Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 1 >

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 delete per A7. User:Angr 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Corporation (Beer Pong)[edit]

Non-notable group. East Coast Beirut Association get 0 Google hits; The Corporation doesn't appear to get any either. May be a hoax. --Natalie 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fave112 has a poor edit history, with the only other edit on another being removed later LinaMishima 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7; group of people with no assertion of notability. User:Angr 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Angr and per nom. --Bigtop 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I actually tagged it for speedy deletion earlier, but the author removed the tag, twice. SB_Johnny | talk 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. The sooner the better. --Calton | Talk 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -newkai | talk | contribs 23:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom.AFireUponDeep 07:05, 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. Mailer Diablo 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the glass half empty or half full?[edit]

Not really encyclopedic, very opiniated and POV, no sources (and to that end, unlikely to find sources). Maybe a section in a different article would be appropriate. Newnam(talk) 04:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--  Mertens21  Talk  05:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep bad faith nomination, could have been solved by tagging it POV and in need of sources. Since this is very well-known, sources should be easy to find. (Oh, and please add new AfD at the bottom of this page next time). -- Koffieyahoo 06:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This doesn't seem very encyclopedic, particularly with a title like that. The concept might warrant mention in a broader article somewhere but I can't think of an appropriate one. Arkyan 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - this isn't a host for people's essays. Byrgenwulf 08:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Opinions can be edited out over time. Deet 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for sources etc... By the history appears to have survived a VfD in the past - Peripitus (Talk) 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In the article history it appears somebody tried to VFD it, but was unsuccessful in it — providing it wasn't just vandalism at the time. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Byrgenwulf's comments. This is someone's personal essay. No sources are cited. Violates WP:V and WP:OR. If well-known sources are easy-to-find, please cite some. Scorpiondollprincess 13:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a well-known and well-used idiom and theory. Needs sources and some WP:V cleanup; but well-written and informative. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I would like to remind Wikipedians that an article is only justified for deletion if the topic isn't a worthwhile subject for an article under Wikipedia rules. Otherwise, it simply needs cleanup, and while this article does need cleanup, it is certainly notable and sources should be very easy to find. Dark Shikari 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The topic is an encyclopedic idea, but I don't often hear the idiom expressed in this manner. Is a user really going to search for a question, or can we come up with a better name (or place) for the article? (My weak keep doesn't imply I think the content should be deleted, it's just that I haven't ruled out the possibility of a move or merge.) Jacqui★ 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed here. The article name isn't very useful, but I can't think of a better one. Anyone have any ideas? Dark Shikari 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't there be articles on optimism/pessimism: that's really what the problem comes down to; a mention of the expression could be made there (if it isn't already). And since it is a philosophical problem, the little schpiel about "imagining you are in charge of ... " (which reads like a bad teambuilding corporate waste of time) must go, no matter what. Does anyone have any serious objections to me going and excising it? Byrgenwulf 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jacqui — FireFox (talk) 14:27, 31 July '06
  • Comment — The glass is clearly twice as big as it needs to be, and so is inefficient. It was undoubtedly designed to government specifications. ;-) — RJH (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well known expression. LOL @ previous comment – Alensha  talk 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment Keep: Wikipedia has many articles on well-known phrases and terms of speech, see Fork in the road, Standing on the shoulders of giants, Survival of the fittest, Pay through the nose, etc for other examples. This is no less worthy for inclusion then any of these others. It should be kept, and worked on to improve. Comment: I can see how the title would be difficult to find, but I can't think of a better one. At any rate, the problem is easily solved with redirects from other possible search terms. I have added several such redirects.
  • Keep - bad-faith nomination. Should have tagged it POV, per Koffieyahoo. --Bigtop 16:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well known expression and per Jacqui. GrapePie 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ample amount of information on a well-known (and therefore at least partially notable) phrase. --Gray Porpoise 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dark Shakari and Grey Porpoise. Joe 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, inappropriate nomination. AFD is not a cleanup tag. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge article itself seems fine to me, however it, and similar articles with little more possible content than the existing stubs, could form a List of philosphical expressions (or some other suitable merge list page). LinaMishima 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am very disappointed that people keep throwing around "bad-faith nomination". I was serious when I listed this at AfD, and am still convinced it does not belong, not solely for content being POV, but because this is simply not encyclopedic. If you disagree with that assessment, then say so...don't tell me I'm listing it in bad-faith. For what reason would I have to do this? This is my first AfD listing, and I tried to follow all of the steps. To Koffieyahoo, in edit mode it says "<!-- Add new entries below this line -->", not "Add entries at the bottom of the list. "(Oh, and please add new AfD at the bottom of this page next time)" is a little uncivil. Just one request to the rest of the people who comment here. Please don't throw degrading remarks about me around, just because I nominated an article that you think should stay, or because I'm relatively new (and for the record, I've been around for over a year with a different username before this). Newnam(talk) 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for bad faith probably stems from the happy existance of many similar articles. Before commenting, I went looking, and such pages as Have one's cake and eat it too do indeed exist. You are, of course, right to remind people to be civil towards you. LinaMishima 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important and popular expression. Nominating this is like nominating Meaning of life. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it just needs sources (maybe starting with Filling the Glass: The Skeptic's Guide to Positive Thinking in Business :). I don't think the nom was in bad faith. Ziggurat 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say keep, it has to do with philosophy after all. Popcorn2008 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008[reply]
  • Keep as per above. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete? It's a common saying. LLBBooks 00:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Right politics and the War on Terrorism[edit]

Unreferenced. Overly broad and superficial. Lacks WP:V, and is WP:OR. Intangible 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete reads like an essay. -- Koffieyahoo 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete good essay. maybe some important points can be salvaged and merged into their respective articles --Ageo020 01:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being an essay - for future reference, please make AfD nominations at the bottom of the relevant page. BigHaz 01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You sure about that? The directions at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion clearly say that the tag belongs at the top of the page. The nomination belongs at the bottom of the listing, though - is that what you meant? Zetawoof(ζ) 06:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yeah. That's what I meant. Tag at the top, nomination (here) at the bottom. BigHaz 07:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per structure. Michael 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There should at least be some newspaper, magazine, or even tv coverage of this. Looks more like an argument with OR written all over it. WP:POV. SynergeticMaggot 03:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; essay, seems unlikely to become actual article. --Aquillion 03:15, 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 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borouge[edit]

Non-notable company. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — This partnership may well meet WP:CORP — see this 2003 business intelligence report. However, as written, the article is purely an advertisement, without encyclopedic value. — ERcheck (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - it does appear that this may indeed be a rather large company, so it may meet WP:CORP. The reason the article reads like advertising is because it is one huge copyright violation with most of it appearing to be lifted straight from their press releases. The article needs significant cleanup if kept. -- Whpq 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is not a place for corporate press releases. May well be a notable company but I cannot face cleaning this one up to save it. They can come back if an encyclopaedic page is produced. BlueValour 21:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per BlueValour's rational.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Copyvio from [1] which says "Registered users of PressReleaseFinder are free to use the press releases in their publications. All other uses of the information provided by PressReleaseFinder is prohibited without written consent." Dlyons493 Talk 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. SynergeticMaggot 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but definatley notable enough to have a properly written article about. Newnam(talk) 04:13, 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. Punkmorten 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Faction[edit]

Another non-notable web comic. No reliable sources or significant and independent syndication. --Hetar 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per WP:V (12 items in google, 4 in yahoo, 0 in ask jeeves), not one of those was a good source. Alos the article fails to state the importance of the subject. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep - per JLJeremiah. To be honest dispite the lack of google hits, this is a well written article. One of wikipedia's strengths is its coverage of obscure topics. I see no advert's or copyright violations in this article. (note google is only able to spider something like 20% of the web, so I would suggest someone trying another search engine)—— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - no sources alone is not reason to delete an article. (if it is, delete half the wiki please). I would suggest a {{unreferenced}} tag be placed on the article —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being unverifiable because there are no sources is one of the primary reasons for deleting an article. If the article cites no sources and you cannot find any sources when you do your best to find some, then the article is unverifiable. Whether an article is well-written or not simply doesn't enter into it. It's up to the editor supplying the content (or someone else) to cite sources. Uncle G 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was half finished when listed for deletion, it has been updated since. More information provided. A slip of the mouse caused half of the article to be posted. --JLJeremiah 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weak to no Google presence, I see no WP:RS which state why this Flash animation is more notable than the (insert your own large number here) that get deleted on a daily basis. --Kinu t/c 04:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to Kinu's verdict; This animation is more notable then the bulk of animation articles daily on wikipedia because it is on lifepoint1.com, which gets tens of thousands of uniques per day, Vice faction is a partner animation which shares space with the legendary Xin flash animation series, its popularity is compareable to it. You cannot tell me this is just a normal shitty flash webcomic, this animation has a notable fan basis. Unlike the normal flash articles you see on here, this flash series plot has been weaved; thought out if you will. This is a major project which spans a major fan appeal, per request we created an article on wikipedia. This article has potential to be added to in the future as more information comes forth, wikipedia is a database for notable information correct? Well this is information, my kind sir. --JLJeremiah 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Notable webcomics tend to get talked about. People on other sites talk about them, and post links to them. There's no sign of that for this one. Fan-1967 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not a venue for primary source material, such as a new description of a work of fiction that is constructed from direct research. That is forbidden by our Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you wish to publish a description of a webcomic from direct research, your own web site is the place. Conversely, if you are not using direct research, but are synthesising knowledge from existing sources, then you must cite sources to demonstrate that. That is the way, and the only way, to persuade editors to change their minds. Please cite sources. Uncle G 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources and a poor Google and Alexa showing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep No realible sources alone is no reason to delete this article. --JLJeremiah 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a highly RS can be found which reviews this comic. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Uncle G's reasoning.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence that this meets WEB, and it seems to be simply another Flash webcomic. Plus those pictures seem rather dubious. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above discussion. SynergeticMaggot 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the entire article seems to be written by JL Jeremiah. This also seems to be the person who penned the web animation itself. I was under the impression (maybe mistakenly) that articles about one's self or one's own work should not be created by that person, but by an outside source. Aside from that, it definately appears non-notable, and per the author's affiliation, self-advertisement. Newnam(talk) 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to establish notability. There are thousands of Flash web comics out there, and this one doesn't appear any different from the crowd. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G and Zetawoof. GassyGuy 11:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Especially since User:JLJeremiah both created the page and the subject material. JLJeremiah should consider moving the page to their own sanbox and keeping such well-writen content around for when their work becomes more notable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, article being now reliable sourced. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Wireless[edit]

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

  • Keep - needs some improvement, but Seattle Wireless is surely the biggest mover in commumity supported public WiFi access. Ace of Risk 11:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it won't be a loss for the article to go. This is not like a biography of a deceased person for whom documentation is getting harder and harder to find. If the site gets more notable, documentation should become easier to find, and a new article can be entered after that happens. Anomo 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a very large and very visible community of hunderds of Seattlites, who assembled this this non-profit to increase access in their community. As valid as Sierra Club or any other non-profit. pr. BillDrisco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.113.55 (talk • contribs) 3:11, 27 July 2006
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a tough delete for me. What tipped it over the edge was that there was no verifiable sources provided in the article nor even on their web-page (that I could find).--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but cleanup and improve this article. --Bigtop 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added these article links to External links, some which mention the company in passing and some which cover it significantly. It appears to be notable. I'd say cleanup and improve, rather than delete. TransUtopian 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cave, Damien, "Unchaining the Net", Salon.com, 2000-12-01
Kahney, Leander, "Home-grown Wireless Networks", TheFeature, 2001-05-07
Fleishman, Glenn, "The revolution may be wireless", Seattle Weekly, 2001-07-18
O'Shea, Dan, "Peace, Love & Wi-Fi", Telephony Online, 2002-05-18
Kharif, Olga, "Footing the Bill for Free Wi-Fi", BusinessWeek, 2002-09-17
Helm, Kristi, "Seattle's packed with Wi-Fi spots", The Seattle Times, 2005-02-18
  • Delete - just someone's point of view. I thought that was not allow as OR. GrapePie 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: only if the content is inherently an OR essay. There are significant numbers of newspaper articles, so I'd vote Keep and cleanup. --ColourBurst 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good handfull of regular editors, and some rather impressive cited references. It's just a pity that the official website makes a very poor impression. LinaMishima 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. TransUtopian's links are a good start. --Anirvan 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 09:17, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlliedBarton[edit]

Delete non notable companyand all the information comes from the company web site. Looks very much like a vanity puff piece Spartaz 08:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Please note, the debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. (from How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette at WP:AFD). --Wine Guy Talk 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - large company that has achieved some notability in its employee training (Just off to add the link to the article!). BlueValour 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - independent sourcing added. BlueValour 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I think this article has overcome its WP:V failings with the addtion of the sources and the link to the training award. This is high praise from a self-proclaimed deletionist.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep just for its workforce size. However, I would point out that claiming encyclopedic notability for coming 98th in an obscure ranking by an obscure magazine is ridiculous. Bwithh 01:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 98th out of 45,000 on a broadly quoted ranking seems pretty notable to me. Still YMMV! BlueValour 02:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's still uncited. I accept that independent sources may have been used but there's no evidence of that in the article. Re notability, I doubt if we'd keep an article on the 98th place finisher in a Marathon. Dlyons493 Talk 02:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trawling through Google and Google News turns up a few interesting web hits. This could be improved beyond a "puff piece" easily. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've changed my vote because the addition of some citations has corrected my main concern about WP:V. I also note some other things which could be added to the article, such as thier apparently strong anti-union stance. There seems to have been a fair amount of media coverage of this issue due to protests a few months back. --Wine Guy Talk 05:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. After review of this article, and the referenced possible place it's copied from, I find concurrence with what I adjudge consensus to be here. Those in favour of a merge can ask me to userify the contents to one of their userspace pages so they can carry out the merge, but as others point out there may not be much to merge in. --++Lar: t/c 12:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IKS Fek'lhr[edit]

This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a list of StarTrek ships this can be merged to? RJFJR 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What about here? Klingon starships Philip Stevens 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Mijares[edit]

Hardly notable if the group he used to belong to doesn't have an article and his album hasn't been published yet Spartaz 08:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; fails WP:BIO. JeffMurph 08:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, helps fight systemic bias against well-known Fillipino musicians [2]. Kappa 09:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence has been provided to show that this artists meets BIO. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 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 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negh'Var type[edit]

This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't there a list of StarTrek ships this can be merged to? RJFJR 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete "Memory-Alpha's license prohibits commerical reuse, which is specifically allowable under the GFDL. As such, the article remaining here would constitute copyright infringement." That was quoted from the speedy of Sword of Kahless. -Royalguard11Talk 01:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 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 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Munro Fox[edit]

Tagged nn-band but notability is asserted (says they recorded two albums). Just zis Guy you know? 08:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't assert any real notability in the article and does not appear to meet creteria in WP:MUSIC Spartaz 08:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - recording two albums isn't an assertion of notability if label information is not provided. Punkmorten 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the article fails to provide any verified sources of the nobility claimed (two albums). The band's web site is flashy, but does not provide any info on these two albums or make note of any label they recorded with.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable band. NawlinWiki 04:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --PresN 06:22, 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 redirected to OOS. DS 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamers thumb[edit]

A rose (or in fact RSI) by any other name... This is just a slang term for Repetitive Strain Injury, and is therefore a neologism. Ruaraidh-dobson 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to occupational overuse syndrome with housemaid's knee (prepatellar bursitis) and tennis elbow (lateral epicondylitis) as precedent for other things that are "a joint pain by any other name". Tonywalton  | Talk 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and rename to "Gamer's thumb". Tonywalton  | Talk 11:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as described above. Deb 11:52, 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 though, I think recreation should be allowed if it can be sourced and proved (through WP:V) that it is notable. However, consensus and the arguments of this article leans towards deletion. Yanksox 16:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Floating Men[edit]

Tagged and contested. Band still have "real jobs" - i.e. are not full-time musicians. Unlikely to pass WP:MUSIC and no evidence in the article of meeting it. Author acknolwedges difficulty of finding information. Just zis Guy you know? 09:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under A7 if there is no assertion of notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. May have a mild assertion of notability in the fact that they've been touring since 1990 and have released several albums, hence A7 wouldn't apply, but not notable enough to pass WP:MUSIC as is. Neil916 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Seem to have toured intensively across Midwest and Southeast US. Take a look at their allmusic bio [3]. --Joelmills 03:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while they have done some touring per their allmusic bio, I don't think it meets the criteria in WP:MUSIC of "national concert tour...reported in notable and verifiable sources".--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Scorpiondollprincess 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...insufficient musical notability to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, per WP:MUSIC alphaChimp laudare 15:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gay Cdn's application of WP:MUSIC. Joe 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Give time to find sources Not everyone is good at finding good sources, and often articles with regular editors and even some people who read the talk end up AFD'd without anyone poking them with a "find sources". If this group have been touring and playing for that long, there should be at least a few local paper mentions of them. LinaMishima 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. They have a significant Google presence and have bios on respectable music sites. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stud (band)[edit]

Never a very commercially successful band... just about sums it up!!! DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 09:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'll accept that the members were in a notable enough band at another time (and the fact that they all apparently played bass for this more notable band is unusual), but this particular group isn't notable. BigHaz 10:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe someone in Germany, who has this group's records and knows a good amount of English, would beg to differ! Captain Caveman 9:24 PM EDT 7/24/06

  • Keep Per WP:MUSIC - Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.. This band contains three members, so a redirect to any one of them would not be appropriate. Also, released two albums on BASF records [4]. Believe it or not, BASF actually had a division that was a record label. It also released albums by Jigsaw and Amon Düül. --Joelmills 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Joel. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Joel. I'm not particularly keen on WP:MUSIC's pronouncement as to the necessary notability of any group containing a musician notable in view of his membership in another notable group (believing that notability need not to be understood to entail in every such situation), but I do think there exists a consensus for such entailment. Even absent such provision, though, the band, in view of Joel's adductions, might well be notable in view of its own catalogue. Joe 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - That reason listed above could apply to all sorts of bands, so why have criteria to begin with. GrapePie 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Appears like this stub will never go beyond what should be a small entry in Family_(band). Better to merge in this case. LinaMishima 20:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Joel. The band was on a major record label... Or a record label owned by a major chemical company. Either way. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:56, 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 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris! Chris! Chris![edit]

tagged as nn-band but notability is asserted - in an unusual way: four of the band members reportedly appear at their gigs via live satellite feed. I have no idea what to make of this one! Just zis Guy you know? 09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As the one who placed the speedy tag, I am obviously in favor of deletion. Even if notability is asserted (which I am not completely certain about), it still fails WP:MUSIC. Indrian 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm also not convinced notability is asserted. -- Steel 23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Yunipo 09:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:19, 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 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sloan (radio)[edit]

Fails WP:BIO WP:NN local radio presenter DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 09:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:20, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former fat boys[edit]

A band whose studio is made of plastoic pipes and sleeping bags. Apparently they make references to Eminem; if it were the other way round that might be notable. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Winning something from SomethingAwful doesn't make one pass WP:MUSIC. When I saw the title, I thought this was going to be about guys who lost weight, so it was certainly a better article than I expected to read, at least. GassyGuy 10:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if we can find sources. --Liface 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sources for what? Even if everything on the page is verified, how would they be notable? -- Kicking222 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for completely failing to pass WP:MUSIC in any conceivable way. -- Kicking222 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, and reads like an ad. It could be rewritten to get rid of the ad qualities, but then what would be left? Originalbigj 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm trying to fix it. I corrected some of the information in it initially. I'm not sure who submitted it originally, but they screwed a lot of stuff up. I sent the band a MySpace message to see if I could get any additionaly information to add to the page. I think it definitely fits with WP:MUSIC's guidelines now. At the very least they are on AllMusic and have been on MTV.Mcchrisfan 26 July 2006
  • Keep I was the one who originally wrote it, the band's site was down and I had to do a lot of the article from memory. The infomation is verifiable, and the article is informative and about a real band with a decent sized fan base, I really don't see a reason to delete it.

Soilwork 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dog shit article about a dog shit group and I'm amazed by how long it took for AfD to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.62.139 (talk • contribs) . Let's keep it civil here, shall we? NawlinWiki 04:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough here for notability band. NawlinWiki 04:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ho Touchdown is no My Humps, and this is the first of the band I've ever heard of. Nate 04:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty less relevent bands with live articles on Wikipedia. It fits several caveats of WP:Music not limited to major radio play in both Chicago (the #3 market in the country), allmusic, MTV, and just a fairly large underground internet following. They're not quite mc chris but behind mc chris and mc frontalot, they're probably the next biggest thing in nerdcore. Just because a bunch of you haven't heard of them doesn't really make a vaild reason to delete. I've never heard of Shar Jackson and she's got a Wikipedia page that somehow fits WP:Music. mcchrisfan
    • The existence of "less relevant" articles isn't a reason to keep this article. It might be a reason to delete those articles, though. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Struck through "keep" as the user had already expressed their opinion above. -- Kicking222 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — FireFox (talk) 14:28, 31 July '06
  • Keep, it's better than a lot of articles, and even though I've never heard of them, they seem to have a large following. ONUnicorn 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, it still fails WP:MUSIC miserably. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if you are going to keep Stud(band) above, and it looks like you are going to, then you should keep this one too. GrapePie 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First off, that's not a reason for keeping an article. Second, and more importantly (?), this user is a suspected sockpuppet. -- Kicking222 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whilst I would have loved to have seen a newspaper reference, or indication that one should exist (eg, toured and well-known in local area), I did not. Shame. LinaMishima 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep. I searched on Limewire... No results. <800 Google hits. But: Were on MTV's "The Reality Show" and the album is hardly photoshoped... It's on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newkai (talk • contribs)
  • Keep There is a newspaper reference linked in the article in the external links section. A quick google this afternoon revealed the album is now available through Rhapsody and Emusic and according to the official site iTunes / Napster in mid-August. Torrent searches revealed links, though torrents were dead.mcchrisfan
    • Note: struck through again; see above. -- Kicking222 15:18, 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 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Navabi[edit]

A student. Also a rapper, apparently, though his music appears to be available excluisively by download from his site. Just zis Guy you know? 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although he may ultimately prove just on the right side of notable in relation to his music (which is in a style I'd never even heard of until I read the article). BigHaz 11:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! He's at least notable enough that I'd heard about him before I found this page (and so have a number of other hip-hop nerds from Georgia Tech). Also quite good; you should take a listen. -- Alex R. ( http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~alexr ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.27.161.253 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Faint keep. I see no harm in this, the artist holds minor notability within the nerdcore genre and has been featured in Wired magazine. Yamaguchi先生 23:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has now appeared in EE Times (http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=179101995), and the "genre" appears to be gaining at least enough noteriety to warrant a brief reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.240.243.170 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 July 2006
  • Keep. He's one of the bigger names in nerdcore and he's quite good. Beefy 8:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.252.111 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 28 July 2006
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the above are correct that he has been featured in articles in multiple magazines, that meets one of MUSIC's notability criteria. Though these should be mentioned in the article. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Allmusic page and no record label? A one-graf article mention on Wired, and a brief mention on a mystery meat news site? Not enough, sorry. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. --musicpvm 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's no MC Frontalot. Jacqui★ 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — FireFox (talk) 14:29, 31 July '06
  • Delete per nom alphaChimp laudare 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Passes WP:MUSIC (Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media). A story about Nerdcore rap in Wired (the bulk of which concerns him) and a front page and large story about him in a major IT magazine suggest he is very, very notable. (note: In no way should anyone interpret my defence of this article as support for the genre. I have a rep to maintain!) Drett 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - keep all bands per nom. GrapePie 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Wired and EE Times are both fairly good references. Perhaps merge into a list (always a good way to deal with stubs). LinaMishima 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Shrek05 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added some new material to the article. If people could have another look at it and perhaps reconsider their vote? Drett 02:27, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Legacy[edit]

Release date June 27, 2006. Substantial article with no sources - probable WP:OR. Weblink for developers, no article. No evidence of player base, innovation, external coverage etc. per WP:SOFTWARE Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, also appears to be a WP:VAIN article. --Porqin 12:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is still new and has content that needs refining. Infomation and screenshots were taken from the main website, or from what has been said by developers on the forum (the information is publically available for use), so no, its not original content, but I find acurate information from reliable resources much more important, don't you? As for player base (I think this means the ammount of players it gets), the game has many 1000's of players. According to the developer, it was recorded that the game got around 172 new account sign ups in less than 12 hours! As for Vainity issue, it is no different from any other games page I have seen. The title, screenshots, infomation about the game, links to fan sites etc.... Theres no text such as "greatest game", "best game", "you'll die if you dont play" etc. I've tried to keep it as neutral as possible. So my vote goes with "dont delete". If you want something changed, leave a note on the talk page, or do it yourself. --K776 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Thousands" of accounts is really not all that many. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to a dev on the forum, 172 or so new members signed up in a matter of hours. 172 (users per 12 hours) * 2 (2 lots of 12 in 24 :P) * 7 = 2400+ in only a week. Now those wont be the exact figures obviously because on/off peak signups, but it should give some idea that when I said thousands, I obviously understated. --K776 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That still isn't very much. World of Warcraft, for example, had around six million players in February 2006. The US release was in November 2004, so, assuming that players signed up at a constant rate, that comes out to roughly a hundred thousand new players per week. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thats not a good comparison. World of Warcraft is not shockwave based, and it's made by a big company with funding, not an individual in his/her spare time. World of Warcraft also had a prevous player base, from its 3 predecessors (Warcraft I, II, and III), starting with Warcraft in 1994 (12 years ago). World of Warcraft is also finished. Quantum Legacy is still in the pre-beta stages, but has been made public. --05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Point is, 172 users in a 12-hour period isn't all that many. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I said less than 12 hours. For all I know, it could have been in 5 hours or even 30 minutes. I just dont have time to change my timezone to that of the dev who posted the stats to find out what the time difference was. --K776 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This game - and this comment may be biased, note - is quite good, and still in the beta stages (I am a tester, myself). To delete this page would not accomplish anything, that I can tell, except to upset the programmers, testers, etc. There are 438 software companies listed on this site, and I recognize a few as being in on gaming (RealNetworks among them). I did not see any of the high-profile companies (such as THQ, but it is in the database of WP). To conclude: do not delete the QL page, as it is just as valid as the page for Descent: FreeSpace - The Great War, and other games.--Bigfootti 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable, in failure of WP:SOFTWARE, 100% advertisement... it's spam and little more. -- Kicking222 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then, change it so it suits the guidelines or tell people what to do to make sure it doesn't get deleted. --K776
      • The first question we have to consider is whether Quantum Legacy is a worthy subject for an article in Wikipedia at all. The criteria we use to determine that can be found at WP:SOFTWARE. If the game doesn't meet any of the criteria there, changing the article won't help. But if you think the game does meet at least one of the criteria at WP:SOFTWARE, then clearly indicate in the article how it meets those criteria, and cite reliable sources to help prove that. Then come back here and explain that you have edited the article and how the game satisfies WP:SOFTWARE. I will offer a neutral recommendation for now to encourage you to do that. --Metropolitan90 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to WP:SOFTWARE, QL comes under number 2. It is innovative and significant, being the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector. --K776 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is not spam it is just trying to get more people to join with the game theres nothing wrong with that another thing is there are other articles just like it here on wikipedia and you are not deleting them it doesnt seem fair or even make sense to delete this page because its trying to get people to try out this game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk8ter823 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This game is unique in that it is a full-version game that runs directly in your browser. I think that this fact satisfies part 2 of WP:SOFTWARE well enough. And I don't think that it can be called advertising because it was not written by anyone affiliated with Four Thirty One Interactive, it was written by a group of players of the game. As someone has already said, it is just as valid as the article about Descent: FreeSpace - The Great War. That is why I vote to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.27.115 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Looking at all the delete votes, they cite WP:VAIN, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:OR as reasons why this article should be deleted. I believe the reason QL is fine under Software has been stated clearly enough already, the article is not vain, as it has been written and edited by players of the game who weren't involved in the programming, design or promotion of it, and it is not original research, all statements made in the article are either clearly labelled as opinion/speculation or can be verified by four-thirty one. --Jabor 04:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question isn't whether the statements can be verified by the game publisher/developer, but whether the statements can be verified by independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Verify independently? 2 things: (One) Play it yourself, and offer judgement; (Two) recruit people from WP, and ask them to play and offer judgement. --Bigfootti 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I played the game myself, or other editors played the game themselves, that would still be original research. Furthermore, if the goal is to prove that the game is unique because it is a full-version game that runs directly in your browser, or because it's the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector, just playing the game would not prove that, since other games might meet those criteria too without my knowing it. On the other hand, if reviewers for, say, Computer Gaming World or PC Gamer confirmed those claims, that would be independent verification. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Metro90, it is hard to get a game from an up-and-coming company into the limelight for such a review. WP may be the best way to do so. :) --Bigfootti 16:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Metropolitan90, are you saying that if I got it listed somewhere in say NetGuide (a NZ (and I think Au also) publication, then the page could stay? Or does it need to be in a US magazine? --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • NetGuide looks like a legitimate reliable source at first glance, although I personally am not familiar enough with it to say so definitively, and of course other editors may disagree. But, in general, there is no requirement that a reliable source be from any particular country. --Metropolitan90 04:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Trouble is, even if NetGuide decided to publish it in their next issue, thats still two weeks away, and dont these types of debates only last 5 days? How would someone go about suspending the page (or archiving it) till its published? Cause a lot of work has been put into the article and deleting it would be a waste. --K776 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment: That is a False dilemma. Wikipedia admins can undelete articles at any time. Or alternatively (supposing the article can't be undeleted), you can take the content of the article,move it to a personal website, and improve upon it yourself. Or, if you really like the wiki format, create your own Quantum Legacy wiki --Mitaphane talk 18:40, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. Gets 3000 google hits. The game should be notable before being added to Wikipedia, not the other way around. (also, I'm not sure what to make of the WP page being used in other efforts to to get the word out [5], but whichever) --Interiot 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link on the digg to the wiki was for more information as its the only page at the moment that has lots of information on it without having to be searched for. So dont make a decision based on that :P --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Interiot. Don't try promoting non-notable things on Wikipedia in order to make them notable; it never works, even when they aren't found for a while, and deleting them takes up valuable time/energy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who said it was for promoting the game? The game already has more than enough players. And it is notable. As said above, "According to WP:SOFTWARE, QL comes under number 2. It is innovative and significant, being the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector." --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I seriously doubt this was the first multiplayer Shockwave game - I'm pretty sure RuneScape was there first. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, Zetawoof. Runescape is Java based. I am a programmer, and could give proof of RS's Java-ness, but I'd just be over people's heads.--Bigfootti 10:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read it again Zetawoof. I said "first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector". I know there are other shockwave mp games. --K776 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whatever. Point is, I don't think there's anything it's doing that hasn't been done before in some way, shape, or form. The mere combination of pre-existing concepts (like "multi-time" and "multi-sector", whatever those mean) doesn't really add up to something really "innovative and significant", particularly as there are no reliable sources confirming that this combination of features is indeed unique. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. It does seem to meet number 2 of SOFTWARE as K776 points out, but I'm not seeing any third party sources to that effect; it's pretty easy to simply claim to be innovative. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be some sockpuppetting going on here for the keep votes - K776 is a new user who created the page and exclusively edited this article, as is Bigfootti (8 edits, joined on the 26th), as well as 24.109.27.115 (3 edits, same day), Sk8ter823 (2 edits, same day) and Jabor (3 edits, including one on this page). --SevereTireDamage 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had mentioned on 2 QL forums that the wiki page was nominated for deletion (nothing wrong with that?) and that people could head on over and make their vote whether or not they wanted to keep or delete it and told them the decision is theirs so their decisions they make are in no way mine. --K776 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue, however, is that this is a discussion and not a vote. Just because there are 100 different accounts that say "Keep" does not guarantee the article will be kept. Mo0[talk] 05:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game isn't doing anything but trying to be known why would you delete it's page when the game hasn't even come out yet.TYRQ
  • Delete. Blatant advertisement for an ultimately non-notable (albeit rather shiny-looking) web game. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the open beta development path and browser / download approach seem worthy of mention. Ace of Risk 12:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The title is using a very unique system of content delivery and method of displaying that content. Its unique for that alone, as for the notability of the game outside this new system I am not sure. However seeing as they are the first to attempt, or at least publically acknowledge this method I feel its notable. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "system of content delivery" and "method of displaying that content" do you mean - Shockwave? That's hardly unique. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Delete (revoted, see comment below) - Wow, the sock puppetry. You really should have brought only one person in here to argue for keeping it, since you're all saying the same thing, and none of the arguments are grounded in wikipedia policy. QL does NOT pass point 2 of the software guidlines - read the last clause of that sentence and you'll understand. You and I do not qualify as reliable sources. Basically, wikipedia is not free advertising. You've stated that you're not trying to advertise, but then encourage people to try it out for themselves. That's blatant advertising. Wikipedia is here to report the findings of *other* peer-reviewed publications, that's why verifiability and no original research are so important. Advertise elsewhere and let someone else not affiliated with the game make the article AFTER it becomes famous (and yes, testers are affiliated).129.61.46.16 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
    • The edits address the Vanity and NPOV problems in the original version, which certainly helps and shows good faith on the creators' part. I still don't think it passes the verifiability and original research policies (which are two of the most important policies here), since no independent peer reviewed publications have been shown to cover the game to date. And that is not Wikipedia's job. The edits are making it into a useful article, one that would be acceptable if it becomes notable enough without wikipedia's help. 68.106.198.28 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
      • If I've read it correctly, original research means information that isn't reliable/doesn't have a reliable source, right? Well, everything on that page has been said by the developer of the game, Miles. How much more reliable can you get? --K776 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, not exactly. Let me give you an example - if Stephen Hawkings were to come to me and say that his theory on Hawking radiation was patent nonsense, then that would not be acceptable to be put on wikipedia, even if I could provide proof of the email. If the New York Times reported that he said it, it would be reported that "in 2006, Stephen Hawkings raised objections about..." on a wikinews article, and might get a mention on the Hawking radiation page in a controversy section. However, until he published his findings in a peer reviewed scientific publication, the article would retain the incorrect information, as it is the most verifiable. I realize that it's difficult to draw analogies between hard science and small online games, but similar standards apply. If the game developer has publicly stated the design intentions of the game in a press release (or equivalent), then it can be mentioned that they said that - but one man's personal opinion, no matter how intimately he knows his subject, is Original Research until it has been peer reviewed. Ok, this is getting long, but I hope that helped clarify the policy as I understand it. 68.106.198.28 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Comment - Even more wow as I try to edit the article to remove the worst of the advertising and to tag all of the things that might not be advertising if they can find sources to back them up...the article uses the word "you" in reference to you as a player so many times that I'm not going to bother trying to remove it. That's blatant and terribly bad encyclopedic style, and wonderful advertisement style. Rewrite the article with an emphasis on how independent publications have reported on the game, instead of why someone should sign up. Otherwise, it is an advertisement and has no place in an encyclopedia. 129.61.46.16 14:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
    • All references to "you" have been place with "a player". --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete i do not believe that this game is notable at this time, but that in the near future it will be. all those angry developers can request undeletion when their game meets WP:SOFTWARE. --Samael775 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This might become one of those great information sites about games...why would we want to delete it? -Qsik-
    • Comment Because, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it does become notable in the future, it can be recreated, but for now it's simply not. Wikipedia reports, but does not promote. And if it does eventually become notable enough, the article would *not* look anything like the current one, so there's not much point in saving the current version. 129.61.46.16 18:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Quantum Delete - Notability first, article second. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^ Pointless comment above. ^ I checked the 'under developement' category page, and there are a large number of games on there which have had little to no large-scale publicity. This article has just enough information to get a reader interested, and has a full web site to back it up. I looked up some other UD games, and found Galaxylife, whose release date is marked as 'soon'. QL, on the other hand, is in open beta, and is arguably full-featured, compared to some post-release games. The largest obstacle to the release of QL is thhe fact that some bugs still need ironing out, and somewhere around half the (SP) storyline is unpublished (to the testers).--Bigfootti 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Fails notability, unreleased, WP's not a crystal ball. Thank you, come again. I just like a little humour at times. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In the case of "under development" games, those articles are (or should be) nothing more than stubs, placeholders that give information in a press release (usually circulated in peer-reviewed publications) about expected release information. If the article is basically blanked and says that QL is an upcoming MMORPG with X release date, will be set in X world, and will run in the X environment, then that's all the article needs. The fact that other articles don't do that just means that other game developers are abusing wikipedia as well. The current article does nothing more than gush about how great it is and how you should sign up and play. Wikipedia covers a wide range of topics that a paper encyclopedia wouldn't because of space constraints, but it is still an encyclopedia, not free advertising space. 129.61.46.16 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
        • This discussion could go on until QL is oficially released, and we'd still not have a satisfactory solution. QL is a free and open beta, effectively released, and being upgraded and bug-checked regularly. As such, it coincides with both full-release and UD game headings.-Bigfootti 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Josh, if say 99% of the page was to be deleted out then, would that means the actual article could stay there until it is notable, then be reverted back to the revision atm? Or is that againsr wiki policy? --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - let it grow organically. GrapePie 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep three diferent editors and an article on a fairly bit stratergy gaming website count strongly in it's favour. Needs POV tagging and hence POV fixing urgently, however. Would perhaps be best merged into a list of garage/bedroom games. LinaMishima 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please clarify: POV? -Bigfootti 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point Of View. As in (follow the link) WP:NPOV. Vizjim 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • POV has been neutralised to some extent :D --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this WP:NPOV article. Vizjim 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 The Quantum Legacy article has been changed based on 129.61.46.16's feedback (regarding citations and facts)
 Please re-evaluate the article based on WP:VAIN, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV (not WP:SOFTWARE) and continue to offer comments on where it would be improved by editing the article or the talk page. Thanks, K776 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, unless good verifiable sources meeting WP:RS are cited that say that this game is important. Currently, no sources are cited at all, and all external links are to sites which fail to meet reliable source guidelines because they are to forums to which anyone can post or to a website whose content is controlled by Four Thirty One Interactive. Such sites could be acceptable sources of information on game content, but they are not reliable as an indication that the game is of any importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont suppose MoFunZone or StrategyInformer count as reliable sources? They are pretty common websites. Does it have to be published print articles? --K776 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither site has any significant information - all they're doing, as far as I can tell, is linking to the game. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The medium doesn't matter - it's perfectly acceptable to use online sources. Those particular websites, however, don't say anything notable about the game that could really be cited in a wikipedia article. 68.106.198.28 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
        • Actually, its verifying information (which everyone wants). Strategy Informer clearly says in its description "it will also feature a unique "multi-sector" style of game play", making that inovative and significant with a reliable source, right? It even says "This innovative breakthrough.....". What more do you need? --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What more do we need? A review that was written independently. That text was taken straight from the Quantum Legacy site. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, most sites and probably some publications wouldn't do any better. Theres not a lot of ways to say the same thing. --K776 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sure they would. All the major game review sites - Gamespot, for example - write their own reviews. Using the text from the product web page is on about the same level as would be using the back-cover text to "review" a book. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mofun zone appears to just be a generic game information page. Instinct says that the website listings are not limited to the notable. LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Strategy Informer entry contains a link to an interview with the developers which gives the game merit. However a single source is rarely enough LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Lina - the single reference to the interview helps (and the interview is an example of what should be cited in an article), not exactly enough, but it helps. JoshWook 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is rare of anyone voting on an Af to go check an AfD'd website's forum, find the "omg, AfD!" thread and make helpfull comments. This is, thankfully, one of my little hobbies. K776 is to be aclaimed for being unusually gracious in this debate. Posted that:
1) Article is likely to be deleted due to lack of notariety
2) Notariety should be easy to get to allow the restoration of K776's work
LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also worth noting that correct name should be "Quantum Legacy (game)", since there is a book by this name about Quantum physics. (seperate comment as is different point) LinaMishima 02:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll change it once I'm done editing then. :D --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable, fails WP:WEB --Peephole 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent, reliable sources used to provide any evidence of being notable in accordance with the proposed standards at WP:SOFTWARE or the standards at WP:WEB. GRBerry 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I updated the daily AFD page to reflect that this AFD discussion has been moved to a different page. The broken period was presumably less than 24 hours. GRBerry 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I missing something? The article, while it very much needs a ton of work, has the essentials for a CVG article. Lots of stuff should be moved around , citations are needed, as well as the "game under dev" tag, but it seems that it's a very valid article in and of itself. I must be missing something, big time. Keep Scytheml 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This debate is admittedly somewhat confusing at this point, and for good reason. Since the beginning of the AFD, the article has been edited heavily - most of the earlier discussion was about a version of the article that would indeed never be acceptable on Wikipedia. Since then, it's really turned into a debate over notability, which is more subjective. Just hope that clarifies. JoshWook 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well filled out article. Havok (T/C/c) 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I utterly reject the original research claim for games. The only way one can become familiar with a game is to play it. You read books, watch movies and play games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:48, 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 redirect to Soft systems, as the content is already there. Mangojuicetalk 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root definition[edit]

Tagged for speedy as "non-notable neologism" which os probably accurate but not a valid speedy criterion. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete By creating such a definition --Porqin 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend looking at Soft systems#Sources. That this concept has been recently coined does not imply that it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Uncle G 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Self-referential neologism. (Or, perhaps WP:NFT made up in a semantics class?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am adding more URLs to the article to try to indicate that this isn't just something that was made up by me! Wrightdn 11:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please fill in the missing fields. Also please note that citing sources from the outset usually avoids having one's articles nominated for deletion. Uncle G 13:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the cited sources, which are from multiple authors and which explain what a root definition is, it appears that this concept is verifiable and not original research. Keep. Uncle G 13:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Soft systems, as it is not much more than a dict def and only makes sense in that context. -- Koffieyahoo 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Soft systems. As noted above, it makes no sense to give it it's own article, whilst with soft systems it is almost important enough to warrant a catagory to itself. LinaMishima 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be happy to see this merged with SSM material since it is a component of that methodology. The only reason this was created as a new entry was because the SSM page does not expand on any of the methodology's components (e.g. system dynamics, rich pictures, root definitions, etc.). They are all assigned their own pages elsewhere (hence the creation of a new page). --Wrightdn 11:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McGuire[edit]

Userfied and reposted. A minor theatre actor, part of the current touring cast of Cats. Probably more notable than half the so-called slebrities on TV, and undoubtedly more talented, but still no assertion of meeting WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD-G4, recreation of deleted material. Understudies aren't notable no matter what musical it is, and he also played a very minor character that isn't even in some productions of CATS. Also, his TV credits are unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete by nom and Coredesat. -- Koffieyahoo 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails WP:BIO and if it truly is a recreation of deleted material, simply put the speedy tag on the article.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable yet. NawlinWiki 03:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and Coredesat. --Bigtop 04:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --PresN 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I don't understand the idea of merge votes to a non-existent article. It doesn't make any sense to rename David Keffen to List of fashion photographers. Keep votes seem not to argue for keeping this article. Mangojuicetalk 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Keffen[edit]

The page is essentially an ad for wedding photography service, does not meet the Wiki standards for biography, and should be userfied. SteveHopson 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom Doc 04:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe remove the article from the fashion photography article links rather than delete. David is known in the UK for wedding fashion photography as well as actual wedding photography.

