. - Bobet 16:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural radicalism[edit]

The last AFD from November 2005 was closed with no consensus (by the way it was opened because WP:WINAD). Comments from the last afd, except for those who advocated deletion, was that the page "needs expanding", "Needs some clean up and more context" and suchlike. Since that time it has had tags for cleanup, context, npov and accuracy, and yet been left virtually untouched. In short: This entry is not good enough for Wikipedia and the conditions for keeping it has not been met, really. Punkmorten 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also no refs, possibly OR. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 18:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I love it when people blithely throw out "needs expanding/cleanup," dance off to reflexively vote Keep on the next AfD, and never give the article another thought. Nine months is far more than enough for this scarcely defined, barely comprehensible, unreferenced dicdef. Ravenswing 18:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 00:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessel[edit]

Original research. JD[don't talk|email] 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Rklawton 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism, fails WP:V and possibly WP:NOR, and how is this encyclopedic in any event? Fair enough, this looks legit now. Keep. RGTraynor 18:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP is not for things made up in school. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 18:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; hoax, nonsense, unverifiable. --MCB 21:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have no idea what this is. WP:NFT, is WP:OR, fails WP:V, and there really should be something called WP:CRAP. --Kinu t/c 23:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vote for the disambiguation page. Looks useful enough, but make sure that all the redlinks actually should be there to encourage/discourage article creation as appropriate. --Kinu t/c 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Hyper Anthony 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zoiks! - it appears that the original article had been vandalized, and the vandalized version was the one nominated for deletion. The version prior to the vandalism is a legit disambiguation page. Please revisit the restored page (with AfD tag in place)
  • Comment: it looks as if the article uses "pedigree" as if it meant "family". And why would this be a "Christian family name" but a "Jewish pedigree". Is there even any such a thing as a "Christian family name"? up+l+and 07:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Nomination I didn't know this was a vandalised disambiguation page, I should have checked first when I didn't. I'm sorry for wasting peoples' time. --JD[don't talk|email] 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, don't worry about it. WP:RCP usually does a good job at catching this stuff, but obviously it slipped through this time. It was obviously a good faith nomination, so no harm done. --Kinu t/c 18:52, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew croker[edit]

Delete Vanity page. Although the person does exist, and can be found through internet searching, this is not even close to an encyclopedic entry. Gekedo 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. xompanthy 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, violates WP:VAIN. And if this is indeed written by the subject, I'd want better from an alleged "marketing" firm than juvenile writing styles better suited for Myspace bios. Ravenswing 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hem, 'Zing!' =)--Gekedo 18:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is amazing how many articles we get by PR/Marketing people and companies that fail so badly. Hardly a great advertisement for them. Fan-1967 20:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD:A7, nn-bio. No assertion of notability; being a "leading sports marketer" does not quality for me. --MCB 21:25, 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 redirect to List of players from Venezuela in Major League Baseball. The information on this page is better off as a category anyway (since there's very little chance that some MLB player won't have an article. The target list contains the same players in a better form. - Bobet 17:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan pitchers[edit]

Just another list, with no additional information of any worth. Lists aren't bad, but they are if there's already List of players from Venezuela in Major League Baseball in existence. fuzzy510 18:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the other list. RGTraynor 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge. Just redirect if the information is already there. Punkmorten 21:28, 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 redirect to Nuklear Age. The content is the same in both articles so nothing to merge. - Bobet 16:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katkat[edit]

This nomination concerns two articles, Katkat and Mighty Metallic Magno Man, both "Secondary Characters" in a self-published novel, Nuklear Age. Nuklear Age itself recently survived an AfD, at which there seemed to be emerging consensus that these character pages should be removed as non-notable, especially since the Nuklear Age article already includes relatively detailed character bios. I'm listing the articles of those described as "Main Characters" and "Secondary Characters" separately. I don't anticipate much disagreement over these secondary characters. David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:46, 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 delete Stormie 03:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Gelvan[edit]

Page's creator asserts notability on the grounds that he "instituted the Norman H. Gelvan award, which has been an annual event in the last 25 years, for the Jewish community in North Miami-Aventura." I don't believe that qualifies as notable. BoojiBoy 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 6 google hits. No assertion of notability. MarkBuckles 19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The author asserts notability on the talk page. I disagree with his assertions but he does mention it. BoojiBoy 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Noted. Doesn't seem lie compelling evidence of notability to me though. MarkBuckles 01:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles to establish notability. The Google hits I get are all directory listings. Tychocat 09:06, 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 all Stormie 03:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuklear Man[edit]

This nomination concerns eight articles, Nuklear Man, Atomik Lad, Iron Scotsman, Tetsu Samurai, Doctor Veronica Menace, Rachel_(Nuklear_Age), Superion (Nuklear Age), and Nihel, all described as "Main Characters" in a self-published novel, Nuklear Age. Nuklear Age itself recently survived an AfD, at which there seemed to be emerging consensus that these character pages should be removed as non-notable, especially since the Nuklear Age article already includes relatively detailed character bios. Opposition to the character pages has also been expressed on the Nuklear Age talk page. I should also note that two of these have been tagged for cleanup, one since April, the other since June, with little effect.

I'm listing the articles of those described as "Main Characters" and "Secondary Characters" separately. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as per nom. I'm surprised that Nuklear Age survived AfD, and should probably be reassesed at some point. --MCB 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towelianism[edit]

Not notable, maybe insert into South Park  Jmatt1122  CVU (Talk)  19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a rising social trend amongst a small group of people. It's rapidly gaining momentum in other places. In orkut, specifically. It's even becoming a social philosophy of its 20 or so followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakoit (talk • contribs)

It is a rather enigmous, yet quite simple meme at the confusion that the existence of religion causes. I am an active and quite so participating member of this ideology, and its presense at Wikepeida is under the free-source agreement that we are subjected to in your page. It may not be your exact and protracted ideology, and the right of alternative opinion is completely legally reserved by you, but we have not only an emotive but an intellectual need to indentify ourselves as a different section of society. A Wikipedia page would allow us to greatly enhance our idealogy's presense amongst the masses.

Why oh Why, oh Ravenous Savanna would you want Towelianism to part, Would you offer the misplaced reverence was God Almighty to fart?

Must you repel us and deny us our expression, Only 'true' muslims know the ranks of ineffective agression.

Consider this the Towelian 'Jihad', Outnumbered we are, yet we shall survive, We are the replacement cast of the movie Die-Hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.160.72 (talk • contribs)

the religion is already made. deleting it from wikipedia just denies people information about it. ~ dakoit

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

The result was delete. the wub "?!" 11:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newquay 2006[edit]

This article looks as though it should be in some sort of WikiTravel or something... JD[don't talk|email] 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good article i think u should stick with it.Gives good idea of the sort atmosphere people can expect from a lads hol in newquay

This article is primarily focused on giving Newquay goers a better understanding on what can be expected on a trip to the coastal town. I'm hoping others will build on it and it can become a very useful article indeed FatboyShrek

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide. —JD[don't talk|email] 13:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per all the above delete votes, plus the fact that the content is almost complete nonsense at the moment. - fchd 18:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with this article. Sounds like it's just giving people a better idea of what newquay is about and has the potential for much improvement due to additional comments.

Keep it. I'm going to Newquay soon, and i'd like to know more about it. (AS)

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

The result was delete. – Avi 22:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Bevan[edit]

NN The subject entry seems to derive from membership of the RSUA council, which is in itself not sufficient to meet eligibility criteria. There is nothing to explain why this individual is notable in her field, nor is there a sufficient portfolio of work to make up for this. UARG 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing WP:BIO, in particular lack of multiple non-trivial third-party articles. (I'm finding some directory listings and she's participated in a few conferences.) She was apparently featured for a house she renovated on irish TV, but that's all I've found in the aforementioned regard. Tychocat 10:43, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)  23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional abuse[edit]

  • Delete - Seems generally copied from one of the sources, other seems to be original work, and finally, not notable. --Pichu0102 19:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - bad faith nom. AfD is not cleanup. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nom was probably good faith in light of copyvio concerns, but I can't find where the majority of the article was copied. Does it need more verifiable sources? Yes. Does it need cleaned up and written in encyclopedic tone? Yes. Is it a topic worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia? Yes—so cleanup is the solution, not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if sources are cited and WP:COPYVIO concerns are addressed. It seems notable to me, though. Allisonmontgomery69 23:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - People seem awfully free about throwing the charge "bad faith nom" around. If anyone's got facts on that, I'm willing to listen. In the meantime, I've got huge Original Research concerns, which would be answered if either the nom or writer would cough up sources, which would also clear up copyvio worries. I agree the afd process should not be cleanup, but it's unfortunately been my experience that it's often the only way to get the attention of the writer and/or other interested parties to get around to doing that. Tychocat 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet - agree with above comment. This is especially true of PT (s-s-s-s) if you are a follower of these afd pages. Orangehead 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your statement does not make sense to me, but any discussion about it does not belong here. If you have a question or comment for me, come visit my talk page. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's definitely encyclopedic, though I'd like to see the article include some sources. --Elonka 22:03, 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 Keep and cleanup, removing OR and leaving sources. If that proves impossible, it should be relisted for deletion.. – Avi 22:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus as myth[edit]