Perhaps someone might consider starting a links section in the article about wedding photography for the best known of the world's wedding photographers such as: Bambi Cantrell, Yervant, Martin Schembri, David Anthony Williams, Geoff Ascough, Peter Prior, David Keffen, Jo Buissink etc, etc. User: mike_wax [[6]] 13.49 GMT

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not userfy. Userspace is not for advertising any more than article space is. User:Angr 20:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge List of fashion photographers sounds like a nice idea to me, however the lack of any notable references states delete clearly to me. LinaMishima 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He is known in the UK. Just remove the link from the list of fashion photographers in the Fashion photography article and leave in the list of photographers Photographers.User:Griss 00.50am (BST)
  • Comment While my vote stays Delete as placed in the original listing above, I don't understand the Merge votes at all. This is an article on a person, how do you merge that with anything? Doc ♬ talk 01:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation A person can be considered to be part of a group of people. In this case, photographers of various ilk. Hence you can merge a person's individual page into a list of people page. This allows less notable people to still be mentioned, but not to an unwarrented level (ie, having their own article). LinaMishima 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comment. Do not merge. Em-jay-es 05:48, 1 August 2006(UTC)
  • Keep. See comment by Griss and anonymous comment Re: David is known in UK. Although not as well known as Bailey and the like, he is relatively well known within the fashion photography business for his work in wedding fashion. I heard him interviewed by the BBC on radio around three years ago and he has featured in one or two documentaries over the last few years that I know of. I'm inclined to agree with Griss that maybe his name should be removed from the Fashion photography article, but left in the general list of well known and less well known Photographers. It would not, in my opinion, be suitable to userfy. This doesn't appear to have been written by the subject who refers to it with indifference in a recent entry within his blog. I might attempt to start an article along the lines suggested by Mike Wax. User: Robin James 11.34 5th August 2006 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Shagia. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shigia[edit]

This was proposed for deletion as unverifiable, I'm hoping someone will be able to find a source. Kappa 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have made some attempts to find these Shigia, but I have concluded it is a hoax, as all info found was clearly mirrored from Wikipedia; and Google Books Search didn't give more info. Consider also the creator of the article: in all his editing career he has made one single edit, this one, which is quite suspect.--Aldux 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite I think this refers to the "Shaigia" tribe around "Korti" in Sudan cf [7]. Transliteration of Arabic is a problem. Dlyons493 Talk 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as a redirect) I've turned it into a redirect to Shagia and merged the content. [8]. Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kirby series characters. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sirica (Kirby)[edit]

This is a character with a relatively small role on the Kirby anime- not enough to have her own page. She already has a description over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirby_series_characters#Sirica so this extra article isn't needed, and just has a lot of poorly written junk info (and unmarked spoilers!) Ivyna J. Spyder 04:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion: Although this is a character that appears rarely, I know that a few people like researching their favourite characters and I happen to be one of them. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.172.68 (talk • contribs)


- The article still isn't needed. The character is covered on the other page just fine, there is nothing important added on this one, most of it is just speculation and no actual facts. --Ivyna J. Spyder 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FICT is quite clear that minor characters should not be given their own articles unless they are extremely important. I know enough of Ivyna to trust her judgement on Kirby issues. If any useful detail in this article is missing from the description in Kirby series characters, merge it there, then redirect this (it's not a terribly likely search term, but it's plausible, and redirects are cheap). — Haeleth Talk 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lots of NPOV and OR problems. If you trim the article to remove the OR fluff, you're left with the rather nice description posted at Kirby series characters. - Wickning1 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:22, 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 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JCXP[edit]

Contested prod. Advertising for website with no indication of meeting WP:WEB. Delete. User:Angr 14:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB --Bschott 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:22, 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.

Please edit this page to ensure all information is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.21.230 (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeroITES[edit]

Company advertisement, might suit WP:CORP, but this text is unsalvagable.Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as blatant advertising copyvio of [9]. Would speedy as CSD:A8 if we had caught it earlier. --Alan Au 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:22, 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 01:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compute Area Network[edit]

Protologism; I believe this is not a well-established term. The google test reveals only 4 hits, plus this page on wikipedia. Adding external links to 2 of those 4 hits doesn't change anything. The WP:NEO page indicates that "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." -- Bovineone 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Bovineone 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a real term, but it's not widespread enough to warrant an article, and WP:NOT a vehicle for promoting term usage. Page can be recreated if term gains more traction. --Alan Au 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain (with possible rename?). As mentioned in the rejoiner on the discussion page, there are various similar phrases used to refer to the same concept such as Compute Resoure, Compute Layer, Compute Paradigm and Compute Pool. Put together these references total over 1,000 hits on Google. This article was an attempt to bring together what was essentially meant by each of these phrases under a single moniker. Would the Wikipedia community be more comfortable if the definition was renamed to e.g. Compute Resource (the most prevalent term in respect of Google hits) with cross-references to the related terms including Compute Area Network? --[email protected] 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. Took me a while to figure out that this is an extension of the SAN concept. -- Koffieyahoo 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not related to SAN at all, compute area networks are about the dynamic allocation of processing and volitile memory LinaMishima 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that grid computing? At least the references in the article seem to present it as an extension of the SAN concept. -- Koffieyahoo 01:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, you may well be right! Looks like what I'm thinking of is technically a subset of grid computing, yes. This article is covering what is basically yet another buzzword for the same thing, then. LinaMishima 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a better, more common term for this, but I can't remember what it is for the life of me :/ LinaMishima 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • original research as CAN defines term for a new paradigm in relation to virtual computing. Current grid models apportion compute cycles/resource elastically to a single problem / defined set of problems across multiple physical nodes and interconnected software resources. The CAN concept avoids the multiple physical execution environment scheduling required by such concepts by dynamically creating appropriately sized software execution environments (SEEs) (i.e. single OS instances in a statically defined environment) and moving virtual images (files) between differently sized virtual 'physical' environments. The limits of the solution are the maximum sizes of virtual machines used in the hardware 'pool' used to create the CAN. Until this neologism is endorsed by community/industry players, it must, by wikipedia rules, be excluded. --Boiledfrog 23:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a reason to disambiguate, but not to delete. Kfor 14:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename All of the above and in particular the last comment from TechTarget would seem to re-inforce my suggestion that the Term should be renamed to Compute Pool. To re-iterate my earlier comments whilst the phrase Compute Area Network in itself is a neologism/protologism, the concept it is trying to define is not. Under the aforementioned google test (apologies not sure of the syntax to allow AND Virtualization into the Google URL, Googlers will need to do this manually) searching for the Term Compute Resource and Virtualization returns many more hits than Compute Area Network, so again my comment to the Wiki community is would it be an acceptable option to rename as Compute Resource with the same definition?
  • Comment Concerned from Edinburgh. Virtualization with an S or Z (Z...sigh....) is not a "real" word so any real words, acronyms, abbreviations etc are preferred in a Google society which dilutes the English language. Edinburgh 11:43, 02 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BluWiki[edit]

Article is spam for a website, created by the webmaster himself.--Peephole 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB, also Alexa rank is just 333,178. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is sadly non-notable. However, I do not believe the purpose was spam. //Ae:æ 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, allow the article grow organically. --Yunipo 09:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete leaving aside the motives for its creation, there's no sign that this site passes WP:WEB in any shape or form. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely agree with Angus.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hmm, unpopular wiki-host which doesn't let you create your own wiki, has server problems, and in general appears to have no future? I'd say the last is a good description of the article's future... --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (organically). NawlinWiki 03:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --PresN 06:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it just isn't notable (but I don't know if it's really spam). Ruaraidh-dobson 08:44, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OnQ Hilton Technology[edit]

Pure vanispamcruftisement. Self-promotional advertisement for a corporate turnkey solution. Author Kmans06 (talk • contribs) removed speedy deletion request tag. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "OnQ Hilton Technology" piece is similar to HHonors and Hilton Hotels Corporation that is currently posted onto Wikipedia. The piece simply informs users what the term means, what it is, and references links to obtain additional information. Similar to the MicroSoft Office posting, the Starwood and its Preferred Guest program posting, the HHonors posting, or the Linux posting - all currently on Wikipedia, OnQ Hilton Technology informs users about a "product." Wikipedia is the quickest way to look up information on a subject. Like all other postings, the OnQ piece "serves up" brief information for users in a single, accessible location that is easy to use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmans06 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: As it says on the previously approved Wikipedia posting for Microsoft Office, "Microsoft Office is a suite of productivity programs created or purchased by Microsoft and developed for Microsoft Windows, and Apple Computer's Mac OS and Mac OS X operating systems." OnQ is the... proprietary technology platform, comprised of a suite of highly-integrated components ...business intelligence. Neither companies are advertising or doing Vanispamcruftisement, but are solely informing users of the program/components. External links are also listed to validate the information provided, as well as to provide users with links for additional research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.251.125.40 (talk • contribs) .
    • Reply: This article is currently an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article right now. "OnQ is revolutionary...helps sell rooms and services and build customer loyalty." Where's the neutral point of view or verifiability in this article? The WP:CORP guidelines also require that any product mentioned must be have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. So by all means, please cite some reliable sources that reference OnQ. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: To satisfy certain requiremnts, ...helps rooms and services and build customer loyalty" was removed. Additional references were added.
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an advertisement (the bold italics are a dead giveaway). Pburka 01:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with both nomination and also Pburka's comments.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may also be a copyvio; see www.scps.nyu.edu/docs/general/marketing/Hospitality2010.pdf --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - looks like an advertisement. --Bigtop 04:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Again, to satisy the board, the bold lettering was removed throughout the paragraph. The OnQ page is comparable to the wikipedia page for MicroSoft Office; both are a "suite of" components/technology/applications, etc. Independent references were provided as requested as well. Are there more suggestions? The OnQ information and definition is similar to the MicroSoft Office posting. Are there any suggestions, that may give indication how to draft the OnQ page so that it is acceptable to the board's standards and so that is similar to Microsoft's page, which has already been accepted (as a legit posting that has not been mentioned as an advertisment page).
  • Delete... my understanding after reading the article is that it's an in-house software product that the company uses. Most, if not all, companies have these. Does not seem to meet WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu t/c 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Would make a nice little entry within Hilton Hotels Corporation, but serves as an endless stub as a seperate article. LinaMishima 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per LinaMishima|. --Anirvan 00:23, 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 keep the disambiguation. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfraz[edit]

Defining the meaning of a name only. Wikipedia is not the phonebook of all names. Contested prod. Mangojuicetalk 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia lists some names, but not all. Just because some are listed doesn't necessarily mean that others need to be. BigHaz 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I am 22 years old and did not know the meaning of my name till i typed it in. Do not delete as this does not appear anywhere else online

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are plenty of baby name sites on the web already. Pburka 01:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in its present disambiguation form. Pburka 12:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Wholeheartedly agree with nomination.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate and I'll go do that now. ONUnicorn 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate obviously intended to be a disambiguation list. Most likely to hold middle eastern people, which is something wikipedia is classically lacking in. Something to be encouraged, I would say. LinaMishima 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in disambiguation form. Names are legitimate disambiguation pages. GRBerry 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Amidst all the sound and fury, the multitude of supporters of this site/company bring up some solid arguments that aren't refuted with regards to notability. Those arguing for deletion seem to be applying vague standards and merely asserting non-notability. The article isn't sourced, and WP:V is critical, but it seems WP:V could eventually be met, and no strong arguments have been presented to counter that. Mangojuicetalk 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of cinema[edit]

Contested prod. Article about a website with an Alexa rating over 750,000.[10] Only real claim to fame listed in the article is a collaboration with another website that has an Alexa rating over 500,000.[11] Delete unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article and to demonstrate compliance with WP:WEB. --Allen3 talk 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While that is an impressively sized list of links, when looking for reliable sources to build an article from it is necessary to locate sources that talk about the article subject instead of merely provide a mention of the subject. Source statements such as "Seminal site devoted to world cinema on DVD", "focuses on - but not limited to - the world's major directors", "A non-academic site with some excellent links, in particular to information about directors", or being listed among a group of favorite blogs do not typically provide the type of information needed to build an encyclopedic article. Do you have any sources that speak about Masters of Cinema instead of about the movies that the website/organization deals with? --Allen3 talk 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: However, the whole point is that MoC is not merely an "impressive sized list of links". Look in the top right hand corner of the MoC site. They have (in addition to their own cinephile DVD Series) four distinctive branch sites (painstakingly crafted over the last 8 years by the MoC creators themselves) all of which contain unique (i.e., not found anywhere else — where else can you find a decent photo of the reclusive Chris Marker?) content. The four sites are well-known to cinephiles world-wide: The MoC Tarkovsky Site, The MoC Bresson Site, The MoC Ozu Site, and the MoC Dreyer Site. These all have original content written by, among others, family and close friends of these four filmmakers, and they consistitute an invaluable resource to researchers (i.e., users of wikipedia). I think most of the drive-by shootings in this debate (does not apply to author Allen3) stem from a lack of (or a mere cursory) understanding of the whole MoC concept. The MoC Wikipedia page will obviously need to clarify things better, once it becomes a proper stub.--Stalker63 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. This is one of the most valuable sources for cinema on the web. It offers not only intelligent, thoughtful analysis of great directors (such as Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Ozu, and Bresson), but also is a invaluable source of DVD information. This site talks about discs from all around the globe, not just releases in North America. As cited before, Bright Lights Film Journal and the Chicago Reader have linked this website because of its very well researched information. I really don't understand why this website is scheduled for deletion. It's a real website that has been in existence for years, dedicated to those who take film/cinema seriously. I think that Wikipedia can save itself a lot of time by leaving this page alone, when there are much more egregious violations out there. I was at a comedy club recently, and a comic told a story about how he created his own page here (which, Wikipedia decided to delete). The Masters of Cinema website contributes a great deal to the world of film. If people really wish for things to delete, perhaps they should delete people like William Hung, the godawful American Idol contestant who has no artistic value whatsoever, and has made no contribution to society at all. Or delete Brian "Kato" Kaelin, O.J. Simpson's infamous houseguest, who aside from living at OJ's house at the time of OJ's murder trial, hasn't done anything worthwhile before, during, or after Simpson's trial for murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondbrilliance (talk • contribs)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. This site has, over the years, been an integral part of my own education in art cinema. The Masters of Cinema (MoC) section on Andrei Tarkovsky [12] is second to none and has been acknowledged in the foreword (or acknowledgment sections) of every recent scholarly work on Andrei Tarkovsky, just two examples being Robert Bird's excellent Andrei Rublev (British Film Institute, 2005 [13]), and Sean Martin's Andrei Tarkovsky (Pocket Essentials, 2006 [14]). Chicago Sun-Times resident film critic Roger Ebert (of Siskel & Ebert fame) has also provided fascinating input especially written for this MoC site (see their Topics' section). The Masters of Cinema main site as well as their "micro-sites" ("micro" being somewhat of a misnomer) on Ozu, Dreyer, Tarkovsky, and Bresson are prominently featured in the latest edition of the acclaimed Time Out Film Guide: They write: What The Criterion Collection is to DVD Publishing, Masters of Cinema is to online DVD coverage (this was written just before MoC got into DVD publishing as well). Check it out for yourself next time you're at your local bookstore [15]. Director Paul Schrader provided specially written input to the Masters of Cinema Bresson site (see their December 7, 2004 news update [16]). Director Martin Scorsese provided a specially written essay for the booklet of their recent Rossellini DVD (MoC #10 [17]). Jim O'Rourke (musician), now a filmmaker, wrote a long essay for MoC for their Matsumoto release (MoC #32 [18]). Alex Cox has provided MoC with purpose-taped video introductions to their Naked Island release (MoC #12 [19]). And the list goes on... I would go as far as saying that it would be a grave mistake to delete this page, as it is such an incredibly valuable resource to scholars, filmmakers, and fans alike. I have no idea whatsoever what an "Alexa rating" is, but I highly doubt she's a patron of the Fine Arts. --Stalker63 (Effete Film Snob) 20:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. A good website which would be great as a link resource for various film articles. But this is not an encyclopedically notable website (fails WP:WEB) that should get its own article. Also Wikipedia is not a free space for promoting websites Bwithh 01:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That the site may be considered encyclopaedically notable is borne out by the presence of the high profile names that go on record here (right hand column), the frequent references to/reproductions of e.g., this article (e.g., [here]). The MoC Tarkovsky bibliography [[20]] is arguably the largest in existence and is used as a standard reference by the authors referred to above (Martin, Bird) and others (such as Milos Frys in his latest tome www.tarkovskij.wz.cz and [Michael McCormick],...), as well as by film school students around the world (if we are to believe the readers' letters occasionally published on their site). The MoC Bresson site caught the attention of Gary Indiana, see his (I dare say) historically interesting letter [here]. Whatever its failings, there certainly is no lack of encyclopedic value, in my mind. MoC has turned into a bit of a "phenomenon" (l will resist comparisons to William Hung). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalker63 (talk • contribs)
    • Struck out the keep, as this is the second keep by Stalker63. -- Koffieyahoo 04:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete this page
  • Delete, as stated by Bwithh, no evidence has been provided to show how this site meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ironically enough, the alexa rating has gone down since its original nomination. It's now a whopping 886k, and clearly a failure of WP:WEB. alphaChimp laudare 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the WP:WEB should not be the only criterion for evaluation of this entry. MoC is not only a website but also a DVD label. If entries for other DVD labels are allowed to remain on Wikipedia (Kino International, Image Entertainment, Anchor Bay Entertainment, Blue Underground, Digiview Entertainment, Synapse Films, The Criterion Collection, and so forth), why not MoC?--Msbailey 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 16:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I'm not stopping you from bringing them to AfD. My guess is that they are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, but you're always welcome to express your dissenting opinion. alphaChimp laudare 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Question. Well, instead of arguing for the deletion of every other entry on a DVD label as well, how can I go about arguing for keeping this particular entry on the basis of MoC being "sufficiently notable to merit inclusion"?--Msbailey 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:CORP guidelines would be the appropriate thing to gauge a claim for inclusion as a DVD label, if that helps.--Isotope23 17:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — see MoC mention in the current issue of CinemaScope vol 27 (MoC mention in an earlier Vol. 24 was referred to above). Hardly a mere "price listing", nor a simple "media reprint of press releases." Fwiw. --Stalker63 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why anyone thinks Alexa ratings are relevant to this conversation. Surely there are better things you people could be doing than going around and trying to get every article under some arbitrary alexa rating deleted? I can understand that the original version of the MoC article was quite bad--mostly copied from their "About" page, but I can hardly see what the fuss is about at this point. Jun-Dai 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some people use Alexa rankings as a gauge of website notability or popularity. These are not however part of the core guidelines of WP:WEB, personally I don't put much stock in Alexa rankings, but this is a gathering of opinions and opinions will vary. All the fuss is about whether or not this entity, Masters of cinema, meets the accepted guidelines for inclusion here (WP:WEB and WP:CORP) or if they don't, what extinuating circumstances or compelling arguments exist that would make a strong case for why said guidelines should be ignored in this case. you may not agree with the guidelines Jun-Dai, but they are the guidelines that are in place here, so your energy would probably be best spent arguing how Masters of cinema meets one of those guidelines, or why we should not apply those guidelines to Masters of cinema. Hope that explains it a bit better.--Isotope23 19:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems to me that the citations listed above and below already qualify it under those criteria. At the very least, nobody has really tried to counter them. Given that everyone seems to be ignoring them, I wonder what the point in continuing further is? In any case, given that we have at least four distinct people supporting the article's continuing existence, what happens next? Do we delete it because we could fail to build a consensus for keeping it, or do we keep it because the delete-happy users in favor of deleting failed to drum up enough support against the article? I've never involved myself this much in the deletion process, so I'm curious to see where it goes. Jun-Dai 00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for sake of clarity, let me just state I'm not an administrator here or anything and I'm merely stating my own opinion. If you are refering to the list of links Msbailey provided, Allen3 basically answered why that does not meet WP:WEB. The first criteria of WP:WEB states "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." a link to a site, or including the site in a list of seminal sites does not meet WP:WEB. Stalker63 also provided some links, but these were largely either links to sections of the Masters of Cinema site, or were external links to articles where Masters of Cinema were mentioned in passing, but the articles were not about Masters of Cinema. There has also been a claim made that MoC meets WP:CORP, but again meeting WP:CORP requires "multiple non-trivial published works" and I only see one external cite provided that has non-trivial coverage of one of their products. Where this goes from here depends on the closing admin. This is not a numerical vote, so the closing admin has to decide if there is consensus to keep, delete, or no consensus either way (no consensus defaults to keep). Generally, newly registered users and those who render opinions from IPs without creating a user have their opinions weighed less unless they make an actual argument based on the accepted guidelines and policies at Wikipedia. Basically, the admin is looking for a consensus, though I've seen cases where numerically the consensus was split, but the result was either outright keep or delete because one side did not make a compelling argument. Usually the whole process takes roughly 5 days from nomination. Hope that clears it up. Also Jun-Dai, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Calling Wikipedia editors who disagree with your position "delete-happy users" doesn't really add much to the debate on the content and, speaking personally, doesn't really entice me to continue take the time to try and explain the process to those unfamiliar with it...--Isotope23 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delete-happy comment, and am retracting it. I'm just bewildered by the concern for deleting the article. Also, Allen's rebuttal was posted after my response, and is the first time that anyone even acknowledged the citations.  :-( Jun-Dai 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, fair enough. I know how frustrating it can be to see an article you started/worked on (or about a subject you feel strongly about) brought for deletion and people argue to have it removed. Beyond that, Wikipedia guidelines, and processes seem fairly obtuse and arcane if you are not familiar with them, which doesn't make it any easier.--Isotope23 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you, Isotope23, that does help. If one looks at MoC as a DVD label (not just as a website), one will see that they are, in fact, highly notable. Several of their DVDs have been featured as 'DVD of the Month' in Sight & Sound, the film magazine published by the British Film Institute. Their DVDs often show up as 'DVD of the Month' and in best-of-year polls on DVD Beaver (a website with a low Alexa rating and no Wikipedia page but which has been cited numerous times in the New York Times): http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/feature.htm. As noted above, filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese, Alex Cox, and Paul Schrader; scholars such as Tony Rayns, and Scott Eyman; and critics such as Kent Jones, Phillip Lopate, David Ehrenstein and Bill Krohn have all created exclusive content for MoC's DVD releases.--Msbailey 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The products seem very professional and notable. A great source of information on professionals in the cinema. GrapePie 19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No difference between this and the Criterion collection (which you're not considering deleting), so I see no reason to delete it.85.210.180.115 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology - I forgot in my haste to click the "sign it" button on my last entry, as I was responding directly to a response to my already signed entry. I was not aware that there is a limit of one "keep" per person. If "this is not a vote" (as stated in the box at the top), why was my "keep" overstricken, as if it was a vote? I believe, personally, that the discussion itself has established that there is no justifiable reason to delete the page from the encyclopaedia. There are many good, considered reasons brought forward for keeping it, and mostly (not exclusively) a few pat responses and glib formal comments brought against. --Stalker63 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, It's a courtesy consideration. This isn't a vote, but it is an exercise in consensus building and multiple keeps or deletes make it harder on the closing admin to sift through who is an original contributor to the discussion, especially in very long debates.--Isotope23 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Agreed with Stalker63. Looking at all the comments on this page, it strikes me how sad it is that the Wiki-ites cannot quickly see the worth of both the Masters of Cinema Series of DVDs and this entry at Wikipedia from the information provided. There are numerous worthwhile profile entries of similar DVD labels (Criterion, Kino, etc.) which by virtue of their presence condone the "Masters of Cinema" entry. Seeing as most of you have a lot of time on your hands, may I humbly suggest a read of this page. Peerpee 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, saying there are other DVD labels that justify inclusion of this one is a straw-man argument. Those DVD labels either meet WP:CORP criteria, or they too should be nominated for deletion. The presence of articles about similar items or entities does not condone inclusion of a specific item or entity. Each article has to stand on it's own, meet accepted policies, and be subject to accepted guidelines. The question isn't whether or not "Masters of Cinema" has "worth"; it is whether or not it meets WP:WEB or WP:CORP. There are tons of websites out there that to me personally (and a like-minded group of enthusiasts) have an immense amount of worth... but if I saw an article written about them on Wikipedia, I would sadly have to opine deletion becuase they cannot be proven to meet Wikipedia's accepted guidelines for having an article about the topic.--Isotope23 12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This entire debate is baffling by any standard. Why the Masters of Cinema site -- a storehouse of scholarly articles about the cinema, and more -- has to fight for retention of a Wikipedia page, while something like Ain't It Cool News seems to have been given the green-light for hysterical reportage in a "fanboy" key is crazy. Are we really voting for which Wikipedia entries get to stay on the basis of their "popularity" with a mass audience? Shocking and disgusting. --Evillights 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn website.--Peta 06:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to expound, Petaholmes? What does "nn website" mean? I've spent five minutes looking for what it might mean, and haven't found anything. Peerpee 08:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "nn" means "not notable". AndyJones 12:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously I can't speak for exactly what Peta meant in this particular instance, but some participants use "nn website" (non-notable website as AndyJones stated above) as an alternate term for "does not meet WP:WEB".--Isotope23 12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Allow me to transcribe the first few sentences in the opening paragraph of a featured review of MoC's recent release of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau's Faust in the new issue of Sight & Sound: "During the last two years, Masters of Cinema has established a reputation as one of the UK's most enlightened DVD labels, assembling an eclectic catalogue which mixes such classics as Metropolis and Kwaidan with lesser known works by Dreyer (Michael), Renoir (Toni), Kurosawa (Scandal, The Idiot) and Nicholas Ray. Like Criterion in the US, MoC handles each title with loving care, creating some remarkable extras (including lavishly produced sleeve notes) and, more importantly, ensuring that its transfers are as complete as possible." A cursory search in Lexis Nexis shows positive mentions of MoC's DVDs in The Daily Telegraph (London), The South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), Time Out (London), and The Liverpool Daily Post. If MoC does not meet the Wikipedia requirements for WP:WEB, it should by crystal clear by now that they more than meet the criteria for WP:CORP. But to keep harping on the importance of the website, here is the recommendation made by the American Library Association in their Choice magazine which highlights recommended books and Web sites for libraries: "Graphically attractive, informative, and user friendly, this invaluable Web site focuses on but is not limited to the work of major world directors. It is divided into numerous sections, the most significant of which are "The News Fountain," which runs down the left side of the main page and provides current news on directors and films (past and present), releases of historical and critically important DVDs, awards, and tributes. Down the center of the page is a month-by-month calendar of upcoming DVD releases of major films. The site's growing library of recent articles on international cinema is evident on the right side of the home page; there are links to articles and a list of more than 100 directors also included with links to at least a biographical essay and, at most, a Web site devoted to that director. This section also offers useful links to dealers in everything from DVDs and video to film posters; critical reviews; online writing support for budding screenwriters; and film publications. The particular appeal of this site is its commitment to world cinema-there is a good balance of international film and US movies, with overall emphasis on the achievements of the filmmakers and the films themselves. Summing Up: Essential. All film collections. August 2005."--Msbailey 16:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I WOULD vote with my feet to keep this site. It is non-commercial in nature, maintained by the devotees of the Art known as Cinema and thus belongs to the general treasure of knowledge, rightfully here in wikipedia. I personally have seen entries in this encyclopedia with infinitely less content and shallow essence, so why the heck not a professional site (one of its kind) entirely devoted to the true masters of Cinema? IMO it would be a big loss to Wikipedia if you delete this article. Please consider keeping it. Thank u in advance.Eenspaaier 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki 24[edit]

No notability except for a passing mention in a New York times article. Wiki has only 1,209 pages. Google search delivered about 25000 results. Peephole 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki 24 is one of the bigest and most active of the Wikia wikis. It is also the single largest database on 24 (TV series) around. I think that alone gives it credit to stay as an article. --Dan136 18:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other, even larger wikis don't have an article or had their article removed as well. --Peephole 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:25, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herakles (software)[edit]

WP:NN software/game - I get very few (maybe 3 or 4, that I can see) ghits DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 15:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per no,.--Peta 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Yunipo 05:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit (Talk | Email) 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Um... a computer program which lets you play a game of Reversi/Othello is not very special... there must be hundreds of versions of reversi/othello programs, as it is quite simple to program. The very first othello computer program might be worthy of an encyclopedia article. This is not. Bwithh 01:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom DrunkenSmurf 01:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and Bwithh.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bwithh Dlyons493 Talk 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Just another random computer program. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, nn. --PresN 06:27, 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. Mangojuicetalk 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count Your Blessings (Reginald Morgan song)[edit]

Fails to meet the 'Music: Notability' guidelines. Also, contains so little informatio that it is of no practical use. Adam Slack 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral No, it's not as popular as Berlin's "Count Your Blessings (Instead of Sheep)" but it has gotten a few recordings of it waxed over the years. It would need to be renamed were it kept, though I'm not sure to what. Anyone attempting to research the tune will have better luck under the songwriter's real name, Richard Morgan. GassyGuy 11:45, 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. Punkmorten 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of the danat[edit]

Companion to deleted article on this alleged story's alleged author; article on author was deleted after afd, but for some reason this one wasn't. NawlinWiki 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. This definitely looks like a hoax to me. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, likely WP:HOAX. Please note that a hoax article does not fall into any of the speedy deletion criteria, though ones like these make a strong case for their inclusion there... --Kinu t/c 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IAR! :) --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enter Shikari[edit]

A band whoch has wisely chosen to publish its own music instead of signing with a record label, thus saving al the tedious business of meeting WP:MUSIC. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No dont delete it, Enter Shikari are one of the most popular unsigned bands in the Uk, and they rule all. WIKI RULES TOO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.246.16 (talk • contribs)

This page deserves to stay up as it'll save the hassle of creating a new one when they hit the bigger time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.58.233.129 (talk • contribs)

It smacks of shameless self-promotion to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.217.235 (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good enough for me.--Isotope23 22:37, 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. Rje 01:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOOKSELLER+PUBLISHER magazine[edit]

NN Corp; most google hits do not seem to be articles about the company itself Valrith 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It seems like a NN trade magazine. SliceNYC 03:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:26, 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 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emco-tec_inc[edit]

Article created by user Emco-tec inc (only edit since then) regarding a very small avionics industry. It is not wikified and stubbish. Cantalamessa 21:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find any external references to this (news references), so it appears to be non-notable, but I may be proved wrong. They have a nice web site though (http://www.emco-tec.com/). —Mets501 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any indication of news coverage for the company, and they don't seem big enough to meet any other parts of WP:CORP. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above Spearhead 21:37, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Suhay[edit]

no sources and no real indication of notability Spartaz 14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep her first book Tell me a story seems to be notable and widely reviewed. The CNN review is quoted on its Amazon page under the Editorial Reviews section. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be WP:VAIN Creator of article is User:Fableauthor which seems to be Lisa herself. I've asked for clarification on her talk page, but have no response. The only substantive subsequent edit was wikification. I think much of this should be userfied, but I do think an article about Lisa Suhay is valid (notable and verifiable), but it should be written by someone else. Brian 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Changed delete to keep as I just received confirmation from Lisa Suhay that it is not autobiography. Another person posted the article from Lisa's account (which is why it appeared to me to be autobiograph). I agree it is notable and verifiable - my only concern was the possible autobiography. Thanks. Brian 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete - there is an encyclopaedic article in here trying to get out. However, WP is full of articles kept in the vain hope that they will get cleaned up and we don't need another. Delete, and someone can start again if they wish. BlueValour 20:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks pretty good to me, and the CNN thing clinches it for me (assuming it can be substantiated; I've slapped a {{fact}} on that assertion). --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, here's the review [24], she also might be the same Lisa Suhay involved in a bizarre NYT situation: [25]. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, might be a WP:AUTO violation (and might not be for that matter), but she meets WP:BIO and editing can deal with any WP:VAIN wording, etc.--Isotope23 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I confirmed that it's not autobiography and changed my opinion (see above) at this time there's no reason to delete - this article should be kept in my opinion 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)btball
  • Keep - fix and cleanup. GrapePie 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Badlydrawnjeff and link to CNN transcript, this subject passes WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 09:07, 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. Since the relisting, the consensus has been keep. The nominator is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet (for abuses of the AfD process). alphaChimp laudare 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alycia Lane[edit]

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

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember the Dr. Phil piece which was nationally broadcasted and local notability is well established. Agne 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, nominator was a since-blocked sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. See [26]. Kirjtc2 11:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Agne. AgentPeppermint 15:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. HomeTOWNboy 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major-market TV personality; known to millions. -- Mwalcoff 01:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Pickard[edit]

Non-notable: ("george pickard" atomiks -wikipedia) returns 182 Ghits. Unverifiable: ("george pickard" crash delano -wikipedia) returns 8 unique Ghits. CheNuevara 17:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. But interesting to find out that George Pickard is the pen name of George Pickard. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought so too. Kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? - CheNuevara 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Buckman[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Coredesat (at least I didn't have to mention A7...oh..damn) Yomangani 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Coredesat and per nom. --Bigtop 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy - Maybe hit itmboverload@ 07:19, 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 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Gandolfo[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and going by the page history, the original writer is likewise a sockpuppet? I'm not sure I understand what's going on here. Tychocat 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article does not assert notability to WP:BIO standards, much less back it up with citations to independent reliable sources. GRBerry 22:06, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatos's Memento[edit]

Independent film made by a company whose page was speedied last night, was intended to be shown as part of a festival, according to the page, but has no distribution outside DVDs and the Internet. (Note the comments from the article creator on the talk page.) Prod removed. Author has been notified. Delete Tony Fox (speak) 18:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't quite understand the reason for deletion of either the company page or the Film page, the purpose of both the Company's page (since we discovered it was added here) and the Film page was to allow for people to get information about our company. Being that we are a smaller company, not exactly fortune 500 stuff, our company has always followed a loose, internet based distribution system. This film in question, Thanatos's Memento, is our first major project that we believe deserved some attention before we released it to the internet. As such, the wikipedia page was added, on top of our blog having mention of the movie not being able to make it into the festival, but was being considered to be re-shot and later distributed. We are not trying to sell or push a product. The intention is to assist those who want information on our latest endevours yet cannot get access to our web page (as it is currently under heavy re-design, and being moved from our host as it seems to have a problem with us.

Quite simply, I vote Keep, although without the company page in existance I guess it'd be hard for people to find THIS page. Somehow, you all have. Zombi3 01:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on the talk page of this article, the company page likely failed the guidelines for inclusion of companies in the eyes of the deleting administrator. (This was the same criteria I used in the original proposal for deletion, just before it was speedied.) To be considered notable, this film would require verifiable sources - discussion of it in major publications, generally. With not even being released yet, and with that release planned for Internet only, it is quite likely not notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. If you have verifiable sources that can be added to prove notability, please do so, and they will be considered by editors viewing this nomination. Tony Fox (speak) 02:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but this film is non-notable. No reviews, no awards, no distributor. While the criteria for notability in film are not set in stone, in the past a film has to at least seen some screens (multiple film festivals, etc) to even be considered for notability. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Aguerriero. Very persuasive. Ifnord 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N-sider[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. 39 distinct Google hits (some of it not pertaining to the site). No mention except for similar community sites. ColourBurst 21:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Epochkun, very good research you put into it, things I missed on my own that almost called for a delete vote. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as explained above. GrapePie 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Annual E3 DVD featured on other similar community sites; site referenced on Nintendo.com surveys (As noted above by user Epochkun), as well as collaboration with Nintendo of America on contests and online tournaments referring to new DS WiFi releases (See: Mario Kart DS Tournament). VectorBoy 15:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the entry is of far more quality than many others I've seen. Take at look at Wikipedia entry Nintendo.com for example. 2 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Gardner (broadcaster)[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 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 preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Malpass[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 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 preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bloomquist[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 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 preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Jennings[edit]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ace Crusader[edit]

This article is being considered for deletion because of lack of information.

At least add much more info to the article if you don't want it deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clay4president (talk • contribs) .

  • Neutral I am too unfamiliar with the subject matter to evaluate without more research. The only reason I'm commenting at all is to post the Ace Crusader's profile at this blog/fansight since I already did that legwork.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the comment above mine (and added after mine) is directed at me, I think you misread; if it isn't, I'm invoking the Emily Litella clause.--Fuhghettaboutit
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable wrestler, never wrestled for a major organization. DrunkenSmurf 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above, not a notable wrestler. Oddly enough there is a Michael Phillips that wrote a review about the movie Nacho Libre that generate more google hits with "Michael Phillips" and "wrestler" --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:03, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life Alert[edit]

advertising pure and simple and doesn't appear notable Spartaz 14:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It appaears that the product has been mentioned in papers for it's services for emergency situations[28]. Also, the president of the company, has appeared to have won an award from Ernst & Young's Entrepreneur Of The Year[29], I'm not entirely sure of that award's notability, so I'll just place what I found here. Yanksox 15:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertisement. Fails WP:CORP. Not notable. Ismusee 15:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:CORP. (The last link for consumer complaints about the company suggests that advertisement is no longer correct, even if grounds for deletion.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why not have article on these devices in general, since there are many companes that make them. Mattisse 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can write an article about this, but will Wikipedia allow me to just simply list top 5-10 companies that offer the product?
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to above: I would recommend leaving the 'I've fallen and I can't get up' article where it is. It was created years ago as an example of a catch phrase, and the fact that one of these sorts of companies popularized the phrase was completely secondary to who said it, when, and examples of its use. I could certainly see 'Emergency response bracelets' being a 'See also' on that page, though. Skybunny 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added this article to Category:Companies of the United States. There is strong precedent for the inclusion of articles about notable companies, and as this company is the most-well known manufacturer of these devices I believe the article is keepworthy. ONUnicorn 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. if this were a real attempt at being encyclopedic, it'd be a generalized article about the devices in general. The one mention of consumer complaints (as an external link) doesn't come nearly to any sort of level of fairness or openness about the topic. Being "best known" (though this is as yet an undocumented claim) doesn't matter in terms of the article being pure advertisement. It's all about one company and its services. Tychocat 10:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but expand Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 13:34, 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. Wickethewok 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Messages[edit]

Non-notable company; fails WP:CORP. MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - I remember hearing about this awhile ago, it did generate some news and it's a unique concept I think. I'll monitor to see if you post more informationmboverload@ 08:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As nicely as possible, I'd encourage "I've heard of this" to be a weak delete rational per the verification policy. More to the point, if I closed this debate I'd blip right over someone who opined keep in this manner, and most admins would do the same. - brenneman {L} 08:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? --mboverload@ 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Explicit verfiability trumps vague recollection, I believe he's saying. --Calton | Talk 01:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also advertisement. Unable to find any non-trivial third-party articles to meet WP:CORP. A lot of Google hits for "celebrity messages" but these seem largely by competitors listing their own wares, and people giving shout-outs to their fans. If mboverload can document alleged news coverage, I'd be willing to change my nomination. Tychocat 10:38, 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. --Ezeu 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Deathmount[edit]

Unreleased software, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE, and the only source on this is an unofficial website with an alexa ranking of 1,000,000+, which is not a reliable source.

Note that there are 20+ other wikipedia articles in the category Cancelled_Virtual_Boy_games which I will likely bundle together and nominate for deletion in a group if we have consensus that this should be deleted Xyzzyplugh 14:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - clearly not worth keeping Spartaz 14:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I haven't nominated the others at this point, it occurs to me that we might just combine all of these into one "cancelled virtual boy games" article, many of them are basically one line articles. Something to consider. --Xyzzyplugh 14:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into an article on cancelled VB games per the suggestion above. Irrelevant side note: according to the article the game would have cost the yen equivalent of about $70 US. No wonder the Virtual Boy flopped! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, cancelled game software for a system that was a flop, not notable. (There's a category for this???! Delete all with extreme prejudice!) --Wine Guy Talk 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; article fails to assert its notability, and it's extremely unlikely any new information will become available that will change this. Being listed in List of Virtual Boy games is sufficient. -/- Warren 06:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into the suggested article. SNS 06:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the result of this is to merge this article into something, it could go here: List_of_Virtual_Boy_games#Cancelled_games --Xyzzyplugh 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone thinks we should have a list of this kind of game, go write it. I'm not going to suggest that some poor admin be forced to do it. Mangojuicetalk 00:00, 11 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 01:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancies.org[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 146,685. Jacek Kendysz 00:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-Already has reference (or link rather) on the Dave Matthews Band page. I don't see this aricle moving beyond this stub. Also the claim of being the longest running fansite is incorrect as the DMB page shows. Agne 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, failing WP:WEB. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words for sounds[edit]

This article is quite... interesting. It doesn't really provide any encyclopedic value and it is clearly original research. I was contemplating a redirect / merge into onomatopœia, but the article isn't exactly about onomatopœia. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I think this falls under the apple pie clause of WP:OR (for example you wouldn't say 'the crash of steam' and 'the hiss of steam' is easily verifiable). Because of that I'm not sure how useful it is to an english speaker, but I can't see any immediate failures of policy.Yomangani 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the information per Yomangani, but maybe a new title is needed using a more technical term for this type of word. SliceNYC 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for non-native speakers as a point of reference, but may need a different category of classification. Mabuse 01:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this belongs in a dictionary. -- Koffieyahoo 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMASH! BOOM! BANG! WHIZZ! KEEP! BoojiBoy 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep C56C 07:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or consider reworking and merging into List_of_Onomatopoeias. Sort of. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly lacking in encyclopedic relevance. User:Angr 20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - breaches WP:OR - unsourced it can be nothing other than OR. BlueValour 04:22, 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. Note that neither keep recommendation makes a valid argument, policy should be referred to. Rje 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Cave[edit]

Minor location, not much encylopaediac value. Fancruft. GSR 00:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. I remember this location fondly, but it isn't even important enough to have a spot in the template. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its probably interesting for those interested in Pokemon. C56C 07:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge: Wikipedia is not a game guide. There have been a lot of recent Pokemon-related non-notable location articles. Cerulean City, for example, is notable. If there isn't enough encyclopedic information about a topic for it to ever progress beyond a stub, it should not have its own article. Dark Shikari 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as gamecruft; WP:NOT a game guide. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - half the articles on Wikipedia are game guides. Why exclude this one? GrapePie 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gamecruft. And if half the articles on Wikipedia are game guides, delete them too. User:Angr 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per User:Angr. Tychocat 10:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tychocat. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Dale Cearley[edit]

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

  • Delete. Playing darts in Asia isn't notable. C56C 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should we delete his organization, Libertarians Abroad? It brings less than 150 hits from Yahoo. C56C 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've gone ahead and prodded it. Molerat 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a dart to the triple-20. NawlinWiki 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable vanity publishing. And using David Icke as a source doesn't help. Dlyons493 Talk 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Kafziel 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (CSD G1) by User:Yanksox ([30]). --james(talk) 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaCrew[edit]

This article contains no real information about the topic. Green caterpillar 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Green caterpillar 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elf fetish[edit]

I have no doubt that this is a real phenomenon, but is this really a relevant topic? I mean, you can turn just about anything into a fetish, and that process is relevant (we already have an article about that, too), but surely the idea of having an article for every single thing someone has a sexual fixation on is counterproductive? Are we going to have a separate articles for hobbit fetishes? Ent fetishes? Highly specific food fetishes, like porridge fetishes? I mean, yeah, I exaggerate, but not that much. I just don't see any point in this. (Also, article cites no references and is probably original research, but that's kinda beside the point.) Captain Disdain 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. (if you are going after them all you have your work cut out, Capt. : Sexual_fetishism#Other varieties of fetishism). Yomangani 01:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm not sure I have a problem with most of the ones on the list (though a couple of them strike me as a little too specific). I'd say that most of them are widespread and significant enough to deserve articles of their own -- things like BDSM, smoking fetishism and the like are obviously well-established areas of fetishism. I got no problem with that. This one is just way too specific, though. -- Captain Disdain 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a fetish. Fetishes are sexual attraction towards objects, not people/characters. Also no sources, and no evidence of notability. Mdwh 01:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that this matters at all, but, well, uh, sure it is a fetish. How's that "graceful elfish person with pointy ears turns me on" thing different, in principle, from the "person with perfect feet turns me on" thing? -- Captain Disdain 07:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete C56C 07:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mdwh. Original editor should have got themselves a dictionary - the article title is meaningless. There's also no evidence provided that it's a particularly widespread phenomenon. Seb Patrick 10:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Molerat 12:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per me hiding evidence my fetish exists. Seriously though articles on every fetish is a bit overboard, I think the magnitude of this fetish would haev to be demonstrated as some fetishes are widely held and written about such as foot fetishes. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let me get back to writing my Gimli/Treebeard slash fiction. — Smerdis of Tlön 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR, neologism. HGB 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This is the eleventh wikipedian to vote delete. WP:OR, too short for an article, and wtf, elf fetishes? lol Monkey Brain(untalk) 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (despite my personal admiration for Liv Tyler, mm' mm' good). Original research, no sources cited. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see how this could be expanded beyond dictdef, regrettably. (even when elves are hot. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would have kept if it had pictures, but it's just text. At least I would kept the pictures on my hard drive. Anomo 12:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Roy A.A. 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Pelayo j.r[edit]

  • Delete as a non-notable child actor. Prod tag removed previously by author. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no sources to verify this 'actor' even exists. Article really needs to be sourced and some additional info added. Personally I think it is a hoax but I'd be happy to be proven incorrect. DrunkenSmurf 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Generally, children this young are not used as voices in animation, so it is suspicious. Fan-1967 02:44, 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 as protologism. DS 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SDIMBY[edit]

A pretty clear neologism. I get absolutely no relevant Google hits. Prod was removed and phrase defended on the talk page. David Schaich Talk/Cont 01:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO, notwithstanding the usual neologism defense (It's a great term if only people would use it). Fan-1967 01:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term SDIMBY is a valid term and has been in use, although for a relatively short time. "Smart Growth" and "Smart Development" are two terms easily found through Google. Those that encourage these approaches to development are known as SDIMBYs. The application of the acronym is usually associated not with the urban planners but rather with the communities and the grassroots activists that are seeking a balance between the interests of the community and the interests of the developers.

The term SDIMBY has been in use in Los Angeles for well over a year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.248.77 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO. Full disclosure: I'm the one who added the {{prod}}. SWAdair 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SDIMBY is a needed term to help define the subtle but significant approaches made to development. There are nany terms like Yimby and NIABY that only recently appeared . SDIMBY is only the latest and shows a distinct difference between the others listed. There are other writers willing to expnd on this term, but only if it is not considered for deletion.Thanks for your diligent consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.248.77 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Mike Dillon 06:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GassyGuy 11:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've dealt with development issues in large and small cities, covered discussions about smart development, and never heard this used. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and because the reasons proffered for keeping it raise issues under WP:V and WP:OR. Doctor Whom 21:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palpable Computing[edit]

Neoligism. All google hits on this term are related to the PalCom project in which context the term was coined. I could not find any independent sources that allow for the verification of the use of this term. -- Koffieyahoo 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unbearable essay-ish goobledegook. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Almost patent nonsense? Molerat 12:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty darn close to patent nonsense. It's a collection of indecipherable jargon. At the least it's a neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above... it's pretty incoherent, so if someone wants to take it upon themselves to speedy this as patent nonsense, don't expect me to cry. --Kinu t/c 20:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tagged as such. Molerat 16:18, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Kerala Varma college, Thrissur[edit]

Nominating this article as unsuitable for the english version of wikipedia. I think this is a school in India, although it's hard to verify that seeing as I could find no homepage for the school. Delete. Stubbleboy 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it being a directory entry, see WP:NOT. -- Koffieyahoo 02:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability or uniqueness. Yanksox 02:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rewrite sounds cool. Yanksox 11:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite It's a postgraduate degree-granting institution [31] in Kerala - that's intrinsically notable. Obviously needs a rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't object to a rewrite. Yanksox 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite of course. This would be a Liberal Arts College in the US, or a University College in some other places. It is certainly Higher Education up to P/G level so it should be here. I have started the rewrite. --Bduke 06:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- it's suitable for the English Wiki- it's written in English, isn't it? This isn't the "American" Wiki after all. --PresN 06:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Institution of tertiary education. Piccadilly 14:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep we have tons of articles about indian univerities. there is no consensus for standards of notability concerning schools, so they are generally kept. --Samael775 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like we are looking at a keep consensus. Does anyone object to me moving the article to Sree Kerala Varma College from Sree Kerala Varma college, Thrissur?? Thanks! Stubbleboy 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: This article has been moved from Sree Kerala Varma college, Thrissur to Sree Kerala Varma college
Stubbleboy 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly a notable college but could do with a rewrite. Tintin (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Universities and similar tertiary educational institutions are notable. Yamaguchi先生 09:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Indeed a notable college. It was established by the erstwhile King of Kochi. The article could certainly use a rewrite, though. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK12:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a article about a university erasing would make no sense at all Yuckfoo 23:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a collge, not a university. Tintin (talk) 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of some common Hindustani words[edit]

Instead of leaping immediately to delete, I had proposed merging this article with Hindi (see the discussion about why and the results at theHindi talk page). The consensus of was that this article ought not to be merged into the Hindi article. That brings me to this nomination. This article, Origin of some common Hindustani words, is indiscriminate as it provides no basis for what words are to be included on the list and which are not. There is no similar article for any other language that I could find (other than a few pages about words English has borrowed from other languages). They might be out there, but I did not see any. There is also no article on Most common words in Hindustani for this article to support. Anything in this article is more than adequately covered in the history and vocabulary sections of the main Hindi article without any need to refer to this article. I am also concerned about this article being original research. Finally, I am wondering about proper copyright authorization because of the odd line in the article, "The derivations below are based on posts by Yashwant Malaiya, and are given here by his consent". No verification of this is provided anywhere. Agent 86 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary. -- Koffieyahoo 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is very useful and is in the process of expansion. It is also the Main Article for the Vocabulary Sections of the Hindustani, Hindi, and Urdu pages. Before reading this article, I had never knew the information provided here. I would highly recommend keeping this article. Thank you very much all. AbdulQadir 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is properly referenced to Dr. Yashwant Malaiya, Professor at Colorado State University,Fort Collins, CO, USA. as well as other sources (see the References section). He is also a Wikipedia editor. (see his userpage: User:Malaiya. I am also working on expanding this article and adding new information to it. This is a very helpful article. Please keep it. Thank you in advance. --Zulfikkur 06:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What Agent 86 forgot to mention was that the reason most people did not accept the merge is because they felt that it would be a good standalone article and main article for the Vocabulary section on the Hindi page. (Please see Talk:Hindi) Three out of four individuals on the talk page wanted to keep the article as a sepate page! I think this should be acknowledged. The article is also well referenced and well written. Topics covered in Origin of some common Hindustani words are not covered in history. These articles deal with totally different things. This article is also the main article for the vocabulary sections of three pages: Hindi, Hindustani, and Urdu. Also, this article is being worked on currently by myslef and other Wikipedians. I would very much appreciate if you kept this worthy article. Patel24 07:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but wants a better title. An entire Hindustani etymological dictionary, or even a fairly representative subset of such a dictionary, probably is beyond the scope of the project, and unhelpful to users on the English encyclopedia. But move this to Sources of the Hindustani lexicon or some similar name, and it probably wouldn't be here. Smerdis of Tlön 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles that give insight into different languarges are extremely important. Think of all the English crud on Wikipedia. Interest in other languages should be encouraged, as should the people who write them. GrapePie 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to various individual entries on Wiktionary and delete. Wikipedia is not the place for this information; Wiktionary is. User:Angr 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very valuable article. It should be kept becaus it is the main page for the Vocabulary sections of Hindustani, Urdu, and Hindi. Also Agent 86 did not mention that Professor Yashwant Malaiya (the individual whom the article is referenced to) himslef is the author of the article (see [32])He used his other professional Hindi collegiate level sites as his source for the article. I took a look at the article and it was very lucid and interesting. I am going to help by developing this article even more so. It would be a shame if this article was deleted. Please keep this article. Khuda Hafiz. Jdas07 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please re-read my nomination discussion. I did in fact note that the article claimed material was "based on posts by Yashwant Malaiya"; however, there was (and still is) no notice on the article's talk page that copyright authorization had been granted or that "Yashwant Malaiya" and Malaiya are one and the same (nor is there any indication on Malaiya's user/talk page. Of course, that means there still may be an issue with original research, but that's besides the point. ;-) Agent 86 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sat Sri Akal. It seems like the wide consensus here is to keep the article. I, myself, looked over the article and feel that it is a good and worthy one. I also agree with the other opinions of those who wish to preserve the article. In the near future, I also hope to add to the article. Dhanyavaad Singhman
  • Keep The article is well worth keeping. Yeah. 70.104.119.81 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename. The title is nonspecific, and should be an article on the evolution of Hindi words with some used as examples. The exmamples shouldn't define the article's name. So rename it Hindi-Urdu word etymology and discuss the relevant factors there with some examples and references. - Taxman Talk 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That's a practical solution I could support. Agent 86 21:31, 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 merge to iTunes Music Store. Keep in mind, deleting a page when the content has been merged elsewhere is problematic with respect to the GFDL. Mangojuicetalk 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-order status[edit]

Delete. Non-notable minor feature of the iTunes Music Store. Sorry but nothing worth merging. AlistairMcMillan 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Waaayyy too trivial for an article, probably doesn't even bear mentioning in the Itunes article. --Hetar 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: This article has the potential to become a more stable article than what it is today only if people contribute to it.--Toosmart215 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Toosmart above. C56C 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge what there is into the iTunes article (per the suggestion on the article page itself), but no prejudice whatsoever against recreation of this article if the feature generates controversy or anything by itself. Currently, all we've got is a slightly confusing description of what the term means (which might make more sense to an iTunes user, not sure) and a truckload of external links, which doesn't look like the recipe for an article. BigHaz 11:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. --Yamla 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Expand This article should either be deleted and replaced by an article, if one does not exist, about the general idea of preorder status, or expanded beyond its current scope to include the concept of preorder status. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most definetly with the main iTunes article. It's notible enough IMO, but only within the context of iTunes itself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (After seeing the comment below, I agree, into iTunes Music Store ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge, but not into iTunes, but iTunes Music Store. Merging with the former will unbalance that article, but not with the music store article. hateless 18:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; content can go to iTMS. All the album images are fair-use violations as well, and either need to be removed or amended with detailed fair-use rationales. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this article with the iTunes Music Store. This is a feature of the iTMS, and there's no reason for it to be in a separate article. --ShadowHalo 03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this feature can be mentioned briefly in the iTunes Music Store article; it is not a notable or encyclopedic topic by itself. - David Oberst 14:36, 10 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. It should be noted that being on IMDB is not proof of notability in the least. Wickethewok 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelors Cottage[edit]

Apparently a short film, written/directed by a Harvard student, starring Harvard students, filmed at Harvard, screened at Harvard. Looks like a typical student film, not notable. Fan-1967 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is listed on IMDB, but take a look at the director's credentials. Stubbleboy 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable student film. NawlinWiki 03:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a place to promote every single non-notable student project. --Kinu t/c 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Short films are rare and this one sounds like a jewel. Online, it screens in NYC at Anthology Films. Sounds noteable to me. Jdlow 08:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Note: First edit from new user.[reply]
  • Comment No, short student films are not rare in the slightest. There are tons of them. Fan-1967 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read this advertised in NY. Smartly produced student films are welcome with me. Wasn't THX 1138 a student film once? If it's on IMDB, it should be here. NYcine 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Note: Third edit from new user.[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable student film. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It- Queer Cinema by queer filmmakers is very rare, and this is a gem of a movie with very high-quality production design, acting and directing. This is not "just another" student movie.-Darla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.120.226 (talk • contribs) Note: First edit from new user.

  • Delete per nom. Regarding the notability issue, I get 12 distinct Google hits for "bachelor cottage" +movie, seven of which are IMDB pages, and a couple of blog mentions and showtimes. I'm not seeing multiple non-trivial third-party articles about the movie. While I don't believe Google should be the final arbiter of notability, at this level I think the point is symptomatic. Tychocat 11:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Back again for keeps. I choose to give it the benefit of the doubt. The Google and IMDB links are strong reason in favor of noteability. Why? I'm hearing a little bias in this discussion persuading the editors and possible admins from student films in general (and from Harvard in the nom), so I'm going to be bold, as Wiki asked when I joined up, and suggest we consider merit and not number of hits. Has anyone seen the film? Hasty deletes can be symptomatic as well. Jdlow 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Has anyone seen the film?" That's exactly the point: practically nobody has. The movie has no distribution, which, barring an Oscar nomination or some other claim to fame, makes it inherently non-notable. Tens of thousands of student films are made, shown to other students and maybe an indy festival or two, and then are forgotten. (BTW: Multiple comments are welcome, but Keeps or Deletes are one per person.) Fan-1967 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't think IMBD requires notability, as long as it's a movie. We don't need to mirror all of their content. -Sanbeg 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no claim made in the article that the film is notable in any way. Something should be encyclopedic before an article is written. -- DS1953 talk 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I saw the film. After my 7/31 keep and being an active NY film buff, I wanted to see for myself what this discussion was about. Yeah, doesn't sound like the short film is too well known. But I'm here to report that the film is pretty notable. Yesterday's screening was a small but excellent sample of new filmmaking. Very impressive and probably doesn't need a self-referential claim of notability to be what it is. Glad its on IMDB. Once again, for those who haven't seen it but enjoy an ever-evolving encyclopedia: KEEP. NYcine 6:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Note: Multiple recommendation from this user struck out per WP:AFD.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - it was in English in the first place, what are you talking about?. DS 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biswajit[edit]

I tagged this afd and then found him under another name on IMDB. I could be wrong but I thought this was the english version of wikipedia, but I'll let the consensus decide. Delete Stubbleboy 02:06, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Galante DeRienzo[edit]

Just a random person. Can't see how it would pass any kind of notability test. SubSeven 02:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sturno should be bundled here. -Sanbeg 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comnent This article was already deleted by AFD process (check history of this AFD) but author immediately re-created the page. What should be done in this case? SubSeven 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't deleted through AFD process. It was userfied and deleted by Wiki alf then this debate was closed by a non-admin. A db-repost wasn't appropriate, so I decided to let this discussion run its course. Punkmorten 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, article text is non-verifiable. Yamaguchi先生 09:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, NN bio by a relative. -Sanbeg 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - somewhat interesting but no sources, no indication of notability and the author keeps removing the AfD tag. Mark Grant 17:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have fixed Sturno up some, as it is a real Italian town of ancient history going back to 800 BC. So I urge you not to bundle Sturno in with the article named above. Mattisse 18:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I removed the notable emigrant section, since that isn't notable, and the afd tag. The rest (the new content) looks in line with similar articles currently.-Sanbeg 22:35, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wolsey[edit]

Barely has enough notability to survive a speedy deletion, but the subject of this article is definately a violation of WP:BIO. --Hetar 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonnotable podcaster/conspiracy theorist. NawlinWiki 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he seems to be an important figure in the 9/11 conspiracy movement with his connection to 911truth.org - a site cited as a major source for the 9/11 conspiracy theory article. He also represents a leader in local conspirracy movements. --chemica 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hetar, please explain how "the subject of this article is definately a violation of WP:BIO". I would like to know exactly what you consider a "violation". Thank you. Visibility911 12:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional, possible vanity; fails WP:BIO Tom Harrison Talk 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment see also Visibility 9-11 Podcast. Tom Harrison Talk 13:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject does not meet criteria for inclusion laid out at the WP:BIO guidelines.--Isotope23 14:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO. Alternatively userfy to Visibility911, who is (at least in part) obviously the subject. --Kinu t/c 17:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your attention to this article and for taking it to AfD for further discussion.

Quoting from the WP:BIO, "The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted". However, I do believe Michael does fall into at least two of these categories and if there is a dispute about this, I ask that the following be considered along with the previous statement from the WP:BIO.

Michael has "...made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [his] specific field". Despite the fact that mainstream media will not cover alternative views on 9-11, its remarkable that he has gotten so much recognition, especially in Colorado. Two cover stories have been written in local, highly visible, alternative newspapers (The Rocky Mountain Bullhorn and the Boulder Weekly) as a result of Michael's work. One featured Michael and although he was not quoted in the second one, he was interviewed and appeared in the photograph that accompanied the cover story.

Michael is also well known for his radio appearences both locally in Colorado and nationally. He has made numerous appearances on several radio stations in Colorado and guest hosted many times for the program Words of Freedom with George Flynn.

Michael was recognized nationally when he was asked to serve on the board of directors with 911truth.org, which as noted previously, is a major component in the 9-11 truth movement.

Michael's work is also featured prominently on 9-11 related websites with great regularity.

I believe, as others do, that Michael has indeed made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [his] specific field".

For the reasons stated above, I also believe that Michael is also a "Person[s] achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Certainly, the events of September 11th are newsworthy and it is obvious that Michael has been recognized for his work.

By the way, yes, I do know Michael and I am the one who saw your huge section on 9-11 conspiracy theories. I think Michael should be included in the section with all the other Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. If this is being viewed as a vanity article, please help me to re-write it or give me suggestions so that it conforms with the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Visibility911 00:14, 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 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Berry[edit]

Speedy delete for non-notable bio contested by article creator. Listing in AFD. — ERcheck (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: around 16 years old, no significant notability or significant syndication. --Hetar 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as one of the people who tagged it for speedy). Teenage musician with a myspace page. Per the talk page, he has recorded a CD, which is not the same thing as releasing a CD. Fan-1967 02:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non-notable for bio. (WP:BIO) — ERcheck (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and retagged; fails to assert musical notability. NawlinWiki 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elliott Berry has released a CD, which was sold on an indie record label throughout Tucson, Arizona. He has been featured in the Arizona Star. Both these instances make him notable -- he is recognizable to a large community. -- Cat Shelter, 7/31
  • Comment Please review the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Has he "released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"? Has he "been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media"? All claims for Wikipedia articles must be Verifiable from Reliable Sources. What is the indie label that released this CD? Even the smallest indie label has a webpage somewhere. How did he manage to release an album, "Ghost at the Disco", which is not mentioned anywhere on the web (totally fails Google and Yahoo search)? Fan-1967 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Elliott Berry has been written about in both The Tucson Weekly, and The Arizona Star, both of which should be available online. -- Cat Shelter
  • Then find the article links, so that people can judge whether they constitute "multiple non-trivial published works". Others won't find them for you. Fan-1967 13:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ideal AFD participant, a status which I aspire towards on average about once a day, will attempt that research. They may or may not succeed even when the results are out there. GRBerry 22:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing shows up in a google search combining the name with either paper. Fan-1967 01:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They mave have been deleted, as that was about two years ago. Do you want me to send you paper copies?!? Geez. -- Cat Shelter
  • Comment If there's been no coverage in the last two years, that's not a good sign. Fan-1967 13:45, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JT Tinney[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, speeded once, recreated but still not notable - so here we are. Rklawton 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as speedy as consensus can be gained. BoojiBoy 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Wikipedia had an article on every model ever, it would be ridiculous. Competing in a talent search does not make one notable. --Natalie 04:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 05:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --PresN 06:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete loves spending time with her family & friends and Is engaged To Mike we shouldn't be intruding on her happy home life. Dlyons493 Talk 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Ruaraidh-dobson 12:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps vote tampering is the wrong terminology since AFD is intended to be a discussion and not a vote, but please be aware that someone has been changing "Delete" into "Do not delete". [33] Yamaguchi先生 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Magmafire2374 (User:Magmafire2374)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As it is, there aren't any claims of notability. Wickethewok 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Reeley[edit]

NN author; 211 ghits; article is one copyvio (http://www.reeley.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Andy.htm) taken from author's homepage, due to lack of other info (thus failing WP:V) -Seidenstud 02:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment meets CSD A8, so tagged.--Andeh 09:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't, because:
      1. Not all versions consist of copyright violation;
      2. The poster may well be Andy Reeley himself; and
      3. It is debatable whether the website is a commercial provider. - Mike Rosoft 10:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-traditional publishing with low-cost self-publishing imprint, Exposure Publishing. Dlyons493 Talk 12:55, 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 redirect to Team America: World Police, per discussion below. alphaChimp laudare 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derka[edit]

Delete. Doubtful that this term has entered the lexicon of the English language... even if it has, not encyclopedically notable, deserves no more than a footnote in Team America: World Police. bd2412 T 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO. SWAdair 03:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as per Melchoir's suggestion, below. SWAdair 04:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictdef, WP:NEO Urban Dictionary says "Stereotypical Arabic word used in lieu of actual Arabic dialogue in "Team America: World Police." Has no actual meaning in Arabic." --John Nagle 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a preventative redirect to Team America: World Police, which does mention the word? Melchoir 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, that works for me as well. bd2412 T 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Team America. Agne 04:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect --PresN 06:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Team America per above. Dark Shikari 12:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect However its popularity is growing as my recent exposure seems to show, its also identifiable by anyone who seent he movie. However I fear what would happen to wikipedia if every term got an article or silly movie saying. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Team America per above. Patbaseball2221 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Melchior - good suggestion. Ziggurat 01:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Melchior -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:31, 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. I recomment someone use {{mergeto}} to start a debate about merging, since the target of any merge seems unclear. Mangojuicetalk 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional republic[edit]

This article was originally a POV fork created by the now-blocked User:RJII. Subsequently, efforts have been made to remove the POV, but it is still a fork. All the content covered by constitutional republic is also present in the main republic article, and the definition of a constitutional republic is identical to the definition of a liberal democracy. I have repeatedly attempted to change the article into a redirect, but I have been reverted every time with no arguments given. Since there are actually only two other articles in the main namespace that link to constitutional republic, [34] a redirect isn't really necessary. Delete for being a content fork. Nikodemos 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a previous AfD vote that ended with the deletion of the article, but I suspect the content is different this time around. -- Nikodemos 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is. Markedly. The previously deleted article was written in the first person. Uncle G 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what can be merged back into representative democracy. Now, if this were an article about some form of republic bound by a constitution but whose representatives were not democratically elected, that'd be something else. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Republic. (A representative democracy won't necessarily be a constitutional democracy, it may be a constitutional monarchy). Regardless of how many articles link here, I'd guess it would be a valid search term [35]. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to point out that there isn't much to merge - the information is already there in the other articles. -- Nikodemos 09:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge. C56C 07:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth asking what a non-constitutional republic is. Uncle G 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wondering that myself... (by the way, what is your vote?) -- Nikodemos 09:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There appear to be plenty of sources on the subject of constitutional republics, several of which appear to make a distinction between that and a plain republic (and indeed to distinguish amongst other kinds of republics, too), and at least one of which is adamant that a constitutional republic and a representative democracy are two different things. Uncle G 11:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course. I never said the topic of the article was not notable; I'm putting it up for deletion because it's a content fork. The various types of republics and interpretations thereof are already discussed in the republic article. -- Nikodemos 14:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't delete articles on subjects where there are copious sources discussing the subject. Nor do we delete duplicate articles. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, especially the section on problems that do not require deletion. Then read Wikipedia:Content forking#What_content.2FPOV_forking_is_not, which states quite clearly that duplicate articles and sub-articles are not content forks. Moreover, I just pointed to sources that say that it isn't just the same topic by another name. That editors have edited it into a duplicate of an article on a different topic is a byproduct of their not working from sources. Always cite and use sources. Uncle G 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • While all your sources use the term "constitutional republic", none of them explains the difference between a constitutional republic and a plain republic. They seem more interested in differentiating a democracy from a republic.
        • Furthermore, I challenge your assertion that the article can ever be expanded in any meaningful way. The only thing that can really be said about a constitutional republic is that it is a republic governed according to a constitution. Then the article would have to launch into a discussion of what "republic" means, which would make it a content fork of republic. If you believe that it is possible to write even a stub about constitutional republics without duplicating material from the republic article, I invite you to do it yourself as a demonstration. -- Nikodemos 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Variant phrases, such as "constitutional republic" or "republican democracy", do not necessarily imply the need for separate articles. You mention Wikipedia:Content forking#What_content.2FPOV_forking_is_not, but that specifically goes on to say the duplicate articles, while not POV forks, are to be merged. And this article is not a proper "main/subarticle" setup (see my Delete comment below). - David Oberst 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as POV fork after checking for content present here and not present at republic, and preserve any information accrued during its sojourn under separate editors. I too was wondering what a non-constitutional republic might look like. Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless the Constitution Society, the U.S. Constitution Online, the National Center for Constitutional Studies (all three of whose various articles on constitutional republics I hyperlinked to above), the CIA, the FBI, and Abraham Lincoln are all "POV warriors", the concept of a constitutional republic is not a POV fork of the concept of a republic. The way to fix this article is to cite and to work from sources, not to delete it. Uncle G 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The CIA and the FBI classify countries as various kinds of republics, but neither of them explains what a "constitutional republic" actually means. Lincoln used the term "constitutional republic", but, again, did not explain how it differs from a simple "republic". Your links prove that the term "constitutional republic" is in use. They do not prove that it is used differently than "republic". -- Nikodemos 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G! GrapePie 20:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creation of banned (not blocked) user. User:RJII was banned as a group account; so any content created by that account should be considered vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And deletion is not the sole way to remedy vandalism, per Wikipedia:Vandalism. The way to fix this article is to cite and to work from sources. Reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug, the problems relevant here are lack of cited sources and overemphasis of minority viewpoints. The notion of a constitutional republic is far from being a minority viewpoint, given that one can find reams of mainstream sources (only a very few of which I hyperlinked to above) explaining what one is, employing the concept, and explaining that it is not the same as a plain republic. The article didn't cite sources from the start, and so editors worked from memory and inference from the existing text and came up with a clone of another, different, concept. The solution to that is to insist upon sources. There are 12 sources hyperlinked to above, using which any non-neutral or unverifiable content in the article can be addressed. Uncle G 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, the only difference between a constitutional republic and a plain "republic" is that a constitutional republic uses a constitution. How is it possible to write an entire article to explain that? -- Nikodemos 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination.Ultramarine 10:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nikodemos is wrong to say that it is the identical definition to a liberal democracy. The United Kingdom is a liberal democracy but it is not a republic. It is a monarchy. A democratic monarchy or constitutional monarchy. BillyBoom 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand There is a substantial difference between a republic and a democracy. And yes, this extends to their sub-groups - there is a difference between a "liberal democracy" and any kind of "republic". This article should be expanded to be on par with Constitutional monarchy another "split" from liberal democracy. Further, I do not see any sources in either article supporting the AfD's contention that they are the same thing.
An example of a difference would be noted early on in the liberal democracy article - liberal democracies are pluralistic and consider rights to be "created" by the government. Constitutional republics (and this isn't in its article yet only b/c it hasn't been expanded properly) avoid pluralism - the tyranny of the majority - and consider rights to be inherent to the person, regardless of what the law may say. --Tim4christ17 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would seem to be in disagreement with a number of existing Wikipedia articles. Liberal democracy itself says "There is general agreement that the states of the European Union, Japan, the United States, Canada... are liberal democracies". The Freedom House survey methodology states "all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies", and my assumption is that political science textbooks would generally classify the United States (and other potential "constitutional republics") as liberal democracies. Therefore I can't see how this article could successfully be expanded in the direction you suggest. - David Oberst 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while Nikodemos may not be fully correct that this is fully equivalent to "liberal democracy", certainly it would appear to be subset of it. In any case, the point would seem to be that a "constitutional republic" whatever it might be, is certainly a subset of "republic", and needs to be covered there in the first instance. Currently it isn't, which lends credence to the "fork" or "duplicate article" arguments. If that coverage at some point justifies breaking it out in "main article/sub article" format, it can be done then, but right now that certainly isn't the case. I've made further points in response to the "Uncle G" and "Tim4christ17" comments above. Finally, I note the problematic republican democracy article, which covers similar ground.- David Oberst 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Later Update: I further note the constitutional democracy article, which again covers similar territory. These all seem to be attempts to exclusively define variant (or overlapping) ground. Constitutional democracy would seem to be inclusive of constitutional republic and republican democracy. I now believe the best thing would be to upgrade constitutional democracy, making the other two terms redirects. It would link from and refer to liberal democracy (and republic) as necessary. If the three terms are preferentially used in various cases for rhetorical or ideological effect, then this information can be included. Note that constitutional democracy currently has flaws of its own, which include contrasting (and implicitly opposing) to Parliamentary democracy in the intro, yet including countries (Germany, Greece, etc.) from that article its own list, but this can be fixed. Since there appears to be little or no content in constitutional republic that can't be derived from liberal democracy or republic this is still effectively a Delete vote, but if necessary the closing admin can consider it "Merge and Redirect to constitutional democracy. - David Oberst 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - I don't see a constitution listed as a characteristic of a republic, therefore not every republic is a constitutional republic. Its the same distintion as liberal democracy and representative democracy being subtypes of democracy. Constitutional republics are a subtype of republic (which appear to come in non-constitutional and constitutional flavors as listed in the republic article). This article delves into some details on constitution and why its used as an addition to the 'standard' republic in order limit government power.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Net.kook[edit]

Non-notable neologism and a dictionary definition. Belongs on urban dictionary. FSRdomo 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's not a neologism with mention dating at least April 1994 with Usenet net.kook of the month votes [1] The topic is just as encyclopedic as Internet Trolls but it does need clean up, substantially. Agne 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article quotes the very same FAQ as this article does. (The article originally misquoted the FAQ.) If you want to argue that this concept is worthy of an article, please cite multiple sources that are not simple mirrors of the same single source. Uncle G 10:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. I grant that it is not a neologism but in order to be more than a dictdef, the question needs to be answered: what is a "net.kook" besides just a kook on the net? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Redirect to alt.usenet.kooks per Uncle G. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't yet found anything apart from the alt.usenet.kooks FAQ document that even defines what a net.kook is. Given that this concept only has verifiable meaning in the context of AUK, a redirect seems to be the most appropriate solution. Uncle G 10:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dict def. -- Koffieyahoo 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ NYU Press Electronic Title: NET.WARS by Wendy Grossman; ch11; pg04
  • Delete not technically a neologism, but a dicdef of a term used (almost) exclusively in one usenet group. Most of the article is direct cut-and-paste from the AUK FAQ, and I doubt it could ever really be expanded. Possibly some of it could be merged into Crank (person), otherwise delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 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 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infosecpedia[edit]

Does not meet WP:WEB. Does not come close. Does not have an Alexa ranking, so not in top 100,000. Google indicates only 3 sites even link to it, and one of those is this wikipedia entry. It deserves a footnote at best. Being a wiki does not procure notability. FSRdomo 03:14, 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. SynergeticMaggot 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual UFO Network[edit]

Not notable, just UFO conspiracy people. I believe the article is vanity. FSRdomo 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Based on 75,000 GHits, apparently a notable UFO conspiracy group. Fan-1967 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep very notable UFO group (albeit a little kooky). They were even featured on X-files. Season 3 episode 9 "Nisei" Agne 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)while it[reply]
  • Keep. Quite possibly the most prominent group in the field of UFOlogy, which, however it may frustrate the skeptical, is still a significant cultural element. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it is notable with people who have interest in non-reality. Keep and debunk. C56C 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to be condescending. I don't buy into the UFO-conspiracy stuff myself, but I still find it fun and interesting to read about it. Zagalejo 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - evidently has some claim to be notable. Metamagician3000 11:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Appears to be among the most notable of the UFO conspiracy groups. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very well-known group - 246,000 Google hits for MUFON, which is the more familiar name for the organization. (225,000 for "MUFON + UFOs") Zagalejo 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-known. Whatever happened to APRO and NICAP, by the way? Ah, we have articles on them... now I know. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have little time for UFO fans, but MUFON is very well established amongst them. Mark Grant 02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Yamaguchi先生 09:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is a valid historical group which is part of the UFO culture, and hence, is part of our culture in general. If someone sees a reference to MUFON elsewhere, and wants to look it up to find out what it is, then they should be able to come here and do so. Papaverite 17:32, 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 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Buscaglia: The Game Attorney[edit]

Not a notable lawyer, no remarkable cases to his name. Licensed to practice up to the Supreme Court, but has not practiced there. Seems to be written as an advertisement/promotional, including resume material. Deco 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not an A7, because there is some attempt to claim notability, but it's still a resume that fails WP:BIO (per nom.) alphaChimp laudare 15:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let attornies pay for their own advertising. GrapePie 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. -- DS1953 talk 02:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete - He is a very active and noteable person in the proffesional electronic interactive entertainment industry as far as advising, public speaking and commercial contributions. Thomas Buscaglia speaks at all major video game conventions. This definitely needs to be re-edited more objectively. -- phantumm talk 09:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made changes - -- phantumm talk 09:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant advertisement. ... discospinster talk 01:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Daniel[edit]

Vanity page--musician with no ablums, no influence. Whosasking 03:22, 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Dorms --Durin 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Miguel Court[edit]

Delete. Other pages focusing on dorms at La Salle University have repeatedly been listed as non-notable and have been deleted. This article should be no different. Pacdude 03:30, 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 02:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zazu Networks[edit]

Non notable company in the field of WiFi. No mention of this company in Indian or American media. most of the article has been copied from the company website. http://www.zazunetworks.com/aboutus.htm Ageo020 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is nothing on the website to indicate size of company (sales, number of employees, etc...). This does not appear to meet WP:CORP. -- DS1953 talk 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:CORP. --Wafulz 15:14, 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 speedily deleted by Yanksox as nonsense. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katia[edit]

Article with no real information on an event that may not happen at all. Jake52 My talk 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, so tagged (as patent nonsense); for heaven's sake, a future hurricane (2011, here) is actually listed as an example in WP:NOT. NawlinWiki 03:43, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapoutland Pro Wrestling[edit]

Long article on nonnotable fantasy/Internet "wrestling league"; 13 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the greatest Wikipedia link of all time. Its sweet8 and everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSKANK88 (talk • contribs) (article creator)
  • KPW is great. Who are you to doubt them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.215.128 (talk • contribs) (user's only edit)
  • Delete as spam for a site that would fail WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not myspace. --DarkAudit 17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. hateless 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jeez Louise. That's really all I have to say. -- Kicking222 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Lord! Delete, spam for a non-notable website for a non-notable organization. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all deletes above, looks like a worthy WP:SNOW candidate. Can we go one day without a backyard wrestling article? --Kinu t/c 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, no, this isn't a "backyard wrestling article" as you so put it Kinu. Secondly, this isn't spam for a site that would fail. The site is anything but failing. We have new participants at a contant rate. By putting something on here, it allows more people to get an introduction to a game that is fun to play. I for one say Do Not Delete the article. Then again, what do I know. I'm simply a wrestling fan, a group of people who are looked down upon by the rest of civilization for watching "fake rasslin", and I'm also a gamer, yet another group of people who are looked down upon and considered "geeks" who live in their parent's basement. We're people, just like the rest of you, and we're simply trying to reach other people. --187inthe317
    • Comment: It seems that many wrestling leagues have been posting articles recently, most likely out of sheer coincidence, and I apologize if my comment was somewhat coarse and based on that generalization. However, please note that AfD is not a debate as to the merits of wrestling, its fans, etc., but whether the article itself meets the "rough justice" Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. In this case, the guideline used by other editors is WP:WEB, and unfortunately no evidence from reliable sources is presented that such is the case. You are more than welcome to address those issues so that the community may make a more informed decision. Thanks! --Kinu t/c 04:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • there is no message anywhere telling people to come here and say KPW should stay. KPW wont fail, it's still running and means alot to the people who are a part of it. Hell, they gave up time to write this long article. I say keep it. Introduce new people to a fun game, that anyone can do. And i have too much respect for wrestlers to attempt any backyard wrestling. KPW is electronic, not set up in someones garden.

Kim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.173.77 (talk • contribs) Note: User's first edit.