This entire page smacks of original (albeit well-referenced) research. Yes, there are plenty of citations, often lacking in the most flagrant OR violators, but the article is rife with assertions like "If Christianity had originally evolved as a localised mystery religion, then not only should there be parallels between the scriptural narratives of Christianity and myths from the mystery religions, but there should also be parallels with more outwardly things such as religious rituals, and imagery." and "Aside from potential parallels with Gnosticism, which can be investigated more directly, other significant features of Pythagoreanism might have entered into early Christianity, and their presence would add support to a position advocating that significant parts of early Christianity, or all of it, derived from mystery religion." Again, it's an interesting read, and is even persuasive in its thesis, but that's the problem. It's an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and is irrevocably so. Delete as original research. JDoorjam Talk 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Well-writen OR, but OR nonetheless. Fan-1967 19:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It would be a shame to delete such a well written, carefully documented/sourced, and lengthy article that so many wikipedians have collaborated on for over a year. If there's any way to salvage this article and remove the WP:OR problems, please do so rather than just delete. Allisonmontgomery69 23:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: From the third paragraph, "The question of whether Jesus derives to some extent from myth (including 100% from it) requires academic analysis of the available evidence from times near-contemporary with the dates for Jesus' life, and on analysis of how reliable such evidence is, and what their biases are." The article then goes on to perform such an academic analysis. Again, yeah, it's well-written, but it's pure OR. I don't know how salvageable it is, given that "academic analysis" is in this article's DNA. JDoorjam Talk 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with regret. Either OR is allowed, or it isn't ClemMcGann 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. And he definetly exists. -Royalguard11Talk 01:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To apply WP:OR here is inappropriate, and "It's an essay, not an encyclopedia article" is a false dichotomy. To discuss this (or any) subject matter without any analysis or criticism would be near impossible, and the result unreadable. Buster79 03:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Wikipedia can have an article on Holocaust denial, it can certainly have an article on the historical authenticity of a potentially mythological religious figure. The article is a description of a pre-existing and credible theory, and is in no way WP:OR. It is wrong to use the charge of WP:OR here in order to get rid of information that some people don't like. Big Brother 1984 08:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It needs a POV tag for the meantime, but sources on the topic are certainly available in abundance (I can think of the Testimonium Flavium off the top of my head). There is no reason to delete this article, because it is not irredeemably condemned to being original research. Whoever wrote it, I can guarantee, would not be the first person to have written about the possibility that the Jesus figure is a myth. If just needs a bit of fixing, that's all. Byrgenwulf 08:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that many of the unverified assumptions and "original research" in this article are actually from people opposing the subject. For example, "there is no formally peer-reviewed work advocating this extreme limit of the Jesus-Myth theory". That is absolute nonsense, there has been much scholarly work on the subject: for example, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about the subject extensively. Simply because the subject of an article is uncomfortable to some people does not mean it should be deleted. The entire concept of a "Jesus-Myth" is just not one person's original research. The article should, perhaps, be renamed, though. Byrgenwulf 08:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment After reading this article carefully, it should be clear that this is not original research at all! It is, on the contrary, one of the more scholarly and well-written articles on Wikipedia. Statements like those offered in the nomination do not contravene original research policies. Here is a relevant quote: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia". I am beginning to wonder if this AfD is not the result of an ideological objection to the article, not the nature of the article itself. The idea that what is written there constitutes OR is preposterous. Byrgenwulf 08:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another one This article has existed for over a year, and has had more than 500 edits by more than twenty editors, expressing many different points of view. Compare this version of the article to the current one. Look at the edit history. I cannot stress enough that this is not original research, and it is not even particularly slanted. There are absolutely no grounds for deletion here. Byrgenwulf 09:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is of long standing (originally it was entitled "Jesus-Myth"). The subject is entirely legitimate and well established. Unfortunately it is a target for extremist ideologues on both sides of the debate. Paul B 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only two weeks ago the article looked like this [41]. The content and tone in dispute is very recent. It seems perverse to delete an article because ofwhat may be temporary difficulties. Paul B 01:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ideas propsed here are far from original research and often cited to particular people and quotes. Many of the documents referenced have their own wikipedia articles and full texts available. Please see talk page as some sources are there and not directly cited in the article, so perhaps a minor cleanup needed. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep POV needs to be enforced on this article, but the argument deserve to be kept as it is a legitimate doubt. Nova77 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Judging from google scholar search results, there seems to be a large body of published literature on this topic. Many of the items brought up by a google scholar search seem to have been published in scholarly journals. If there are problems with the current version of the Wikipedia article on this topic, then fix them, but do not delete the article. --JWSchmidt 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has citations, but it editorializes and theorizes, and does not cover facts (such as Josephus) without being immediately deleted. The article is too abrasive to e npov for both sides and it should be deleted, started anew, and made much shorter to limit those using wiki to editorialize.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikilagata (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong keep First of all, this is not OR. Yes, it says that "academic analysis" is necessary, but then it summarizes the analysis which has been performed by others, who are identified in the text, in notes, or in the reference section. I agree that the sources for some sections need to be identified more prominently, but that's no reason to delete the article. Second, it doesn't matter if any of us think the "Jesus as myth" theory is questionable, bogus, or even offensive. It's an idea that has had quite a few supporters for over a century. It has influenced books from The Golden Bough to The Da Vinci Code. It is encyclopedic and noteworthy. Third, the article does have some POV problems and probably always will, because the subject matter stirs up strong feelings in some people. But that's a reason to work on improving it and covering all points of view as fairly as possible. Maestlin 20:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Historicity of Jesus - I do not see any bigger difference between the themes of the two articles, and Historicity of Jesus is definitely better, because it does not give us an answer to the Jesus puzzle in advance.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They are related but not identical. A better solution would be to summarize the contents of Historicity of Jesus and inform readers that there is a main article on the subject. Some notes to editors wouldn't hurt either. Maestlin 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And what is their substantial difference? I see mostly similarities and still do not believe that it is reasonable to split the single theme into two articles. Moreover I feel that "Something as something else" is a bad title of an encyclopedic article.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I understand it, Historicity of Jesus is about the question of whether Jesus existed, and what evidence is available to answer the question. Jesus as myth is about using the tools of mythologists to analyze accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus, which may or may not lead to the conclusion that Jesus never existed. Such analyses are often carried out by people who want to show that Jesus is totally fictional, but some have reached the conclusion that he was a real person, or possibly real person, whose life was mythicized. I acknowledge that the last viewpoint is not well reflected in the article as it currently exists, but that's a POV problem. The article title has been changed a few times recently; the current incarnation is not great, I agree. Do you have a recommended name? Maestlin 21:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The are several similar articles on Wikipedia concerning the life of Jesus.
    • New Testament view on Jesus' life - This article presents a description of Jesus' life, as based on the four gospels (Bible as only source of information).
    • Historical Jesus - A reconstruction of Jesus' life using all available information. It assumes that the gospels are mostly correct, but it points out textual inconstancies and attempts to place some information in historical context.
    • Historicity of Jesus - An examination of all available texts which mention Jesus (and text from that period which do not mention Jesus)
    • Jesus Myth - A theory which states that Jesus is most likely a mythical character since all of the elements of Jesus' story can be found in prior myths. This article also briefly mentions some information from the previous article to support this claim.
The difference between the last two articles is that the Historicity of Jesus focuses on ancient texts, while the Jesus Myth focuses on ancient myths. The is certainly some crossover between these two articles, but I think is useful to allow them to exist separately, since they are not exactly the same thing. Big Brother 1984 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is not entirely written from a neutral point of view and suffers from multiple undue weight issues. For example, much of the "Parallels with non-Christian myths from the first century" subsection gives undue weight to material rejected by serious Egyptologists. For another example, the article as a whole does not adequately explain why the theory has been generally rejected by the academic community, thus giving the article as a whole a NPOV failure. However, I do not believe the article is inherently a violation of the NPOV policy, so am not now prepared to suggest deletion. Keep and clean-up is thus my recommendation. GRBerry 21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.109.178 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong keep This is not OR but rather an extensive overlook of literature and theory that discusses this idea. --WhitneyGH 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.224.173 (talk • contribs) .
  • Very Strong, Keep Excellent article, completely consistent with a good encyclopedia. Just because it is a controversial topic does not mean that information like this is not important, quite the contrary. Someone took a great deal of time to write on this topic and did an admirable job. When this article is viewed from the perspective that right-wing religious extremism of all faiths is severly impacting the earth today, it is essential to have "fair and balanced" information on all aspects of religion, religious practices, and religious figures. --Tim Bach 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or seriosly overhaul. This is no encyclopedia article but an essay arguing a point (probably very persuasive to those unacquainted with historiography). If, as some here have argued, this bad quality is only a recent phenomenon, I'd ask these editors to roll-back that process and restore the former balance. Str1977 (smile back) 14:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve Good canidate for a collaboration. --Banana04131 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-there are those who do doubt his existence, afterall, christianity is just another personality cult like mohammadism.--Tomtom9041 21:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!!! Just because this is not a commonly known belief, doesn't mean that it isn't well researched, and it is actually very likely true. It would be a shame to delete this, especially considering some of the pages that are not being considered for deletion from Wikipedia. Shameful.