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

The result was keep. Mangojuicetalk 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Scott (televangelist)[edit]

An unsourced article which makes extremely strong claims regarding the alleged pornographic past of the subject. It has been waiting over seven months for cleanup and still doesn't come even close to meeting WP:BLP. I suspect that it's just simply time to chuck the whole thing in the trash; if the anons who keep adding maliciously gleeful (and utterly unsourced) details about Ms. Scott's alleged shady past can't dig up an actual reliable source for any of their accusations, there's no reason for there to be an article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source It does seem there has been sexual controveries in the past. Thoough religious terms and Melissa Scott do have a weak google count. C56C 07:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not be keeping biography articles that make potentially defamatory, unsourced claims about the subject just in case a source pops up. I have removed the dodgy parts of the article, and they should not reappear until we can prove them by reference to reliable sources. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If she is carrying on the Eugene Scott televangelist ministry, she is notable enough to pass. No opinion on the pornography allegations from the history, other than amused observations about graceless priggishness and deception, but that's not an AfD issue in any case. Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test - find a picture of Barbie Bridges - find one of Melissa Pastore - reasonable to determine if it is the same person?
  • Delete Entire peice is rhetoric and presents as much truth as a bottom shelf Wal Mart tabloid.
  • Keep Just chucking it into the Internet landfill won't do much, as the anons will just re-create the article anyhow, or go and vandalise this article like happened before. I've lost count on how many times I've had to revert this article, but I had thought that the anons would've gotten a clue by now. Speaking of which, instead of nominating it for deletion, what about nominating it for protection from anonymous users? --Cooleyez229 22:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who would bash Pastor Scott doesn't have a clue what a christian is. Just because someone might have a "shady" past doesn't mean jack squat now. This is present time, when you become a christian you are forgiven for all sins. Right? right. Therefore all of the people wanting to know if she was into pornographic this and that. They just want to know for their own perverted minds not because they care. Furthermore if she has in fact been in any pornographic films, etc. That was then, non of our business and just leave her alone. She is doing the Lords bidding now. Plus, FACT: She will tell you she was the last person to ever think that she could be saved. It goes to show that God really does work in mysterious ways. Those of you who bash her, he just hasn't got to you yet. God Bless!-a christian

  • Keep but certainly remove any unsourced defamatory remarks in accordance with WP:BLP. RFerreira 19:03, 10 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 02:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medsoc[edit]

One student organization at a med school. I don't see anything particularly notable about it and their social calendar for the year is definitely not encyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 04:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Um, if you could please wait until i finish the entry. I'm still writing it. NickLCL
  • Delete Local student organization at one school, not notable. I don't see how adding to the article will change that. Fan-1967 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ok, it's pretty much finished. NickLCL
  • Delete Author states it's finished, but it still doesn't appear to meet inclusion guidelines. Also obvious vanity, as it's apparently written by the organisation's president. — NMChico24 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still neutral on this article, but fyi, I have opened related afd discussions for UNSW Medshow and University of New South Wales Revues. Bwithh 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just wondering what inclusion guidelines you're talking about and how does our article differ from Adelaide Medical Students' Society in validity for a wikipedia entry? NickLCL
    • You might take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and review the information regarding groups/clubs. Basically, the issue is your club needs to be notable to a broad range of people. If your club is only notable at school, or to a very narrow readership, it's unlikely to remain posted here. Hope that helps. — NMChico24 05:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Middle School[edit]

Non-notable school. --Bigtop 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All schools are notable and merging info into lists clutters them up. Piccadilly 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable and established school and thus an important part of education in Horry County. It would be wrong to betray those wikipedia users who wish to learn about it. Kappa 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Horry County Schools. This is a one-paragraph description that can be included in the district page for compactness. — RJH (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article, ALL schools are notable and should have articles. --ForbiddenWord 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable school. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How? If there is notability, please insert it into the article. However, the only info given in the article is the school's location, mascot, and year of foundation, and this does not make something notable. -- Kicking222 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. A merge is not required, but a redirect could be put in the article's place. -- Kicking222 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Possibly redirect to the school district's article. WP:SCHOOLS is a failed guideline, and there is no policy or guideline stating that all schools are notable. Don't cite arguments as if they were policy. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failing any notability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a Wikipedia rule that you can't delete schools. GrapePie 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No it's not.
  • Delete, "notable school" is a contradiction in terms. User:Angr 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No content whatsoever. Recreate as an article when encyclopedic, verifiable, notable content is found. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this perfectly usable stub. It can be easily expanded by future editors to a more robust article about this school.--Nicodemus75 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I crossed out my vote above. Hipocrite said I was copying someone else's vote. So I'll just say I that I believe that all schools are notable enough to merit a space on Wikipedia. I hope my reason is not copying someone else. GrapePie 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing Admin GrapePie is a known sock of a previously problematic user see [36] for discussion. JoshuaZ 00:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an obvious stub that was just created a couple weeks ago. Schools are worthwhile subjects for articles, though I agree that this one is currently minimal. I say keep, and give it some time to breathe, see if it gets expanded after the school year starts. --Elonka 21:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please gives new articles a chance schools are notable Yuckfoo 23:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a not notable middle school with no substantial entry. If anyone has any material to demonstrate notability or to expand the article then they can recreate it. JoshuaZ 00:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Changing to Neutral per new info. Blue Ribbon Schools are still pretty common and I have no idea if any of the state awards are at all signficant. JoshuaZ 01:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a middle school, period/full stop. If it's significant for some reason, put it in, but otherwise, no, it's not "notable" -- calling all schools "notable" renders the word into something utterly meaningless -- unless your notion of "notable" means "listed in the telephone directory". --Calton | Talk 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiability over notability, though this school seems to be both. --Myles Long 01:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Blue Ribbon schools are notable. Full stop. Silensor 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have expanded the article, added references, and a list of awards that the school has won, including the National Blue Ribbon School award. --Elonka 01:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per silensor -- Librarianofages 02:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to article expansion and being the recipient of multiple educational awards. Yamaguchi先生 09:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since there's now an assertion of verifiable notability. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 11:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the war's over. Gazpacho 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the article now contains a weak assertion of notability. The way to avoid AFD discussions on schools is to make sure every school article contains an assertion of notability as soon as possible. (Being a school is not an assertion of notability; notability is established in comparison to other things of the same type, so in comparison to other schools.) It might help if someone technically skilled wrote a tool to parse the new pages log for articles with "School" (and other relevant search terms) in the title and dumped them on a to do list for the school project. GRBerry 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, a fair assertion of notability is made. Bahn Mi 01:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - school has been recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program and makes other specific claims of notability. The article can only improve beyond this start. Alansohn 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DP. --Usgnus 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheroes Central[edit]

This non-notable web forum article clearly fails WP:WEB, and possibly WP:VAIN. For all interested, it has the incredibly high Alexa rank of 2,930,989. alphaChimp laudare 04:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It even includes the obligatory "high posters list". alphaChimp laudare 04:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; goes into an explanation of each forum, which is obviously not suited for Wikipedia. Kalani [talk] 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 06:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --PresN 06:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 07:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. My justification is: this is an obvious hoax (the toothbrush was known as a poor French attempt at "paedophile"; CRT was once known in poor French as "rapist"; he died from "Tiberius"), and no-one will complain. Kids! Don't try this at home! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Goedecke[edit]

Possible hoax. Zero relevant ghits for this individual. Page author gives dubious explanation in the talk page that this person was the inspiration for a "best selling novel" written by the page author (Bobbbbbb). — NMChico24 04:41, 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 nominator has withdrawn the AFD request and will follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Merge. [37] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California ZIP Codes[edit]

Redundant list from List of ZIP Codes in California. Some Original Research related to the disputed Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. Is probably involved in the RFAR on Ericsaindon2. Recommend redirect to List of ZIP Codes in California. Gogo Dodo 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is Articles for deletion. If you don't want an administrator to delete an article, don't nominate it here. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 12:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Turnstep 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Mary[edit]

Non-notable band with one release, see WP:MUSIC. Melchoir 05:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : What if they will soon be very notable, especially in Florida. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benlmusic (talk • contribs) 05:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Then someone will write about them then. Melchoir 05:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 07:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:MUSIC, and non-notability pretty much asserted by author above. --Kinu t/c 17:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. Where is notability established in the article (perhaps aside from some heavily POV sentences)? -- Kicking222 18:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with a speedy now; so tagged. Melchoir 23:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7. I don't see an assertion of notability, I see an ad. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:43, 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 no consensus; default to keep. Mangojuicetalk 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of New South Wales Revues[edit]

Deletion nomination An article about amateur student shows. Article does not assert encyclopedic notability as a cultural event. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for university societies and groups. Also the first time (June 2005) this was nominated for afd, the discussion and closure was a travesty. Discussion was closed as keep when there was only a single vote in the whole discussion (excluding nominator). This was a keep voter claimed that this subject had 6,150 google hits. In fact, "unsw revues" brings up only approx. 66 unique google hits excluding Wikipedia and a large proportion of these hits appear to be spam sites or mirrors of wikipedia [38]. Searching for "University of New South Wales revues" gets a single hit[39], excluding wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors and spam sites(the freedictionary sites look like spam sites to me). Approx. 9 unique hits (some spammy again) for "unsw revue"[40]. Zero hits for "university of new south wales revue"[41]. Finally searching for "university of new south wales" + "revue" or "revues" poses a problem, as Revue is a French word for Review or Journal used for French language publications - this academic term produces a very inflated ghit count of 70,000+[42]. However, if one excludes French language pages and limits the search to "university of new south wales"+"revues", there are only approx. 65 unique ghits with significant spamminess[43] The singular term variation produces approx. 95 unique hits with spamminess [44](mistakenly searched for plural term - singular term produces too many French uses even with English filter, but if I take out some common french words (de, du, le), I get ~218 unique ghis with the singular "revue"[45]). Some content of this article could be merged to University of New South Wales. Bwithh 05:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Disclosure: I'm a UNSW student, but still a AFD regular, so I'll abstain from voting due to conflict-of-interest. I'd like to point out that your search techniquie was flawed since there is no combined "UNSW Revues" society or show for anyone online to refer to, hence the lack of Google hits for that term. Remember that this Wikipedia article is a combination article for all four shows. Here's a better breakdown:
  • ("law revue" unsw -wikipedia) = 6,720
  • ("cse revue" unsw -wikipedia) = 5,250
  • ("med revue" unsw -wikipedia) = 1,130
  • ("arts revue" unsw -wikipedia) = 52 (only started this year)
--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  05:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks, but actually I accounted for this with my final search(number 7 in the nomination) for "unsw" + "revue" minus French language pages, which generated ~95 unique hits (Actually I didn't. My mistake there). I get ~83 hits for "law revue"+"unsw" -site:wikipedia.org on English pages[46]. Your law revue search of all languages gets ~104 unique ghits [47]. CSE revue gets ~85 unique ghits on all languages[48] Bwithh 05:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ~218 unique ghits for the singluar revue term, with enhanced filtering out of french pages[49] Bwithh 05:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amateur student revues are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 05:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual student events at a single school. Not notable, regardless of how much Google-monkeying goes into it. Opabinia regalis 06:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A set of shows with that length history should be completely verifiable. Notability is in the eye of the beholder, and a personal belief that you know what "notability is" will get you nowhere on wikipedia. Article needs outside reviews from critics to verify its claims and to comment on them in a way a student website or yahoo group cannot. Ansell 06:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable, or at least merge into universities article if its even notable to the university. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find many verifiable references to the revues. I would vote to keep if I could. Possibly worth a mention in the article on the University of New South Wales. Capitalistroadster 04:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The UNSW Law Revue does get occasional press coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald. Google (law revue unsw site:smh.com.au) --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a notable topic. Metamagician3000 10:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete completely unencycylopedic.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Merge - Strong history linked to the UNI Feedyourfeet 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was crap in its original form (which I voted to delete last time it was nominated and kept), but has been substantially rewritten, and serves as an interesting article now. I've never been to UNSW, but I find this article quite interesting. Rebecca 05:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete college amateur dramatics are not notable. BlueValour 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it! It's useful information, and fully within the ambit of some of Wikipedia's other subject matters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.94.6.28 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - per the previous user. (JROBBO 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - as above. (The 'list of shows' section can go.) If you must, rename the article UNSW Performances or UNSW Entertainment or UNSW Clubs and Societies etc. It would be nice to see something about the stuff that the School of Dance does, also Circusoc, and the like.A J Hay 11:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable outside of campus... Medico80 15:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I thought we settled this ages ago. Uni revues attract press coverage and spawn television and professional theatre careers. Joestella 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. We have many essays, guidelines, and policies in Wikipedia space that are not official or widely accepted. Please use AFD for items in article space. Nandesuka 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft[edit]

This article is often used to justify deleting many anime/manga related pages that are disliked, with many votes for deletion being "delete, fancruft". It is being treated as a guideline and a rule when it is not and due to it many things that should be improved rather than deleted are removed. On top of that, fancruft itself is a weasel word. Jtrainor 05:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — shouldn't this be on MfD? — Deckiller 05:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, linked article is an article, but that's not what he's talking about. Either way, Speedy keep - the way to change policy is not by just nominating the ones you don't like for deletion. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, Speedy Keep — besides, this is an essay, not a policy. — Deckiller 05:10, 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 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNSW Medshow[edit]

Deletion nomination Small non-notable student society event that has only been around since 2000. Does not assert encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for university societies. ~15 to ~30 unique ghits on google[50][51].Terrible puns. Bwithh 05:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if Medsoc is non-notable, then their event is non-notable. Also, the puns seem to be worsening with time. Opabinia regalis 06:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article as nn, although those puns are awesomely terrible. -- Synapse 12:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry I missed the "Karma Suture" show though. Dlyons493 Talk 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no verifiable references to any of these shows in the Australian media or elsewhere. Bwithh has already outlined the problems with finding sources on Google. While it may have been fun for the participants, this doesn't make the grade at this stage. Capitalistroadster 05:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this not related t the UNSW Revues nomination, and if so, why is it on its own? Ansell 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Article says that the show is a rival to the official med revue, not a part of them, and its a separate article Bwithh 03:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unencyclopedic.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's not notable, and right sourced. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:52, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakka-Lakka-Ding-Dong[edit]

A character in a short story by a guy with a grand total of one Google hit. This Google hit references the Wikipedia article. Crystallina 05:43, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiplayer gametypes in Halo 2[edit]

Video-game cruft. Can be condensed and merged with Halo 2. Doogie2K (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DEL: "Problem: Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article; Solution: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect." Sometimes merge tags are more appropriate than an afd. hateless 18:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's looking like the consensus is leaning towards keep. That being said, this is still highly unencyclopedic feels a bit thin, materialwise. I'd be willing to suggest a merge instead, if people would be behind that. Since everyone's here, would you rather merge it with the maps article per TKD, or with the main Halo 2 article? I'm actually really liking TDK's idea, if it can be written professionally. Doogie2K (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just a list of various settings for each of the default modes in Halo. This content isn't even useful/appropriate for GameFAQs. Wickethewok 20:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wickethewok. Note that the main article already has a long and highly detailed section on Halo 2's multiplayer; this adds very little. — Haeleth Talk 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the fact that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Whispering 23:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 09:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep AfD is not an appropriate place for merge requests. This isn't a guide and it is too long for the main article. Halo 2's popularity is largely based on the strength of its multiplayer, so this is notable. Why is it we can include plot summaries of a few hundred words and have dozens of pages for characters in popular games (hundreds in Pokemon's case), but can't include any information about gameplay? We're treating games as if they were movies with silly inconsequential interactive bits, which isn't right. This would be like if the playing card article gave the names and history of the cards, but never addressed what games you can play with them. Not all information about game play is a game guide. This isn't strategy advice nor fancruft speculation, it's merely an empirically verifiable list of the game types and explanations of what they are. There seems to be a move lately to call any video-game article cruft/game guide, which is sadly getting a lot of support. Ace of Sevens 10:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd hardly call every video game article "cruft." I simply think that the articles I've nominated can be condensed and merged into the main articles for their games. It's really obvious in the case of List of Halo 2 changes, but this one qualifies, too. Doogie2K (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That wasn't so much aimed at you as certain voters who seem to just say delete on all these articles without reading eople's responses. Though it sounds like you wanted a merge, not a delete. This seems pretty lean already though. I'm not sure what you could take out and the main Halo 2 article is too long as is. Ace of Sevens 18:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ace of Sevens. The multiplayer is notable, in respect to game design and the game's place among its genre and other contemporary games. This is not a game guide, but an objective description of what multiplayer is in Halo 2. The balance between a summary for the main article, and a reasonable expansion of the subject in this sub-article seems fine to me. --SevereTireDamage 00:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ace of Sevens. -- Credema 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Whispering. -- GShton 03:44 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and do not merge. Information is already present in the main article, and an in depth description makes this game guide information. Fails WP:NOT Proto::type 09:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The following is the entirety of the coverage of gametypes in the main Halo 2 article: For example, the "Rumble Pit" playlist offers a variety of "every man for himself" game types, primarily Slayer or variations thereof; "Team Skirmish" offers a number of 4-on-4 team games, which are primarily objective-based games like Capture the Flag; "Big Team Battle" is similar to Team Skirmish but allows teams of up to 8 players. Do you really think that's sufficient? Ace of Sevens 10:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia!=Gamefaqs. Though this sort of thing wouldn't even be on Gamefaqs. +Fin 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Merge it with the Halo 2 article. SuperDT 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge into Halo 2, or, if someone is up to it, merge with List of multiplayer gametypes in Halo 2 and List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2 to form Multiplayer in the Halo series. I think that such an article would have the greatest potential for encyclopedic content, especially since there is some overlap between the two games. — TKD::Talk 08:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ace of Sevens. It's utterly ridiculous to delete an article on the core gameplay of a massively successful title - this is notable, and informative to warrant an article to itself. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 01:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to allow clearer consensus to develop. - brenneman {L} 05:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep popular and useful for gamers. C56C 07:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ace of Sevens. -- Gogo Dodo 07:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll throw yet another Keep per Ace of Sevens into the mix. I think that on AfD, for some reason, video game articles are more subject to deletion than other articles. However, I'm voting keep based on this specific article, not game articles as a whole. This page is not a game guide nor an FAQ, but merely describes (in a rather encyclopedic way) an incredibly important aspect of an incredibly important game. -- Kicking222 18:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ace of Sevens. This, unlike other articles nominated before, is not a game guide. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all this game stuff is always kept. GrapePie 20:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RandyWang. --JJay 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. Too much material? Then condense it and spare the readers. --Calton | Talk 01:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Halo 2 as appropriate. Yamaguchi先生 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and condense as needed. Combination 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's no doubt notable (multiplayer is huge part what Halo series is known for). Merging doesn't seem to be an option since the original article is too large. As to the matter of condensing, I don't know the game but it seems simple enough to me (7 variants each with a 1 paragraph lead section). Perhaps the subvariants could be trimmed but I'd say leave that to the Halo people. --Mitaphane talk 09:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as stated by others above me, this is not comparable to lists of weapons or items. The article is about the core of Halo playing and certainly deserves its own article, per WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with original article, other video game articles don't have their own multiplayer sections, this isn't standard ettiquette for videogame entries. They should be kept to one article per game, this type of stuff can be moved to dedicated videogame wikis.--Mofomojo 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are you getting this idea of one article per game? I don't see it in the guidelines, most popular games have several articles and we certainly have nothing of the sort for books or movies. Most games don't require a separate article for multiplayer. You might as well say Indiana Jones shouldn't have his own article becausemost movie characters don't have thier own articles. Ace of Sevens 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge preferably keep. Konman72 10:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge A bit too detailed for a separate article.--Brownlee 10:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge --Peephole 13:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete (Sounds so much better than delete and merge- where's the sense in that? Sorry peephole.) This decision should be obvious. Merge with the main article whatever can/deserves to be merged (not much that can be, though- this alone should be enough proof), then delete. Scytheml 15:18, 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 killer delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all[edit]

Neologism. Something a computer said in a presentation of beta software a few days ago is not notable enough for Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Recentism) -/- Warren 06:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Koffieyahoo 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 07:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the article on the software, I think (but then, I have a silly sense of humour sometimes) BigHaz 07:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it has a note in Development of Windows Vista. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Finish" the merge and be done with it (redirect?). Ace of Risk 12:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Completely non-notable (though humorous). Utterly non-encyclopedic. Scorpiondollprincess 14:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Development of Windows Vista, as it's a better place for the information, and a redirect can help finding it. --cesarb 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete select all, with a clap of Joycean thunder. Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that with a Twainian magic word: Constantinopolitanischerdudelsackspfeifenmachersgesellschafft! If it is still famous in six months, re-create. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove select all delete that aunt delete select all Let's recap: A few days ago, Microsoft falls victim to the Murphy's Law again... and now we're making an article about that. No. Just no. We don't have an article on Windows 98 Plug and Play presentation crash or anything. The thing is mentioned in Windows 98 though, as it should. As for popularity, well we have Slashdot subculture article already for explaining all silly injokes already, even when I don't think this is widespread enough yet since this happened only a few days ago. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And let me also add: This is yet another case of "interesting content was put in the article title", something I observed back in the day in Everything2. Title is title, not content, so this is a weak article. Articles about individual phrases should have a lot of content to justify their cumbersome titling. It's unlikely this article will ever gain the weight of "The Magic Words are Squeamish Ossifrage". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another goof that happened during a presentation. Yes, it's from one of the biggest software companies in the world, but that doesn't make the event encyclopedic or notable. At best a passing mention in the Vista development article is sufficient. --Kinu t/c 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ctrl-alt-delete nice neologism but it's just that a neologism --Whispering 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and if it's still in use in a year or so, maybe think about re-adding it if appropriate. -- 84.13.248.174 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Select all backspace, as above. +Fin 14:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article will eventually have relevance, just as All Your Base does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.119.76 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When it is seen as relevant—when a good, citable sources mentions it as something of lasting importance—we can have an article about it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough. Only worth a mention in another page. --Hohohob 10:11, 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 result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limit Login - Windows Concurrent Connection Script[edit]

This an advertisement for a script that someone wrote just a few days ago. Blatant advertising, and does not meet WP:SOFTWARE. --Hetar 06:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, plus non-encyclopedic first person perspective VoiceOfReason 06:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the concern but if you read within the article I am not promoting a script or program someone else wrote, just referencing to it so people can compare what I have created to what microsoft has created. It's not advertising and was created for the scripting community as a useful tool. finally please read through the article again as I belive your comment was sent after I had saved the page before completion. --Jesseboy 06:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't Freshmeat or Sourceforge; we judge software articles by their notability, not their utility. -/- Warren 07:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. -- Koffieyahoo 07:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you saying that if this isn't well known, that it isn't something you would want posted? If this is the case, then I would have to disagree and say how this is definatly a common question amoung Windows network admins that can now be remedied more easily with this script. --Jesseboy 07:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm saying that this isn't an encyclopedic article, but an advertisement for some script. -- Koffieyahoo 08:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Warren. -- Gogo Dodo 07:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. It might be a common question that network admins have, but posting your solution to it here isn't the way to go about things. BigHaz 07:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article comprises signed documentation, complete with an "e-mail me if you have any questions" conclusion, for a software package. This is a clear mis-use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance or a free wiki host. It is an encyclopaedia. Software packages must be documented outside of Wikipedia first, and by people other than their authors, before they warrant an article here, per Wikipedia:No original research and WP:CORP#Criteria_for_products_and_services. Delete. Uncle G 08:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 16:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Bank of Morocco[edit]

Recreated after being deleted by PROD. One appearance on NPR doesn't make a band notable by WP:MUSIC. Delete. User:Angr 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 07:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if this is re-posted previously-deleted content. BigHaz 07:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-creations of PRODded articles are not candidates for speedy deletion. Here we just consider it a case of "oh, so someone objected to the PROD after all". fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd, I thought I'd seen people saying that recreation of deleted content resulted in a speedy. Maybe it was just previous afd'd content. In that case, I'm still in favour of a vanilla delete as the band appears non-notable. BigHaz 10:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previously AfDed content. Even then, the speedying admin needs to Use Common Sense. If an article about a band fails AfD for being "non notable", then reappears six months later after that band became mega-popular, obviously you wouldn't speedy. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things that were deleted by PROD and then re-created are exempt from speedy deletion under speedy criterion G4. Things that were deleted after an AFD or validly speedied can be speedied under G4. User:Angr 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things that were validly speedied shouldn't be speedied under G4. If a re-created article is still a speedy candidate, then it should be speedied for whatever reason it was speedied for in the first place only. If it's not, then we shouldn't be speedying it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claims of notability - also I was expecting a financial institution. MLA 15:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC, and I too was expecting Morocco's version of the Federal Reserve here. --Kinu t/c 21:18, 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. Wickethewok 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Charmed Sons[edit]

Article about small online fan group, written by the movement. None of WP:WEB criteria met, no outside source, no outside reference, no recorded public reaction, partly fanfiction. Violation of WP:WEB, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research. As a whole, article is highly unnotable, it is possibly fancruft, vanity information and advertising.

EDIT: Furthermore, members and supporters of this fan group, in response to the deletion nomination, have been vandalizing many Charmed-related Wikipedia pages, two of them being IP-blocked today. Creators of The Charmed Sons article have continuously attacked Wikipedia contributors and have admitted in their own forum (see below for screenshots) of using multiple Wikipedia accounts to win this voting. AdamDobay 07:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC), edited by AdamDobay 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable as per the extensive reasonings above. Perhaps if proof was supplied that its actually being considered, even then its still crystal ballism until it goes into production at least and is acknowledged by the studio. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all the above reasons. I bet it was Britannia from TWoP that made this too. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--I didn't create it Zythe, but I've contributed to it. And you can go on Wes Ramsey's own website for confirmation of actor's involvement, as well as the site to see that he has done an online chat and been encouraging this effort. This entry is notable in that it's the first fan campaign ever to create a new show. It isn't just a fan board, this is about a fan campaign for a brand new show, something that has never been done before. And why should it bother any of you that there is an entry for this campaign? Retrieved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Charmed Sons —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons. Well laid-out points Adam. Also Anonymous2004, all I see on his page is a link to TCS. Am I missing something? And yes, of course he'd like to see the show resurrected...it would be a starring role. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Save Everwood is also a fan campaign and they are also that "successful" or even more so, and it still does not have its own wiki article. I think having and wanting to keep this article (and to be honest, the whole campaign) is just being a busybody instead of doing something important or useful. Charmed is over, and there are plenty of other great shows to watch. Get over it and get a life. Liz85 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Liz85. God knows there are enough "make it up as you go along" dramas on the air. Danny Lilithborne 19:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"God knows there are enough "make it up as you go along" dramas on the air."
That has nothing to do with this article. This is a discussion about wether to keep the article, not about wether you support it or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.66.105.253 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • keep This is not a debate over a television show; it is a debate over a website. The article has made no infringements on copyright and is simply describing a legitimate campaign. Just because you don't think the campaign is "Useful" doesn't mean it should be deleted. Just because you think the show shouldn't be on the air gives you no grounds to delete the article. We have the support of the actos desired for the roles, and Kern is reviewing the possibility himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.67.235.17 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Why shouldn't it be here? adamdoby has debated that it shouldn't be on wikipedia because it doesn't exist; TCS does, in fact, exist. Because we are not talking about an article about a TV show; we're talking about a website that does exist. And does it matter who started it? if someone would point out specifically what codes of Wikipedia this article has broken, we can debate the most relevant topics. Adamdobey has expressed strongly that he does not support this website; yet he has given no specifics besides his own opinion. If the information doesn't hold strong for you, then why not give us a chance to revamp it to include Wiki required info, instead of jumping straight to 'delete?' Retrieved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Charmed Sons Shondrea 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Shondrea[reply]
  • Keep-- None of your reasons cited for why this entry should be deleted hold any water. Everwood's campaigns efforts not having an entry does not mean they aren't entitled to one, only that no one has created one yet. This entry is not about a website, it's about a campaign effort by fans. This entry does not violate any rules of wikipedia for entries and should remain. And these comments about "getting a life"? Perhaps those posters should take their own advice and stop hassling other people's efforts or spending all their time obsessed with trying to convince people that Piper had a daughter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This vote crossed out, as user had previously voted. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPOV, unnotable, advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan database. prezzey 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Craigslist or MySpace. --FuriousFreddy 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. This is certainly not notable enough to warrant an article. —Mira 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a brand new type of movement, the first of its kind. As such, and especially if it is successful, its history should be recorded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.216.53 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that statement is that just because it is a new type of movement, does not make it notable. There are a multitude of "new movements" that begin and end all the time, yet they are not recorded on the site. Even if it becomes successful, it is uncertain whether it should still be included in the 'pedia. Even the famed campaign to bring back the original Star Trek series for a third season doesn't have it's own article; rather, it is included as a few mentions here and there on the main TOS articles. I don't see why this campaign should be any different. If and when the series comes about, then the information can be included as a footnote. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other fan campaigns do not have an entry does not mean they shouldn't have one, only that no one has created one yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That really isn't a reasonable statement. To keep with the Star Trek theme I have going, historically, those TOS fans are fairly rabid about their favourite show. I fully expected to find an article that had been written about the campaign, and was surprised to not find one. In this instance, one of two things happened: either those fans realised it didn't necessitate a separate article, or the article was created but later put through the ringer as this campaign is now. Which one, I can't say. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise proposal : I'm quite sure I have seen this article a month before, it got deleted then. So before this devolves into yet another create-delete-create-delete bulls*** escapade, I propose to Delete this article, BUT: take the text presented here, shorten it to the more important parts(meaning: this is a fan campaign, there is a website, what efforts have been made up to now), and add it at the bottom of the Charmed main article under "Fan spin-off campaign".
Advantages:
  • The article, which might be not notably enough is gone.
  • The history of this campaign will be recorded and updated (since the Charmed main article is likely more frequented).
  • It's more topic oriented. The average Charmed fan will probably not have heard of The Charmed Sons, but if he/she has interest in a possible spin-off, he'll find the information where he/she will certainly look at (the Charmed main article).
  • If the campaign turns out to be nothing more of a dream, one simple edit, and it's gone.
  • If the campaign turns out to be more, and/or attracts more interest, then it warrants to be expanded into a whole article. Teshik 10:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment The article is about a campaign to get a new television show created. The website and message board are just tools to that end. Adam Dobay's own argument of why it should be deleted states that this is a "Fan Movement". There is nothing in the guidelines of Wikipedia that states that a fan movement cannot be listed as an article. Therefore, all the points about why this should be deleted do not hold water. This entry has a right to be listed, moreso than the seventy different entries I've seen on Wikipedia discussing different aspects of Charmed. The campaign is notable and does exist, and the article talks about that. Fan campaigns have been notable stories, starting back with the Save Designing Women campaign in the 1980s, and recently the Save Angel, Save Veronica Mars and Save Everwood campaigns. This campaign is especially notable because it's for a tv show that does not exist yet, but fans are campaigning for it. It just seems some people are jealous because they cannot do what others are and are trying to discredit this campaign. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. You can't have rules and regulations against something that is in it's own category. I have yet to even hear of another campaign, or even whispers of idea's of campaigns to get an entirely new TV show on the air. How can you apply rule for things that have been done before to something that, in it's right, is brand new? It hasn't been done before, there isn't any equal and fair etiquette to compare it too. Shondrea 00:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Shondrea[reply]
You're not helping your case by citing jealousy as our rationale. Danny Lilithborne 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charmed Sons are Cheating the Vote!
Look what I found. On the Charmed Sons Message Board there's a whole thread for this wikipedia entry. Some interesting founds:
*User angel_23 just said: And I've voted under annonymous, and my name Shondrea. I don't know how they track members, but if I have two more e-mail addresses; think If i make two more names, they'd be able to track it? Or maybe Mom would let me use her conputer...whole dofferent IP...*wheels turning*
*She and the there-admin Brianna personally attacked wiki-user Zythe and wiki-user AdamDobay on this message board, confirming my thought that this whole issue is more like a personal issue for them and therefore they cannot think rationally and objectively.
*The admins are on this site and are contributing to the thread and they support this behaviour.
I think after the cheating the question whether to delete this article or not is no longer a question. Ever heard about fairplay?! And just because now I'm prepared for everything, here are the screencaps of their comments in case they delete the thread and pretend that it never existed. Confession of cheating, Bashing1, Bashing2, Bashing3. Liz85 06:16, 1 August 2006
Because deleting reasons such as "get a life" as SO much more legita,ate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.66.105.253 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • While I have encouraged members of The Charmed Sons campaign to vote, I have not encouraged anyone to vote multiple times. I am also not responsible for the actions of others that I did not encourage.
Furthermore, any comments made on another message board about AdamDobay or Zythe should have no bearing on whether this entry remains or goes. It is obvious it is a personal one for them, as many supporters of the campaign do not believe the character of Piper had a third child and that seems to be a sore spot for AdamDobay. As far as Zythe goes, he was banned from the Charmed Sons message board awhile back for trolling as well as banned twice under two different usernames from TWOP by the moderator on the Charmed board there for purposely antagonizing other posters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • EDIT: Uch. This is exactly the kind of sh**stirring debate I tried to avoid.
Liz85, thank you for drawing our attention to this. I just told Shondrea to withdraw her anonymous vote, and told everyone else multiple voting is forbidden. We want to keep this article, but we want to do it the fair way.
As for the matter of Zythe versus Brittania and Shondrea, I don't know who kicked whose puppy in that one, but more importantly, I don't care. Leave the "I don't like you comments" to yourself, This was about whether the article merits Wikipedia status or not, not if you like each other or not. I hope we ALL can now return to an objective debate about this one. Teshik 13:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - the Internet Fandom Community is a powerful one, and this is the first movement of its kind. As such, it should be allowed to remain. Besides - is it hurting anyone? There is no attempt to claim copyright, nor is there any attempt to make money from the original copyright. I don't see how this is a violation of rules, as this is the first article of its kind. I say keep it - regardless of what some immature fans may or may not have said on another website. The decision should be made purely on whether the article is appropriate for Wikipedia - and not about whether someones feelings got hurt from a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.235.213 (talk • contribs) User's second edit.
Dear whoever. I never trolled on the Charmed Sons. I think I may have expressed that I felt it was an attempt that couldn't go anywhere, but I contributed to discussion and actually I wasn't aware I had been "banned", since I stopped frequenting both TCS and TWoP. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and verifiability is not optional. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:27, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Acer[edit]

Article is about an insignifant/unnotable person. Too little information on somebody who is not relevant or important other than in extremely esoteric circles. Mongoleer 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He looks plenty notable to me. Popular comedian, magician, has appeared in a feature film, gets 93 000 hits on Google. This gushing bio points out that he's written for many popular programmes on the telly and has appeared repeatedly at Just for Laughs. On top of all this, a flick through Google seems to suggest that, within the field of "magic", he's really bloody popular. Why are we deleting our article on this fellow, again? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is of little importance to anybody not involved the secretive world of magic and his credits are negligable. The article has very little information in it and if we were to list every child's party magician that has ever despoiled the face of the earth we would be wasting a lot of server space. Mongoleer 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
every child's party magician that has ever despoiled the face of the earth? Please read WP:CIV before making such statements. IrishGuy talk 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with the other article you nominated for deletion Irishguy, I really could care less about it. I just believe that this is a worthless article. My comments about magic being a mere child's amusement are both civil and true and violate no policy. David Acer is no more accomplished than a menial laborer, (not to mention that his choice of proffession is about as respectable).Mongoleer 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't nominate the other article for deletion. I merely placed an importance tag on it. Someone else took it to AfD. You are a confirmed sockpuppet and are merely lashing out because your article is under review. IrishGuy talk 20:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if the nomination was made in bad faith then the article should not be deleted. GrapePie 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad faith/WP:POINT nomination. NawlinWiki 03:33, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bafendo[edit]

Originally speedied as non-notable, but the author protested. I don't think the business is large enough or important enough to warrant an article. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom and the obvious self-promotional nature of the article. As far as I know, an author's objection is no barrier to a speedy deletion, only to a prod. VoiceOfReason 08:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Slightly modified; see below. VoiceOfReason 03:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bafendo is large enough for an article on Wikipedia fore it is the small who will some day be the big company that it is meant to be. Bafendo is a force to be reckoned with. Bafendo is worthy and it is very important to the people it helps and to the people who love it! --Bafendo 09:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may not think it is not old enough but it is. We are an important company to our clients! We deserve a chance! We demand a chance! Bafendo may only be three years old but we are good at what we do and we will not be bullied into deletion. We deserve this and we're not giving it up without a fight! And anybody who thinks they can bully the small is a fool! Fore the small will one day grow big and crush the ones who tried to hold them back! We've struggled before but no more! This is it do not delete our archive we deserve to be here as much as Microsoft. Sure we aren't an international corporation but we have something they don't have... reliable products and affordable service! And I'd be a fool not to stop the deletion of our archive! So think about what I said and think about not being another barrier which a small business must face! As I said before... I will fight this!!! --Bafendo 09:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not that I'm doubting you, but would you mind citing a source for that? The criterion itself says that it applies to "unremarkable people or groups", but perhaps there's a further elaboration elsewhere that I'm not familiar with. Regardless, though, this particular article while nominally about a company is almost exclusively about the personal exploits of one Mr. Bryce Frier... and I wouldn't be surprised if he were the sole employee. I've seen far iffier articles selected for speedy deletion by administrators. VoiceOfReason 10:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's three sources you could use. a) My word as someone who has been closing AfDs and dealing with speedies for the past 9 months (not perfect, I know). b) The actual wording of the A7 CSD — if you have to turn the lights down and squint a bit to get your interpretation in, then it's the wrong interpretation. c) Discussions on the talk pages of AfD or CSD (or both) where this subject has come up a few times. "or groups" does not cover corporations. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duly noted, and I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks. Seems a bit odd though that speedy covers bands ({{db-band}}) and clubs ({{db-club}}) but not companies... but I'm still relatively new at all this and if that's what the consensus was, that's what the consensus was :) But in this case, we're in AfD-land. Do you have an opinion on whether this article should be deleted?
Actually, while I've got an administrator's attention, I want to make sure I've got the rules understood correctly. A {{prod}} can be removed by the article creator (or indeed anybody) for no other reason than disagreement with the proposed deletion, but a speedy tag should not be removed by anybody but an administrator and should only be objected to with {{hangon}} or on the article's talk page... is that correct? Also, yes, I'm happy to take your word on the suitability (or lack thereof) of non-notable companies for speedy deletion, but what exactly is the point of Template:Db-reason? VoiceOfReason 11:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back to margin <--------

CSD is supposed to define a list of reasons for deletion so obvious that we can trust just one person to make the decision all on his sweeney; as a result, people tend to want to extend the list as little as possible. Bands (meant to cover high school garage bands who formed last week and haven't agreed on a name, sort of thing), clubs (e.g. the football team you and your mates organised for a muckaround after work), and so on were difficult enough to push through, without trying for corporations as well. As for {{prod}}, yes, it can be removed by anyone at any time for any reason (or, indeed, no acknowedlged reason). Speedy tags can be removed by anyone, but should not be removed by the article's author; {{hangon}} exists for the article's author to contest the speedy deletion if he wants, but need not be used by anyone else. Administrators have no special status when it comes to removing speedy tags. {{db-reason}} exists mostly so that people don't have to remember all the other template names, and partly for when you have a reason for deletion that doesn't match existing templates perfectly (e.g. you want to note that it meets more than one of the CSD, or you've got a good reason that doesn't have a template yet — like Jimbo's statements on articles that run afoul of WP:BLP). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the tips... I want to be the best editor I can be, and I really appreciate getting good guidance. (I also owe you for demonstrating {{tl|templatename}}... substantially less cumbersome than <nowiki>{{templatename}}</nowiki>!) I understand the hesitancy to expand CSD, but per below I've dumped my opinion on the appropriate talk page and this page has already gotten pretty far derailed from its purpose, so I'll shut up now. Thanks again. VoiceOfReason 11:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettably A7 doesn't seem to cover small companies. It really should! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... 23 clients? This isn't a "small" company, it's microscopic. And the author's comments just aren't helpful either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete per above and per note on my talk page stating in part "I want to share the history of my company with whomever may hear about my company and want to lean about it." - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, no sources cited, and ventures into crystalballism. --DarkAudit 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- way too small. Although I did appreciate the clarification of speedy delete, proposed delete, and AfD. --Natalie 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let's make this article the redlink it was meant to be! (Sorry, it had to be said) :-p Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, owner's comment above is arrogant and obnoxious. NawlinWiki 01:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Don't bite the newbies. I think "arrogant and obnoxious" is a bit harsh; the owner is new here, manifestly unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia works (and what Wikipedia is not), and probably fairly young. He's clearly very proud of his company and doesn't (or didn't) understand why it's not appropriate for an article. Our job is to help him understand. Yes, this article obviously deserves the axe, but User:Bafendo might become a valued contributor here if we don't run him off. VoiceOfReason 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Okay, I take it back. Go ahead and bite the newbie. VoiceOfReason 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't anyone in the Wiki community like Bafendo? Sure I said small but that doesn't mean my company isn't important. We're big to our clients and we've had a few problems that have kept us small but we are finally growing. What we need right now is friends not enemys. Enemies make Bafendo look bad and a few of our clients have seen these "delete" comments and are now thinking of dropping Bafendo. Enemies we don't need! We need friends and allies. You don't want to kill Bafendo do you? Oh and by big I went giant like Microsoft ok Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)! And I may be new to Wikipedia but I do know what I am talking about! And you'll see how big Bafendo is when Western Digital markets LiquaDrive in a few years... just you wait! And just for the record; I will always fight for my company and I will never let anyone say it is not worthy and that I and/or Bafendo is arrogant and obnoxious! We are loved by many and we will never go away! --Bafendo 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Look, you. It has nothing to do with not "liking" Bafendo. You've already been pointed here, but here it is again: read WP:CORP. Does Bafendo meet these guidelines? Well, let's have a look. Been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial media articles? Nope. Listed on a well-known and independent ranking of important companies? Nope. Stock a component of a market index? Heck nope, I'd lay very long odds you don't even have publically-traded stock. These are the guidelines. These are the criteria. They are objective. If a company meets any one of them, it is considered notable by Wikipedia standards and merits an article. If a company meets none of them, it is not considered notable by Wikipedia standards and merits deletion. That's it. If your company does in fact meet any of these criteria, please cite your sources and the article will undoubtedly be kept. If not, quit whining about it. VoiceOfReason 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to play that way do you? Fine I might as well delete it myself since you people hate us so much! I think i'll tell everyone I know to stop using Wikipedia. Sure it wont make a big impact at first but when word spreads especially through the media the wheels start turning on something big. You've made a very big mistake one you will regret! To hell with Wikipedia if all of you feel this way. I hope you don't destroy another company! Besides there's lots of alternatives to Wikipedia. One is webster. This is not the end Wikipedia! This is not the end at all! You've made a powerfull enemy and a big mistake! We don't have to take anyones crap not even precious Wikipedia! We will be back and you'll see just how "notable" we are! You've made our list! And it's not a good list! You've been warned! --Bafendo 09:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Curse you, Captain Proton, curse you and all your heroic space-rangers to hell! You may have foiled my destructo-ray, but this is not the end! Someday, I will rebuild my army of super-death-robots-with-the-strength-of-ten, and then I shall return, to seek... my revenge! Ahahah! Ahahaha!"
Seriously dude - get a grip. Your business is not going to be destroyed by this. I agree that the original nomination was a bit content-free, but we've all tried to give you the reasons behind the deletion. Someday, if (hopefully when) your company creates a great product that sweeps the globe, we'll have an article on it. Until then, sorry. You've seen WP:CORP, and those are the breaks. Ruaraidh-dobson 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing indicating that subject meets WP:CORP, and Fine I might as well delete it myself since you people hate us so much! sounds like a {{db-author}} request to me. --Kinu t/c 14:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep someone had to do it. This may be the most entertaining AFD up now. Both this and the article are better than a lot of the stuff on WP:BAD. -Sanbeg 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support Sanbeg. Atleast somebody understands.--Bafendo 03:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article, but keep the AfD per Sanbeg. VoiceOfReason 03:38, 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 no consensus, just make redirect. - Mailer Diablo 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ERA Othello Realty[edit]

Speedy Delete: Clearly an advertisement for a simple franchise owner.Steroid Expert 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Added title. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion (this is not the appropriate place to propose speedies, anyway). It doesn't read like an advertisement, either. Please assume good faith. Although I agree that the business does not seem notable enough for an article of its own, I don't see why this can't simply be redirected to ERA Real Estate, and have taken the liberty of doing just that. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect but should the target be on AfD also? I don't know what to make of "ERA Real Estate became an indepndent subsidiary of the Realogy Corporation on August 1, 2006" - we're on different worldlines here! Dlyons493 Talk 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that it is redirect. I am giving the target article the benefit of the doubt. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anyway, even though now changed to a redirect. (As an aside, real estate agencies and agents have a special set of rules to remove multiple incarnations in the Open Directory Project. Only travel agents have a similar restriction.) I realize it doesn't meet the requirements for WP:RfD, but I wouldn't be surprised if it changes back to Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement after this XfD completes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even though it's a redirect to the WP:CORP-meeting parent company. Redirects are cheap as free, but this one doesn't seem particularly useful, and nothing has been merged. --Kinu t/c 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article was already nominated for deletion several weeks ago, but the previous result was no consensus with a suggestion to nominate again in several weeks. No new arguments have been raised or agreed upon in this debate. A major concern (voiced repeatedly in these AfDs) has been the subjectivity of this list. I'd second Samuel Blanning in encouraging anyone with concerns about the validity of a single listing to be bold and remove it themselves. alphaChimp laudare 20:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (4th nomination)[edit]

NPOV, non-encyclopedic, unweildy listcruft, lol, internet. –127.0.0.1 (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, certainly not beautiful in its current form, but it has the potential of evolving into something like Films considered the worst ever, which actually is decent article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been nominated several times before:
  • Keep, every statement is verifiable and notable. If it isn't remove that particular statement. - Peregrinefisher 09:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the above reasons... besides, it would just get created again. --Caleby 13:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Article has too great potential for unverified abuse. Already the article has an NPOV tag and eight "citation needed" tags. "Worst ever" is too subjective a criteria. Worst by who's criteria? Can I start a 'blog, complain about how I hate such-and-such-a-song, and then cite that as a source here? This category is far too prone to WP:NPOV and WP:OR abuses. This subject is inherently non-encyclopedic. An encyclopedia should not have to post a disclaimer above articles saying, "Taste and judgment are subjective." Our role is to be objective, not subjective. This article claims itself subjective twice in the first paragraph. Scorpiondollprincess 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it IS possible to make a good article out of this, and it's been kept every time it's been nominated before. Whoever said "if at first you don't succeed, try and try again" wasn't talking about AFDing articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't an encyclopedic topic. "Worst ever" in this context is not measurable, it's just some random opinions. For a song to be labelled the worst ever, surely it should have the least number of sales, the most complaints to stations etc and not just be because someone decided that they didn't like it. MLA 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is the 4th nomination for this article, the most recent having closed just a few weeks ago - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nomination). The nom brings no new arguments to the table to justify such a rapid renom. There is nothing subjective here: the topic is valid and sourced to major news outlets and authorities such as Blender, BBC or VH1. The article is also very well maintained. We should not have to debate the same points over and over. --JJay 16:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per JJay. Revisit in 6 months if there are any significant changes. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep per being kept with a strong consensus less than a month ago. If this were not a WP:SK candidate, I would still vote keep, as I did a few weeks back. -- Kicking222 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it was kept with no consensus Lurker talk 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per the last 3 times this was nominated. I also recommend cleaning up citations on this article to help prevent it from being nominated for deletion over and over again. Amazinglarry 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Oh come on. Notable topic and extreme abuse of the system. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per JJay even though I personally wouldn't put Achy Breaky Heart on the list. SliceNYC 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural speedy keep. It hasn't been long enough since the most recent AfD. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-sourced. Monitor to make sure that new entries without source citations get {{citation needed}} tags and ultimately are removed unless sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, speedy, speedy keep. Come back when there's a new argument. Also, please note WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." Penelope D 01:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, per above - but this article didn't take long to go from a generally sensible and contrite post-AfD "let's try & stick to the top five in the Worst lists only"-type "NPOV lip service", to a free-for-all policy of "any old mention will do, 41st in some old list or other is surely 'bad' enough to be called 'the worst', yeah?"... So if it's back here 6 months from now in the predicted appalling state, I will be tending towards Delete I'm afraid... --DaveG12345 22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - The article definitely needs work and should take the form of Films considered the worst ever. --Happylobster 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. I'm too sexy for this AFD, too sexy for this AFD... Stev0 08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The article is pure crap and I will see it gone someday, but it has just survived an AfD so it shouldn't be here at this moment Lurker talk 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy Marminnetje 05:05, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Stornetta Inc.[edit]

Reads to me like a corporate brochure. Based on WP:CORP, I'm not seeing why it should be considered notable. Dori 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Dori 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article is reasonably encyclopedic (certainly not like a brochure) and the company might be notable per this reference taken from the article: [52], although that topic could use some more attention in the actual article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I think I identified the brochure at least some of it came from, and I added that to the talk page. So now we're also talking about WP:COPYVIO as well. Dori 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't know what your problem is with it Dori...this is a large corporation for the Sonoma County area, and their company is largely growing. It is far from a brochure. If it was brochure site, I'd be trying to sell the product to you, not be talking about the company. Besides, the company is about dairy, so that's how I'm supposed to describe it as. Black Kat 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My problems with this article are:
  1. It sounds to me just like how you described it on the talk page: you read their website, took their description, reworded it somewhat, copied their logo, and then posted it all here. See WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO, WP:LOGOS, and probably a few others.
  2. If you look at WP:CORP, it doesn't appear to meet any of WP's notability requirements. Which do you think it meets, and how?
  3. It's an orphaned article -- no WP articles link to it.
  4. Searching Google using the name of the article results in four pages. Again, notability?
If you think it's a notable corporation, explain why -- I'm generally a WP inclusionist, but I don't see anything here, on the talk page, or most importantly, in the article itself that makes me see how it meets any of the criteria for corporations. Add the copyright questions, and this article really has a ways to go before it's encyclopedia quality. Dori 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first part I wrote because it was very basic, and I tried to make it my own as much as possible, in hopes that it would be later changed by other people and myself to be more original, but this was all the reference I had for the moment.
Of course I took their logo. It's their logo...am I supposed to make one up at say it's theirs? I said it's THEIR logo. I would think that one is quite obvious.
You're wrong with the links...I had it link in the Petaluma article, and the Sonoma County article. If they aren't there now, someone erased it. I had it link to an article than mentioned Clo, as well, whether it was one of those two or one I forgot. I also gave it categories.
It's notable because it's a very well-known company in the area, and it's expanding throughout the state. It's very popular for it's health code and, considering it's becoming state wide and eventually possibly national, it's important enough. If there are documents at this site about episodes of cartoons, I would think information on a growing American corporation would be sensible. Black Kat 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This company obviously meets WP:CORP. You can't expect new editors to know all the Wikipedia policies. I would post the sources that I found, but they come up IMMEDIATELY on a google search [53], right below the web site, including an article by the Humane society, one in the SF chronicle, another by a prof at UC Davis, and at that point I stopped looking. Mangojuicetalk 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mangojuice. --Bigtop 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it needs a bit of a rewrite, but keep per Mangojuice. --Wafulz 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite The article is unencyclopedic. Its just operating in Northern California, while being non notable to the rest of USA.--Ageo020 02:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mangojuice. --Chris Griswold 05:24, 11 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 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cop[edit]

Original research. The "black cop" is such a broad category of characters that I don't see it as an actual archetype. A Google search for "black cop" archetype doesn't turn up any discussion of such an archetype, and certain clues in the text (ie, no possible origin for the archetype offered) makes me think someone is trying to advance an idea without the serious scholarly homework needed to do so. hateless 08:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep At least for now. This is not neccessarly OR, but certainly lacks references. Google is not holy, especially with difficult search terms like these. Especially in the context of "white cop" "black cop" partnerships, this can be considered a real character type in movies. Should be given the benefit of the doubt for now. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, I disagree. This article is entirely original research (Wikispeak for "he made it all up!"). It appears to be nothing more than one writer who sat down one day and wrote about a trend he thinks he's personally noticed in films lately. Since Wikipedia is not a source for unpublished personal research, this isn't a practice we'd like to encourage. Additionally, since the trend itself is not particularly well-defined or (in my insufficiently humble opinion) worth remarking upon, I very much doubt we'll ever have anyone attempting the "serious scholarly homework" Hateless (talk · contribs) refers to. As such, it shall always and only be original research. This "archetype" is not worth an encyclopaedia article just yet, and I doubt it ever will be. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your opinion, but actually I have read articles about this subject in notable magazines and newspapers (I live in Europe btw, don't know if that matters), suggesting that the author of this article is not alone in his opinion. I'll try to find some sources. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if there's sources out there, then I'm wrong about nobody ever attempting to define the archetype of the article :-). I look forward to seeing what you can dig up. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick search has me to admit that reliable sources are difficult to find. No change of mind yet though. :) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Original reasearch, no sources and most of all, ill-defined. Does everytime a black actor play a cop fall into this category or does the black cop have to exhibit certain traits? "many viewers poked fun at Bill Duke's appearance in 50 Cent's Get Rich or Die Tryin as the leader of a gang by referring to him as "Black Cop".... Although, Duke often plays cops I doubt if "many viewers" were doing this. Maybe he and his friends did and he decided to write an article about it. PLUS, user added category of "Notable Niggers" to the Denzel Washington article and I am afraid this may be part of some kind of personal agenda. MrBlondNYC 11:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite. The article contains Original Research, but the archetype the article describes is most definitely a valid one. Sources need to be found and cited for this article, but a deletion isn't needed. Dark Shikari 12:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. Poorly written and unsourced at this time. This may be a genuine phenomenae, but article cites no sources and ignores earlier examples (Yaphet Kotto in Homicide: Life on the Street and S. Epatha Merkerson in Law & Order ) in order to mention a slew of recent movies. This could be re-created with better WP:V and far less WP:OR. As written, it's just somebody's unsourced opinion that barely scratches the surface of the last five years of films and TV. Not encyclopedic Scorpiondollprincess 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on Allow me a day to cite my sources and revise the article. --Stukov 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typical AFDs lasts five days, you should have time to find sources if they're there. hateless 15:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems to be just an attempt at formalizing an opinion about a trend in movies. There are several bold, unsourced claims made, such as the first appearance of the black cop. The black cop doesn't even seem to have any relevance- I sure wouldn't write an article about the Mexican gardener or the teenage pool boy. Wafulz 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dark Shikari, but as long as the article is rewritten. --Bigtop 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Source has been added. Will continue to search and verify everything in the article. Origin of the archetype has been added and verified. Wafulz, the difference between the Mexican gardener and the teenage pool boy is that the "Black Cop" archetype is one of the most used cliches in the "Cop Movie" genre. In the last two decades it's in almost every popular cop movie. I Robot, Die Hard, Miami Vice, Lethal Weapon, Exit Wounds, Red Dragon, etc. I can come up with an entire list if it will help change your view. --Stukov 16:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as the article is sourced, I see no reason to prevent its inclusion into the Wikipedia database. This IS an archetype I have witnessed commonly in "buddy cop" movies and television dramas. There always seems to be the one sergeant or superior who is African-American and plays a stereotypical "stern father" role so to speak. I've found several essays regarding it on the web as well. Continue the discussion though.JaysCyYoung 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK I've actually read the sources. The essay "Black People as Scenery" definitely has merit. The very brief mention in the Narc (film) review does not. You may need better sources than that. Plus, I seriously doubt there's any source to the "Bill Duke/Get Rich or Die Tryin' (film)" claim besides you and your friends at the movies. MrBlondNYC 17:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it is evidently a growing trend in entertainment. There is some OR but I'm sure the authors can eliminate that given the described prevalence. I would also suggest looking into adding content about any possible trends of black and white cop pairings (Lou and Eddie on The Simpsons, for instance, or Smitty and Swanny on Sanford and Son.) SliceNYC 19:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wholly WP:OR. A blog does not a WP:RS make. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and be allowed to organically grow. GrapePie 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The black cop is a common archetype in modern films wether the critics of this article would accept it or not, while the persona may not be Jungian in origin, it has evolved in modern film and needs to be recognized. User:Shadow387 19:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research on user-defined archetype that doesn't actually exist. Is there a similar article on "white cop?" (another, far more regularly used, archetpye I could make up an article for and slap a few afterthought "reference" links on to try and keep from deletion). --FuriousFreddy 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does a black character being a cop automatically make him a character stereotype? Maybe the gruff black lieutenant or captain (48 Hrs., Starsky and Hutch, Homicide: Life on the Street) would qualify as a stereotype. The first two predate the example given as the "first" in the article. The pic on the page is of a character who was a sergeant, therefore not in charge, and was pretty nice. But just any cop who's black regardless of personality or rank is automatically a stereotype, huh? OK. MrBlondNYC 07:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per SliceNYC. -/- Warren 05:45, 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 keep, due to withdrawn nom. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (band)[edit]

I don't know much about it but I'm not sure that this band meet WP:MUSIC, one album, no review (as yet) of a major tour etc.. Marcus22 08:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep has toured Canada and the United States, has released an album on Kill Rock Stars, reviewed by Pitchfork Media [54], and have charted on both of Canada's major national college radio charts, Chart (peaking at ninth [55]) and Earshot (peaking at sixth [56]). JonnyChance 09:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JonnyChance, in addition the article does include a reference to a review of the record (and did so at the time of nomination). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: I dont really know enough about it, but one album on killrockstars does not strike me as very significant. Neither does one internet review of the album. There is no review of a tour. (Which is the point I actually made). And I dont know anything at all about Canada's national college charts - but are they the same sort of thing as Billboard? I'm not sure they are. So for now I'll go with Delete. Marcus22 10:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. Meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as commented above. Article satisfies WP:MUSIC. Scorpiondollprincess 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily meets WP:MUSIC criteria PT (s-s-s-s) 17:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep notable indie rock band on a very well-known label with a large following. Amazinglarry 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lack of American chart activity does not mean the band is non-notable. Other reviews include Discorder, Georgia Straight, Boston Phoenix, Popmatters.com and SHZine.com --nkife 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey, no problem! Take it easy.... I did actually ask for advice in one or two places before making the nomination and was kind of hoping that some of you who know WP:MUSIC a darn site better than I do would maybe get back to me. But it's no bother and I can see from the above that this is a clear Keep and so I'm glad to change vote and am happy to ask for the AfD to be dropped ASAP. Marcus22 08:21, 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 good grief. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and the Potters and the Power of Love[edit]

This is not the correct title for the article, the correct title is simply "Power of Love", and that article has been created Evan Reyes 09:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Howell[edit]

WP:N Film career is mostly non-credited stunt work according to IMDB entry. Game character voice seems most notable aspect of career--Clappingsimon talk 09:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - non-notable. --Bigtop 16:32, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9xb[edit]

nn-corp Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please put a little more effort into your nominations. A good nomination can be the starting-point of a worthwhile debate about the suitability or otherwise of a particular article; a poor nomination, by contrast, will often lead to Voting Hell. In addition, the author of this article (and a small but significant percentage of AfDed articles) put a decent amount of effort into writing the nominated article, and he deserves a worthwhile explanation from other Wikipedians as to why we want to delete it. As you can see, the author in this case didn't even know what "nn-corp" meant — and why should he? It's worthless jargon! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:10, 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 and redirect. Wickethewok 14:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butlin[edit]

Appears to be a "marketing page" for an organization/company not actually related to the food. Article is otherwise just a definition. SB_Johnny | talk 10:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Butlins. Proto::type 10:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is not a marketing page, it is a genuine food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.84.18 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I don't think it's a marketing page, the company linked to is mentioned in the article as the place where this food item originated. Also, this may well be a "delicacy" in the North West of England. It also mentions that it is mostly consumed by lower-class families due to its cost, this would probably be the case in the run-down ex-mining/mill towns such as Burnley or Wigan. 80.177.84.18 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect, looks like a hoax to me. The image is clearly fake and the only reference is to an article about the mathematics of image transformations. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). Tonywalton  | Talk 12:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Uncle G had a better idea. Tonywalton  | Talk[reply]
  • Delete as hoax unless sources appear. I cannot find any relevant google hits. Mr Stephen 12:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the speedily deleted versions of the page turns up a few more external hyperlinks, all of which are to on-line discussion fora or people's home pages. Some people invented the idea of a food named after Butlins a few days ago, have (poorly) faked a few photographs purporting to show this food, and (having had a good laugh at the idea on various discussion fora) have then added an article on it to Wikipedia. Original research. Redirect to Billy Butlin, since there is no need for a name disambiguation article yet. Uncle G 13:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why bother faking the photos. It's easy enough to get a breadcake, some mushy peas and a digital camera... (aargh. don't push peas into your breadcake). Redirect per Uncle G. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: The user who downloaded the image has a history of vandalism [58]. The IP user who comment above has worked only on this article, as has the originator of the article. Wikilinks are being added to the article as well as wikilinks on other articles to this one (apparently responding to an orphan tag. Change my vote to speedy redirect (as suggested above), and blocking the editors involved in the hoax/vandalism. SB_Johnny | talk 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Hello, my name is Thomas and I am from Latvia. When I visited England ten years ago I also visited a butlins and I was given a butlin to eat. They are real.....real tasty. Mmmmmmm! Love that Butlin taste! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.245.190 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 31 July 2006
  • Possibly speedy delete hoax/nonsense, photo is blatantly photoshopped and it was uploaded by now indef blocked vandal whom uploaded numerous bogus photos.--Andeh 17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried and failed to get this speedied. I'm sure it's a hoax, I can't find anything anywhere to the contrary apart from hearsay. I've been to Butlins (for shame!) and didn't see one anywhere! I will be more than happy to eat my words if anyone can get proof. Mallanox 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate as redirect per Uncle G. --Kinu t/c 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my god: you've never had a Butlin before? I used to live off these things as a student. Hmm all those peas....yum! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.84.18 (talk • contribs) .
  • Aaaaaagh: Love them butlinssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss! 194.98.245.190 08:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaaaaagh Indeed: Billy Butlin Bakes Beautiful Butlins. Baking Beautiful Butlins Brings Billy Bliss. Discodog1 14:52, 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 and redirect. Wickethewok 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in EastEnders[edit]

This list can already be seen in the article Storylines of EastEnders, it doesn't need its own article. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 10:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, its redundant per nom. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We merge duplicate articles. That does not involve deletion at any stage of the process. Please only bring articles that you want an administrator to delete to Articles for deletion. Uncle G 13:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, there is no need for a merge. All information in List of deaths in EastEnders is already present in Storylines of EastEnders. Thats why he lists it, correctly, here at AfD. Alternatively, a simple redirect would do the job. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. I repeat: We merge duplicate articles. These articles are duplicate articles, therefore they should be merged. If the source is a subset of the target that merger is a trivial one. Listing it at AFD is incorrect, in either case. Please read Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages and familiarize yourself with article merger and the fact that it does not involve deletion or AFD at any stage. Uncle G 16:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
        • Wrong. Deletion is appropriate in this case. We delete POV forks (or should, anyway), per existing policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redirect, hardly anything here to be called POV, switched to my second option per the Uncle. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Storylines of EastEnders. Molerat 13:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect. There's no need to keep the history. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smash it over the head with a doggy doorstop aka delete ;) -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:48, 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 to delete the article. I did a lookup aganist reliable sources for the De Morgen article, and it says that foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, so WP:V arguements are moot. And of course, new sources would definitely help in the article. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)[edit]

This article's deletion has been discussed on a number of prior occasions (Sept 04 - keep, Dec 05 - keep, Feb 06 - delete, then recreated, March 06 - delete, DRV - keep deleted, then recreated, April 06 - no consensus, DRV - restored as no consensus).

Frankly, it is time this went. I have waited a reasonable amount of time - over 3 months - before renominating this article to see if any multiple reliable sources would be forthcoming - they have note been. The article is not suitable for any reliable encyclopaedia, which Wikipedia should strive to be. As Wikipedia seems to finally have turned the corner on what we allow, and actually are applying policy and guideline (WP:WEB, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT) to internet meme garbage fanboy articles (see here or here, it may finally be time for this to go.

The article has 1 (one) even remotely verifiable source, which is a small article in a single edition of a fairly low circulation (53,860 or 1 in 150 Belgians) Flemish language newspaper that requires a subscription to read. This is nowhere near being sufficient for WP:RS (multiple reliable mainstream print journals), and the article is therefore unverified. The article even says this, itself - Despite its reported prevalence this is the only mainstream report of The Game. All the other 'sources' provided are either bloglinks, or a website made up purely to ensure this cack was no consensus'd in a prior AFD. And even if it were sufficiently verifiable, I would suggest that this is not notable. Strong delete. Proto::type 10:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This is nowhere near being sufficient for WP:RS (multiple reliable mainstream print journals), and the article is therefore unverified" Can you point me to where it says in WP:RS that articles require "multiple reliable mainstream print journals" for verification? Kernow 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is an accurate objection, as I've explained below. Also, it's better to insert comments in chronological order on an AfD rather than here at the top, to avoid confusion. Ziggurat 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Feb 06 deletion was not of this article, it was of another article about the same game. It was deleted because of the existence of this article. Kernow 22:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - note that I have semi-protected this AFD proactively, as previous AFD discussions have been rife with vandalism and first-time voters on both sides of the debate. If another admin disagrees with this, please revert the protection. Proto::type 10:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before. Nothing has changed, and it's been mentioned in a third party publication. AfD shouldn't be used over and over to get the desired result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been tagged requesting sufficient reliable sources and references for more than three months since the last AFD. This is not using AFD over and over. And note that the 'desired result' - deletion - has already been consented on twice. The same argument could have been made at the last AFD, when the prior two results had been 'delete'. The addition of one link to one low-circulation non-English account-restricted newspaper article is not enugh to pass WP:RS. Proto::type 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has a source. The fact that this is the fifth nomination shows that, yes, it has been AfD'd over and over, and this is a borderline speedy keep because of it. Just because it was AfD'd 3 times and people finally got the desired result doesn't make it correct now. My position stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It has one non-trivial mention - the same can be said for many passing things. Heck, I have friends who can claim the same if not greater coverage, and they don't have or merit articles either. GassyGuy 12:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep again. The Game is well known across many countries, and hundreds of reputable wikipedians attest to its existence. A second good source has yet to be forthcoming, still, which does detract from the article, but as and when we can fix that we will - in the meantime, the article should stay, awaiting completion, rather than being deleted. That was the consensus from previous AFDs, and nothing has changed. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the consensus(es) from previous AFDs were keep, keep, delete, delete, no consensus. Please ensure you have your facts correct. On the last AFD, many keep 'voters' (in speechies as AFD not a vote) said it was awaiting sources organically and other such platitudes; in three months exactly this much has been provided: nothing. A re-AFDing after three months when no such sources have been provided is not unreasonable. Proto::type 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be pointed out that the circulation of a newspaper doesn't affect its validity as a source. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "the consensus(es) from previous AFDs were keep, keep, delete, delete, no consensus" - The first delete was for an article with a different name that referred to the same game, so that has nothing to do with whther this article should be deleted. Kernow 21:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sources, and it is notable. A quick google test (with appropriate extra words) reveals a number of sites devoted to The Game. Since none of these sites created The Game, there is little possibility of vanity, and thus The Game is notable. Dark Shikari 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that most of the sites 'devoted to the game' were created purely to exist as sources for the Wikipedia article to exist (read the last AFD - savethegame is one of these. Proto::type 12:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see that one on Google--its probably way off the first page of results by now. One of the sites, for example, is a site offering game-related merchandise and the like, along with an FAQ as to what the game is and various other resources. While obviously it isn't a news source, it attests to the notability of The Game because it isn't related to Wikipedia nor did it create the game in the first place. Dark Shikari 13:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There just doesn't appear to be enough verifiable information in non-trivial sources yet. Perhaps if it is documented more widely the article can be recreated. —ptk★fgs 13:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just not notable/verifiable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not verifiable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, everyone needs to read the past discussions before voting on this. This really shouldn't have been nominated again. --Liface 15:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, include Proto, Dark Shikari, and above. It's notable, but it's appreciated to have improvements in the article. --Bigtop 16:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD abuse per above comments to get desired results. If someone doesn't like the fact that the WP system doesn't comport to their view of what the encyclopedia should include, change the system, don't game it (no pun intended). If something lived through so many AfDs, it's notable enough to at the least warrant a stub. I often harp on this but again the boat is missed: personal tastes really matter for nothing. It's all about what merits inclusion in the WP site, and this does. This also isn't Britannica, and we have no physical limitations. Keep this and add a note ala the GNAA to discourage frivilous deletion attempts. rootology 16:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V Whispering 17:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again per WP:V. We've waiting long enough for a second WP:RS, and it hasn't appeared. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:V and WP:RS per Arthur Rubin. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again per nom and point out, as last time, that the article used as the key reliable source would have gotten me bawled out by my journalism instructor for being pointless as anything but an opinion piece. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:V : "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." Rdore 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:V: "Just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article." Bwithh 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is also required is notability. This was established in previous AFDs. If you read the last AFD, notability had already been established and the discussion regarded verifiabilty. Kernow 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've looked through the previous AFDs before. I don't see that notablity has been established. The notability claims seem to be mainly based on the disputed Morgen article and various keep voters saying "I've heard of it" or "its mentioned on blogs". Should I point out that (as I'm constantly being reminded) notability is neither a guideline nor a policy? Nah. (by the way, I'm being ironic) Bwithh 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • From the last AFD: "Notability is not the issue here" "notability seems fairly established" "Notability is beyond question" Kernow 12:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice if more sources come about. My m:eventualism has run out. Kotepho 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable enough. --Elonka 22:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability was established in previous AFDs. Kernow 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a printed source, it is notable. I think it is just being nominated because a lot of the editors think the game is goofy, and therefore hold it to an unusually high standard. Rdore 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Many notability guidelines require multiple non-trivial sources, and when it's something this unencyclopaedic with which we're beginning, I think that's a fair standard. GassyGuy 01:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is my enitre point. Some wikipedia editors decide this game looks silly to them. Then, short of overwhelming evidence that it is a huge cultural phenomena, they are going to try to get it removed. Just rooting around on the internet I've seen a bunch of disconnected places where it shows up. Take a look at all the people who try to edit different variations and approaches they've seen into the article. This seems to me a sign that it is not an isolated thing for one or two groups of people. There are a slew of articles with much less verifiability and much less interest that nobody has attacked one tenth so vehemently.Rdore 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Many notability guidelines require multiple non-trivial sources" Could you tell me where I can find these guidelines? Kernow 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should have gone ages ago, but has been part of a very concerted campaign to be kept despite the clear guidelines of WP:V and WP:RS (I remember the first deletion review). This makes me wonder whether this is an attempt to indirectly promote losethegame.com, but that's really irrelevant to the question of whether the article should be kept or not. One source doesn't come close. Ziggurat 02:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I run losethegame.com, so you can accuse me of trying to promote it, but no one else commenting on here has anything to do with my site. I think The Game should have an article because it is notable and verifiable, both of which were established in the last AFD. Kernow 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, although De Morgen is a reputable Belgium newspaper, one small newspaper clipping from one newspaper is simply not enough, as one newspaper can make a mistake too. Also seems a spin-off from The Game (film), but that's just my own original research and isn't backed up by any sources. -- Koffieyahoo 02:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just as valid an article as the last four times. Ashibaka tock 02:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Half of which resulted in a delete, however? Ziggurat 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepNo Vote Sumburgh 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC) c.f. User:Ziggurat.[reply]
  • Delete per Arthur Rubin, unless another WP:RS appears. BryanG(talk) 05:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above and previous arguments. Meets the letter of Wikipedia policy, and these recurrent debates are a drain on the community. -- Visviva 05:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V is explicitly grounded in WP:RS. This article fails WP:RS, and so fails WP:V. Also note this statement in WP:V:"Just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article." Bwithh 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way does the DeMorgan article fail WP:RS? It is one of the most read Belgian newspapers, something like 1 in every 150 Belgians read it. Kernow 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again). I'm not going to repeat all my arguments again. WarpstarRider 07:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has been around for months and reliable sources haven't been found, surely not for lack of trying. One newspaper mention isn't enough, newspapers occasionally mention utterly insignificant things in passing. Multiple independent sources are still required, no? Weregerbil 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nomination Stormscape 12:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: okay, so in the four months since I last argued for its deletion, the article itself has improved. Unfortunately the verifiability has not. However many hundreds of blog hits there are, blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources. We have: one article in a newspaper. (An article which, at the time, people said looked very similar to the Wikipedia article.) One article in three months of people looking for more information? WP:V, WP:RS. Zap, pow, blam, delete. Telsa (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am not terribly familiar with Wiki policy, but I am a user who saw a reference to The Game elsewhere on the internet, without explanation. Wanting to know what it was, I turned to Wikipedia and within 15 seconds was enlightened. Seemes to me that Wikipedia fulfilled my need precisely in this instance. --Funpaul 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Official policy excludes many kinds of information which would are obviously useful to many people such as recipes, how-tos and dictionary definitions, nevermind obscure internet memes like The Game. This is because Wikipedia is primarily intended to be an encyclopedia. It is crucial for the authority of encyclopedias that they uphold official standards of verification and reliable sourcing (and some would argue also for encyclopedic notability, but this is very controversial and not official policy, although it is the basis of a number of official guidelines). Inadequately verified, obscure memes such as the Game are better suited to user-written websites like urbandictionary.com which have fewer and lower standards Bwithh 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The existence of only one obscure print reference confirms its non-notability. Wikipedia is not an appropriate vector for a meme of this sort. Rohirok 15:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an old meme, references to which are rare (partly by its nature) but not unheard of. Deleting the page serves only to subtly undermine the usefulness of Wikipedia as a repository of information; keeping the page causes no harm, other than continuing these inane discussions. Would a list of blogs mentioning The Game count as references? because fetishizing print references over internet references really serves no end at all; I'm certain there are many memes (correctly) discussed on Wikipedia which have never been covered in print. --Rjmccall 15:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have never heard of this, I do not know it to be notable, a Google check only shows one or two trivial results. Fails the Pokemon test. I have no idea why this has come back 5 times. ><Richard0612 UW 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly did you search for on Google? Kernow 22:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the wiki-bet soup policies the nominator brought up, particularly WP:V and WP:NOT. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Keep as per Visviva and Funpaul. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete Lacks multiple reliable sources for verification - even after very extended amount of time (8 months since first afd discussion) for new sources to arise and despite special initiative by Game fans to find sources[59] as well as despite their special deliberate initiative to plant mentions in the media. On this page on losethegame.com, planting mentions in the media is recommended as a game strategy. Sole "reliable source" media reference is, in fact, unreliable. The article is trivial in content - it is not a news report but a column (so not subject to news fact-checking). Furthermore, the writer does not substantiate his claims about the popularity of the game, and people should consider that the writer himself may be playing the game (since spreading word of the game is supposed to be "winning" behaviour). (I've lost the link that had the translation of the original article. I'll try and find it again) The writer is also wrong when he claims that readers who read his article have played the game and lost (though this is an indication that he himself is playing the game). One only loses by wanting to play the game (One can think about the game and not "lose" anything if one doesnt' want to play). This is a stupid game - the only way to win is, in fact, not to play. In any case, this article fails non-negotiable policy WP:V by failing WP:RS and is a good example of WP:NFT. Bwithh 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the translation of the Morgen article: http://www.losethegame.com/demorgen.htm . Notice that even this writer calls the game only "a modest hype" and fails to provide evidence that game has notable following. Also, as I mentioned his claim that "if you read this article, you just lost the game" is wrong, but also suggests that he is playing the game (using recommended strategy of planting mention in media to claim that readers are automatically losers) Bwithh 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "despite their special deliberate initiative to plant mentions in the media" I added that information less than 24 hours ago. See below for my explanation as to why participation in a game does not require consent. "this article fails non-negotiable policy" Could you please quote this policy. Kernow 22:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, more of an internet meme/thought experiment than an actual game (and should be recategorized as such if kept), but definitely not verifiable. Recury 20:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, I've actually come across a variant of this elsewhere (it had a rule that, if you came across a mention of it somewhere, you had a grace period to forget about it IIRC), but there's an apparent lack of reliable sources (though with a name like that, finding them wouldn't be easy anyway). - makomk 20:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourced and notable. The majority of Delete voters seem to think that Wikipedia requires mulitple sources for verification. The closest thing I could find to this is "you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source" (WP:RS), this is a long way from requiring multiple sources. Another mistake many Delete voters are making is the assumption that the 21st Feb deletion of the Lost (game) article is somehow relevant to whether or not this article should exist. That article was deleted because an article about The Game already existed here. Kernow 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The game is about not thinking about the game so it's inherently unverifiable. So it won't pass and never will pass WP:V --Whispering 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incorrect Whispering, the game is verifiable, it just means attempts to verify will be associated with someone loosing.
*Comment I think what Whispering means is the experience or social act of playing the game is unverifiable if we accept the rules of the game, since playing the game involves not thinking about it. And as I said before, you only lose the game if you want to play. So verification does not in itself lead to losing, despite what the De Morgen column claims. Bwithh 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* This has also been discussed before. You do not need to give consent to be a participant in a game. For example, I invent a new game called "Kernow's Game" and the rule is that the next person to edit this page will lose. By definition the next person to edit this page will lose Kernow's Game regardless of whether they want to play or were even aware that they were playing. Kernow 22:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrational. That would be a game in you play only in your own perspective which the other person has no knowledge of. Bwithh 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reply, but what I am saying is not irrational. The fact that I'm the only one aware of Kernow's game doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A game is an abstract concept with no physical existence. Therefore one only needs to conceive it for it to exist. Regardless of whether you want to play a different version where you don't lose, you have still lost my version of Kernow's game, and hence you have still lost a game without knowing you were playing it. For a less abstract example, what about the Roman gladiators? That was a type of sport/game and I'm fairly sure most of the participants did not want to play. Kernow 23:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:RS as it only has a single trivial article as a source - the article does not substantiate its claims as fact and is an opinion/though of the day/humour column piece rather than a news story; this makes it unlikely to be subject to the stringent factchecking which WP:V and WP:RS assume (also see my argument above). Also, satisfying WP:V is an insufficient condition by itself for an article to remain. Even if we accept the single De Morgen article as reliable verification of the game, the article fails to establish that the game has a substantial following or that this game is newsworthy or encyclopedia-worthy Bwithh 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please quote WP:RS where it says that verification requires more than one source. "the article...is an opinion/though of the day/humour column piece rather than a news story" What are you basing this on? Notability was established in previous AFDs, a google search for "I just lost The Game"[60] for example. Personally, I was convinced of its notability when I met completely random people who also played The Game. I have heard other "active players" say the same. Kernow 22:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At best, you asserting the most minimal level of meeting WP:RS - which even then, it is insufficient for article retention. Note that I emphasized the word trivial and that WP:RS and WP:V strongly advise multiple sources. And that the facts claimed in that single article of debatable significance fails the WP:RS's definition of a fact. The article clearly is not a piece of news reporting by journalistic standard as others have noted too. Almost all the google hits you cite are blog and forum entries. Then you resort to original research claims. Bwithh 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that there is no part of WP:RS that requires more than one source? The google hits I cite are an example of one of the things proving notability, not verifiability. As for my original research claims, I am just trying to give people my perspective. Obviously I have no way of proving that and it can't be used when deciding whether to keep the article or not. It's just annoying when people who haven't heard of something think that that means it doesn't exist, especially when you have come across it independently in a number of different countries. Kernow 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete I was previously a major proponent of keeping this article. However, at this point, after three months I have concluded that 1) it is not notable (if it we're the many people trying to find sources would have found more than 1 by now) 2) The De Morgen article only barely meets WP:RS. JoshuaZ 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you can really estimate notability based on the number of people searching for sources for Wikipedia. Kernow 21:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A failure of anyone to find any but one minor source that discusses it is relevant for notability. I was one of the poeple who wasted time trying to find more sources. I was unsuccesful. JoshuaZ 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure that in the last AFD you acknowledged that The Game was notable, and that the issue was with verifiablity? Is there any guidelines for how many people need to be aware of something for it to be classed as notable? As a result of the DeMorgan article alone there must be hundreds of thousands of players by now and that was only published a few months ago. Personally, I have been playing since 2002 so I think there must be many more players than this. Kernow 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of people are referring to the existence of savethegame.org as if this makes the lack of sources more relevant. People that follow this (flawed) logic should realise that most people gave up looking for sources when the decision was made to keep the article. Kernow 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [[WP:V] is policy. Consensus can not trump policy (if 1 in 4 AFDs keeping even is a consensus to keep). Absence of multiple reliable sources after an extended opportunity to generate them and multiple discussions is more than adequate evidence that such sources do not exist at the present time. Accordingly, the article should be deleted, and deletion review should not send it back again absent evidence of multiple reliable sources. Once we have multiple reliable sources, we can move on to the not yet adequately answered questions as to whether this is notable/encyclopedic. It sure looks like a prime case for elimination under WP:NFT. GRBerry 00:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policiy requiring multiple sources is yet to be quoted. Kernow 11:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already Voted It seems to me people are mixing together the two separate objections:
    • Verifiability - The article contains only a small ammount of info: what the game is, where it is played, etc. The newspaper article, even if it is not pulitzer winning journalism substantiates these claims. Could anyone credibly claim between that article and a glut of internet sources that any of the information is wrong? Do you think the game does not exist or has other rules? The rules, variants, etc. of Mao (game) are much more poorly sourced than this and no one is complaining about it's verifiability. What is it you feel isn't verified exactly?
    • Notability - Although the subject has to be notable, there is no rule saying that notability needs to be established through reliable sources. For example, there are lots of websites which have been affirmed in AfD as notable internet memes, despite having no printed sources about them at all (for example Zombo.com). My point is that there is no universal requirement that Notability be established with print sources.