- The tone of the article has a clear 'agenda'. The agenda is to discount the historicity of Jesus. As such it should be re-written and merged with Historicity_of_jesus. The additional misuse of the title of this article amounts to a type of vandalism when cited in other Wikipedia articles dealing with (for example) Christianity (See also, Jesus as Myth], Christ (See also, Jesus as Myth] and other similar materials. The article is not balanced, but is rather an essay that attempts to debunk christianity. Is the information important? Yes. However, the title is inflamatory and biased as is the overall tone of the article. Would we permit articles entitled "General Relativity as Myth", History as Myth", Israel as Myth, Moses as Myth, Exodus as Archaeological Myth? I don't think so. This article, as titled, sets a dangerous precedent. John Charles Webb 10:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The reason to include "myth" in the title is to differentiate it from the main article on Jesus, since that article seems to take the POV that Jesus was a real person despite evidence to the contrary. It is only inflammatory to people who believe this myth is represents a real historical figure. If billions of people believed that Zeus was a real person, Wikipedia would probably have a page titled Zeus Myth. But since everybody agrees that Zeus is a mythological character, there is no need to specify that an article with the POV that Zeus is myth takes that position. If there was a theory that Zeus was a real person, there would probably be an article titled "Zeus as an historical figure". But, since most people think that Jesus was a real person, an article which discusses the mythological origins of Jesus' myth necessarily has to specify this in the title. And the reason that this article is different from the Historicity_of_jesus article is that the Jesus Myth article focuses on the mythic origins of Jesus, whereas the other focus on ancient texts which mention Jesus (and the texts which should have mentioned Jesus but do not). The Jesus Myth theory certainly is a logical extension of the facts mentioned in the Historicity_of_jesus article, but the latter discusses history whereas the former discusses a particular theory concerning origins of the Jesus myth. Big Brother 1984 12:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The use of the word "myth", in this instance, reveals a bias. A balanced presentation would provide enough information to allow the reader to determine whether or not Jesus is a myth. The title implies that the matter has already been decided. The Jesus Myth essay, standing alone, implies an endorsement of a particular point-of-view. If I drafted an article entitled "The Democracy Myth" then the title alone implies the tone of the content. The Wikipedia articles are designed to present un-biased verifiable information. If someone wishes to propose a new naming convention, they can do so on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions while also publicising the proposal at Requests for comment and the Wikipedia:Village Pump, as well as at any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, it can be adopted as a naming convention. (portions of text quoted from Wikipedia Naming Guidelines) Also, part of the definition of the word 'myth' is: A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. A fictitious story, person, or thing. As such the article's title (as well as its content) is biased and in violation of Wikipedia Policy. John Charles Webb 18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to the Reply By that same logic, the page on Holocaust Denial should be renamed since it is implying that "Holocaust Deniers" are denying that a real event occurred, assumedly in order to push some sort of anti-Semitic agenda. The article is called "Holocaust Denial" not to indicate a POV, but rather to identify a fringe theory and separate it from mainstream views on the Holocaust. It is a page about the theory. And while it is true that the proponents of the theory certainly have a POV, the article need not necessarily have a POV. All it need do is describe the theory, and cite some of the claims which support it (with accompanying criticism of the theory where justified). This is what the Jesus Myth article does ... it describes the theory, and explains some of the key components that make up the theory. Any page which describes a theory has to explain that theory's POV. You couldn’t write an article an evolutionary theory without explaining that POV any more than you could write an article on Creationism without explaining that POV. Does that mean that neither of these articles should exist? Are we really prepared to remove all articles which describe a theory from Wikipedia simply because they explain a POV? And concerning the name, do you have a better suggestion? Would you prefer "Jesus Denial"? To me, that would be a POV. However, the title “Jesus Myth” seems to be a fitting name for what the article describes – the theory that just about every element of Jesus’ life story has roots in prior myths. Big Brother 1984 11:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "'Reply to Replies'" The article does cover a scholarly postion, Jesus as a myth. There is nothing wrong the the title. However, the issue is with how often the article transcends and ignores scholarly viewpoints and just throws in random parallels and assertions. The article needs to be restarted from scratch.User:Wikilagata
  • Keep. The Jesus Myth position is a real, studied position on the historicity of Jesus. If the concensus is that changes need to be made to make the article a record of the Myth position than an argument for it, then the edits can be made without a serious reduction of content or value. But deletion is extreme nonsense. --Writer@Large 12:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This line of reasoning is as valid as any other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.51.253.249 (talk • contribs) .
  • Note that in accordance with WP:NOR, if the article is a line of reasoning then it is a reason to delete, not to keep. GRBerry 01:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the page on Evolution a "line of reasoning"? What about the pages on Creationism, Christianity, General relativity, the Geocentric model, the Kennedy Assassination, or the Moon hoax? Wikipedia is chocked-full of pages which describe theories. I agree that in each case a NPOV should be taken in describing the theory, but I disagree with anybody who claims that these pages shouldn't exist. The person who nominated this article for deletion is the one expressing a POV. It is an attempt to eliminate information about a theory hat they don't agree with. And that shouldn't be allowed. I fully support the creation of a "Criticism of the Theory" section in the article (If anybody can think of a valid criticism, that is.) Big Brother 1984 11:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Continue to Develop - This position, while not accepted by a majority, has significant amounts of valid research to support it, and should be presented as an alternative theory for students of the history of religion. It should continue to be updated and edited to provide neutral and historically verifiable content when possible, and seriously considered speculation, when lacking. If we remove this article, Wikipedia will be the poorer for it. -ColoradoGirl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.231.34.213 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. I came to wikipedia today specifically to research the position of scholars who suggest possible links between Jesus and other figures such as Horus and Mithras, and thanks to this article I was able to find what I needed. If there are elements of the article that can be improved, that would be great, but by no means should it be deleted entirely. 210.89.149.89 10:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep, minor edit and expand. I would add in discussion of comparisons with Hercules, Jesus as a hero, and are the gospels novels or plays, as well as discussion of fish and Christ. I am coming to the view that xianity has always understood christ to be mythical - fully god fully man - and historicism is a post enlightenment invention. I am sure there are many earlier commentators on this issue than listed here. If you check Catholic dogma I understand they state the idea of a historic jesus is a heresy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.187.227 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Original research. And note the number of anons or newly-registered voters. AnnH ♫ 22:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I never really thought about this article as a candidate for deletion before, but I guess it must of gotten worse over time or something, the analysis of the nominator and the "brief analysis" below certainly seem convincing. Homestarmy 00:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-it's a theory and people have the right to know about it. I have the right to knowledge!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.78.104 (talk • contribs)

a brief analysis[edit]

A Critical Analysis of the opening words of the "Jesus Myth" Wikipedia Article

- The article begins with (text) "The idea that" which presupposes the article's unstated premise. (Who's idea?) (Quote) "The idea that elements of beliefs about Jesus, and the Jesus narrative in the New Testament, are actually syncretisms from myths of his era is a theory usually associated with a skeptical position on the historicity of Jesus." (end quote). - The second sentence (quote) "When taken to its extreme - the idea of Jesus as myth rather than having any genuine historic existence - its advocates often refer to beliefs about Jesus as the Jesus-Myth." (end quote) The sentence is a fragment and has grammar issues. Is Wikipedia going to contain articles discussing 'ideas"? (again who's idea?). - The third sentence which is the beginning of the second paragraph elevates "idea" to "theory" (quote) "The theory is based on apparent similarities between early Christian accounts of Jesus and pre-existing mystery religions, and at the more extreme limit of the theory (that Jesus is 100% myth) is also based in part on the lack of extant evidence about his life outside the Gospels. The extreme limit of the theory has not found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians." (end quote). (How did we get from "idea" to "theory" - is this unsupported original research?). - The third paragraph begins (quote) "The study of whether or not Jesus might be a purely mythological requires academic analysis of the available evidence from times near-contemporary with the dates for Jesus' life, and on analysis of how reliable such evidence is, and what their biases are." (end quote) (What "study"? and another grammar syntax nightmare). - Continuing (quote) "The purpose of this article is not (sic) provide said (sic) academic analysis, but rather to provide an account of research that has been performed into the subject thus far." (end quote). (A total account NO, a biased account, yes! Affirming sources Josephus are glanced over or summarily dismissed without analysis).

These errors in logic, grammar, sytax and bias are (opinion) pervasive. Clearly the article is not neutral, it has an 'agenda' and the agenda is the debunking of Christianity. It makes statements that are unsupported by reliable sources and forces 'conclusions' upon the reader that are unsupported by the logical (?) flow of the article or available materials. I also strongly suggest that the author(s) familarize themselves with the term Midrash. John Charles Webb 03:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who's idea?
    • As with most theories, it has been contributed to by many proponents. If you read the entire article, you will discover who some of those advocates are and what they contributed. It is not the job of the introduction to list them, just as (for example) the Astrology article introduction does not list any particular people who believe in it. On the talk page it has been suggested that since some sources such as John Mackinnon Robertson are absent, a list of notable proponents be created
  • The third sentence elevates "idea" to "theory"
    • A theory is a subset of an idea. If you read the first sentance more carefully, you will note that it is stated that this particular idea is a theory.
  • What "study"
    • Study as in "consider in detail and subject to analysis"
  • Affirming sources Josephus are glanced over or summarily dismissed without analysis
    • A more detailed analysis of the authenticity of Josephus can be found here: Josephus on Jesus. This article is linked to twice.