Rdore 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the article, the criticism is not that it is poor writing, it is that is not news journalism. Also the article lacks reliable substantiation that this game has a notable following. Bwithh 03:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it say that the justification of noteworthiness has to be from reliable sources? Rdore 04:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering about this. If this is the case then would the evidence I collected for the Game Map be useful in determining notability. I have confirmed (with IP addresses) the locations of players in UK, USA, Canada, Brazil, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ukraine, Denmark, Russia, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Kernow 12:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bwithh. Which part of "multiple" is so hard to understand ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which "multiple" are we meant to be understanding? As far as I am aware, Wikipedia policiy does not require multiple sources. Kernow 11:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far there seem to be three reasons given for deletion:
  1. The De Morgen article does not count as a reliable source. The De Morgen is a major Belgian newspaper and no one has quoted any policy which would invalidate this source.
  2. Verification requires multiple reliable sources. Despite my multiple comments asking for someone to quote the policy that says this, no one has.
  3. The Game isn't notable. Notability of The Game was established in the last AFD. Notability does not need to be proven by reliable sources, it is up to people to use their common sense. Try searching Google for "I just lost The Game" or "I lost The Game" and the majority of hits are in reference to this game. There is evidence that The Game exists in many countries. I would be willing to let someone check the IP addresses on the losethegame.com forum to confirm this. The stat counter on losethegame.com clearly shows that around 500 new IPs view the main page every day.
In conclusion, I cannot find a single delete vote on this page that is supported by Wikipedia policy. Kernow 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's always WP:WEB, and WP:MEME too, if you like. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEME is a proposal that's thisclose to having a rejected tag on it. Meanwhile, neither WP:MEME or WP:WEB would really apply, as it's not about a website or internet meme. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although The Game may have become an "internet meme" it certainly doesn't solely exist as one, and was not created as one. I was told about The Game verbally and I'm a sure a significant number of others were to. Kernow 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "multiple reliable sources [are needed]": this is no policy, but just a healthy attitude, as newspapers are know to make mistakes, espesially in these "non-so-serious" parts of in which the cited article was published. I don't say that De Morgen article was incorrect, it just has to be ruled out that it wasn't. -- Koffieyahoo 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "multiple reliable sources [have pink spots and can fly]" Kernow 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article about the game is written by people who play it. In the zehd variation of the game I play, you can freely speak or write about the game for half an hour after losing, without losing again. The articles about Impossible Creatures, and Starcraft and Halo 2, and Age of Mythology are mostly written by people who play those games. Should we delete those articles? --Chamale 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those software games are major titles published by major video games companies and are verifiable through official websites and multiple game reviews by commercial publications. Not really comparable to the subject at hand Bwithh 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, still fails WP:V and WP:RS. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Cites a reliable source. Mo-Al 00:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was the result of the previous prolonged wrangle that the existence and notability of the Game are unquestionable. Additionally, sourcing something called "The Game" that has the goal of not thinking about it is rather harder than usual. Kernow has repeatedly asked anyone to quote the policy - used as a basis in several 'delete' votes - that multiple RSs are required, and the best answer so far has been that it's a "healthy attitude". --Kizor 04:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look at WP:V, you'll note that in almost every instance 'reliable sources' is plural, and by implication most people interpret this as articles requiring more than a single source for an article to be retained. It's pretty hard to achieve a neutral point of view with only one source, too. In any case, it's clear that people dispute whether the single source provided is sufficient, so a good consensus would be the appropriate course of action. Seeing as we have apparently yet to reach a consensus on this, more discussion is the key, not less. Ziggurat 21:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* "It's pretty hard to achieve a neutral point of view with only one source, too."
If you are claiming the article is not neutral, you should put an NPOV tag on it, not delete it.
* "In any case, it's clear that people dispute whether the single source provided is sufficient."\
The question which this begs, is sufficient for what? For reliability, for notability, or for neutrality? There's no reason to believe satisfying (or not) any particular one of these will cause the other to be or not be satisfied.
* "Seeing as we have apparently yet to reach a consensus on this, more discussion is the key, not less."
I agree completely and welcome more discussion. Rdore 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I'm saying is that one of the reasons we require more than one source is to ensure that NPOV is possible - if it's not possible (here I don't believe it is) then a tag is inappropriate. I personally don't like the concept of notability, so it's really reliability and neturality that are important here. While I also personally feel that there should be a baseline standard for how many reliable sources there are for an article to be included, that's a policy debate for another time.Ziggurat 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although "reliable sources" is used in the plural, the only reference I can find which actually discusses whether they are required is "you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source". As for NPOV, can you point to which parts of the article might be considered biased? It is really just stating the rules of The Game and where it is played, there isn't really anything in the article which could be opinion or a biased point of view as far as I can see. I agree that the existence of multiple sources would be more important if the article's neutrality was being disputed, but as far as I am aware it isn't. Kernow 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, the notability of the thing seems to come primarily from Wikipedia. Keryst 16:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the game exists through the article and numerous websites (memes are inherently less sourceable), but it's been shown to exist per WP:V, and any Google search provides notability at this point. Stop trying to relive the big game. -- nae'blis 19:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is not an internet meme. Trying to find internet verification for a real-world meme (and where I'm from, an extremely well-known one), is like trying to find journal articles about All your base.--Generalmiaow 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Game player "community" has a several websites which not only promote the game but also promote an online campaign to find reliable sources for the wikipedia article (though nothing except the disputed Morgen article and some unreliable blog/forum posts has emerged), and to encourage players to plant mentions in the international mass media (also failed). So its not unreasonable to expect internet verification of this "meme". And actually, its pretty straightforward to find journal/academic articles mentioning All your base[63]. Bwithh 16:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if De Morgen is a WP:RS, (which is still in dispute, regardless of assertions in previous AfD's), we (or at least, those who haven't read the original newspaper) don't know if it's the article is a column, as Dave Barry's in the Miami Herald (and syndicated around the world), or a human-interest news article. If it's a column, we're back to having no reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a bilingual Dutch Wikipedian who can clarify whether it's a column or an article. Ziggurat 22:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De Morgen is a quality newspaper (although probably not the newspaper of record, that would be De Standaard). So far as I can tell, and I've read it on occasions, it is a reliable source, insofar as newspapers can be. The jpg, which shows neither date nor page number, gives no obvious sign of where it came from in the paper. As the edge of the article is cut off we don't know who wrote it, but it's not an opinion piece per se. One WP:RS so far as I can see. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There just isn't a justifiable reason to delete a perfectly good article in this instance. Although the article does need more detail and sources, the lack of these does not justify deletion. Also the fact that this article has failed deletion 4 times leads me to believe it is popular enough to be useful. Wikipedia has a education obligation, and just because some people find The Game erroneous does not warrant it's deletion from Wikipedia. - Kickboy 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is warranted by non-negotiable policy WP:V and its dependency on WP:RS. Delete voters believe this article fails those policies. Article survived previous afds with people calling for more time for more reliable sources for verification to emerge. 8 months have passed since the first afd, and nothing has emerged despite organized attempts by The Game players to find sources and a key Game strategy being to try to plant game mentions in the mass media. Wikipedia does not have an educational obligation to cover every single kind of knowledge. In fact, it has specific policy WP:NOT against that kind of expansiveness and recent statements by Jimbo Wales/Wikimedia Foundation have officially appealed to Wiki contributors to ensure that quality rather than breadth of wikipedia article range be emphasized in future [64]. Bwithh 16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete': There simply aren't enough reliable sources to merit an article. --Hetar 06:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could what ever consensus we reach this time, be the last and there be no more afds? Five Afds is ridiculous. J.J.Sagnella 15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ridiculous is only one 'maybe' RS, after three months of it being an open issue of WP:RS and WP:V. There's a reason for needing more than "I've heard of this!" Shenme 17:07, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 04:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ottinger[edit]

nn local host, and has a few minor websites, only 600 google hits, based on his sites Quotes22 10:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only way he could be in right now is if he had been the guy to knock off Ken Jennings. But he didn't, and his websites aren't notable, so neither is he. -- Grev 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Matt Ottinger has been a popular celebrity in the mid-Michigan area for many, many years, and deserves a page on Wikipedia -- although as it exists now the page should be regarded as a stub, and could use at least the basics of his biographical data. With a little more fleshing-out of the page, the mention of his Jeopardy! appearance would take the a more minor role it deserves. Kevin Forsyth 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I worked on the article to emphasize Matt's notability under the "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" criterion of WP:Bio. In the field of U.S. game shows Matt is widely recognized for his work in creating a leading Internet forum and web sites on important game shows and personalities, especially Bill Cullen. The information about his appearance on Jeopardy! also qualifies him under the "renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" criterion because he was one of the few contestants who gave Ken Jennings a real run for his money during Jennings' widely publicized string of victories. His additional celebrity as a Michigan television host strengthens the case for notability. I agree the article needs fleshing out with biographical detail, but it's a definite keep under the notability guidelines. Casey Abell 08:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The two keep votes sort of speak for themselves why this article should not be included. He has a few subhosted websites, which are above-average, but that doesn't mean instant notability. He hosts a public-access game show that appears to only be seen in a small region of a state. He was a game show contestant, but Ken Jennings beat several hundred contestants, and that doesn't mean they all get pages. The above user is watering down WP:BIO to an embarrassing level. It looks as if this vote may conclude soon, but I'd like to see this be relisted and have votes from those with a more NPOV. --Renosecond 18:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't want to get into a slanging match. There's no reason to question other users' commitment to NPOV or dismiss their interpretation of WP standards as "embarrassing." If the article gets deleted, it gets deleted. Jimbo himself just said at Wikimania that AfD gets a little too heated sometimes, and I agree. So let's try to keep things as civil as possible. Casey Abell 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just don't think this is even close to the WP:BIO standards unless they are severely watered down. I think adding this comment here did not meet WP:CIVIL itself. I don't see Jimbo as god like some other members here do, so what he thinks isn't what I or other members here totally agree with --Renosecond 18:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Again, I'm not going to get into a slanging match over one of the several hundred Wikipedia articles I've edited. But it's not constructive to challenge other users on their commitment to NPOV or to use dismissive language about their interpretation of standards. I notice that you have dropped "embarrassing" in favor of the more neutral "severely", and that's a step in the right direction. Again, if the article gets deleted, it gets deleted, and I'm hardly going to get torn up about it. And by the way, I don't recall saying that Jimbo is God. I do agree with him about the sometimes unnecessarily confrontational tone of AfD. Casey Abell 19:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Richmond Cannington[edit]

Character in untraceable stories by nn author. If they exist, the books are internet or vanity published: no Amazon hits; no google hits for "Cannington Inquires" (except WP) two google hits for "Cannington Inquiries". An article about the author has already been deleted at AfD, and csd'd as a repost. Prod removed by creator. Mr Stephen 10:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The link in the article to the "list of fictional detectives" eventually coughs up the ability (I think) to buy the books in question, but that doesn't make the character notable enough to have an article here - delete. BigHaz 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, well done! that would be here. I still don't see how to buy them ... Mr Stephen 11:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. I thought I'd got a link to something when I moused over the titles and details, but that was something playing up on my end rather than the site doing what I thought it was. Net result being that we can confirm the existence of the books, but this is still a long way from crossing the notability threshhold. BigHaz 11:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a self-publishing outfit started by someone aged 8, now 17, per this. I doubt, pending any counterclaim by the author, that these are purchasable anywhere - see this, for instance (my emphasis): In the summer of 2005, HMGN Publishing published the first detective novel by William Hanson, 'Point of the Matter'. It was a hit within the organisation. Best of luck, lads, but come back when these are available to the general public and have sold enough to be notable. Meanwhile, delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You gotta admire them but it doesn't even seem to have risen to the dizzy heights of vanity publishing. Dlyons493 Talk 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Andersson[edit]

Subject finished second last in a single race held 98 years ago. The fact that this race was an Olympic event is irrelevant. The wheat should be separated from the chaff, and we have entries for the finalists in the relevant event, but Axel Andersson is just chaff. Catchpole 12:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article doesn't do anything more than mention that he existed, the 1908 Summer Olympics 1500m mentions his name, and place he scored, which does more than enough for him. --Porqin 12:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every Olympic athlete is worth note. But I agree that article needs more data. -Jdlow 8:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Olympic athletes - all Olympic athletes - are notable under WP:BIO. BoojiBoy 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No mention of Olympic athletes is made in WP:BIO. The actual text mentions 'the highest level in mainly amateur sports'. Seeing as Axel Andersson did not make an Olympic final, he did not compete at the highest level. Catchpole 13:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are taking WP:BIO out of context. The full text is "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports..." The Olympics are the highest level at which one can play in mainly amateur sports, and WP:BIO says nothing about results, only "playing". BoojiBoy 14:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep in mind WP:BIO is a guideline and not a policy. Every article should be well-reasoned for or against, not just saying strictly "The article should automatically be included because they meet part of a guideline". Also, you can apply many "Alternative tests" of the WP:BIO, and it seems this individual would fail them. They are already mentioned on this page and include all of the same information that Axel Andersson's provide. --Porqin 14:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the same reasoning- he was an Olympic athlete, and that means he passes WP:BIO, and that means he deserves an article (even if there's little info on him). -- Kicking222 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We don't even have articles on athletes who made the 1500m final at the 2004 Olympics. Why? Because there is not that much to say about them and they haven't been notable enough for anyone to write an article on them. Catchpole 08:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable for being an Olympic athlete. Yamaguchi先生 09:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics - Men's 1500 metres. There is no content here not on that page, and simplifying the article structure, when it can be done for no loss of content, is a good idea. Should anyone ever find real content from reliable sources, the redirect can be overwritten at that time. Meanwhile, this is a stub article. GRBerry 00:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable for Olympic athlete. Sue Anne 23:25, 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. Wickethewok 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Jean Dedmon[edit]

Just a third place in the 3rd season of the German version of Pop Idol. She was deleted in the German Wikipedia several times because of irrelevance. There is no official CD by her. There were several requests for deletion review in the German WP, most of them referred to the existence of the entry in the English WP, but all of them were refused Uwe Gille 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Totally irrelevant person. No achievements at all so far. --Voyager 08:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Porqin 12:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appearance of three months in one of Germany's biggest TV shows, song on the No. 1 compilation album Love Songs, solo album in production, announced for spring 2007 -- Citius 17:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the German WP won't have an article on her, I can't imagine why in the world the English WP needs one. -- Kicking222 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Shrek05 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that we have an article apropos of every other Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestant, including some for whom no record release exists. The subject qua musician, to be sure, is non-notable per WP:MUSIC, but the subject qua reality television personality is perhaps notable per WP:BIO. I'd be inclined to support deletion in any event, though, but I think we ought to use this AfD to elucidate the community consensus with respect, at the very least, to the similarly-situated German Pop Idol contestants. Joe 19:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why should somebody with a huge fan base not be called a TV personality? Why should somebody get now deleted, who meets WP:MUSIC very soon? Why should en:WP follow the strict deletion policy of de:WP? -- Triebtäter 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn; fails WP:BIO. DrL 19:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Daniel Ross[edit]

This seems to be vanity, and the guy doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. Ladybirdintheuk 12:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This page has lived far too long (8 months), google gathers 110 hits for his name, and this page is a personal essay. --Porqin 12:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comments. Em-jay-es 06:10, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMW[edit]

Non-notable wrestling organisation, google returns back zero results, sounds like a backyard wrestling group. --- Lid 12:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a non-notable, wrestling group, some group of friends made up. --Porqin 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:V. Scorpiondollprincess 13:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, unreferenced, most likely unverifiable. I'll stand by my proposed deletion. --FreelanceWizard 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, video verification currently being uploaded, IMW operates primarily in the winter, more videos will be linked to then.----Bigtictac 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NFT you made up in your backyard one day. Yet another non-notable wrestling group with no verifiability. --Kinu t/c 21:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlokaKids[edit]

Appears to be vanity. 4 google results. Dark Shikari 13:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrinox[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unpublished role playing game. Products that are not yet released to the market are not usually listed on WP. This has no Google or Yahoo search hits, so is presumably not available to the public even in its current state. Once published, would be a valid subject for an article, but not until then. eaolson 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update. In the interest of full disclosure, the article has been updated with a link to a fairly skeleton set of rules. [65] While I guess this makes the article verifiable, I still maintain that it is sufficiently non-notable for an article. eaolson 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It doesn't really affect this nomination. The article specifically states this is an RPG that was turned down by Wizards of the Coast. It isn't going to be published any time soon, and its current incarnation is a game in development played through a web forum. -- Whpq 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crystal Ball. As nom suggested, this can be re-created once actually published. Scorpiondollprincess 13:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Andrinox is in the process of being excepted". It hasn't actually been expected yet. This is like a double crystal ball. --Porqin 13:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe the author means "accepted"? Either way, admitting that notability's not there yet. Delete. Fan-1967 15:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crystal ball mboverload@ 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visibility 9-11 Podcast[edit]

promotional; fails WP:WEB. see also Michael Wolsey. Tom Harrison Talk 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a vanity article. --Porqin 13:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete podcast that, as far as I can tell, falls well short of the WP:WEB guidelines.--Isotope23 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a few changes to the article with the following commentary. This is clearly not a vanity article. After reading the section on this topic, it is clear that at worst, there was, toward the end, "...material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author..." From this same article WP:VAIN, there is a clear distinction between vanity infromation and a vanity article. The assertion that this is a vanity article is simply an exaggeration. I have removed the references to Michael, except for mention as the host, to avoid this appearence.

I diliberately did not include the Revere Radio Network aspect because I wanted to keep it simple and avoid the appearence of "vanity". After reading the WP:WEB, I see that I should have included it. Quoting WP:WEB, "3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Revere Radio Network is both independent and well known with a current google search number of 10,900. They are very well known depending on who you talk to.

Also, it is worth mentioning that adding this show to Wikipedia in the 9-11 conspiracy theories section is very appropriate. The 9-11 section of Wikipedia is large. In fact, this article under consideration cites Wikipedia pages 9 times with regard to 9-11. Regardless of what you think about the 9-11 conspiracy theories, Michael has made a significant contribution in this area with this show. This show belongs in this section along with all the other researchers who are featured.

I believe that with the previously mentioned edit, and new information now provided, this article fits within the Wikipedia guidelines. If I am mistaken, please assist me in bringing this article within Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for taking the time and for your careful consideration. Visibility911 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles. I get 14 Google hits for "visibility 9-11 podcast", all directories or other self-promotional sites (two hits each to visibility911 and colorado911visibility websites). While Google should not be the final arbiter of notability, at this level it is symptomatic. Tychocat 11:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WEB clearly says: "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" I believe I have shown that this program fits within criteria #3 cited above. Anyone who uses Google knows one cannot enter one set of key words when they are looking for something. Simply remove the word podcast from the above search and you will yeild 716 hits on Google, and the Yahoo search engine produced 2,360 using the same key words. I also find the above statement by Tychocat to be somewhat misleading if not erroneous. I tried the same search on Google. I got 23 hits, not a big enough difference that 14 to make a big deal about, however, "directories and self promotional sites"? Tychocat, would you please explain this statement for the discussion? Yes, the podcasting host site came up first with CO911V right behind but how are these "directories and self-promotional"? Additionally, I did not see anything else that could remotely fit this description. If I am so far off base in my reasoning, why doesn't an experienced Wikipedian clear up my misunderstanding? I would really appreciate that. Thank you. Visibility911 00:50, 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 as follows: I took into account the arguments to delete, and at first glance, this looked like a clear "delete". However, having also (obviously) taken into account the arguments to keep, and given the circumstance that the article has been edited so that it is not plainly advertisement, I see no consensus either way. --Ezeu 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the the version that I based my descision on was edited extensively while I was writing the above basis for my decision. --Ezeu 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out Now Consulting[edit]

blantant advert Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. I'm afraid I disagree that the listing is a "blatant advert" Adam.
  • I note too that the AfD guidelines state "Companies directly reported as significant players in major news events are generally notable is a reason for a listing in wikipedia."

    The Pink Pound Conference in June 2006 UK featured Out Now Consulting MD as the Keynote Speaker.

    Time magazine today covers the organisation. This year has seen Out Now Consulting covered in other media and in fact over 15 years Out Now Consulting has been frequently covered in news media in relation to the company's leading role in what is a new development in marketing - developing strategies to target gay consumers.

    Some of these publications include: The Independent (UK) The Times (UK) The Guardian (UK) The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) The Australian (Australia) Business Review Weekly (Australia) Het Financieele Dagblad (Netherlands) De Morgen (Belgium)

    TV appearances by Out Now Consulting staff have been many and include: BBC TV (UK) Jim TV (Belgium) TCN 9 (Australia) Nederland 1 (Netherlands).

    There has been much other media coverage of Out Now Consulting's role in this development during this period.

    In each case, Out Now Consulting is reported upon as a "significant player" in the "major news event" of - the emergence of a visible gay and lesbian consumer market. Perhaps to you that isn't a major news event but today's issue of Time magazine obviously does as the story about the emergence of gay advertising in Europe quoting Out Now Consulting's work is the one item from the current issue that Time magazine has chosen to highlight at the top of their homepage http://www.time.com/time/europe/ and see also the article at http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060807-1220477,00.html

    Other media events include the coverage in much UK media of the revelation that 49% of lesbian and gay people feel unable to come out at work. http://www.sundayherald.com/53693 (Scotland) and http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article341714.ece - again media coverage of gay community research that Out Now Consulting was the significant player in.

    I again request undeletion of the Out Now Consulting page.

    Thanks for your attention,

    Ian - 31 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outnow (talk • contribs)

  • Note: the preceeding comment coincidently enough was made by the articles author. --Porqin 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who also coincidentally enough has the same name as the company being described in the article... Dark Shikari 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And whose only edits are either a) editing/creating this article, b) linkspamming other pages with links to this article, c) editing this AfD page, and d) leaving messages on user talk pages. Morgan Wick 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not think that was hidden from anyone at all - and was not the point of the post. Forgive my relative unfamiliarity with wikipedia technical aspects - I had thought that logging in as outnow was what was needed to identify myself as the poster and creator of the article. I repeat that that does not invalidate my belief that the entry is notable. If that is not decided by users then so be it, but please do forgive my unfamiliarity in the previous post outnow Outnow 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Ian Johnson, Managing Director Out Now. outnow on wikipedia. Now I hope those reading the article will let the content itself determine whether this company's work falls within the AfD guidelines mentioned by me above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outnow (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep if a neutral third party volunteers to rewrite it. The various media mentions might make it notable per WP:CORP, but it's hard to be certain given the source of these claims. The current text of the article in fact is very POV to me (eg. "Out Now Consulting has been frequently covered in other news media in relation to the company's leading role in what is a major new development in marketing"). It needs to be filtered for encyclopedic content that is carefully cited with verifiable info from reliable sources. Willing to consider a relist in 4 weeks if someone volunteers to do this (thankless) task. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article is publicity material for this organization, and cannot be reasonably used as the basis of any neutral article on the topic, if the subject even meets the WP:CORP or WP:ORG standards in the first place. Mangojuicetalk 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mangojuice. --Bigtop 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Wafulz 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:CORP, and WP:V - at first look it seems as if it could be saved, but I've been unable to find if any of the articles listed are about the company (rather than quoting them or their research). Yomanganitalk 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think it advertising. Article just states the fact and also cites a lot of websites. Also per outnow--Ageo020 02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Company with major-media news coverage and that stands out in its industry/segment. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is ordinary, everyday SPAM. --Xrblsnggt 03:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rule of thumb: If it gets fewer google hits than I do (admittedly some of mine are irrelevant), it's not notable. Morgan Wick 03:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if a neutral third party volunteers to rewrite it per Kaustuv Chaudhuri. --Chris Griswold 05:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete - I just took a look to see if I could make something of the article. You'll see what I found useable. Out Now conducted a survey in 2005, and most of the links briefly mention data, which, from my work experience, was sent to them by Out Now in a bid to be mentioned in an article. The article is nothing but PR: It has nothing to do with being created by a new editor, it's a loosely related collection of references to brief mentions of the survey. --Chris Griswold 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep

    I left this comment days ago when the article was much fuller, there is so little info on gay marketing available, that students like myself previously found this article of great use. It is not SPAM when it helps me do an assignment.

    Original comment follows....

    Hi There,

    I am a mrketing student in the Netherlands, and have found the article on Out Now Consulting to be most helpful and of exceptional interest on the gay marketing phenomenon.

    It was quite hard for me as well as other students to find the information that we needed, though there was plenty to say on the subject.

    Keep up the good work and it may be worthwhile keeping the article here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.87.154.90 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Recreation of previously deleted content [66] Dlyons493 Talk 12:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The current version is a stub whose history suggests that a great deal of promotional cruft was stripped out of it, and which seems objective and verifiable enough. The niche market this business is in suggests that it may be unusual enough to be more interesting than other firms of similar size; whether being interesting is enough to pass an article that otherwise probably fails WP:CORP is not something I have strong opinions about. Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - I have obviously followed the various input with great interest as the author of this article. Some observations. With respect to Morgan Wick, Morgan it is not really so simple as your rule of thumb suggests. For example, if Out Now Consulting gets more Yahoo hits than you yourself do and MSN search which also has far more Out Now entries than Morgan Wick entries verifies this, then that seems to refute your logic for justifying deletion. 'Ask.com' also yields similar results - showing far more listings for Out Now Consulting than for Morgan Wick. Dare I say it, but this would, on your logic therefore seem to turn your 'delete' into a 'keep'. Without being disrespectful Morgan, I suspect that if you try applying that logic to much of what is in Wikipedia you could delete tens of thousands of entries right now. Many of the Morgan Wick entries that do come up actually seem not to relate to you, whereas all of the "Out Now Consulting" ones do seem to relate directly to the subject of this article. Even allowing all the Morgan Wick entries in these three main search engines to tally up towards you - we are left with a tally of just 834 listings for "Morgan Wick" (many of which seem not to actually be you), compared to 1368 web search entries in the four main search engines for "Out Now Consulting". That is just using the US engines. If we play the same game with other countries you see even more marked differences where your entries are much less. For example, in the UK web on Ask, there are no entries for Morgan Wick and 43 entries for Out Now Consulting, including entries from many of Britain's leading publications. For the record and for Chris Griswold too, some media coverage that results in much coverage of any organisation results from media releases put out by the organisation, that is hardly news to anyone. But much of the items deleted by him/her this morning should not have been as they fail to recognise several things. Out Now Consulting was established by Ian Johnson who is also the founder of the parent company Significant Others in Australia. As the firm's own website makes clear, the organisations function in concert and Out Now is a continuation of Significant Others work in non-Australian markets.

The fact that Out Now is the only gay marketing agency with offices in more than one country is a fact unique to the entity and increases the organisation's notability.

The deletions by Chris Griswold did far more than remove entries related to one survey. S/he removed many third party media reports of Out Now Consulting covering a range of issues, some related to Out Now's many different reports, some where the journalist sought Out Now Consulting as a notable source of expertise in its specific area. Given the extent to which s/he removed items and the little time it took for this user to do so I am somewhat concerned that s/he did not have time read through all these removed references sufficiently to see that they were clearly not just "a loosely related collection of references to brief mentions of [a single] survey". 37 minutes were spent deleting over 35 separate news articles, third party references and other citations from a range of sources. The article as left by this user this morning leaves only a single reference - to UK research from 2005 and removed everything else. There was also other research included previously. there was much more than reporting on research. For example, there were third party publications such as the Belgium Marketing Foundation, the Pink Pound Conference (UK), the Dutch marketing textbook "Principes van Marketing" (Principles of Marketing) also removed by this user - none of which was related to the British Gay Times and Diva research as s/he seemed to contend when removing it. On that point, where an esteemed newspaper such as the Sunday Independent - a leading national UK newspaper, devotes a double page spread feature article based primarily on, and extensively quoting research by, Out Now Consulting discussing a major workplace discrimination issue, which is also supported by remarks from other industry groups in the UK unrelated to Out Now Consulting, all commenting on the work of Out Now Consulting - does that not as C.Fred says: show Out Now Consulting to be a "company with major-media news coverage and that stands out in its industry/segment"? That seems to fall squarely within the Wikipedia guidelines as to notability for article's on companies being included.

For that matter, why would Time magazine this week in Europe choose to quote Out Now Consulting's opinion about the state of gay advertising in Europe if the company is not notable for readers of Time? That seems to fall within Wikipedia guidelines. That comment had absolutely nothing to do with the British research mentioned above. We were relied upon by the journalist of Time as a notable authority in the area of gay marketing. The magazine includes a photo of Out Now Consulting's campaign for the German National Tourist Office in their print edition as an example of gay advertising.

I note also that the comment made by the student 86.87.154.90 talk is a relevant one. Each week we usually receive several inquiries from students wanting our help. I agree our article is not SPAM to these students. Just today we received the following email -

"My name is Katharina and I study in Germany and have to write en essay for my university on gay marketing.It would be really helpful for me if you could send me some information, because it is such a new and present topic and I could not find any books so far. I would be really pleased if you could help me. Thank you very much, Katharina"

That sort of thing is fairly common here - if any of the Wikipedia editors wishes to contact me direct I would welcome them doing so to obtain more information about the similar student emails we regularly receive requesting assistance from Out Now Consulting with research about the gay market and other gay social issues. There really is a uniqueness to what we do - which is why media, students and others contact us. It is also why we are noted in such a leading textbook as Kotler's Principles of Marketing textbook in section 4 about niche marketing. That has nothing to do with our research - it features a full page discussion of advertising we created for Lufthansa and South African Tourism in the Dutch market. It also seems to fall squarely within Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion.

Any of the above factors taken alone should make you think our firm is notable but when taken in concert, - and in respect of so many third party citations about the company (removed today by Chris Griswold) I believe firmly that such a combination of factors renders this article well worth keeping and Out Now Consulting notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. To delete everything in the previous entries down to just what was left there this morning seems not in keeping with the Wikipedia principles. Finally, just in case you did not pick up on it above I am the author of the article and am the MD of the firm, so you might be tempted to discount all I say trying to believe that our article is SPAM however it is not just me saying it.

The search engines, the students such as 86.87.154.90, users such as C.Fred and Ageo020 and many media publications around the world seem to concur that our business has a unique industry position in a major new development in marketing. I would much prefer that there be restored some of what was deleted this morning from the article with a NPOV, and where third party items where the work of Out Now Consulting is the major aspect of the citation. Ian Johnson -- User:outnow

Comment - To meet the notability criteria the the company should have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. From what I saw yesterday the vast majority, if not all, of the included references were about other subjects with Out Now's research or comments being quoted for information. If there are works in which the company is the subject of the article by all means put them back in to reinforce your claim to notability. Yomanganitalk 14:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The largest piece of the text is "specialised gay marketing services to large companies by researching gay lifestyles and using the information to develop strategies to target gay consumers", which strikes me as a rather obvious or self-affirming statement and sounds like it was lifted directly from a PR or ad copy. Some arguments for keeping an article on this specific company don't compel me: they often speak of interest first in gay marketing not specifically in this company, just that they happen ask this company directly for info about the general field. I see the existing page on the topic does have a section for listing of the major companies (a common and reasonable thing to have in such articles) and that does link to Out Now. DMacks 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novelty Table[edit]

Hardly intelligible copied/pasted table. No references provided. Edcolins 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete This is a bunch of nonsense per G1. --Porqin 13:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G1 (patent nonsense): an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Tonywalton's comments. Utterly useless garbage. Scorpiondollprincess 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G1 (nonsense), A1 (context). If you can read it three times and still not be able to figure out what it is, it needs to go. Fan-1967 14:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Might be something, might be nothing. It's too poorly-formatted and context-free to determine which, so it needs to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 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 Deleted by Fang Aili.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing (Counter-Strike)[edit]

It was proded prod was removed. It's page that was deleted before here but it's not exactly the same page. Still reads like a game guide though and so violates WP:NOT --Whispering 20:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITGS - Luxembourg[edit]

Just a list of topics of a certain course, no explanation, no references. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:30, 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 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isoade[edit]

Unsalvagable advertisement. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. "Not much is known of this drink"? This violates WP:V and WP:SPAM. Links are just to pictures and advertising. Scorpiondollprincess 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu t/c 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any article including the words "Not much is known about" NawlinWiki 01:51, 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 hoax. DS 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Nobby Norton[edit]

This article, I freely admit, is a work of genius. It's funny and creative. Unfortunately, while Percy Nobby Norton does indeed appear to have been an Australian folk singer, he is entirely unnotable, and everything else here is made up. Among many other reasons to believe this are his alleged 1902 publication of "Calvin and Knobes", and the 1923 publication of "Desperate Househusbands". Good joke, but it's gone far enough. DJ Clayworth 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I disagree, this article seems fair enough. Perhaps at least it could be moved to the bad jokes section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.131.33 (talk • contribs)
  • Author asserts on their talk page that I can provide more evidence from books, such as poems and songs and mini-biographies, but I do need time and you need to understand that most of the information has been derived by information from interviews with people who knew him.. So Userfy to a subpage in the author's userspace while they work on it - let's see it blossom into a fully-referenced and WP:V article having given the author the time he wants. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Perhaps at least it could be moved to the bad jokes section?" If the author is even thinking about the bad jokes section, it obviously isn't a real article. --Porqin 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too long and forced for BJAODN. The picture is probably a copyvio... looks like Dominic Keating to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a particularly good joke. No need to userfy. Dlyons493 Talk 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with violence This is a hoax, nothing more, and damages Wikipedia's reputation every minute it remains. --DarkAudit 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Total farce and even contains some fairly crude material. ju66l3r 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:HOAX, no WP:BJAODN since that would be WP:BEANS. --Kinu t/c 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, I hate hoaxes, even Australian ones. NawlinWiki 01:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, I hate bad jokes, especially Australian ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.135.238 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong not delete, Look lets not start getting racist, Percy Norton is a man of kind and understanding, you cannot just start saying that it is wrong and a joke just because it dosn't fit into your fixed ultra-right wing view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpazolli (talk • contribs) (only edits are to the article and here; this user uploaded the photo for the article)
  • Strong not delete, Sorry to interfere yet I am a postgraduate student at Monash University in Australia and currently studying Australian and New Zealand Folklore. Last month I completed a reasearch assignment on two ballads called "The Fossicker's Song" and "The Raspberry Picker's Song". As a frequent user of WIKIPEDIA's excellent encyclopedia, I stumbled upon Percy Norton. This article provided me with so much laughs that I had to print it and show it to my Lecturer today! After reading that it would be deleted from WIKIPEDIA I felt quite shocked yet understanding. Perhaps if some explicit passages were ommited and proper facts added, then it would be very amusing yet informative article on a little-known Australian poet. Please keep this article online, I beg you! - AGC Hubert— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doriath (talk • contribs) (only edits are to the article and this AFD)
  • Strong not delete, If something is to be considered for deletion, the information provided must be proven wrong. As it stands, neither those who have written the article or those wishing for the article to be deleted have provided evidence. The author has also suggested he will be adding references and citations, as seen in the first paragraph. I therefore suggest caution is the order of the day, and that this article should remain untoucher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRH MJW (talk • contribs)
  • Strong not delete, I have spoken to who I like to call old Nobby and he was so pleased to see that his 'conquests'(obviously talking about his time in the army) had been passed onto a new generation. He decided to start his own blog at nobbynorton.blogspot.com

God Save the Queen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.7.132 (talk • contribs) (this is user's only edit)

This 'blog' was started only after this AFD was started, and looks suspiciously similar to that 'started' by the fictitious author Trevor K Grant the day after there was an AFD on his article. In fact the whole AFD discussion seems strangely familiar. Plus the prose style seems very lively for someone who was already publishing articles in 1902... DJ Clayworth 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Clayworth seems to have a need to state what I said in my comment. I never made any attempt indeed I stated that the Blog was created after the AFD.--Bpazolli 09:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong not delete, Hello all, as a fellow australian writer I was pleased to see such an informative peice on my favorite writer and a personal inspiration for me. Some say that this article was a bit crude but thats how Nobby Norton's life was. - aDavis(Arthur Hoey Davis)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ADavis (talk • contribs) (user's only edit)
  • Delete, ARE YOU CRAZY??? As a Professor I have searched far and wide in this great country of ours, for information on this legend of a writer Percy Nobby Norton. The only disgrace is someone has vandelised this site with bold text, and the boxes at the top are really upsetting, iConner--Professor Ian O'Conner at Griffen University — Preceding unsigned comment added by IConner (talk • contribs) (user's only edit)
  • Don't Delete I thought I add a bit of evidence of the creditbility of this article I present The Raspberry Pickers Song

I Came up from Wandin And a girl come up to me Here comes a raspberry picker now won't we have a spree she grabbed me by the collar and she tried to grab my swag so I upped with a stick and knocked here stiff and they all cried out he's a lad Oh give me the wandin life where the raspberry pickers do rome for we are the Carlton Larrikens lad That is what I can remember. I understand that the burden of proof is on me the author not the people wishing for deletion but most of the information was gathered via interviews. WHAT CAN I DO???--Bpazolli 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete The author(s) of this piece need to be given a reasonable amount of time to clean up and provide evidence concerning the allegations made here, many of which seem somewhat artificial. Nevertheless, they may turn out to be true, only time will tell. Perhaps, like the UN Security Council, the author(s) are given one month to tidy this mess up

John Silverthorne 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (user's only edit)[reply]

  • No delete, As in the family of the B.Elvira, I having good reason to believe that at bit of this information is factel. My Aunt has made many lectures of Nobby, and has told to me how he liked the boys and girls, you know? So some of article is perhaps true? Excuse my bad english.

C.Y.Elvira 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (user's only edit)[reply]

    • Note C.Y. Elvira also edited this AFD to delete my vote, above, and to delete all the identifications of single-purpose votes. I have since restored them.NawlinWiki 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentBy single-purpose votes you presumably mean single-user edits? Are you suggesting that these people do not exist, or have been artificially created? If so, I demand you withdraw this comment immediately. It is both insulting and rude to make such an allegation. I apologise on your behalf to the user C.Y.Elvira--Old Smokey 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is an obvious hoax. I'd guess the image may be copyvio from an advert somewhere. -Sanbeg 21:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The user above is a smart yet misled man, he is correct in saying that the picture was from an advert, but that advert was first published in 1908 staring Old Nobby he signed over permisson for me to use in this article.--Bpazolli 09:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From 1908? Featuring a modern safety razor? DJ Clayworth 13:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simpler than that; the beard is photoshopped/MS Painted on. Also, if there is consent involved then the picture's copyright information is incorrect as it is listed as "public domain". ju66l3r 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentHow about everyone just calms down a little bit. There is no need for constant argument on this forum - just relax, and try not to become too agitated. Let's debate this in a sensible and civilised manner (note that civilised is here spelt properly with an 's', rather than a 'z' (correctly pronounced zed).--Old Smokey 13:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious hoax. --Durin 16:19, 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. Wickethewok 14:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ishadow[edit]

Advertisement, fails WP:SOFT. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:43, 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 no consensus. --Ezeu 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TuneCore[edit]

Unsourced advertising for non-notable sub-brand Yomangani 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree: Article is sourced, and refers to a newsworthy independent company providing a unique service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.24.75 (talk • contribs)
There are no sources: there are external links to the company's own website and a non-notable podcasting site. It does not met WP:CORP. Yomangani 23:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Company has been reported about by SPIN Magazine, ABC News, and Pitchforkmedia.com, thus meeting WP:CORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.24.75 (talk • contribs)
In order for it to meet WP:CORP it has to meet WP:V - there are no citations for the claims that has been featured in any of those publications apart from the one I added (which is hardly notable) or for statements such as "TuneCore's first customer was Frank Black, lead singer of The Pixies." Yomangani 19:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Direct links to notable outside articles in major publications and a video segment on ABC News profiling the company are evident on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.24.75 (talk • contribs)
I added them, but the article(s) are not from major publications:Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper...As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves (from WP:V). I make that one web article and a video clip, together with a lot of uncited WP:OR. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ by the way Yomangani 16:15, 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 keep. Kusma (討論) 10:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business logic[edit]

This article just doesn't make any sense. it is too Dilbert-zone like for me. Needs either to be made into an article that cross-references other concepts, or else should be removed. As it is, it isn't in the least enlightening. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- Since posting the deletion notice on the page, the article has been dramatically changed, and I'd say improved. I'd recommend anyone who voted here to go back and take a second look. Neale Monks 22:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that these references merely reenforce my skepticism.--Fergie 10:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Qualifies as WP:NONSENSE, unless (most of) the other words in the article are redefined. The sentences make sense, but the concepts aren't. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as complete bollocks, among other things...although if there is an umbrella term for all the different "forms of logic" (business, functional, presentation etc.) mentioned in the article, then a new article about that, with sections devoted to each "type" might be appropriate, if this really is a term used in IT. Byrgenwulf 07:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The closest term I can think of is multitier architecture (which links to this article), but if you've decided that this article is bollocks I'm not really sure what you're looking for. Let's keep this text. Gazpacho 18:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just because I'm an inclusionist. Nixdorf 13:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NEO it's not really a "widespread" IT term (to be fair I've heard it used, but mostly by PM and business owners... the same people who were using "paradigm" and "outside the box" every 5 minutes a few years back)& any site that "defines" it states something along the lines of "Business logic is an often overused term that can be used to describe many things and the definitions are typically very verbose". It's a term, loosely used, for a wide range of different business processes... and this article just describes one variant definition for Business Logic. I was debating a bit between delete/keep on the basis that editing could clean this up, but since the industry cannot agree upon what the term actually means, I don't think it is possible to actually write a WP:V article on the subject...--Isotope23 19:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not have to stop reading after one sentence. Can you show examples of definitions that fundamentally disagree? Gazpacho 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF there, killer... I read the whole article. The links you provided are all using "business logic" to talk about completely different processes and procedures... I'll post up a few more when I get some time. My point stands... though I think the principle contributor to this article did a commendable job, I don't think it is possible to write a WP:V article on the topic that adequately describes it when the term itself is not properly defined by the industry that uses it (though I will say that Uncle G gets a big star for trying).--Isotope23 20:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Term is not yet adequately defined by the industry to merit an encyclopedia article. Too many of the references described the term as needing definition. This makes this a neologism in the process of forming. Per WP:NEO, we need treatments in secondary sources to have a Wikipedia article. We aren't there yet; the online Tech Encyclopedia link comes close, but to my eyes doesn't pass muster. Disclosure to my shock and surprise, my job is actually relevant to the discussion of this article. We don't highlight this term in our marketing materials (using "business rules" instead because we have a patent related to that), but at least one of our competitors is being puffed by one of the links in the article, and I feel the closing admin ought to know this. GRBerry 00:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, you've summed up my problem with this article nicely GRBerry. I just don't see how we can have a valid article about the topic when it is a WP:NEO that is still being defined by the industry. To me at least it is similar to if someone had tried to create a RAD article prior to 1991, when the process was formally defined. --Isotope23 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As full disclosure, it happens that the term "business logic" figures prominently in the very project that I'm working now, and its use is fully consistent with this article (it's the part of the code that deals with how we make money). So if it's patent nonsense and complete bollocks then that implies I am wasting my time. That's why I have been prickly with regard to the nomination and why I hope the closing admin will click through the links I added above. Gazpacho 00:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.: I will fix it up if given some time. I just came to this page a few minutes ago by doing a query (i.e., I was looking for it specifically). Please don't delete. --nathanbeach 07:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If this is WP:NONSENSE then so are most of the Wikipedia articles on ideas in social science, pop music, works of art, psychological theories, religions, and political philosophies, among many other areas. The business rules page actually has a good definition of business logic: "Software packages automate Business rules using Business logic." Are you proposing that we delete the business rules article too? It's also clear from the business logic article that business logic models some of the behavior of traditional business processes such as "accounts, loans, itineraries, etc." What is nonsensical about that? I do think the introductory comments equating business logic to other kinds of functional logic are misleading, though. I suggest rewriting the top section, and I'd suggest adding links to the corresponding articles on those particular business processes (accounting, etc.), for those of you who don't understand what these business processes are about. Understanding the business process being modelled is crucial to understanding the business logic. BTW, you only need to thumb through a computer book section to see dozens of examples of business logic, so one can hardly argue that it's a new and untried idea. The proponents have also uncovered a large number of references. The term (as with its companion term, business rules, which is less well defined than business logic but is not being challenged) in wide use. I get nearly 9 million hits on Google! There are obviously vast numbers of people who think the phrase is very important, even if some people around here happen to be put off by it. Even if it had no semantic meaning whatsoever it would still warrant an article as an important social phenomenon. Indeed the topic is quite a bit more important than the topic of the average Wikipedia article. If you still think the idea is vague, feel free to add a "criticism" section and say so, assuming you have appropriate sources for such a claim. Donagle 09:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The onus of proof is not an proving vagueness, but on proving meaning. You seem to be talking around the subject of a definition rather that attempting to actually define 'Business Logic'. Could you briefly describe what you believe the term means?--Fergie 10:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      What part of the definition in the introduction is unclear? Do you understand that business automation software has to manipulate data that relate to the money-making activity of that business? that manipulation can be directed from various user interfaces? that it is good engineering to separate the manipulation from the interfaces for that reason? I want to make the article clearer, but people blithely dismissing this extensively documented term as "dilbert-esque" (whatever that means) doesn't help. Dilbert may portray people who deal with business organization as idiots, but that doesn't make it true, and in any case the term is used by the developers as well. Gazpacho 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Dilbert-esque refers to writing that sounds impressive but actually means nothing, and is used (in the archetype at least) by IT consultants to bamboozle tech-illiterate business owners. My comments referred specifically to this version [76], which opened with this gem: Business logic is business logspecific capabilities or processing which that software system embodies. None of that was explained or cross-linked to anything else. If that means anything at all, it doesn't to me, and I'd consider myself at least as smart and well read as the average Wikipedia reader. To be fair, the article has been explanded and improved since. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 18:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understood what you meant, Neale; I don't understand why Fergie believes that characterization applies to the revised article. Gazpacho
        • Cool. Let's be clear: the ideal situation is a better article, not no article. As it stood, it was a bad article. The threat of deletion has spurred appropriate editors into action. That's how the system should work, so I'm pleased. My only concern now is that the article should probably reflect that the term has multiple meanings, and though widely used, can mean different things in different industries and/or in different situations. Perhaps it should even be said that some people consider the term vague and meaningless. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep. Business Logic is a term with no meaning. Although purported to be software terminology, it does not represent a concrete concept of system engineering or database theory. Arguably Business Logic is noteable precisely because it is in (occasional) use yet represents no defined concept (that is to say it is dilbert-esque). I have observed that most attempts to retrospectively assign a concept to Business Logic tend to gravitate towards describing an abstraction layer, yet do not specify a meaningful difference between the two. Other efforts to give meaning to 'business logic' are clearly far too vague or merely WP:NONSENSE--Fergie 10:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any reason to get rid of this article now that it's been rewritten. I hear the term used in serious software engineering contexts all the time, and in the documentation/interface of development tools (for instance, is you use XDoclet to generate an message-driven EJB, it places a todo comment stub saying "do business logic here" in the onMessage method). Even if the above user's disdain for the term is founded (er, tl;dr), it doesn't mean the term doesn't merit an article. If he wants to cite sources calling the term out as fluff, then it can be added to the article to educate people; removing the article would just make people more ignorant... -VJ 20:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Business logic is a critical element of automation of business processes with software. This article could use improvement, but there really should be such an article here. -- M0llusk 06:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps too little emphasis has been put on concrete examples? One of the most prominent is calculation of taxation. Performing a sale in many cases requires a complex calculation of taxes owed to a number of parties. Not correctly performing this calculation may result in transactions that are illegal. The logic used to calculate sales taxes is not directly related to the amount of the sale or any method used to store information about the sale. A detailed description of the business process of sales tax calculation encapsulates the business logic of the transaction. The business process goes into further detail about what laws apply and what tax goes where and when, but the business logic for sales tax calculation is apart from the process for sales tax payment. That is what makes the business logic so valuable. All it does is specify how required rules are calculated. This may involve a complex formula including the location, time, agents, and content of the transaction. Before business logic became commonly used software for business transactions was monolithic such that any change to the business process or the the software such as the database that stored transaction amounts required the business logic to be rewritten at great cost. -- M0llusk 18:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There really should be an article about this term in an encyclopedia, since it is used quite often in software engineering. This term might be difficult to describe but this article makes a good job. And maybe it will be improved. There is no need to delete an article because someone does not like the term that is decribed by the article. -- jvd 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Maybe it was useful as a threat to goad people into improving a poorly written article, but I find the continued proposals to delete this article very disturbing. Are we supposed to be like the rewriters of history in Orwell's 1984 and pretend the idea of business logic does not exist? Wikipedia is full of articles on ideas that are utter nonsense, quite contradictory, evil, or so hopelessly vague that they couldn't possibly be properly described. That's because human society is full of such ideas. Many such ideas are important to many people. Where these ideas are important, they deserve a Wikipedia article. They also deserve to be criticized. Too many articles on Wikipedia seem to be written by fans of the bad idea described and give short shrift to criticism. The proper response is to insist that cited criticism be included in the article, often prominently, and to insist that all important definitions of an idea, not just the definition preferred by most fans of the idea, should be discussed.CatNoir 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of this well argued contribution I am changing my 'delete' to a 'keep'--Fergie 09:20, 9 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. Mangojuicetalk 00:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicpa[edit]