It seems to me that the bulk of your concerns would be more suited to the talk page of this article. In particular the following sections:

210.89.149.89 09:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep as per above. -- Zorro CX 22:19, 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 merge and redirect. Nandesuka 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet cabal[edit]

not-notable neologism that's unsourced and wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fictious possibly, even. Yewtalonwyrd 19:37, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenWetWare[edit]

Non notable. Fails WP:WEB. So non-notable doesn't even have a single link or source. Vanity?? Yewtalonwyrd 19:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Writer is a member of the project's steering committee, lending itself to vanity concerns. 66 distinct Google hits, lending itself to notability concerns, and I'm not seeing multiple non-trivial third-party articles that might shore it up -- yet. Project only established in 2005, after all. Tychocat 11:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom and Tychocat. Anomo 03:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another WP:WEB failer... Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 00:47, 7 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 —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

André Manuel[edit]

As I noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krang (band), this was prodded, but removed due to a mention at http://experts.about.com/e/m/mu/Music_of_the_Netherlands.htm which is a mirror to an old version of Music of the Netherlands where it is not longer mentioned. As the proposal originally mentioned, Google combined with Krang and Fratsen provides little, and Allmusic only has the Unknown DJ. Manuel alone is useless due to the Unknown DJ. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Expand - I am going to assume good faith of the article originators, and call for those in the know (as opposed to the rest of us) to expand the article with reliable citations. If the band Krang isn't around anymore, perhaps notability is limited to just a section in the article about André Manuel. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's been two years since the first mention of him and it still hasn't moved beyond a four-sentence stub that doesn't link to anything else. If there is no information out there on the man, aren't there some concerns about verfiability? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping the AfD catches the attention of someone who happens to know where to find what's needed for verifiability. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established in Dutch wikipedia [43]. Winner of the Zilvern Harp [44] for best new artist presented by Dutch music industry association Conamus [45], [46] Catchpole 09:54, 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 Delete. We cannot force the community to accept a merge, esp. of unsourced material. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full Moon on the Quad[edit]

Non-notable tradition specific to one university campus with no verifiable sources. Suggested merging to the Stanford University article, which was summarily dismissed. Nominating for deletion accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep if merged into the Standford article. Otherwise Delete; there isn't enough noteworthiness to merit an article. Cassavau 21:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why does the article need to stay if the content is merged into Stanford? I suggested the merge, but the editors at Stanford deleted the suggestion. I'd be all for keeping this as a redirect if it's merged, but one way or another, there shouldn't be an article here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced it is OR and cannot be a stand-alone article. It is open to the Stanford editors to incorporate in their article if they wish. BlueValour 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - it seems that this has been tried. However, if the Stanford editors don't find it important enough to take we can't force them since they will just revert the merge. BlueValour 00:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, that is exactly what I tried before proposing AfD. I was going to merge and rename. When my {{mergefrom}} tag came down with no discussion, I took it as a sign that they didn't want the merge. Accordingly, I don't see a recommendation to merge as a reasonable outcome of this discussion, since it will be a de facto delete. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 7 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 22:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tauheeda Yasin[edit]

This activist's claim to notability, a 2002 rally, is not readily verifiable. This suggests the activist isn't yet notable. Whosasking 20:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first reference I found for the rally was in a student newspaper. This doesn't lend much to the article's assertion of national attention. On the whole, I don't think she clears WP:BIO. Delete. —C.Fred (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OK she organised a rally and has a blog. Not enough for notability I'm afraid. BlueValour 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Whiteside[edit]

This local officeholder and past unsuccessful candidate in a parliamentary system election fails NPWP:BIO as well as the proposed candidates and elections criteria. Erechtheus 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - While he's a great guy (I live down the road from him :P), he's certainly not notable, according to WP:BIO. I created the article about a year ago, while I was still relatively new and naive... —Celestianpower háblame 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - parish councillors are not notable (as acknowledged, very honestly, by the author). BlueValour 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine pill[edit]

Content fork with Fluoride Guinnog 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Also has minimal and badly written content. Bin it I say. --Guinnog 20:50, 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)  22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diog[edit]

Nonnotable protologism, created, per article, in July 2006 by one professor at one college. NawlinWiki 20:52, 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)  22:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box on the Beach Productions[edit]

High school kids on public access TV is rarely notable. Google search just turns up MySpace and YouTube results. Spondoolicks 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Cassavau 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 23:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Youtube again. Every Youtube movie can't have it's own article. MySpace isn't verifiable. -Royalguard11Talk 01:32, 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 keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quidi Vidi Brewing Company[edit]

Delete per WP:CORP. Deprodded. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not particularly notable yet. Cassavau 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The most popular microbrew in Newfoundland, the largest microbrewer in Atlantic Canada, and no less notable than any of the microbrews listed in Category:Beer and breweries in Canada. BoojiBoy 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been noted on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador. BoojiBoy 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There is absolutely no reason to delete this article. As User Boojiboy said, it IS the most popular microbrew in Newfoundland. It definitely meets the first criterion of WP:CORP, as it has been featured in numerous newspapers, magazines, and documentaries (I'll have to do some digging to find it). --Crabbyass 02:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Any of these would work: [47] [48] [49] BoojiBoy 02:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Copied from the talk page and written by Crabbyass: "They've applied to be listed on the TSX, won Silver Medal at the 2001 World Beer Championship in Chicago Illinois, and will soon be expanding its distribution to all provinces in Canada, the United States, Mexico, Iceland, Germany, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Switzerland & Lichtenstein, New Zealand, and Australia." Yet another assertion of notability. BoojiBoy 13:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable brewery in Newfoundland (I don't think you'd find many Newfies who wouldn't know of it). OzLawyer 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A significant Newfoundland company, and evidence of the weakness of WP:CORP as a basis for decision-making. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:51, 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 Merged. Jaranda wat's sup 21:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breck Primary School[edit]

Not Notable, the notability of this article is not apparent. --Paul E. Ester 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Cassavau 21:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools are notable. Piccadilly 14:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and Merged with the town article. — RJH (talk) 15:03, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OxyVita[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Proposed deletion contested as "incoherent", so bringing to AfD. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in current form. Perhaps a page discussing the class of substance without specific referral to the brand name would be appropriate. Cassavau 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. I'm inclined to agree with Cassavau, that an article about the class of substance may be appropriate. --Natalie 03:08, 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)  22:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Road Match[edit]

A revert war recently happened between a prod tag of the article, per WP:PROD rules, and article can only be prodded once. Non-notable match Delete Jaranda wat's sup 21:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. Allisonmontgomery69 23:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a one-off non-notable wrestling match is not notable as per Punjabi Prison. MLA 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being non-notable. Plus the match is a pretty bad one too. --Oakster (Talk) 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not sure why this one's prod tag was removed, I can't see it being controversial. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:44, 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 Stormie 03:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elio Camacho[edit]

Delete Contested prod for a possible vanity article for what may be a nn artist. Original {{PROD}} by Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs) stated, "Not notable per WP:BIO. The google search for "elio camacho" gives 233 hits, only 39 unique and most of them are the galleries listed below or pages concerning other "Elio Camachos" in the world. Also the sole edit of creator which may indicate vanity. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 21:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Note that the prod tag was removed by a wikilawyer... I goofed when writing the original prod tag so that the reason was left out. Catchpole (talk · contribs) rightfully removed the empty prod and when I reinserted it he removed it again (despite a message I left on his talk page) arguing that once a prod is removed the whole thing has to go to AfD. Pascal.Tesson 04:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this artist information because I purchased one of his paintings in Santa Barbara. When I returned home I searched google to fine more information and the only information were the links provided. I was hoping people would continue to add to this so I could continue to find more information regarding this artist. I am not sure if you know of Ovanes Berberian but he is concidered one of the top living impressionists today. According to the gallery in Santa Barbara, Elio is concidered one of his top students.

BTW...I wanted to post some images but I wasn't sure how legal that was. Any copyright issues?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)  22:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instability (Comic)[edit]

I can't find any information on this "manga" anywhere. Not listed at animenewsnetwork in any form. Only one hit for Stan Aynvarg (this page). Searched for its title and subtitles in both English and Japanese and have found nothing. The name "Stan Aynvarg" isn't Japanese in the first place, so it's not even a real manga series. "Instability Wiki" link at bottom of page is broken. Ah, just found out what it is: a series hosted on deviantArt. In short, it's just some off webcomic that I can scarsely find any information at all on. Not notable. SeizureDog 21:52, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Ministry

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom withdrew SynergeticMaggot 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promises, Promises (song)[edit]

Song is not notable, does not appear to have charted or won any awards. Wikipedia doesn't need an article for every song ever recorded, particularly when the artist is not notable. Withdrawn due to evidence of notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Promises, Promises, which is a notable show, and had a very notable title song. If anyone wants to turn this into an article about that song, I'd support that. Fan-1967 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears it is a notable song in the UK. May need to be DAB'ed at some point, as there are two other notable songs of the same title: the Burt Bacharach song recorded by Dionne Warwick, and also the 1983 song from Naked Eyes. Fan-1967 13:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed - I see there's some chart history after all. Article should be dab'd, however, as it's not the most notable song under this title. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I'm wrong on this: they have two albums on a record company (Morning Records) that has no other bands. Fan-1967 23:08, 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 Stormie 03:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leilani Dowding[edit]

Non-notable model, CSD A7 could possibly apply here. TheM62Manchester 22:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable (and no sources cited). Allisonmontgomery69 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Leilani is a notable model MLA 11:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She was notable, but is now no longer notable. That was the reason for this AFD. --TheM62Manchester 18:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What happened to her notability? MLA 21:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand this concept. I don't think WP distinguishes between is notable and was notable. (Also, I don't think I distinguish between is and was.) -- Kicking222 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was in the Miss Universe pageant, for christ's sake! She also passes my British notability test: If they're British, and I've somehow heard of them, they're notable. -- Kicking222 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kicking222 - just because someone loses their notability, doesn't mean they don't deserve an article any more. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 00:45, 7 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 all.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho math and chess[edit]

plus Chess and math connection, Comparison of math and chess curriculum and Frank ho.

Vanity articles / adverts for a teaching method and teaching materials. Created by user:Mathandchess - see also Talk:Frank ho. -- RHaworth 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per nominatation information LactoseTI 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Kirschner[edit]

looking at the user who created this article, it might be vanity - I'm not quite sure how notable she is. by the way, I haven't done enough research to have an educated opinion, so no vote from nominator-- ugen64 22:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep if sources get cited. Sounds like she's a notable author in her field. Allisonmontgomery69 22:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I left a {{userfy warning}} template on his/her userpage. According to WP:BIO, "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" are notable. I've not done any searches, but that would seem to be the criterion relativce to this article in my opinion, unless you wish to apply WP:PROFTEST regarding Diana's work in the field of her Ph.D. BigNate37T·C 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a vanity piece. I have collaborated with Dr. Diana Kirschner for over 25 years, have written three books with her and numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Her work in integrative psychotherapy appears in four prominent books on the subject and a quick search in google scholar will yield some of her contributions. I would like to add a section on her specific seminal contributions to the field of psychotherapy that have influenced practitioners and researchers as well as a section on her more recent work as a media psychologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skirschner (talk • contribs) 23:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possible speedy the new editor's working on sources, but a quick Scholar search indicates a clear keep, I'd say. Unless anyone has objections, I'd suggest a speedy keep (with no current suggestions to delete). Ziggurat 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ziggurat - See also [50]--HJMG 08:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the addition of eleven references, only about half of which list the subject as an author/editor. I do really wish the article wasn't started by someone involved with the subject through meatspace as it is always a cause of controversy. BigNate37T·C 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNo Vote Google gets more hits for "Presidential-Goat" then for "Diana-Kirschner".
  1. http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=presidential-goat Result about 435,000
  2. http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Diana-Kirschner Results about 579
Sumburgh 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed vote after Ziggurat's suggestion: "I suggest that you not start 'stalking'" Sumburgh 23:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Benjamin Harrison had goat has no bearing on the AfD discussion for Diana Kirschner. Please cite relevant examples of the Wikipedia notability guidelines if you intend to show that the subject of this article (which has enough sources to support a fully-fledged article) is non-notable. BigNate37T·C 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ziggurat but I am not sure this qualifies as a speedy keep. Yamaguchi先生 09:04, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Site (Stargate)[edit]

This location is not notable, the article is original research, no sources, would not meet notability criteria if location existed in the real world--Paul E. Ester 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sense a lot of passion for this article, while I believe the notability is still not apparent to those not familiar with the show, I will concede that the article has been improved with some sources and that this afd is not likely to be successful. If someone would like to do the house cleaning, I withdraw this nomination. Thanks for your feedback and improvements. --Paul E. Ester 01:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What type of cleaning are you refering to? Tobyk777 02:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archive the afd and remove the notice from the page. thanks,--Paul E. Ester 03:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin so i'm not permittedto do that, I thought you meant house work improving the article. Tobyk777 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Permanent and semi-permanent sustained off-world outposts are increasingly becoming key plot devices in the show. If this article is deleted, there is no primary location to place references for the additional off world outposts ("Gamma Site") which have been mentioned more than once. Outside of the two stories that included events on the alpha site, there have been key plot elements including the alpha and gamma sites as well. If the data still does not warrant a standalone article, merge it with some other startgate article so that mentionings of the alpha site can be referenced elsewhere.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DocRadium (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. I know these endless articles about a TV show may seem pointless, but it's a notable piece of a notable show, like Sunnydale, Starfleet Academy or Hogwarts. The sources are the episodes themselves. (If we actually had a permanent base on another planet, I'm sure it would be considered notable.) Fan-1967 22:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources should be other people already writing about the episodes, in order to avoid original research. Readers should not have to watch the episodes and themselves perform analyses and reach conclusions in order to verify articles. Uncle G 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Going by the information in the article, this location is not the equivalent of Sunnydale, Starfleet Academy or Hogwarts. The article states that Alpha Site refers to emergency evacuation locations. Unless proof can be given that this location is of the same primary and central importance to this fictional series as Sunnydale, Starfleet Academy and Hogwarts are to their respective fictions, then delete. (and if we had a permanent base on another planet, that would be notable unless perhaps if we were engaged in an interstellar war involving multiple alien races with advanced technology and our sense of wonder about having an emergency base on another planet had been somewhat dulled by the grim yet routine trials of space war.) Bwithh 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with Bwithh. This location, from what I can gather, is of very little importance and consequence in the show, as opposed to Hogwarts, for example, which is where the entire Harry Potter plot takes place. Additionally, the article needs reliable sources. Srose (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of you are completely wrong and I doubt that either of you have ever seen the show. The Alpha site appears in more than 25 episodes, and is a huge part of many key episodes including season finalies. The article is sourced, is not original research, and if it were a real place would certainly be notable enough for inclusion. If you don't know how important something is, don't vote to delete it if you think it seems unimportant. This is very important. Tobyk777 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article now has two references. Uncle G 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It now has six, all of which are independent of the show and its creators, and several of which are more than mere directory entries for a planet in a fictional universe. Keep. Uncle G 14:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The show is a valid primary source. Primary sources are not ideal, but they are allowed. The lack of any other sources (which apparently have now been added anyway) is something that needs to be improved, but we don't delete articles simply for needing improvement. --Tango 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Tango. Perhaps it should be spotlighted within the Stargate WP, but it shouldn't be deleted without an attempt at improvment (which has already began apparently). No Way Back 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to a list of minor SG locations. -- Ned Scott 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a minor location. It's a major one. A list of minor ones exists here. Tobyk777 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per Ned Scott. Current version gives multiple sources, is expanded, and does a decent job of explaining why it is important. JoshuaZ 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep Very important, is sourced, no OR. The nominator and people who voted delete don't know what they're talking about. this is very important. Tobyk777 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep this is a VERY important part of the show. ANy attempt to say otherwise is either misinformed of just plain wrong. American Patriot 1776 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well said. Thank you. An extremely important part of the show with alot of misinformed people trying to delete it. Tobyk777 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get mad at people for nominating an article for deletion. Also, being important to a show doesn't make it notable. Granted I went for a keep in my comments, I still think it's important to not bit the head off the guy who nominated this article for deletion. It's all apart of the process. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not mad, just informing :). I'm sure the AFD was made in good faith. American Patriot 1776 18:58, 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 with sockvotes discounted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mudpiglet[edit]

Nonnotable web humorist; 76 unique Ghits, website has Alexa rank below 2,000,000. NawlinWiki 23:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no signs of notability. The site is hosted for free and and was created earlier this month. That is hardly enough time to create a large fanbase. IrishGuy talk 23:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His website has recently switched over to a dot-com and aquired new servers without advertisement which is the reason for his low hits. It is not only mudpiglet.com that he is most notable for anyways. He has been published on Pimpwiz.com, The Raging Face, Dying Writers, he is a Staff writer with a weekly column for The Weekly Procrastinator, and he has several short stories being published in a series of books entitled "One Story To Tell", the first of which is being released in fall. Many of these projects are under the name "Sean Cahill", but Mudpiglet is the alias which he prefers to be known by. His exposure and fan base are higher than an Alexa rating for his 2 week old website would belie. His most Mongoleer 23:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (sockpuppet) He is an important web humorist. Of all the other non-notable people with wiki articles, Mudpiglet is an undeserving target. Read the sources, look at his broad base of publication, this guy is notable no questions asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafturd (talk • contribs) (article author)
  • comment Staff writer for the weekly procastinator which has no Alexa ranking [51]. Dying writers, which accepts submissions from anyone and therefore it isn't really a sign of notability, has no Alexa ranking [52]. He has written exactly one article for pimpwiz.com [53]. Thisisby.us is a site wherein anyone can join and write content. Sean Cahill has been a member for a couple of weeks [54]. IrishGuy talk 23:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IrishGuy's homework. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN It is claimed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dafturd that sockpuppets are being used to vote. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please read WP:Consensus and WP:Deletion Policy, "the purpose of a discussion is to bring out a "sense of the community" and the valid points for or against each view. So deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgment based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing." "Voting" more than once really doesn't help your cause. Scorpiondollprincess 16:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:32, 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. Yanksox 04:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MiHD[edit]

Non-notable web hosting business, failing WP:WEB, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM, and I couldn't scare up a single relevant GHit for them. Prodded as such, but was deprodded without comment or improvement. ~Matticus TC 23:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ad for nn company. Fan-1967 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as above. Not even a grammatically sentence as an 'article.' — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:43, 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 Keep. When you take the massive amount of trolling out of this AfD, the argument for deletion does not compare at all to the argument for keep. I suppose, this could be considered boderline no consensus or keep among established editors. However, there is not a convincing argument for deletion made. Yanksox 04:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meathead[edit]