Non-notable website; doesn't meet WP:WEB. Founded in May 2006, it can't really be that notable, can it? Ruaraidh-dobson 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something new can't be notable. how is that. As far as I know nothing like this site exists on the web. Will it be notable and ok to remain here in 6 months or 12 months...when it gets to 500 or 1000 articles, is there a rule on this somewhere that I am missing? Jimmy R 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was making a general comment, rather than making mention of a rule. I just don't think the website meets WP:WEB. Have a look, and see what you think. Ruaraidh-dobson 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The rule is Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No way to predict in six months if it will be getting 10,000 articles a week or two a month. Everyone who creates a website believes it will be popular. Most are wrong, and the best minds can't predict which ones will succeed. That's why we wait until after they have proven themselves. Fan-1967 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet any of the three criteria set forth in WP:WEB. --Satori Son 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. Perhaps when it's been along a while longer it will be notable enough for an article.--Chaser T 21:38, 10 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 08:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing (Counter-Strike)[edit]

The article above was Speedy deleted while it was listed here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surfing (Counter-Strike) (second nomination)). The article was NOT identical to the previous one, so G4 did not apply. The deleting editor (Fang Aili) restored it, then it got CSD-G4 tagged again and Fang Aili himself changed the tag to {{db|WP:NOT a game guide}} [77], which is NOT a criterium for speedy deletion as well. I do not care for this article getting deleted, but please follow policy when speedy deleting articles. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as copyvio, the diagrams of shapes appear identical to the diagrams contained in the external link guide at the bottom of the page.--Andeh 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Ruud 15:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject." The article doesn't have to be an EXACT copy of the one that previously was deleted; however, it shares the common name, and accomplishes the same task. --Porqin 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • by any title --Porqin 15:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point of this exception is once we have receieved consensus from the community about whether an article of this type and topic belong, we don't need to continually have to reach the same consensus and waste the time of the editors. --Porqin 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I know that would be true for highly similar articles, but this article does not even look like the one before (with regard to content, but it had the same subject and title). Speedy deletion is a powerful tool here on Wikipedia, but, for a good reason, the use of it is restricted. I voted delete on the two previous AfDs and relisted it here myself. I just strongly feel that speedy deletion should be according to policy, not to feeling. I am referring to: the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject, this was a new article on the same subject. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:48, 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 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of EPs[edit]

Gordon H Bennett. One of the worst redlink/nn band infested lists-which-should-be-category I've ever seen. Please, begone. This is what categories are for. kingboyk 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can definitely agree with the categories. This is one list which makes vastly more sense as a category. Proper course of action would be to use a bot to add everything linked on this list to an appropriate category (if it hasn't been done already) and then delete the list. Dark Shikari 15:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should be categorized, not written up as a list. I agree 100% with Dark Shikari's comments. Scorpiondollprincess 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The amount of effort that went into this is impressive, but a bot-created category would be a better, more readable option. SliceNYC 19:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too broad-scoped. Punkmorten 20:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is definitely something more fit for a category, and even that category would need subcats to be useful. GassyGuy 01:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize and delete per above. MarkBuckles 09:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. List of albums exists, and this is as appropriate and it seems you are picking on the "easy" AFD. Delete nn bands from the list, not the article. Create a botted category to replace it, THEN talk about deleting it. Could be useful and IMO tilts the correct way in terms of listcruft. Halo 14:23, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart flamewar[edit]

An article about a long usenet flamewar. I don't think it could ever be anything than original research and I'm not sure if it's notable enough to have its own article.-- JoanneB 15:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I didn't think anyone was silly enough to try to write Wikipedia articles about internet flamewars but apparently it has happened. If they've written any more of these (and they've even created a template, so I wouldn't be surprised), delete them all. Dark Shikari 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utterly non-notable and unverifiable. Scorpiondollprincess 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hmm, let's see. It violates WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NN. Did I miss anything? (I hope this doesn't turn into a notable flamewar also...we might have to write an article about it.) alphaChimp laudare 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is actually quite amusing: if you look at the code, the author used the Military Conflict Infobox for his infobox... Dark Shikari 16:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Uhoh. Looks like someone really brought out the big guns for that flamewar. If that's true, it would be the first ever military conflict over the internet, and certainly notable. I hope our deletion won't forever expunge a military conflict from the history of the internet...I hope. alphaChimp laudare 16:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't assert notability... wasn't Derek Smart some circa-1999 Something Awful joke? -/- Warren 16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would request deletion to be withheld for a while. The article is currently serving as an outlet of an otherwise unsolvable revert war in the Derek Smart article. As it is a stub and only a few hours old it would be advisable to let it mature for at least a few days. Also, the Great Flamewar is a significant internet event that has involved hundreds of thousands of particiapans and bystanders. Mikademus 16:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia articles must be verifiable and sourced. Can you give us secondary sources for this event involving "hundreds of thousands of people"? Dark Shikari 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sources. Though is is unorthodox to provide an "unfinished" article, as the one discussed here, the article-to-be is under heavy construction and intentional left largely open with a skeleton header-structure as an invitation to the conflicting parties in the revert and edit war to collaborate. One of the major causes of the revert war is just the verifiability and appropriateness of sources, so I fully expect this article to be unusually well annotated. In any way, I would again recommend postponing deletion of this article until we see whether (1) the article will have stand-alone value or (2) solves the current conflict. Also, it is not yet linked from any other article (except from a talk page). Mikademus 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete whatever information about this is notable and verifiable can go in the Derek Smart article. I doubt that most of this can be verified using reliable sources, and at least some of it ("It has since spread to virtually all internet fora.") is patently untrue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And by the way, if anybody wonders whether this was a notable incident in gaming history or anything, here's what GameSpy has to say on the matter: "In the end, Smart's craziness only affected Smart, and the small group of people who continue to snipe with him on the Internet." Quoted from this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and from what I read above this appears to be an unecessary WP:FORK created to divert an edit war elsewhere, which is not a valid reason t fork.--Isotope23 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Isotope23. Anything that is verifiable can be merged back into Derek Smart, otherwise, the whole lot of it is POV, OR, and utter claptrap. -- Whpq 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, fails WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. I'd slap an {{afdanons}} tag up there, since there's currently a RfArb up for a related flamewar. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as seriously unverifiable stuff. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a gross misapplication of {{Infobox Military Conflict}} and failing Wikipedia:Notability (silly injokes), which, while it doesn't exist right now, jolly well should. The flamewar itself is famous and should be mentioned (in Derek Smart and Battlecruiser 3000AD), where it is mentioned... but it just doesn't need an article of its own, the person and game articles are enough and more than that will just make the whole mess disorganised. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:55, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Raven[edit]

Crystal balling, WP:OR and for the same reasons listed in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/That's_So_Raven_Movie - Yomangani 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same, but I couldn't find it. It was probably So Totally Absolutely Raven or That's nearly completely and utterly finally so Raven or a variation. Yomangani 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same here but I could not find it either and there is no history of deleted edits.--Dakota 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is not a crystal ball. --Natalie 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely future gazing. ju66l3r 18:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... is it just me, or is this out-of-hand crystal balling of Disney Channel shows a little creepy? --Kinu t/c 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. Just silly. HomeTOWNboy 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, so it's speculation. Ziggurat 01:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. We need to warn the user(s) who keep recreating these silly articles. --NeoChaosX 09:24, 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 CSD G7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Crank[edit]

This would appear to be an attempt at defining a new musical style based on the specific sounds being generated from a specific part of Washington, DC. Unfortunately, the article is unsourced, and a Google search [78] turns up 202 hits for "urban crank" - and nine for "urban crank" music. I can't find anything that confirms this as a substantially recognized musical style, and thus feel it fails verifiability. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 16:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding Urban Crunk to this nomination, as it is substantially the same as this article, and after perusing both of these as well as the user page of the creator, User:Dawntelesford, I'm seeing a walled garden spring up surrounding the erstwhile creators of the genre. See also the below nomination of DC-MUSIC-CHARTS as somewhat related. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, as they are protologisms and are not verifiable in any way that I can see.--Isotope23 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete both. This is an attempt to sneak a deleted article back in under another name, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Crowd. The band is not notable, so here's an article, centered on the band, attempting to define it as a new musical subgenre. There is an attempt to link this style with notable artists, but it's unsupported based on reliable sources. Fan-1967 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REMOVE URBAN CRUNK. The Wikipedia Theory, and DC-MUSIC CHARTS from WIKIPEDIA. I've ben trying to delete these pages for some tiem now and I did not realize that it must be done by this way. THANKS!! Dawntelesford 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per author request. So tagged. Fan-1967 01:26, 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 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DC-MUSIC-CHARTS[edit]

These would appear to be music charts for the Washington, DC area, as apparently announced on a couple of the radio stations. They appear to be specific to the area, and don't seem to be notable and encyclopedic, to me. I asked for clarification on the talk page a couple of days ago, and got none, so felt it would be worthwhile to get further discussion on the topic. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a bigger problem than "notability" of what appears to be a locally compiled music ranking chart for a subgenre of Funk in the Washington D.C. area is the fact that this article is not verifiable and appears to be largely based on original research. Before tackling whether or not local music charts are encyclopedic, I think those concerns need to be address and if they cannot be this article should be removed.--Isotope23 17:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. A grand total of two Google hits, one of which is this article. Not verifiable from reliable sources. No indication it's notable. No indication who compiles these lists, or confirmation that anyone's paying any attention. A bunch of crystalballery about what will happen in 2007. Fan-1967 17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Fan-1967. I grew up in the DC area and no one I know has ever heard of these particular music charts. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Since history shows more than one author (primarily anon IP) author's request is insufficient. We'll let the AFD conclude normally. Fan-1967 13:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 10:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ripped[edit]

WP:BAND, speedied once already but recreated Rklawton 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Assuming it is still in violation of what it was speedied for the first time, it should be re-speedy deleted and protected. Otherwise, it is in violation of WP:V. --Porqin 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have edited the PR and unverifiable hype out of the article, and stuck with the facts. The facts show that the band meets WP:MUSIC for having two releases on a major label (or, at the least, a major indie with major distribution). It may only meet one criteria, but that's all it needs to meet to establish notability, and I am sure the article can be expanded upon. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Jamie Stewart article. Seems like a side project and since its in its infant stages and until the band has been shown to have some type of notability/fame, it could simply be merged into the singer's article. --Shrek05 19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you may have read that wrong. Jamie Stewart was the producer, not a musician in the band. I don't think a merge would be appropriate in this case. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article will be expanded on, we are working on a list of facts and will have it up soon. Ripped was signed with EMI distribution and put out 2 cd's with a major indie label. Their music has been in several films including Ghostwatchers 2 and Insight of Evil. Their music is available worldwide. They have had airplay on major radio in Canada and video rotation on a nationwide video channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rippedmusic (talk • contribs)
    • I left a comment on your page, and I want to follow up with it here. A list of facts means nothing, what is needed are links to or citations of multiple non-trivial media coverage of the band. This will help them meet WP:MUSIC more than they already do with having two major releases. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this article was majorly re-written not by the original author, and the band appears to meet WP:BAND, I'd say Keep; however, this article needs another overhaul in order to follow WP:STYLE. --Porqin 18:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This band might meet one criterion for WP:BAND - however, meeting a single criterion does not mean the band has to be included (as per WP:BAND). There should be discussion regarding whether or not the indie label is significant enough to meet one of WP:BAND's criteria and whether or not (possibly) meeting one of the criteria for inclusion is sufficient. As a result, by no means does this article qualify for a speedy keep. It's quality not quantity that makes Wikipedia succeed. Rklawton 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The above comment pertains to my request to Rklawton for a withdrawal so we could speedy keep the article. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely wouldn't speedy keep it. --Porqin 03:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Pikes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Pikes and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda77 (talk • contribs)

    • Meat Puppet - The above editor has exactly one edit in Wikipedia, and you just read it. Rklawton 14:04, 8 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 08:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSP Firmware list[edit]

Listcruft Computerjoe's talk 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are valid reasons for the deletion of this article, but listcruft isn't one of them. More to the point, this article is probably a copyvio of some sort, and doesn't have sources. In addition, listing changelogs on Wikipedia is just plain stupid: it would be far more effective to link to a website covering this information (the link would of course go in the main article). Delete. Dark Shikari 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT (arbitrary information). By the way, Dark Shikari- I think that your reasons for deletion are exactly the issues Computerjoe had with the article, just in a shorter, lazyfingers way of saying it. :) --Kuzaar-T-C-
    Probably ;). I guess people citing essays and nothing else as grounds for deletion is just my little pet peeve at the moment. Dark Shikari 19:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lazy fingers or not, a nomination for deletion should lay out a proper reason so it is clear why the article is nominated. -- Whpq 19:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The whole thing appears to be lifted from the PSP support site see here. -- Whpq 19:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Peephole 15:59, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F2 and F1 screening[edit]

Fails WP:NN, WP:OR, and WP:V. Possibly a hoax, or at best a lot of original research. The images are hand drawn scribbles, and the starting editor only has edits related to this article. Google search turns up 19 results, almost all related to this article. Originally PRODded, but User:Catchpole removed the tag, stating; "Not a hoax" without providing a rationale. Green451 16:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. Scorpiondollprincess 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks pretty definitvely "original some sort of research" (though it's so short of context it's impossible to know what it's actually on about, save that it's "something to do with genetics"). Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. --Xrblsnggt 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's too bad there aren't sources for this information, as it's good stuff. It appears to deal with zebrafish genetics. In this sense, the F-number denotes the generation: F0 for the original parents, F1 for the first offspring, F2 for the offspring's offspring, etc. If someone could clean this up and remove the unsourced bits I would change my vote to keep. Isopropyl 19:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wait, why are people under the impression that this is a hoax? Even vanity and original research are stretches, as this stuff is pretty basic biology. No one does cutting-edge research in zebrafish; they're a teaching tool. Isopropyl 19:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "No one does cutting-edge research in zebrafish" I have a number of colleagues that would take offense at that... -- Scientizzle 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved the page; it is now at Generational screening for induced mutations. Isopropyl 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup This does not appear to be a hoax at all...WP:OR, maybe, and perhaps not a how-to guide. Mostly, it just needs a cleanup and better diagrams. -- Scientizzle 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think it should be Deleted. While this is basic Mendelian genetics in practice with a common model organism, it's unsourced has some original research and, most of all, fail the "not a how-to guide" portion of WP:NOT. It appears that there is little to merge, either. -- Scientizzle 16:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources cited. I'm trouble by the lack of context and by the use of photographs of what look like a whiteboard as illustrations. I wonder whether these are lecture notes of some kind? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:31, 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 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Monday Night RAW Results: 1993[edit]

Episode details of every episode of WWE. Notable, I think not.  Jmatt1122  CVU (Talk)  16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Its also mostly a direct copy from here DrunkenSmurf 18:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom [the question as to copyvio isn't altogether clear, inasmuch as at least some of the content is purely factual and represents no intellectual work subject to copyright, but, even as I'm inclined to think much of the article would need to be excised or cleaned up and rewritten per WP:COPYRIGHT were we to keep it, I think it plain that the results are not encyclopedic (WP:NOT and the like)]. Joe 19:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BoojiBoy 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination.JD[don't talk|email] 00:16, 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 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quake Tag[edit]

Describes an outdoor game that does not seem to be widely played outside of the summer camp where it was invented last year. FreplySpang 17:01, 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 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Dickson FitzGerald[edit]

NN the subject does not appear to be a significant or notable person in his field. Seems also to be a vanity article. UARG 17:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional delete if no assertion of notability is made. BoojiBoy 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of any learned papers. BlueValour 04:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-nuny, Nunymare[edit]

Prodded per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Author removed the prod tag and someone else re-added, which you can't do, so here we are. May well qualify as Patent Nonsense. Fan-1967 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Nunymare per same reasons. WP:NFT. Scorpiondollprincess 13:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatantly not needed in an encyclopedia.--KojiDude (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumba[edit]

Modest, midsize company fails WP:CORP. Take a look at the section on the chronology of their advertising catch phrases. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 17:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, because the subject fails wp:corp, as noted above. Picaroon9288|ta co 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 74.119.26.14 20:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of an assertion of reasonable notability. —xyzzyn 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Aussiepete is not a member of Jumba Staff, neither are any of the other people who have contributed to thos page. More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jumba —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.7.176.133 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete The catch phrases section is there simply for historical reasons. This company has been mentioned in various publications including the Australian Personal Computer magazine (this months issue and last months) under the topic of Joomla!. The jumba community has created this page because we believe that it is an important resource to the whole hosting community.--Ioannisjt 04:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Ioannisjt (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. —xyzzyn 10:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ‘Mentioned’ is not enough. —xyzzyn 10:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Agree with --Ioannisjt. Jumba does not appear to be advertising any products. --BradyBaldwin 15:01, 04 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: BradyBaldwin (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. —xyzzyn 10:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I agree with Ioannisjt also. 59.167.132.247
  • Don't Delete, this was written by a community of people who belong to the Jumba forums, there has been a lot of hard work put into this. --GavLewis 07:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: GavLewis (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. —xyzzyn 10:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geez, you people make up so many excuses to delete something that you really don't care about do you? --GavLewis 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient evidence of meeting WP:CORP. BlueValour 04:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Check the Media release section, I believe that this shall now make this page conform with the WP:CORP rules. --GavLewis 04:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it hosted a website which was the main exhibit of a badly researched TV report on a well-known show and then someone else said so. This is too trivial, imho. —xyzzyn 13:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of polymaths[edit]

This sourceless article has no encyclopedic value, for this topic is fundamentally unencyclopedic. Wikipedians have no right to label certain persons as being polymaths or not; We can't have this article for the same reason we can't have list of smart people. I have taken the liberty of adding a few names of what I thought to be quintessential polymaths to the Polymath article. Let us see if we can find a few indisputable polymaths, list them there and delete this mess. Rmrfstar 18:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be picky, as I'd prefer to see the article deleted, but, unlike many "list of X" articles in this case there is an article on X. Since Polymath is an encyclopedic topic, it seems to me that a list of polymaths is encyclopedic. More correctly, a list of people who have been referred to as "polymaths" by sources meeting WP:RS is encyclopedic. I agree that the list should be in the Polymath article and should not be broken out until it becomes unreasonably long. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right: it's not the topic itself that is unencyclopedic, but the format in which the topic was presented. See my response to you below.-- Rmrfstar 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. No sources are cited on this page. Inclusion on this list seems far too subjective and open to interpretation. I have no objections to veriably sourced material being merged to the Polymath article, though. Scorpiondollprincess 18:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Can we get rid of List of Virgins and List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder for the same reasons while we're at it? Crabapplecove 21:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for want of criteria. Many of these entries are horribly exaggerated, as if Vladimir Putin being a politician, spy, and judo wrestler qualified him as a polymath. Gazpacho 22:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If kept, move the unsourced items—that is to say, all of them—to Talk, effectively blanking the article, then monitor list to make sure that they are not reinserted without sources. To avoid utter subjectivity, the cited source must of course actually use the word "polymath." Experience has shown that the argument that "the linked article will have the sources" doesn't hold up in practice. For example, literally picking one at random, the article on Murray Gell-Mann does not describe him as a polymath, let alone cite a source. We can have a list of people described as "polymaths" by reliable sources. We can't have a list of people who, in the opinion of Wikipedia editors, ought to be called "polymaths" based on a list of their fields of accomplishment. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for redundancy, amongst other things. I originally suggested a merge but the more I read, the more I'm in agreement with this instead - the Category:Polymaths does equally well, and this list has become little more than a populistic exercise for anyone who thinks their heroes deserving of additional recognition. A handful of names as polymathic examples in the Polymath article more than suffices. Gravelrash 14:44, 1 August 2006 (EST)
  • Comment Discussion above applies to this version I've now moved the unsourced items to Talk, and reinserted a couple of them in the article with references.Dpbsmith (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is the question is whether those few names that can be verified deserve their own list... My inclination is to say, "no, at least for now"; let's just put those verifiable names in the main Polymath article and keep them there until it starts to get too large. -- Rmrfstar 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly works for me. I put the two referenced names in the current article. I'll personally put them into the Polymath article, and I'll personally move the huge unsourced list to Talk:Polymath to avoid any comments about "merge and delete" being invalid. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two verified names into Polymath. — RJH (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, redundant, and for being based on what strikes me as largely arbitrary and POV-based criteria. Tgies 05:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Participants in this discussion may also wish to take part in the discussion now taking place at Talk:Polymath#List of_Polymaths or Noted Polymaths or Quintessential. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would have said Merge per RJHall, but the two are already listed in the polymath article (along with other cited examples). Yomangani 19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I ask participants in this discussion to put Polymath on their watchlist... last night a non-logged-in user made a wholesale insertion of entries into the polymaths section of the article, in the same unsourced format as the version of List of polymaths which was nominated for deletion, without edit comments, and without discussion at Talk:Polymath. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dilawar[edit]

A victim of torture perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. The incident is already covered in the article Bagram torture and prisoner abuse and the person is not in and of himself notable for any other incident. As such, this is just a memorial page and should be deleted. Indrian 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:BIO, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Multiple verifiable sources are cited. Article could be reviewed for suspected POV that lends it to being less encyclopedic and more like a memorial, though. Tag for cleanup perhaps. Scorpiondollprincess 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except he did not achieve either. The scandal was the story not the man. Indrian 18:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he was close enough to the scandal to become notable. Involvement can be voluntary or involuntary. hateless 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect (if there is anything to merge). The incident is famous, but the Dilawar himself is not. However, as his name may be a search term in regards to the incident, a redirect may be worthwhile. Srose (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scorpiondollprincess. hateless 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems notable, just needs some cleaning up. -Sanbeg 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. If the article is a biography (the test used above), the "Charges" section should go completely, other sections should be rendered into an encyclopedic summary, and there should be a prominent linkage to the main article at Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, not a see also. If the article is instead on the scandal, it should be merged to that article and left as a redirect. I think slimming it down to be a biography is appropriate. The current article is not in good shape. GRBerry 00:48, 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. Well oops, I edited it. MY BAD!

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worm Quartet[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines fo notability. The first sentence reads: "The four worms (then Bob, Leon, Rodney, and Celia) were first created by Tim during a high school science class". --Xrblsnggt 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NFT. Scorpiondollprincess 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You read that way too literally. Yes, it was made up at school one day. That's not where it's remained. The act has appeared on the Dr. Demento show. A glance at the artist's tour page shows he's performed across the country (independent, verifiable links are provided there). He's been performing for 15 years, has several (albeit indie label-based) releases, and has a lot of press coverage. Note: I am not an authority on Dr. Demento or Oddfest, so I peeked at who edited those articles and asked them to come examine this AfD. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they don't have anything to do with that classic parody "We Are the Worms"? Too bad, cause that was regularly on the funny five back in my days as a "dementoid". -MrFizyx 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess Worm Quartet meets WP:MUSIC for having national radio play, as Dr. Demento is nationally broadcast. Healthy amount of google hits [79]. --Joelmills 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't find that the google test wins or loses the case here. And I was about to say that just being on Dr. Demento might not be enough, but then I looked at Dr.Demento#Trivia and saw they had the funniest song of the year for both 2004 and 2005. -MrFizyx 03:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments, the Worm Quartet passes WP:MUSIC due to coverage and touring. Yamaguchi先生 09:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Traveler Convention[edit]

A few people at MIT decided to have a party, drink some beer non-alcoholic beverages, and give the gathering a ridiculous premise to get some tongue-and-cheek newspaper headlines. I am sure a good time was had by all, but since no timetravellers actually showed up, I do not see anything more significant about this event than your typical college party or lecture series. Indrian 18:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Recieved NY Times coverage. Note: I have notified editors of this article about the AfD. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Received national press coverage. Sources include Wired and Slashdot. Isopropyl 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please add citations of those sources to the article. Uncle G 19:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per above comments. Notability is established by multiple, independent press coverage. Goofy as all get out, but I think it squeaks by. Scorpiondollprincess 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly do not deny it received coverage, but I think that it has more to do with the event being a publicity stunt at a famous institution rather than for any importance of the event itself. National press coverage can be indicative of notability, but it is not an automatic sign of importance. Indrian 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not fame nor importance. Uncle G 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to a guidline of your creation that does not even have the force of semiofficial policy. You are entitled to your own opinion, but it is wrong to make it seem like something more than that. Indrian 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is a straw man. Uncle G 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Um, not really since I have no problem with your arguement, merely with your presentation of it. Indrian 23:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's a straw man since you are arguing that an argument that only you in fact made is wrong. Uncle G 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources above should be included in the article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Many things receive national coverage, especially events at a prestigious institution such as MIT. However, this does not mean the event is significant.--Shrek05 19:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "The event is potluck and alcohol-free" The primary source from the NY Times indicated the event was alcohol-free. The article appears to follow all of the guidelines for inclusion as outlined by Wikipedia, as you have not mentioned any policies this event has broken for inclusion. Reading the notability guidelines, something such as this that has receieved national press coverage, could be included inside this encyclopedia. --Porqin 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alchohol is banned from MIT campus except for a couple of small graduate bars. Bwithh 01:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Isopropyl. Perhaps no time-travellers showed up because somebody deleted the wikipedia article before they could read it. Drett 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the NYT, Slashdot and Wired stories, the TTC was covered by All Things Considered and the Today Show, and was mentioned on Saturday Night Live (see here for recordings, but please don't link to them at that address, as they will likely disappear next week). Besides, if the article gets deleted, how will the time travelers know about the convention? (Full disclosure: I was a contemporary attendee of the convention.) Aerion 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into some MIT article; possibly MIT Science Fiction Society or MIT hack. (By the way, the "greek" organization Pi Tau Zeta, does not seem to have independent verifiability. Furthermore, there probably have been other "Time Traveler Convention"s. The most logical meeting place for time travellers would be Minneapolis in 1973 [80], probably over Labor Day weekend.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I did copedit this article in February 2006, I thought even then that this entry lacks notability, notwithstanding the NY Times article. If the NY Times does a "feel good" story about a firefighter rescuing a cat out of a tree, that surely doesn't bestow it wiki status. At best a merger with [[time travel], or better, with some MIT page as suggested above. But probable better off eliminated altogether. -- Dyslexic agnostic 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple reliable sources on a unique event. That's enough for me. (I actually remember seeing something about this last year and thinking what an awesome-slash-idiotic idea it was.) -- Kicking222 00:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a real event covered by multiple national news services. Turnstep 01:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I always say mainstream news sources, including serious mainstream news sources carry much trivial content of no encyclopedic notability every day - human interest stories, "funny thing happened to me other day" stories, "news of the weird" stories", "Those crazy geek kids! stories" etc etc etc. This is another example of MIT geek culture humour, which gives the MIT community its unique... uh, flavour as well as helping (perhaps) to keep the lid on the campus's suicidal tendencies. It's a geek stunt devoid (as demonstrated by the conspicious lack of actual time travellers arriving) of historical / encyclopedic notability, and not significant enough to have its own article. This is would be fine as a cut-down merge into MIT hack though. Bwithh 01:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to MIT hack or delete. The attemps at continued advertising, which this functions as, are part of the hack. Not encyclopedic in the absence of any verified evidence (from reliable sources) that any time travelers actually attended. GRBerry 00:56, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tywo at Large[edit]

De-proded. Non-notable web comic with no claims to meet WP:WEB. See talk page if you're really curious about the one Google hit for "Tywo at Large." The statement, "article has been typed by the creator Daran Carlin-Weber himself for show on Wikipedia", also indicates that this is a vanity page. Scientizzle 19:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer insight film®[edit]

A kind of marketing presentation that appears to be the exclusive domain of one consulting group. Needs to be more widely practiced before I'd consider it encyclopedic.

  • Delete: neologism, advertising. Gazpacho 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any article that has a ® in the title, as it's either an advert or has problems with our ability to legally use it. Morgan Wick 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spamve®tising. NawlinWiki 01:44, 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. Mangojuicetalk 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Makepeace[edit]

Looks like autobiography. I removed most of the POV, but what remains doesn't seem to assert notability. If he is in fact one of the top five earners in direct marketing, he might be notable, but that doesn't seem easily verifiable (and a seven figure income seems rather low in that context). I haven't checked all 892 google-results on "Clayton Makepeace", but if there are any reliable sources, they are drowned in the ads for seminars and books, so verifiablity might also be a concern. Rasmus (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • looks more like an ad to me, with links to buy his marketing stuff. Delete article and incoming link spam. -Sanbeg 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did write this article (my first one) because Clayton is a frined of mine and he is a great copywriter. Sorry I didn't follow the rules and guidelines. I think Clayton has earned his place here. He is AWAI Copywriter of the year 2005 plus after Makepeace’s “Power Marketing Summit” that was held in April of 2006 in DC he confirmed his position as a marketing guru. Arseniusz 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Satori Son 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about rewriting? It's easy to delete, isn't it? Unless Mr. Makepeace is not the right person to be listed in Wikipedia. Arseniusz
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Training as a squad in a virtual environment[edit]

Deprodded by creator with the rationale "article not complete. Content still being added. References to be added to support content once content more fleshed out and direction established." But I find it hard to believe that this article, given its title, will ever become anything other than a how-to guide (which Wikipedia is not). The article creator seems to be more concerned with my OR concerns, but the current version reads very much like an essay and sourcing it is not going to help with that, and I'm not seeing it going in the direction of less essay-like. As an added bonus, there appears to be plenty of POV ("Never use your pistol") and an "Acknowledgements" section where people are asked to sign the page. Apparently the creator mistakes us for some other wiki. Morgan Wick 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article creator removed the AfD tag, although he appeared to mistake it for being the equivalent of a prod or speedy tag. He says he's very new to Wikipedia, so don't bite. Keep your comments to the problems with the article, and encourage him to contribute on appropriate topics and legit articles. Morgan Wick 20:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still learning how to operate in the wiki world and what kind of comment goes where so please please bear with me. Apparently i've found the right place to type something for once. So, apparently there is a 5 day period for the notice then deletion happens automatically? What if the decision is to not delete automatically? Where is that decision made? By whom? Whose responsibility is it to remove the delete tag before the 5 days are up if the decision is to not delete? What if the decision is to not delete and nobody removes the tag? I really don't understand.
So, I need to reference and make the article more factual, support the arguments and then i won't lose all my hard work? I need help understanding this. I've been pointed to the three cardinal rules for wiki and still am having some trouble. There are other wikis on my subject and they state opinions as well but they are accepted such as [[81]] which reads similarly to mine. i do not see how my article is any different than that article once I add some links and references and in general make it look more professional.
I am really trying to understand. Please help me out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22ndmech (talk • contribs)
    • No sweat, 22ndmech. Most of the information at AfD is linked from that tag, but you can just go to Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to find out more. In brief, there appear to be two related problems with the article you are writing. First, it does not cite any secondary or primary sources, as required by our verifiability policy. Because wikipedia is an encyclopedia or a tertiary (third) source, it can only contain information that has already been published in a reliable source. Instead, it looks as though this article is based on your own experience, and so it's original research. Whereas an academic journal or a gamers' magazine might contain someone else's original research, those publications contain peer-review, vetting, or fact-checking mechanisms that wikipedia lacks and is not in a position to provide. As it is, we only have your word for it that everything in this article is true, or at least verifiable. While I believe you, it's hard for the casual reader to verify any of this if it hasn't been published elsewhere, so articles like this usually get deleted. As to your point about that other article, I started a quick essay in response to this common point at WP:INN that will hopefully answer your question. The section you linked to may not belong in wikipedia either. Finally, I reformatted your comment above a bit (usually people don't do that when it's other people's comments, but I figured you wouldn't mind here) and added an unsigned tag. You can sign your comments on talk pages and AfD's with four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Cheers!--Chaser T 21:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment above. This could be easily userfied to User:22ndmech/sandbox until the creator can find sources for it and repost it. The AfD will take five days, so there's also plenty of time before it closes.--Chaser T 21:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry to do this as the user obviously wants to contribute something and it's not nice to bite, but WP:NOT specifically states Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.. This article is clearly a how-to guide and I can't see it can ever be anything else (otherwise I'd try and help save it). Yomangani 23:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thankyou --Chaser! (i'm slowly learning the formatting conventions... personally i had an easier time learning thai :). That sandbox comment is extremely helpful! I was dumbfounded that articles would get sandbagged before they had been completed and figured that there must be a place where you can work on something in peace first. Otherwise all wiki's would have to be complete in one attempt, like zeus jumping fully grown from his father's head (ie: possible, not probable). I'll do some work and figure out that sandbox thing. Can you define "userfied" as it seems to be local-lingo? Also, i'm with you for the video game guide rule, i understand & agree that scans of manuals don't belong here. My goal is strictly factual information in a collaborative environment that my co-players can assist with as it is a huge topic and too big to tackle on my own. Give me a few and i'll surprise you. As for the content of the article and people's disbelief in it's eventual merit, hell, my dad didn't think i was going anywhere either ;) 22ndmech 02:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete as a) this is original creator and b) article is now userfied. Morgan Wick 03:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I took the liberty of creating a userpage for you at User:22ndmech. You can get to it quickly from a link at the very top of the browser window whenever you are logged in to wikipedia. There is also a link there to your sandbox, where I've copied the article under discussion. Again, normally wikipedians don't edit pages in each other's user space, but in this case, it seemed appropriate. After you learn the rules, you learn when you can break them. Cheers!--Chaser T 03:07, 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 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charge_Separation_in_Space[edit]

This page contains only POV discussion in support of the pseudoscience Electric Universe concept. If present at all, the text should be at that page -- but it may not even be notable enough for that. zowie 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the text and photo have, in fact, been copied from the main Electric universe (concept) article so are not needed here. BlueValour 03:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with BlueValour. This was moved to EU concept, and should be deleted from this page. Since I wrote it and decided it was too short, not notable enough for a separate article, and better used in the main article than in the overall namespace, I have no problem with deletion. Have at it, but I'll still be a proponent on keeping the "EDM in Space" entry as a notable concept separate from the main article. But, this one can go. Anyone have a speedy deletion tag? I'm still new here. ;o] Mgmirkin 23:41, 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. The more the lone author talks, the less they say. This article badly fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV and will never meet them, not to mention WP:ASR. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia, and WP:NOT a soapbox. Mangojuicetalk 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical Discharge Machining in Space[edit]

Contains only fallacious POV discussion of a supporting idea for the pseudoscience Electric Universe concept. zowie 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the discussion is fallacious in that it does not discuss other, more commonly accepted, mechanisms for the formation of the planetary features in question -- thereby failing WP:NPOV. In addition, it fails the WP:NOR and notability guidelines. zowie 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It even admits "This article is speculative in nature", and therefore, hopelessly POV and OR. Crabapplecove 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deficiencies can be corrected by additonial information: Specifically, alternate (commonly accepted) points of view may be presented. References obviously need to be added. Other "theories" are presented in Wikipedia as fact even without experimental reproducibility, so long as the argument is convincing (black holes, pulsars, neutron stars). So long as it's clear that it is a theory, and alternate points of view are added, I see no problem. It can be edited to be more neutrally presented. Mgmirkin 03:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In terms of scale and implication, this entry is significantly different from the regular Electrical discharge machining article and is a central tenet of the Electric Universe model, thus a full definition of the concept is necessary for the intelligent discussion of that model (this article was created due to the deficit of a sufficent article for reference in said article; the EDM article was insufficient in this regard). If necessary this could be integrated with the Electric Universe model, or portions of it used neutrally in the original EDM article, though I don't advocate that approach, as they're wholly separate concepts. I have added several fairly detailed articles by Ralph Juergens (electrical engineer) in support. And will add alternate viewpoints and attempt to edit for neutrality/balance. On another note, what is the timeline for discussion/deletion? IE, how much time does an article's author have to improve it before it is summarily deleted in reactionary fashion? I'm in the process of attempting to find additional references and flesh out the article. Mgmirkin 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update again: I have cleaned up a good portion of the article, though it may still need work. I have added a sesction discussion opposite (more traditional) points of view. I have also included references to sites with supporting arguments, and references to sites with opposing views (also put opposing viewpoint references first, so people can review the traditional view for comparison before reading the supporting views). I have also requested scholarly references from a friend. I *hope* they may be forthcoming shortly, but cannot guarantee it. If anyone know of resources for FINDING specifically topical references in scholarly publications, it would be appreciated if they could be noted. Finding ANY discussions PRO OR CON about the features and causation (rilles, Valles Marineris, Mamers Vallis, Chaos Terrain, Arachnoids) has been difficult/frusting to say the least. However, I have tried to point to some useful references pro and con, for the time being, and to better balance the article. More revision may be needed. I've tried to get to a modicum of neutrality while still laying out the theory. So, I'm hoping it's closer to meeting POV requirements/neutrality rules. I object to it being labeled "New Research", as the ideas have been around at least since Immanuel Velikovsky and Nikola Tesla's time, and definitely since Ralph Juergens proposed the Electric Sun model. It's been around, it's been discussed, this isn't a new concept, it's just a recently added one on wikipedia. If someone could find/add a few references, I'd be grateful. Mgmirkin 06:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'd also not the following from NOR: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view." As such I'll try to note the "controversy" over some of the sites referenced (specifically, thunderbolts.info is not technically regarded as a verifiable resource, despite the fact they cite laboratory experiments and even give photographic evidence to back up their claims, likewise, holoscience.com and plasmacosmology.net are regarded as pseudoscience at worst, or protoscience at best, by traditional physicists, despite those sites being authored by extremely bright plasma physicists and electrical engineers who work with similar materials and processes). This should satisfy NOR. As well as opposite viewpoints and references satisfying NPOV. Mgmirkin 06:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbolts.com is not a reliable source. JGR-Planets and similar, reputable refereed journals are reliable primary sources. I did a quick search of the ADS (What does it stand for, anyway?)[82] and found zero mentions of electrical discharge machining in a planetary context. I conclude that the subject is non-notable, original research, and/or bollocks as described above. zowie 07:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, finally a useful post! Thanks for the link to the abstracts searcher. No clue what ADS stands for tho' sorry (Astrophysics Data System, apparently, hey maybe we need a new article on THAT! Hehe, j/k, apparently we have our hands full with this one...). Oh, and methinks maybe you don't know what it is you're looking for. Or they might not know what it is they're researching or how to properly phrase it. I looked under Electrical discharge and a whole bunch of other search terms and came up with the following: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 (apologies if I accidentally duplicated any entries, it's been a grueling experience trying to decipher the astrobabble and physicsbabble; ask 10 physicists the same question and they all tell you 10 different ways of describing it using different words. Man... No wonder nobody can ever find any references. Unless you ask a plasma physicists and/or an electrical engineer, then they tend to use the same words pretty frequently: double-layering, charge separation, electric discharge machining, birkeland currents, z-pinch, anode tuft, glow discharge, and those are about the only names for 'em.).