Non-notable internet person. Seems to be known in some NIN online circles, but no incoming google links to the website described as his "column." Has links to other languages as The NIN Hotline which does seem to be a notable enough site. Vote: Redirect to Michael Stivic — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has changed considerably since original {{prod}} - original. Since then it was cleaned, and then more cruft started to fill back in. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, I have nothing against him and truly don't know who he is. I don't remember how I stumbled on the page, probably doing my random wikignoming - finding a page with no category, etc, and looking it over. As noted above, the original page I saw was absolute junk with obvious non-encyclopedic entries (strike 1). You'll note the page still has no category today except via the AfD (strike 2). If you click "What links here" the only references were an incorrect one I just fixed and the NIN one that had been added the day before (maybe that was how I hit the article). The IP that added the link to the main NIN page was an obvious vandal as noted here and here (strike 3). Also, as noted above, no incoming Google links to his column (strike 4). And lastly, it is very strange that a single person's name would be referred to as something else in the other languages ("The NIN Hotline") (strike 5). So that's why I brought it to AfD. And when a AfD gets innundated with random IP votes with no signatures, I do not envy the admin who has to try to track it all down. Especially because I don't think from what I've read that Meathead == The NIN Hotline. So votes that say "NIN Hotline" should stay have nothing to do with this individual. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 12:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is vandalisation criteria for deletion? Or lack of category? Or lack of internal links? Or an honest mistake in the language links? No, meathead is not the NIN Hotline: he is affiliated with that site, and writes a featured column which is hosted there. Please tell me why this invalidates his inclusion on this website. BotleySmith 20:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't say they were reasons to delete - I said they were, in my opinion, criteria for this AfD and explaining to the people who accuse me of disliking somebody I have never heard of why I called for this vote. I also don't appreciate your link here. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why, did I say something wrong? BotleySmith 22:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's far fetched to imply that, "Yeah, so this guy was the first one to vote "delete" on the public forum, and called Meathead a "non-notable internet person." Just so you know." wasn't something written in good faith. Apparently only one member took your bait. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to your user page is an act of agression? Wow, there's a lot of rules here on wikipedia I wasn't aware of. I'm not going to defend swindley's comment because I didn't write it. By the way, you have yet to convince me that the article is non-notable. In fact, the edits of the last few days have pretty powerfully demonstrated that there is knowledge out there on Meathead that most people who had heard of him were unaware of — more needed to be added, not removed, to make the page encyclopedic. The article as it stands is NPOV and verifiable. Disambiguate the name if you must, but do not delete the page. The Perspective is known independently of the NIN Hotline, and creating a new article on it that would, at this juncture, solely host information on Meathead smacks of bureaucracy. Clearly, someone was motivated to create and maintain a Meathead page, but not a NIN Hotline page. There must be a good reason for that. BotleySmith 20:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE The Meathead Perspective is a TERRIBLE source of comic relief for NIN fans. Nine Inch Nails themselves have even acknowledged Meathead. He is not a legend of sorts. It would be no mistake to delete his Wiki Page.--SillyPutty 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: SillyPutty (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep The official Nine Inch Nails website has a link to Meathead's site. He's an internet celebrity and the article has more information now. Ixum 05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the forum thread linked above is from 2004-2005. Not exactly a 'recent' development. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the site was actually down for that long: it only went back up on 27 May 2006. BotleySmith 00:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, then redirect as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have it on authority from the owner/operator of The NIN Hotline, Leviathant, that Meathead's column receives almost as much traffic as any other portion of his site, including the very frequently-visited news page.

It's worth noting that The Meathead Perspective gets almost as much traffic as the news portion of the page. It's not really titled "The NIN Hotline: Home of Meathead" but it practically should be. [...] On some months, if we stuck solely to our strengths, we'd actually ditch the news and run all-meathead, all-the-time ;)

...that's from his post on the board where meathead is most often seen. I mean, come on: the link to The Meathead Perspective on NIN's official site certainly should inspire one to keep this article; what are casual NIN fans to think if they stumble upon such a page without knowing its origins? BotleySmith 00:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I was talking about when it went down, not when it came back up again. This guy is funny. Check out the EDIETS video, and see how his work has been rated: (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Keep. As a foremost Nine Inch Nails music collector at http://www.swindley.ca, I vouche to keep the article on Meathead as part of Wikipedia. Meathead is an indispensible part of the Nine Inch Nails online community, providing humour, insite and above all else, entertainment to millions of NIN fans annually. Furthermore (and most important to my position) his internet humour column is recognized by Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor directly, through advertisement and linkage from the band's official website, at http://www.nin.com/resources/. 24.150.163.32 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Mike Swindley[reply]

Please Keep As a longtime Nine Inch Nails fan and user of both TheNINHotline.net and Echoingthesound.org I have found Meathead to be extremely popular and well-known among the NIN fanbase. His humor column is well-established in the NIN universe, exemplified by its inclusion in the links portion of Nine Inch Nail's official webpage.Brightshadow 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Brightshadow (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • Keep (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Keep Meathead is a a very significant figure when it comes to Nine inch nails news. All nin fans know about him. wikipedia is an information site, and the nin hotline supplies constant news and info when it comes to info that is nin related. Meathead deserves to be known, for his marks made for NIN fans. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Keep Anybody who knows anything about NIN and the Internet knows about Meathead. I've personally witnessed him get recognized at NIN shows on many occasions. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
      • PLEASE DELETE THIS PAGE! Its just another example of how meathead just wants to milk his 10 seconds of fame by having his 'very own' wikipedia. -fetus (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • DELETE hell why not. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • KEEP he disappeared on me, maybe because he became internet famous... or maybe because he was Cixe`.. but he sure as hell is famous enough to have a Wikipedia entry. Linked on the official page? Isnt that enough? (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • DELETE wiki entry is of no educational value but is rather an equivalent to someone on urbandictionary.com defining themselves for some notoriety. the entry consists of opinions, e.g. him being funny, that many disagree with. there's no real point to this entry so delete it. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • KEEP Paris Hilton has her own page, and Meathead's slept with way more dudes. -Themethatyouknow (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • DELETE If anything, meathead should have a footnote on the nin entry instead of his own page. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • KEEP Theninhotline not a notable enough site? Are you kidding me? Someone doesn't do their homework. Meathead is even listed on the nin.com links page. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • KEEP He has alot of fans and he has been making us laugh since 1999. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • KEEP Of course Meathead should be kept! I've been reading his column for years. He's an a**hole and all, but many many people still like his humour column, and he is obviously very well known. -Magtig 208.57.69.28 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 208.57.69.28 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep it! His humour is fantastic and has a huge following on the internet. And The NIN Hotline is probably one of the best fan-run websites available for music fans. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Keep Love him or hate him, Meathead is well known by most NIN fans. That degree of notoriety deserves a Wiki entry. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Keep....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maddox_%28writer%29 I believe it is fair for him to have a definition if a similiar one already exsists. I have been an avid fan of his page since around 2000. Talented dude, deserves it. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Keep Meathead is a useful addition to the Wikipedia and helps describe an internet celebrity. This is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia was created for, allowing informative and accurate articles about items other encyclopedias would normally overlook. --NeoVampTrunks 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.It should be enough that The Meathead Perspective is a link on the official nin.com page. Also, given the popularity of "Closer to Mario," people should be able to turn to a source like Wikipedia to find out who created it. I actually did not know it was Meathead until reading this page, yet I'd heard the song long ago. This page is necessary and actually, long overdue.Musicmaniac32 06:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Musicmaniac32 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Comment.To say that Meathead is only known by "a very small online community" is clearly speculation that can just as clearly be proven false. Wikipedia would not allow, nor appreciate if everyone who knows of and enjoys Meathead came to this site and started posting 'Keeps' all over the place (as evidenced by the alert at the top of the page). Just because some people are ignorant of his existance does not mean that others are, and indeed, Meathead is linked with Nine Inch Nails in a significant enough manner so as to warrant a Wiki article (See my aforementioned reference to "Closer to Mario"). Musicmaniac32 19:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Musicmaniac32 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep. Meathead is an important aspect of Nine Inch Nails fandom and is well-deserving of a Wikipedia page. HorseloverFat 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: HorseloverFat (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
    • What are the reasons why the page would need to be deleted? I think the Google search results "meathead" turns up (number one hit) proove that the phrase "meathead" is synonymous on the Internet with this Meathead, and so a Meathead Wikipedia article has a purpose. HorseloverFat 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: HorseloverFat (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • keep.People need to know who this jerk is so they know how to stop him. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Delete.Meathead is a suspender chaplain, Cashpiles is worlds better H6a6t6e 08:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meathead is well deserving of a Wikipedia entry! To delete him would invalidate the entire Wikipedia project. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Keep. Seems like you only want to delete the entry because you don't like him. Surely this many people saying to keep it is enough to merit keeping it, regardless of whether you like him or not? (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • KEEP When you google "meathead" he is the first thing to pop up (seen here). That should be enough to tell you that it should stay. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Keep. Since we NIN-fans have a drought coming up, what with mr. Reznor bringing out a new record 'sometime soon', the only thing to keep us occupied will be Meathead guessing what 'soon' means - which means he'll be the only good thing around for a while. If, of course, he makes more flash films. Which he should. Seriously though: Meathead is a healthy counterbalance for everyone that tends to take Nine Inch Nails, Reznor, music as a whole too seriously. And beneath the MS Paint crap and the ugly lay-outs, there's a very good writer who knows a lot more about music than the release dates of each halo. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • As both a NIN fan, and as an occasional contributing writer/editor for Wikipedia, I think that an entry on Meathead, if kept simple, neutral, and to the point, may have possible future archival use for a post-NIN time. Even the band is aware of Meathead's presence, and he is not just a creator of parody, but a presence in the NIN online fan community that delivers humor to fans of a music genre often thought to be morbid, serious, and depressing. --Insomniak 12:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘‘‘‘KEEP’’’’’’ The fact that Meathead himself didnt create this page seems to show that people are interested in him enough to look at this page. Sam89--139.168.115.74 12:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 139.168.115.74 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • DELETE Non-notable person coat-tailing on Reznor's fame. 141.214.17.5 14:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Entry is as relevant to Nine Inch Nails' history as the Mud Shark incident is to Led Zeppelin history. Naysayers are obviously not interested in Wikipedia including pertinent information about rock music and its history. Like it or not, Meathead *is* a part of NIN's online history.Beavette 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Beavette (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • KEEP I just love meathead. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • KEEP I think this article should be kept because 1) when you google "meathead", the link to The Meathead Perspective returns first, 2) The NIN Hotline is the most notable news source for thousands of Nine Inch Nails fans and all of whom visit their page are well aware of meathead own contributions via the humor columns in The Meathead Perspective, 3) The official Nine Inch Nails website has linked The Meathead Perspective in the resources section since the release of the 1999 album The Fragile, 4) Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails has on various occassions interacted with meathead as seen when answering fan questions, photos/videos of meathead at certain shows while on tour since '99, and the whole birthday party after a show event. I would argue an article of meathead is legitimate for all these reasons. Also, though The NIN Hotline did mention this article is in question for deletion, you will see in a short amount of time how many NIN/NIN Hotline/meathead fans do know about meathead and will argue otherwise to keep this article. - Nlibera 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nlibera (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • KEEP It's important to note that in the context of Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor, Meathead is part of the band's total experience. He has been part of the history of this band since 1999 and is certainly not somone "riding on Trent Reznor's coattails". Meathead's talent and humor have kept NIN fans entertained for years. As a satirist and humorist he is funnier than most of what passes for comedy today. Last year, a rumored end to the Meathead Perspective sent fans into fits of grief and hair ripping at the thought of not having his satirical point-of-view around. If someone not overly familiar with the band, or it's culture were to hear "Meathead" it would be nice to think that they could check it out on the Wiki. Solitude3 2 August, 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Solitude3 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep He's a well known satirst of a well known band. That's worth a 'wittle Wikipedia article, surely? Less notable people have articles. Spaltavian 17:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE unlike the mud shark incident with led zeppelin, meathead is irrelevant and unrelated to nine inch nails as a band and trent reznor's music. being a person popular in an online community of fans is not so important as to have its own wikipedia entry, much less the main "meathead" entry when there are more famous "meathead" characters in other media. it won't be many years before the meathead perspective is a distant or forgotten memory, and decades down the line, as people remember bands like the beatles today, no one is going to associate with or even remember an online humor columnist named meathead when discussing nine inch nails. delete this unnecessary wiki entry.65.113.54.254 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)travis[reply]
  • Comment I strongly disagree. Meathead will be part of NIN's story forever. NIN is very much involved in the internet. The months leading up to the release of 'The Fragile' is a prime example of this. Do a little research and you'll find that certain marketing tactics were directly focued on the NIN internet fanbase, including Meathead. Also, Meathead kept us laughing during the (long drawn out) years until '[WITH_TEETH]' was released. Meathead was around for all of it and it is relevant. I've only recently heard of the 'mud shark incident'. Does that mean it's not relevant? Absolutely not, I'm just not a fan of Led Zeppelin. (Also, do I have to point out AGAIN that his site is linked from nin.com?) (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Keep.As pointed out previously, the official Nine Inch Nails website has linked Meathead. He is a notable figure and has been entertaining NIN fans for years now. His wiki entry should be kept.Imaginaryally 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Imaginaryally (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep. If ever you happen to run into a true fan of the Nine Inch Nails band, the word "meathead" is instantly associated with online news about them. Obviously the people who read his articles care enough to fight for this page, which means going out of your way to do this. In no way do I deem meathead unworthy of a wikipedia page, if out of any Nine Inch Nails columist to have one, it should be him. Simply put, if you don't agree with this page for one reason or another, just don't visit it. But for the fans, this page is a long awaited - and a long due - reward for this incredible satire writer. If you haven't noticed, meathead has had more than his 15 minutes of fame among the internet, this page should just go to show that it goes beyond simple spotlight time 24.141.223.113 18:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 24.141.223.113 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep. Meathead is a well known member of the NIN community, both on Echoingthesound and theNINhotline. This article is relevent to Nine Inch Nails. Please keep. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Keep. Meathead is an endless source of amusement and I know many of my fellow NIN fans would hate to see this deleted. Thanks! (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Keep. The fact that Meathead accepted an award on NIN's behalf says he holds a level of esteem with the community and the band itself. Because of this, you cannot just easily dismiss the article as a piece of vanity or self-promotion. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Comment It really needs to reiterated that Meathead accepted an award on NIN's behalf, NIN's site links to Meathead, and NIN threw a suprise birthday partu for him. This makes 65.113.54.254's argument:

"unlike the mud shark incident with led zeppelin, meathead is irrelevant and unrelated to nine inch nails as a band and trent reznor's music... no one is going to associate with or even remember an online humor columnist named meathead when discussing nine inch nails"

absurd on its face. Spaltavian 02:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another Cluttering Comment your face is absurd. by your logic, any groupie trent fucks should have her own wikipedia entry because she's interacted with the band and is probably online somewhere. way to edit out the key element of what i said with ellipses btw, that in the future--not NOW--no one is going to remember meathead when discussing NIN. even now, not every NIN fan obsessively follows so-called "news" about trent, much less an online humor column by a fan, when there are, i dunno, wars and other seemingly important things going on in the world to follow instead. not a single person i know who likes NIN has ever, ever mentioned meathead to me in real life. face it, this wikipedia entry serves no purpose except for vanity, if not for meathead personally then for the saps who think he's funny. let the more famous "meathead" character have the URL.--72.245.31.166 03:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)travis — Possible single purpose account: 72.245.31.166 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep. If Wiki can host such pointless entries like the Numa Numa dance or other internet memes/fads - then why can't they host an important and much respected internet humour writer? And yeah, I agree with the dude earlier on - if Paris what's-the-point-in-my-exsistence Hilton can have an entry, why can't Meathead?80.195.205.35 06:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 80.195.205.35 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep. i'll shoot a dog if you don't keep meathead! (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Comment. I think the argument that because there are wars going on it automatically invalidates anything less than equal in importance to them as non-notable is not logical at all. Personally, I never have heard of the reference of meathead in All in the Family. Despite the fact I may be a Nine Inch Nails collector and thus probably am more intune with NIN related news (The NIN Hotline being the most consistent, reliable, and frequent source), meathead has been a thoroughly entertaining section at that site. The article itself does need some revision to take away any arguments that it's entirely vanity related, but personally I think there is a fair amount of information there and could be some more that could further legitimize an article on Wikipedia. I think that just because you aren't familiar with meathead in the context of Nine Inch Nails doesn't mean there isn't a sleu of fans and devoted readers of The NIN Hotline who are always anxiously awaiting to see on their RSS feed an absurd headline that must be something from meathead. I would suggest revising meathead's article and if you or any other Wiki editors are adamant about the All in the Family reference, have a search for "meathead" go there first with an option to view a meathead (disambiguation) link. On a side note, I'm actually suprised there isn't an article on The NIN Hotline. Just my thoughts, though. - Nlibera 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nlibera (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete "Mikewhy" is known to many Tori Amos fans and Tori herself. You could even say that he is a "celebrity" in some Tori circles. He is a fan who runs the popular A Dent in the Tori Amos Net Universe website. But he does not have his own Wikipedia page. Instead he is included in the page about his website. If you give Meathead his own page, you would have to allow separate pages for other fans that write about bands, as well as other NIN fans from the Hotline. Many of the NIN reporters like Leviathant are "celebrities" in some NIN circles. I don't believe Meathead should have his own page. There should be a page for the NINhotline and Meathead should be included on that.--72.81.128.247 14:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Dolores — Possible single purpose account: 72.81.128.247 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep Meathead has been around for a long time and I believe he has enough notoriety and popularity amongst a very large community to make this article notable. DMighton 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, if this example of vanity and exaggeration can be an article: Robert Steadman -- an article about Meathead, which does not seem to be vain or untruthful, should not be a problem in the slightest. DMighton 18:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment back. "I think the argument that because there are wars going on it automatically invalidates anything less than equal in importance to them as non-notable is not logical at all. " that's not what i said, dick. as for 'all in the family,' whether you've seen the show or not, millions more have seen it since it debuted decades ago than visited or are aware of some online humor columnist of a band. it's a main character on one of the most famous sitcoms of all time vs. some obscure internet personality. your personal amusement at meathead's obvious/lazily random hybrid of humor isn't exactly equivalent to, much less more important than, a foil on a show watched and loved by millions, so why not give that expontentially better known character the main wiki entry? and i say, why keep a vanity article for this guy at all?65.113.54.254 17:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)travis[reply]
Re: Comment back. Do you really need to resort to name calling? I think my comment makes sense. Regardless if I as an individual do not know about the meathead reference in All in the Family, I agree it should be the first thing to come up in a Wikipedia search. If the current Meathead article is cleaned of the vanity pieces (mostly the "Trivia" section), and if there are any parts that sound non-neutral to have it revised as needed, I think that would be worthy of keeping. That way it's accessible to any Nine Inch Nails fan curious about The NIN Hotline's most well-known author/journalist. Even if you don't know about him, don't like him, or don't care to know more, I think it's viable information that should be available to the inquiring public, no matter how small that inquiry may be. And that is just my opinion, take it as you will. - Nlibera 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nlibera (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Comment. "I think it's viable information that should be available to the inquiring public" But couldn't said information be added to a (edit: Wikipedia) NIN hotline page? That makes more sense than having a separate page for every NIN Hotline reporter that is popular in the NIN online fan circles. Once you take out the vanity information, there is very little "viable" information left about Meathead. What information exactly entails Meathead having his own separate page? Because the way I see it, Meathead having his own page is vanity.72.81.128.247 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Dolores — Possible single purpose account: 72.81.128.247 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Re: Comment. I agree there are parts that qualify as obvious vanity. They should be removed. Perhaps there isn't a lot left, but there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that are stubs as well, and in many cases I'm assume there isn't much else to add. As well, the many staff members of The NIN Hotline probably do have the ability to create detailed biographical sections and even one for Meathead (or maybe just Leviathan, owner and head maintainer of The NIN Hotline as far as I know), but then I have no control and cannot contribute to it. I think they are trying to keep it as professional as they can with the staff members "wank page" being small as that's not what the site itself is about as it's for new on Nine Inch Nails. So my understanding is Wikipedia is an open-ended encyclopedia for anyone to add information on anything, in this case Meathead. Instead of trying to find information on Meathead on his website or The NIN Hotline, I could come to Wikipedia to find all the information many have collaboratively added to get as much info on him at once, versus the possibility of googling it or searching through the vast forums of echoingthesound.org (and personally, I'm not a fan of forums). If this article is deleted, then that's what I'd have to do. If it isn't, maybe there isn't a lot now, but who knows in the future. At least I am not restrained by The NIN Hotline's decisions on what and what not to author on their website about Meathead. I hope that was clear, let me know if there is more I can clarify. - Nlibera 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nlibera (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Clarification: I thought my meaning was clear, but I guess not. I meant that there should be a paragraph or so about Meathead on a NIN Hotline Wikipedia page, instead of one Wikipedia for Meathead, one of the Hotline itself, one for Drunkpoet, one for Leviathant, etc. LOL, I wasn’t talking about the actual Hotline page itself (which btw does have staff bios up). 72.81.128.247 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC) )Dolores — Possible single purpose account: 72.81.128.247 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Comment Since Nlibera has not commented (yet); this is the way I see it: Informative:1) Meathead is the person who writes the Perspective. 2) Description of the perspective. (This can be a short paragraph on a NIN hotline page) Possibly informative: The Nine Inch Goombas remix. Where and how much has it been played? Did some random QOTD crewmember just play the song once during a break or was it specifically chosen by someone higher up? (If the remix is well known, a sentence or two can be added) Possibly Vanity: Proving that NIN likes him. A brief note can be added that Trent is a fan, but do we really need to know that he accepted an award in place of Trent or some NIN crewmembers threw him a party? The whole thing strikes me as vanity; getting people to like Meathead just because Trent likes him. Vanity: 1) "Pimping” his “artwork”. Selling a few prints online does not warrant your own Wikipedia page. If it did, hundreds of thousands of “artists” would have their own pages. Until I see published articles about his work, his art in galleries, etc…this is pure vanity. 2) Other random "facts" on his page. Not important. (Should be deleted). In short, the "viable information" on Meatheard warrants a paragraph or two on a NIN Hotline (edit: Wikipedia) page, not his own. 72.81.128.247 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Dolores — Possible single purpose account: 72.81.128.247 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Re: Comment. I'd also like to know more information on the Nine Inch Goombas remix (as well, Meathead also remixed Marilyn Manson's "Don't Like The Drugs But The Drugs Like Me" that mashed up the Andy Griffin theme song. Probably an early mash up too before the whole 'mash up' genre came about. Likewise the information on two CDs released by Meathead, are, as far as I can tell, not the same person(s). I do like Meathead's artwork, but the article does seem to not be neutral about it and definitely has sway to sell them. Though you can't say The NIN Hotline should have the short paragraph unless you can convince them why it's necessary and have it posted, in the meantime I would say a Wikipedia article should be kept available. Just how I see it. - Nlibera 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nlibera (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Clarification: I thought my meaning was clear, but I guess not. I meant that there should be a paragraph or so about Meathead on a NIN Hotline Wikipedia page, instead of one Wikipedia for Meathead, one of the Hotline itself, one for Drunkpoet, one for Leviathant, etc. LOL, I wasn’t talking about the actual Hotline page itself (which btw does have staff bios). 72.81.128.247 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Dolores — Possible single purpose account: 72.81.128.247 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Re: Clarification. I know it does have it's own staff bio page, though short, and I know in the past Meathead had been in and out of it for various reasons or jokes. A NINWiki would be great, too as I wishfully though below as well. Though I don't have the time to make one. Thanks for your thoughts! - Nlibera 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nlibera (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

As much as I like his work, his wiki page just seems a bit of a waste. There really isn't much on there that couldn't be summarized in a blurb on the nin wiki page. I don't deny his relevance to nin, but I just don't feel that he needs his own page. 199.126.41.181 23:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)j_kad — Possible single purpose account: 199.126.41.181 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • Wishful Thinking. Maybe I'm watching this discussion to much, but I'd really like to see a NINWiki. It seems to be a very easy way to get information, and there are plenty of articles out there The NIN Hotline has been tirelessly collecting over the years. Maybe something Levathian or others to consider creating. That way you could search via magazines, dates, or topics discussed per interview, have more indepth information on nin.com's versions, updates, and other celebutantes (ie, Meathead) associated to Nine Inch Nails in one way or another. Though this is just idle wishful thinking and I myself don't have the time or talents to do such a thing. Then Wikipedia could argue further to remove this Meathead entry. Although I always thought Wikipedia's goal was to strive for collecting as much information on everything eventually. As endless as that may seem. I'll shut up eventually. - Nlibera 01:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nlibera (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete - Humourist contributing to a fan site doesn't constitute notability and no other substantive claims. BlueValour 04:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adding it as a link and describing on the Nine Inch Nails Wikipedia page is more than enough. The Meathead Perspective does not deserve its own page. No more than the site "Hanging these chains" does or any fan site for any popular music group. --4.88.54.51 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Mahatma — Possible single purpose account: 4.88.54.51 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Strong Keep Meathead is a central part of the "NINternet", or the series of fan sites on the web. Forget his relevance to NIN - he's got enough fans to stand alone as someone who is entitled to a Wiki article. Take Weebl for example. --TonySt 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Meathead is awesome! We should keep it because it is marking that meathead has made a difference in nin fans becauase of the meathead perspective. He even tells news, just not in a too serious way. He makes fun of the of stupid stalkerish fan sites that just need to know everything about the band or what ever that fan site is about. It just shows that nin fans dont need to know absolutely every detail about their "idol" and its finny at the same time.User:Lee179 — Possible single purpose account: Lee179 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Strong Merge - Clearly, the info in this article should be merged with the main NIN article. Only a fraction of NIN fans have ever heard of Meathead (the Internet is not the world). He's worth a footnote and no more. 68.40.41.106
  • Keep Meathead is an interesting and notable character, both funny and insightful and has provided many significant contributions to our humble ninternet as well as the web in general (youtube videos, humor columns, meatart). There are many people throughout the web community who often inquire as to who meathead is, and wikipedia provides a useful resource to those seeking that information, enough so that I fully believe he has enough merit for a wiki page.Dougied 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Dougied (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete Content will become stagnant and useless. I also think it is shameless that The NIN Hotline is running a message lobbying for NIN fans to keep a MeatheadWiki. (UNSIGNED/UNKNOWN)
  • Delete after the recent hacking of an idiots email and myspace, I say forget him for being a childish asshole... 71.223.16.208 10:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)hmmmm — Possible single purpose account: 71.223.16.208 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete him. No one besides stoned NIN fans with a shitty sense of humor give a flying fuck about him. asshole.--Carl the dinosaur 10:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Carl the dinosaur (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Weak keep Wiki is not paper, so I don't see where the arguments that his page "isn't worth it" are coming from. The problem with not notable subjects is that they tend to be fancruft and of poor quality, and the article certainly isn't Wikipedias worst. It has gone through significant improvement, and it should be noted that theninhotline is encouraging its readers to improve the article, not just to spam this page... GeorgeBills 13:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heltemes 16:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC) It would be really sad to delete this entry just because a few people don't understand the gentelman's work in question. Is he a huge internet celebrity, not really. But, he is an internet celebrity none the less. It would be nice to have usefull articles on artists w/in the internet as well as TV,movie, and radio celebs. I can not think of one productive reason to delete this article. Meathead has been around for a long while, and has been humering alot of people throughout his career (and not all nin fans are stoned and have a shi*%y sense of humor (carl the dinosaur)). Also, by reading the comments left by people speaking on the keep / delete topic; it seems that the people wishing for meathead to be deleted are the ones who are throwing out inappropriate language and squabbling like little kids. It makes me wonder if they want his article deleted because they truely think it is useless info, or because they are jealous that someone has actually made a career out of being a Meathead. When in fact the squabblers have to try and get articles deleted on their spare time to be a Meathead.[reply]

Keep This whole thing is so silly. Look, I know people have said it before, but I think it bears repeating [again.] Meathead's page is linked from the official NIN site. The Hotline gets a massive amount of readers, and alot of that is due to the Perspective [which came directly from Leviathant who created the Hotline.] It's a hugely popular column. I just don't see how a deletion is warranted. The page has been fixed from its admittedly laughable beginnings [look, I had never done a Wiki entry before- so sue me] and has really developed into a well written and informative page. Giphangster 16:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I like it, please keep it.

  • Comment Holy sockpuppets, Batman! In my opinion, "Meathead" should go to the All in the Family character, and this article should be renamed. Into what, I don't know, but I don't feel as though it should be deleted. Danny Lilithborne 21:54, 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 speedy delete. — NMChico24 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy "JDive" Diveley[edit]

16 year old claiming to be running for President in 2028. Asserts notability by saying he was interviewed on "Fox & Friends"; I can't verify that. 12 unique Ghits (all essentially his and his friends' MySpace sites). NawlinWiki 23:43, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_30&oldid=1081095931"