As we can see, there is plenty of research (even one on electric dust devils lifting soil 1, hmm... Interesting! Funny how it looks like the same questions and observations being made here: 1 and here: 2) going on in the realm of electric phenomena in relation to "fulgurite" or spherule formation, relation of electrical arc formation to "channels" seen on on the Earth's surface, research regarding the electrical nature and discharges of tremendous dust devils combing the surface of Mars, lightning formation and effects on planetary bodies. Shall I go on? I don't think any of this is "new research." Portions of it have been talked about in various articles that have been published to date. I don't know their specific terminologies of how they refer to things. Frankly I'm startign to think their naming schemes are arbitrary... =o\ In any even, electrical processes on planets in the solar system have been talked about for a while. More frequently on thuderbolts.info and plasmcosmology.net and holoscience.com. But there's current technobabble in "peer reviewed" journals relating to many of the processes listed in the EDM in Space entry. They might not use the exact same terms (EDM in space), but they're definitely researching how lightning works, how it's interacting with various surfaces on earth and in space. I'm sure that if Ikept digging I'd find more specific references. I just don't know how physicists who don't uderstand plasmna physics are terming what they're talking about. 4.242.183.170 10:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) For some reason it logged me out. Go fig. I wasn't hiding! Honestly! Mgmirkin 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suddenly reminded of my folklore (more specific cultural anthropology) classes in college. Specifically the admonition to represent a piece of information as it is considered relative to the point of view of the one(s) conveying the knowledge. We can analyze this briefly: What information is being conveyed? Is it conveyed properly? Does it represent the body of knowledge and thoughts/feelings/meaning of that knowledge as the one conveying it understands it?

If nothing else we can consider the article in question a piece of folklore or cultural anthropology (as, really, is any article on here, it's knowledge of the people conveyed to other people).

How is the article presented? -It is presented as a theory espoused by Electric Universe propnents.

Is this actually a theory espoused by EU proponents? -According to their web sites, this is their theory. In that regard, this article is correct, this article summarizes their theories.

Are verifiable resources used regarding the article? -If you mean can we verify that this is in fact the position proferred by EU theorists, then yes, sufficient evidence has been listed to say that this is the view espoused by EU theorists.

Are we attempting to validate the underlying theory, or simply the presentation of a position? -According to Wikipedia, we're NOT concerned with truth, merely that articles presented are, NOR, NPOV and verifiable as written in the context they're intended. In this case, a theory or belief is presented as "a theory" and explained in the terms that those who share the belief "understand" it. As with Jormundgand or the axis mundi, we are not evaluating the premise, technically only that the *belief* that is espoused. The "belief" is supported by the evidence already presented in numerous links to several EU theorist sites, which appear to be internally consistent with each other. Straight from the verifiability entry: "'Verifiability' in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research ... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." So, we're not looking at whether the underlying premise or process of EDM in Space is true. We're looking for whether it is true as presented. Is it a "theory?" Yes. Is it espoused by EU theorists? Consensus of EU proponents says yes. Does it present the theory and implications of said theory in the manner and understanding that it is epoused by proponents? Yes. Does it cite "authoritative" EU theorist websites? Yes (thunderbolts.info, plasmacosmology.net holoscience.com, kronia.com).The confidence with which we can say that EU theorists believe this in the way presented is fairly high considering the volume of works published by said theorists.

Do you need to agree with the specifics of the theory in order for it to be a well-written article on wikipedia? -According to Wikipedia, no... As long as it's fair, balanced, NPOV, verifiable, NOR, wikipedia isn't concerned with the "truth" of a position (hence there are plenty of articles on pseudoscience that paraphrase the specific beliefs in a neutral way), nor your *opinions* about an opinion, only that it acurately represents what it claims to represent. In this case it claims to represent a theory espoused by EU theorists, and it shows that EU theorists in fact do in fact hold this viewpoint. This is no different than listing articles about the World Tree or the World Serpent, or other "beliefs." In those articles bias (Norse Myth, Greek Myth, Atheism) are noted, beliefs are spelled out, and resources showing that the belief is held, who it is held by, etc. are spelled out. Mgmirkin 12:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDM-in-space as an idea is not particularly notable:it does not have enough mindshare to qualify as notable in itself (as does, say, Celestine Prophecy or the idea of the illuminati). EDM-in-space as alleged fact or as a model of reality is not even on the radar of mainstream science and should not be treated as such in an encyclopedia.
I spot-checked the abstracts of some of the papers you referenced. Several are concerned with electrical discharge, but on much smaller scales than are described in the EDM-in-space article (from laboratory arcing through lighting-bolt-sized discharges, e.g. #2 is about dust-devil-excited lightning on Mars. Several others are concerned with origin of crater chains but do not even mention electrical discharge (e.g. #29 posits that crater chains on Phobos appear to be caused by secondary impacts due to debris thrown up from primary impact sites on Mars). None of the ones I looked at describe humongous electrical discharges as a potential mechanism for landscape formation.
Don't get me wrong -- if EDM-in-space turns out to be "interesting" scientifically (in the sense of being published as an idea in a peer-reviewed journal and explaining something that other, simpler models cannot)) then we should definitely have an article about it. But it hasn't reached that level yet. The next step for that idea would be for a proponent to write it up and get it published in JGR or a similar journal, and join the scientific debate -- only then might it be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. zowie 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. As I've said, finding spoecific references is tricky due to the myriad of wordings ivolved in uber-specific fields of research. However, Martian Dust Devils are certainly one form of EDM, albeit on a slightly smaller scale than larger bolts of lightning. But these electrical filamentary processes are at the heart of the EDM conception in the EU model. Granted, it hasn't been given extensive mindshare in primary scientific circles. But it is a fairly basica and central tent in the EU model. And in that model mindshare on EDM processes is significantly higher (it's one of the basic theoretical prcoesses behind planetary surface machining/formation; in the EU model, where its mindshare is pretty unanimous, granted the EU model is a minority opinion).

However, research in terrestrial dust devils have been going on likewise to understand the process of formation and of machining dust off the surface and INTO the air. Note the following article from Nasa: Phantoms From the Sand: Tracking Dust Devils Across Earth and Mars I'm assuming Nasa releases are considered "credible." This article draws some parallels to and mentions Martian Dust devils. It also notes the interesting finding that "Some researchers think a dust devil may need dust to sustain itself, but here we recorded a very large one that was essentially free of dust for a substantial part of its lifetime" IE, dust movement is a secondary feature, not a primary feature. IE, dust motion does not create or sustain a devil, as the "devil" can be measured and remain active even WITHOUT any dust being excavated/lifted from the surface. Like I said, plenty of active research going on, you just need to find it. ;o]

Anywho, my main point from the prior discussion was that active research is going on in related fields. Granted mainstream science hasn't made the same connections yet. But the EU model has. This article is presented as being a EU "belief" (and it is; you can find the same stuff on all the EU sites of any import) and alternate theories/explanations are presented, thus satisfying NPOV. NOR should be satisfied simply by the fact of the Velikovsky affair, Ralph Juergens' electric Sun model, etc. The concepts have been discussed for some time. Verifiability depends on *what* you're trying to verify, and is thus subjective. If you're trying as an editor to verify the underlying claim that in fact electrical processes are causative, wikipedia says YOU are doing original research and strongly cautions against even trying to do that. However, if you are simply verifying that a belief is held by a specific group, from a cultural anthropology standpoint, there is no conflict (EU websites all say basically the same thing about discharges in space, as modeled in the lab and tested on the small scale by spark machining, creation of electrical vortexes, etc.), so the fact that the belief is held by EU theorists is easily "verified." Thus the issue of "truth" of the claim is irrelevant, since it is essentially just a belief held by the group and in that group it has nearly universal (consensus) mindshare (though the group in itself is a minority in the scientific community, in order to understand their beliefs in a proper context it is necessary to understand EDM in Space [concept] which is central to their cosmological belief system). Guess that about sums it up, eh? 4.242.183.215 09:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I need to click "remember me" when I sign in so it automatically logs me in... Man, my typing sucks lately. Too much writing at 2am... ;o] Mgmirkin 09:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Electric Universe concept advocates a minority in the scientific community is a bit of a stretch. (A) the advocates largely appear to not be scientists in the sense of following the scientific method; and (B) EU is itself complete bollocks, in the following senses:
  • it is not well enough formulated to make any quantitative physical predictions;
  • it appears to violate basic physical laws such as the conservation of energy.
I contest the characterization of EU and PC proponents as mostly being non-scientists. I just added a rather large swath of "notable" sources to the EU model. There's been research and plenty of published papers (like I said, I was merely having a problem FINDING them; now I've found a bunch, and you may have a pleasant meal composed of your words *you know what I mean*). To paraphrase... Well, more of a direct quote:
Not to be ungrateful, of course, I thank you for pushing me past my initial limitation into the realm of trying to more adequately find NOTABLE sources that say basically the same things the not-as-notable- but-still-notable- within-the-EU-model's-proponents sites say... Hope that made sense. ;o]
I think we can all move past the notability of the EU model (it appears that it DOES have mindshare and notability within the publishing and researching academic/theoretical research communities; confined thusfar mostly to the IEEE side of physics *where most of the initial ideas for PC/EU came from* than the astrophysics side) and get back to focussing on this page. Which is notable as a tenet of EU proponents. Most of the EU sites tend to say say similar things about their belief that planets in the solar system were machined in large scale electrical discharges between planets that were not in balance, or between the sun and the planets, etc. Mgmirkin 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The EU article itself survived a call for deletion only because the EU advocacy community notorious enough to be mildly notable (having appeared, for example, in Wired magazine, not because of intrinsic science value in the Electric Universe picture itself (check the archived Electric Universe concept discussions). If EDMiS depends for its own notability on the importance of EU, it is almost certainly not notable. If it is false (as it appears to be) then including it in its own article is confusing and deceptive. Certainly, the recent bits of cross-link spam that have been inserted into Rille, Chaos terrain, etc. were deceptive as they presented EDMiS as a physical theory that is challenging conventional understanding of planetology, when it is not even a serious contender. zowie 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not a serious contender in your opinion (granted, that's an opinion shared by the majority, but an opinion nonetheless). In the opinion of a goodly chunk of scientists' opinions who submitted an Open Letter to the Scientific Community, the current establishment's entrenched dogma of we're right and everyone else is wrong is conterproductive to even CONSIDERING new theories. In the opinion of those sponsoring the letter, this and potentially more explanatory theories have all but been ignored and not given equal time and mindshare, not due to merit, but simply due to entrenched dogma squashing any competing ideas. Nonetheless, research presses on in the IEEE world despite astronomers' reluctance to come to terms that they're surprised by just about everything that they see coming out of deep space observatories like Chandra, Hubble, etc. But, I guess that's neither here nor there. Mgmirkin 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, a number of electrical engineers and plasma physicists (Wallace Thornhill, Ralph Juergens, Donald Scott and a number of others) are strong supporters (in fact are or have been its main proponents and commentators, specifically because their observations in the lab appeared to strongly correlate with observed stellar phenomena; anode glow and the sun, arc discharges and lightning, arc discharges and spherule generation in EDM in the lab) and have made quantitative and qualitative specific scientific predictions, which appear to better fit the actual data from subsequent observation than other contemporary interpretations.

EU model predicted that martian dust storms would demonstrate electrical characterization, despite the atmosphere being too thin and cold to support the standard convection model, and that similar mesurements of electrical processes in dust devils would be made in the terrestrial sphere. These predictions have been confirmed, not least of all by the article noted last night written by Nasa, and a number of others that have found electrical characterization of dust devils. Phantoms From the Sand: Tracking Dust Devils Across Earth and Mars, EU model similar characterizations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Likewise tornadoes, water spouts, hurricanes, etc. are expected to also display electrical characterization 1, 2, 3, 4 as well.

Similarly, predictions were made about the so-called "volcanoes" of IO before probes imaged them. Predictions included that the "volcanoes" would demonstrate electrical characterization, would be hotter than any known volcano on earth and would exhibit features common to electrical arcing and not to volcanoes, that the "lava lakes" (large black spopts) would in fact be cool (because it's not flowing lava it's an electrically charred/machined surface), and that the "volcano(es)" would MOVE around the edges of the lava lake and NOT be stationary. Predictions 1, 2 3. Initial accounts and images "appear" to fit the predictions. Cold "lava flow," jets much larger and hotter than expected, following the pattern of the expected electrical arcing that was predictde by the model. Prometheus Plume active for 18 years? With bluish characterization? IO enveloped in Aurora. And what causes auroras? According to Birkeland: charged particles involved in an electrical interaction. Hmm... Hence we get the term "Birkeland Currents" or field-aligned currents.

It is perfectly within the EU model's capabilities to make predictive statements that are borne out (or at the very least not contradicted) by facts and observations. In some cases, predictions which the standard models DID NOT make and are only now beginning to even investigate (and find a strong correlation to what the EU already said years ago). The model allows for falsifiability by making specific predictions and then observing results to note matches and/or contradictions, and welcomes critical discussion of its predictions.

Similar research is still ongoing: Measurements of Electrical Discharges in Martian Regolith Simulant. Researchers understand the need to know the causation and structural features associated with Mars' dust devils. The information will be useful for comparison to Earthly phenomena bearing similar structure as well.

The more I look, the more research in related fields I see going on around these very self-same concepts. The only difference is that the traditional researchers don't understand the causation. The EU model purports to (due to the plasma and electrical engineering understanding of its proponents in the field) and makes very specific predictions, many of which are being anecdotally verified as we speak.

But, again, this goes back to verifiability's ambiguity. Are we trying to verify the Physics (causation) of the phenomenon the belief is based upon (that's a no-no), or the fact that the belief is held, what the belief is, and who believes it (Cultural anthropology)?

I am arguing for the latter (cultural anthropology). The belief is held. That has been substatiated repeatedly. We know who believes it. We know who the authoritative sources for the belief are (people, web sites, specific documents and claims). Even beyond that, certain features of the belief are in process of being upheld by observation (auroras on Earth and other planets, electric dust devils, tornadoes, water spouts, chondrule {or was it Chondrite?} and fulgurite formation).

Perhaps the article needs to be amended to say "EDM in Space (concept)" to distinguish between concept (cultural anthropology) and verified physical phenomenon (physical process). I would classify this under cultural anthropology insofar as the belief goes (it is a central tenet of a pseudo-/proto-scientific belief system, much as the axis mundi, world tree, world serpent, gods, etc are the central tenets of a religious/mythological belief). Physical confirmation of "fact" of the underlying processes is another matter entirely. I believe that verifiability and NPOV and NOR have been satisfied for the concept interpretation and am not specifically advocating for classification as verified physical fact, though it is anecdotally supported on a number of fronts. Granted, it may be walking a fine line, but I think the distinction is justifiable (cultural anthropology vs physical process; granted this is a "belief" about a physical process, but it is still a belief and a central tenet of a belief system nonetheless and should in that regard be given consideration). If necessary the article can be amended with "(concept)" and a more definitive note about the cultural anthropology of it can be inserted to distinguish it from empirical physical fact. 64.122.15.114 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDM in Space (concept) is not notable in the context of cultural anthropology. zowie 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my understading of the world notable is incorrect? From a cultural anthropology/mythology/folklore point of view, the central tenets of a belief system are the most notable part of it, or the part that should be understood first and foremost. That's pretty non-negotiable in cultural anthropology. You can't really talk about a culture without talking about its belief system and its motivations behind those beliefs. Or are you talking verifiability again? In which case, go to pretty much any of the forerunner sites of the EU model and read a few articles, they almost all talk about the same processes as being central to the model (concept). Mgmirkin 21:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't recall if I mentioned before, but have edited the article significantly since initially nominated for deletion. Have added opposing viewpoints, recently added clarification regarding cultural anthropology and that the article is regarding an aspect of EU model belief, also added that the claims have not been substatiated, but are necessary basic tenet for understanding the EU model in cultural anthropological terms. Have also noted controversy over certain sources, per Wikipedia policy when "reputability" is in dispute. And have noted opposition and alternate theories of the evolution of the same processes by non-adherents (mainstream scientists). Mgmirkin 21:44 (appx), 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And just for good measure, in case we're still wondering whether or not aspects of the EU model are being actively researched (regardless of by whom)? It appears so. There are a number of abstracts on electromagnetic field generation in the early universe, polarization of charge (charge separation) in the universe, electrical discharge within the solar system, the electrical conductivity and charging of Titan's atmosphere, research on modelling the global ionospheric electric fields to the solar wind, penetration of the interplanetary electric field to the low-latitude ionosphere during magnetic storms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

As we can see, this is an active field of research in astrophysics (the role of electricity in the universe). Many of these are questions which have been posed/proposed directly by the EU model. Though not specifically related to the EDM in Space entry, I felt inclusion was warranted due to general assailing of the EU model in general as not being notable. In fact there is a great body of research being done relating to electrical processes in the universe (not necessarily by adherents per se, but addressing the same issues of mechanisms/causation). So, anyway, there you have a bunch of research beig done on related fields... I'm sure I could find more if I took the time to look and sort through the jargon. Mgmirkin 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. It may be complete bollocks but it is, at least to some extent, sourced complete bollocks. On WP, it is not our role to evaluate theories but to record them so amyone seeking information on the topic will find it. The test of this AfD is whether this theory has, at least, some currency and it seems to have. The article needs a great deal of work to provide a NPOV. I am inclined to give it some time on the understanding that when it returns to AfD (as it surely will) it will need to be in pristine condition to survive. Meanwhile, I am putting an NPOV tag on it that should remain until all issues have been addressed (or it will come straight back here!). BlueValour 03:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know what, specifically can be done in a constructive manner to improve NPOV issues (specific examples of what's poorly worded, keeping in mind we ARE conveying the meaning of a belief system; one could easily argue that portraying a belief system requires a certain level of POV, just the POV of the belief system, portrayed neutrally)? Perhaps we can discuss specifics of conveying the group's belief neutrally? If sources are needed for specific assertions about what the group believes, I can probably track them down. Mgmirkin 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BlueValour. I thnk that was my basic point. EDM in Space may be complete bollocks (I agree it's possible, science is by nature falsifiable). But it may also not be (recent articles have given some credence to electricity as causation rather than effect in dust devils; IE dust devils as mid-scale EDM ejecting dust from the surface 1. See talk page on EU model page for more detailed info on the issue of effect vs causation.). Wikipedia's policy appears to state that opinions about people's point of view are not notable, only sourced documents. IE, whether or not you believe in EDM is irrelevant, only that someone does, who that someone is, and what it is that they believe. I think BlueValour said it better than I did, but basically says the same thing. Jormungand from Norse mythology may be bollocks (is there really a serpent that circles the earth and bites its own tail? Probably not... But the 'norse'/vikings believed it as part of their handed down mythology. We're not verifying that Jormungand existed, merely that the norse believed he existed.). Mgmirkin 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the deletionist point of view that the underlying concept may end up proven as false. I've cleaned up much biased sentiment that was originally made subconsciously (by me, I'll admit; I'm still learning about NPOV and a fe rules), and added NPOV counter-arguments on most if not all the points outlined in evidence. I've also tried to out (state) any bias and controversy, as well as make sure the article notes what it is and is not stating (the belief is held? yes. The belief is based on sound principle? Indeterminate/contentious/irrelevant. The belief is significant to those who hold it? Yes. Citable evidence that the belief is held and those who hold it? An abundance.). I hope that somewhat clears up my stance. I'm presenting a notable central tenet of a belief system, not a physical fact. It is presented as a theory, and the theory's points outlines with examples. I've attempted to note who the autoritative sources are for the [Electric Universe] theory (thunderbolts.info, plasmacosmology.net, holoscience.com, kronia.com), and document articles where the theory is espoused by those authoritative sources (for the belief sytem). I think this all amounts to meeting notability, NPOV guidelines, but a few folks still seem contentious on the issue. Hopefully these notes have helped allay some of that contentiousness Mgmirkin 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, and any help with NPOV issues would be appreciated, while still maintaining basic premises and document integrity (IE, no wholesale deleting of the tenets and useful information, just adding sources, pro and con arguments, removing or rewording statements that appear to show bias; not that I'd think any one here would do that). Of course keep in mind that people's beliefs are by nature from a specific POV. I guess anything that it opinion about the belief (meta-opinions if you will, or opinions about opinions) can go, but the main beliefs can be cleaned up. Anyway, anyone with NPOV resolution experience is encouraged to help with documentation, and making it "pristine" as BlueValour put it, is encouraged to help clean up the wordings. Mgmirkin 23:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Haven't had time to read all specific markup at this time. Here's my general thoughts on some NPOV issues related to POV of a specific group (IE belief systems). I may respond to individual comments at a later point as I have time... I don't right now.

I've been trying to clean up the NPOV issues over the last week, by putting in alternate explanations, taking out some of the more obvious biased statments which may have been initially worded too strongly in favor, attempting to add citations pro and con. I'll admit I'm still new here, but learning as much as I can about protocol as possible to get up to speed. Apologies on any foibles in the meanwhile. Constructive criticism is appreciated, constructive edits toward neutrality appreciated as well. Mgmirkin 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Copied from my comments on Talk page.)[reply]

But, also, remember that this is presented as one of the central beliefs of a group/culture, so in some way, any "belief will be from the POV of that culture/group." Same gows when discussing the beliefs of any religion, pseudo-religion, scientific group, fringe group. When presenting the tenets of their belief system you are presenting their POV. In this case specifically getting at the heart of their cosmological view of the structure and nature of the universe. In some regards, POV should be accepting of presentation of a group's beliefs, so long as the presentation of those beliefs is neutral. If that hasn't yet been achieved here, let's discuss and come to concensus on how to better word things to be neutral POV, while still presenting the views in their entirety. What is wikipedia precedent on presenting a specific group's views? Obviously a belief us understanding from the POV of that group. How does that fit within the general POV / NPOV debate? Say for instance norse mythology's Jormungand (world serpent), this is their method of explaining a certain aspect of their cosmology. It's from their cultural POV. Yet, Wikipedia still allows it, yes? If so, why? Why is that POV acceptable but EU POV is not? Is this bias on the deletionists part? Playing favorites of one belief system over the other? Why should one groups' POV be promoted over another's? That in and of itself is not NPOV by way of selective suppression of information. Mgmirkin 23:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Copied from my comments on Talk page.)[reply]

For what it's worth, despite the large number of links above, there appear to be no scientific articles in refereed journals that address the fundamental thesis being presented: that large landforms on extraterrestrial bodies were formed rapidly by electrical discharge rather than by impact. That makes the idea speculative at best, and places it under WP:NOT ("for ideas that someone made up in school one day"). Worse, the overuse of marginally relevant links is a kind of snow job -- someone who doesn't take the time to sort through the references and/or who doesn't have the experience or patience to read the papers themselves might think that they lend authority, when in fact they do not (they are irrelevant to the premise of the article).
NPOV has very specific limits -- it has to, in any document that purports to present truth. For example, in Sun we don't discuss the idea that the Sun's photosphere is made of iron, although that idea has very vocal advocates on the internet. That's because the photosphere is known to be made mostly of hydrogen and helium.
Presenting a specific group's views as such is all well and good, but it's not at all clear that Electric Universe advocates are a large enough group to be notable in themselves. EDMiS has the "feel" of a vanity page - it is about someone's pet idea that is not notable beyond the fact that the author felt like writing about it. zowie 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reservations, but I respectfully submit that the original authors of the Open Letter to the Science Community would disagree. The majority if not all of the original signers are notable physicists aligned with notable institutions, some of whom you will note work in plasma physics research institutions, and have been identified with either Plasma Cosmology or the Electric Universe affiliation. Though not specifically mentioning PC or EU by name (due to their lightning-rod / witch hunt generating features), it's basically a note of disgust by members of the scientific and academic community about how closed-minded the peer review and funding system has become, effectively locking out alternate theories from even receving said funding or peer review. I know what you're thinking before you even say it: not notable, not the smoking gun you think it is, and so what. Am I right? My only point is that there is mindshare outside of "standard cosmology" and it is NOT strictly crackpots, laymen and people who have never been into a laboratory in their life. Fact of the matter is that PC and EU were initially given life BY people in the academic and research community who saw flaws in the "standard model" and saw parallels in existing research in the lab.
To be frank, to these folks it appears that there is more good research in astrophysics going on at the IEEE conferences and in plasma research labs than in the astrophysics community 1. So, I suppose I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. There is mindshare for EU / PC even within the scientific community. It may be minority and squeezed out of journals, but it's there & research on related subjects is going on in related field, even as we speak. This isn't something some midleschooler thought up one day in class. This is stuff that plasma physicists have been thinking up for years. Since you're into notability: 1 2 3 it appears they've reproduced coronal ejections/solar flares in the plasma physics labs. And guess what, they look a lot like other stellar plasma phenomena. We've even managed to figure out how to prevent them (though whether the technique/technology for prevention would be possible to implement on the solar scale is dubious at best). Like I said, more and more research, more and more mounting evidence, and a stagnant astrophysics community that seems to not quite get it yet. But the day is coming.
So, what have we learned today? Probably nothing directly related to this article. *sigh* since it seems apparent that rather than attempting to fix POV issues on the belief system, we seem to keep chasing our tails about the EU model in general and mindshare of the paradigm as a whole. As we can see, creative mindshare (perhaps I should instead say "the minds that generated the PC / EU models") do not come from the layperson. They were generally proposed by plasma physicists and engineers who saw striking similarities to stellar phenomena in the lab. The fact that there is popular support from the layman isn't extraordinarily relevant. There is support within the physics community as well and active research that appears to validate some tenets of the EU / PC models. Granted it's anecdotal, and not a complete picture from any one source yet. Still... we seem to keep getting away from this article (granted they're related). We seem to be coming at this from opposite sides. You from the "nobody has proven the whole picture, so we can't publish any piece of it, despite the fact that we're merely presenting the views of one group/culture in the context of that culture." I'm coming at it from: "We know who the players are promoting the belief system, we kow the general theory, now let's discuss specifics of major tenets of their belief system." Isee little difference in cultural anthropological terms between one belif system and another, so long as they're presented neutrally. World tree, jormungand, the Virgin Mary, EDM in Space, black holes, peculiar beliefs of scientologists, etc. They're all just the beliefs. Some are based on myth, some on science, some on historical allusion, etc. But they're the beliefs held by a specific group, and used frequently by that group in their cosmology. People who wish to better understand the tenets of a belief system should have resources avaialble for better understanding who believes what, and why they believe it. Neutral to who believes it, or who supports/opposes it (lest you become non NPOV by suppression of sources of information relating to beliefs; let's not censor based on person feelings. I don't believe in Christian teachings, but I'm also not going to try deleting info about them that others may wish to better understand for posterity's sake). My 2c for the day. Mgmirkin 03:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per zowie's research above, article fails WP:V, specifically, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." --Satori Son 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure to meet WP:V and other deletion arguments raised way, way up there. Anville 16:46, 10 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 04:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Brockway[edit]

Non-notable state assembley candidate. Possible WP:Vanity because the article was started by Brockwayandy (talk • contribs). Also, the edits are full of non-encyclopedic POV content and personal attacks. sigmafactor 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the present. The only thing that makes him mildly notable right now is his canidacy, and that is not enough to pass WP:BIO. Winning the race, though? We'll leave that one for the future. Also, the creation by Brockwayandy (talk · contribs) doesn't help any. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 21:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clinton County, New York is not exactly a political hotbed and there is nothing that distinguishes Mr. Brockway from any other state assembly candidate. Also, the page is a probable vanity as sigmafactor mentioned. SliceNYC 21:51, 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 02:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"future gohan"[edit]

A page made just for the heck of it on this facet of the Dragon Ball Z character, seen in just one TV special. Poor title that's near impossible to find with false facts, not what I'd call the *best* written article I've ever seen, and syntax is done in improper style. No merge or redirect here, as everything's covered well on Son Gohan#History of Trunks. And since someone else'll bring it to the table despite it not being official guideline/policy, über-cruft. Papacha 20:34, 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 and redirect. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CapeTownMagazine.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, no evidence of notability. Alexa rank of 1,003,082. Jacek Kendysz 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Redirect to Cape Town. I agree with the nominator; there is nothing notable about this subject as the article stands except for being a niche "publication." If it has been noticed by bigger, reliable sources or given an award, that would be different. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Cape Town - it gets a 1 liner in the main article which seems about right. BlueValour 03:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Group processing[edit]

Scientologycruft. Not only is it totally POV, but it probably can never be anything but a stub about a non-notable aspect of early Scientology. Crabapplecove 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Auditing (Scientology); this appears to be an aspect of auditing in Scientology, but given the current info and what little I could find, it doesn't seem to merit any mention separate of that subject. -- H·G (words/works) 06:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am against merging unsourced material; we have no basis for knowing whether it is accurate so it has no place in a serious encyclopaedia. BlueValour 03:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. --Satori Son 19:44, 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 as follows: It is established that Tim Bowles is notable among Scientologists. The easy way out would be to "delete" given the well formulated arguments to delete. Despite that, I opt for no consensus, as the arguments to delete do not convince me. --Ezeu 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bowles[edit]

Notability not established. This non-notable attorney's claim to "fame" is that he works for the Church of Scientology. Aren't there about a thousand other lawyers who could say the same thing? Crabapplecove 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete More like millions. --DarkAudit 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bowles was Moxon's partner, until he messed up the Fishman/Geertz case. --Tilman 06:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject's relationship to another notable person does not confer notability. If this "Fishman/Geertz" case makes the subject notable, it should be included in the article, but I couldn't find much verifiable info on this case. Going by the numbers, we have 279 unique Ghits, and as far as I can tell none of these fit WP:RS standards. -- H·G (words/works) 06:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's notable among observers of Scientology, and that's the target audience of the article anyway, isn't it? Failing a keep, I would suggest a Merge to Moxon & Kobrin. wikipediatrix 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - even if the subject is notable among observers of Scientology, this notability isn't established in the article. If the subject has more claims to notoriety than having simply worked for the Church of Scientology, and if these claims are established and clarified in the article, I'd be willing to change my vote. -- H·G (words/works) 07:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability among 'Scientology watchers' != notability as far as Wikipedia policy and/or guidelines is concerned. --DarkAudit 14:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per H·G. DrL 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frankly, I might have speedied this if the debate hadn't already existed. Basically the article says, repeatedly, that this guy is a lawyer for the church of scientology, and that's it. Why should we care? I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground. Mangojuicetalk 13:46, 11 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 08:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Circulating Events[edit]

Google's never heard of it. Seems to be high-school kids pretending to be notable. Spondoolicks 20:45, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Lockett[edit]

High school kid (though that statement was taken off the article when the prod tag was removed) Created and edited by same users as The Circulating Events (see above afd). No Google verification. Seems to be hoax. Spondoolicks 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it is more likely WP:VAIN than WP:HOAX. -- Whpq 21:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity although it's kind of cute, especially the line at the end about the authors. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VAIN,WP:OR and probably WP:NFT plus if we keep it we'll be endangering his status as an anonymous actor Yomangani 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. NawlinWiki 01:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry. I made a false statement in the nomination that the reference to him being a high-school student was removed, implying an attempt at deception on the part of the article's editors. In fact it wasn't removed, it was just some reformatting in the same edit that the prod tag was taken off. That doesn't change the reason for nomination though. --Spondoolicks 10:24, 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. Mangojuicetalk 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enturbulation[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's doubly not a dictionary of obscure Scientology terminology Crabapplecove 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I see no real possibilities to expand this beyond a definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginkgo100 (talk • contribs) 31 July 2006
  • Transwiki to wiktionary if they will take it. Yomangani 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see this as more than just a definition. --Tilman 06:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Enturbulation (or Enturbulate) is not a word to look up in the dictionary. As a matter of fact, Webster's,Oxford, and www.dictionary.com do not have a definition because the word was created as a byproduct of Scientology. It's not a "normal" word in the english language; therefore, it should still be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.189.93 (talk • contribs) 1 August 2006 (Note: User's only edit to Wikipedia. -- H·G (words/works) 06:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary per Yomangani; the fact that other dictionaries don't list the word has hardly been an argument for its exclusion from wiktionary before. As it stands, the article is dicdef and scientology cruft--we can't define every obscure term from scientology. -- H·G (words/works) 07:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't just a one-sentence dicdef of a word, it's four paragraphs devoted to a concept. Not the same thing. And it's not obscure to those are aware of Scientology's workings, for better or for worse. wikipediatrix 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the "four paragraphs" are really only five sentences; one of these defines the word, and three others very briefly describe the term's use in one book. Is the term more significant than this implies, and if so, can the article be expanded upon? -- H·G (words/works) 08:03, 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. - Bobet 19:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Publishing[edit]

More Scientologycruft, notability not established. This totally obscure and non-notable "company producing marketing material for the insurance industry" shouldn't get an article just because of its Scientology connections. Crabapplecove 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not really verifiable. The external link given and most of the information on Google about the supposed controversy come from unreliable bloggy sites. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well documented. The so called "bloggy sites" is a CD from the police investigation on Lisa's death. --Tilman 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're notable because of their connection to the Lisa McPherson murder, not because of their insurance marketing business. wikipediatrix 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What wikipediatrix says --Mgormez 01:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Jesus Christ in Zion (Scientology)[edit]

Utterly non-notable Church. Again, because of a Scientology connection, someone apparently thought notability was instantly conferred. I'm not so sure about Church of Jesus Christ in Zion either. Crabapplecove 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete unless other definitions link to this. Or integrate this text into a definition about scientology break-away groups.--Tilman 06:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an individual breakaway congregation is not automatically notable. If there is anything else in this article that would hint at notability, I'm not seeing it (although that could be because this article is written quite badly), and no substantial articles on scientology appear to link to it anyway. -- H·G (words/works) 07:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to do a google search for this church, but most of the results I got were either mirrors or references to another church, Church of Jesus Christ in Zion (and I'm not convinced of that church's notability). It's difficult to ascertain if this church still exists. Even if it does, every breakaway church is not notable. Srose (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we merge this somewhere? I wish there was a state-by-state array of articles like Scientology in Kansas so this could go there. wikipediatrix 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Free Zone. Though the article is not appropriately formatted to reflect it, this is also the article for the "Church of Scio Logos" -- which is not just any splinter group, but the splinter group formed by Bent Corydon, author of Messiah or Madman? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sourced. Not notable. BlueValour 02:59, 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 keep. John254 02:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Justice[edit]

Scientology Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Old AfD)

This article was nominated for deletion on 31/7/2006. The result of the discussion was keep

No sources apart from the Church itself. Will (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article is based on both cofs and other sources. --Fahrenheit451 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I have a major problem with the massive amounts of unsourced and contentious information that anti-Scientology editors seek to stuff this article with, this is a real subject, and a valid one for an article. Much of the info regarding this is closely related to Scientology ethics, though, and in the future perhaps a merge is possible if no properly sourced information is forthcoming. wikipediatrix 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipediatrix. I removed a bunch of the unsourced and OR-ish stuff likely put there by someone that was at the receiving end of the subject and is/was upset about it (I did not look at the edit history, only the tone of the material). OK, but Wikipedia is not the place to vent. --Justanother 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The nomination doesn't list any reason for deleting the article. (If there is a properly formed nomination, I'd have to say that the article badly needs specific references rather than the generalized primary source HCOPLs.) Shall I pencil in 7/31 or 8/1 for next year? AndroidCat 23:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, just noticed that "Will" is actually Spectre. (Grumble grumble. I think that sort of name game is a Really Bad Idea.) AndroidCat 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we'll have to use some of their sources to describe their ideas. Anynobody 09:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Dupri[edit]

The article seems to be a hoax, Jenna Dupri yields no Google hits and the information in the article is unverifiable. Liffey 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no google hits (except WP) for the hit sitcom "Dionne Voncarter" either. Mr Stephen 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks like a hoax with the filmography all in the future so as not be verifiable. -- Whpq 21:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unverifiable, probable vanity and hoax. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like 2007 was a good year for her; but in the meantime, delete. -Sanbeg 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like hoax/nonsense. Mark Grant 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, near certain hoax - Bootstoots 00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck the Dealer[edit]

Culturally unimportant, non-notable drinking game. Receives only around 600 hits on Google; does not warrant its own article. Prod removed by anon. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not verifiable. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OR. Yomangani 22:59, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy (album)[edit]

Deprodded. Cannot be verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Molerat 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, their website lists it as an upcoming album. Seems rather silly to delete now just to recreate in a month. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, how is the band's own MySpace page and posts by the band's manager on the band's website not reliable sources? Joltman 12:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources. Molerat 13:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although primary source material is useful under some circumstances such as this via WP:V. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, there has finally been official word on the record label's site about the album, and it has been listed as a reference on Mercy (album). I removed the deletion note, as that is a reliable source. Joltman 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thanks. Speedy keep please. Molerat 10:21, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RO4588161[edit]

This is the second nomination, the first was closed a month ago as no consensus [83]. There are about 15 Google hits for this. I can't find a Lexus-Nexus (going back 2 years) or Google News result for it. It's unverified and hasn't been touched (aside from being tagged for wikification) since the previous AfD a month ago. Metros232 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we can't keep something based on hope of what it will become. Gazpacho 22:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR, it can always be recreated. Yomangani 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Lowery[edit]

I'm fairly certain this entry was deleted once before on the basis of not meeting WP:Notability. Jinxmchue 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- Log shows:
20:17, 18 July 2006 Haukurth (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ava Lowery" (Copied from http://www.peacetakescourage.com/page-about.htm with no assertion of permission.)
Yomangani 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as reposted material (I've added speedy tags to the page) Yomangani 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - since it apparently isn't a repost. I think it meets notability as Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events Yomangani 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - I agree with the above comment Nick xylas 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normal delete per nom. Please note that repost doesn't apply when the new page receives a non-trivial change of content commpared to the deleted page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-The page was originally a reposted copy of web material. I completely changed it and think that given Lowery was interviewed on CNN and received significant blog mileage because of the death-threats from right-wing emailers, she is worth keeping an entry open for. Richardjames444 23:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Ava Lowery is a relevant topic for an online encyclopedia. She's gained notoriety by being interviewed across the country by various radio and television programs. You can't delete her entry and keep entries for other people who have made the news. Ava has made the national and international news. I don't even understand why anyone should suggest this should be deleted unless they're just mad that Ava has gained notoriety.--Tracker1312 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    — Possible single purpose account: Tracker1312 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep, as she is a notable blogger who's been featured in national news media. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Ava and her contributions are not widely recognized and she has not received significant press coverage. She's been interviewed a couple times and that's it. Her appeal is limited and temporary. A Wiki entry would only serve as a Wikipedia:Vanity_page. Jinxmchue 14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability_(people). I also have a problem with the factual accuracy of the article itself, and the use of WP to try to lend credibility to a likely false claim. I already added a dispute tag, and created a talk page with evidence. Crockspot 17:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - Richardjames444 and I have hashed out the problems I had with the factual accuracy of the article, but this leads me to point out something. What small bit of notability Ava may have I believe is due mainly to the "controversial reaction" to her animation, rather than because of her animation work itself. As the article now properly points out, this "reaction" was overblown, and in the worst case, not even related to the piece in question. I believe the confusion over this "reaction" was used to increase her exposure. Crockspot 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks citations to multiple independent, reliable sources to establish any assertion of notability or to be verifiable. The "CNN interview" in Other Resources is a link to youtube. CNN would be a reliable source, youtube is not, and the citation is to youtube, not to CNN. (CNN does have a website, so if she was really covered in any significant way by CNN, there ought to be something on their web pages.) I don't know if Progressive magazine counts as a reliable source (how good are they at fact checking? some partisan magazines are good, some don't try, some are in between), but it is the best presently in the article. The only other source is a blog entry, so clearly not a reliable source. It is also at a site with "STUFF FOR PROGRESSIVES, FROM PROGRESSIVES", so does not help generate the sourcing needed to write a neutral, encyclopedic article. GRBerry 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment: Sorry that I haven't made any other comments. I often visit Wikipedia and read things. This is the first time that I have seen something that was up for deletion that I didn't think should be deleted so that's why I left a comment. Basically at least some of the people urging to delete this post are against what Ava stands for and it has nothing to do with whether or not she has received adaquate press coverage. For example, Jinxmchue who urges for deletion has been cited for vandalism on the Democratic Underground entry and personal attacks on their talk page. Crockspot has also been cited for vandalizing the Democratic Underground page. The fact that people across the planet have heard of Ava, that she is doing something political (her blog/forum) and artistic (her animations) at such a young age, and that she has been interviewed by multiple news sources should be enough that she have an entry on Wiki.--Tracker1312 05:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before personally attacking other editors, I would think that one would have noticed that those warnings were deemed to be, and indeed were, unfounded, and made in bad faith. The warning editor was himself warned for posting those warnings. Crockspot 17:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Crockspot. These accusations of vandalism to the DU page were made in bad faith by the same person and were never justified. As far as any personal attacks, I apologized for the ones I made and agreed to refrain from any more. I have stuck to that agreement despite other people not making the same agreement and continuing on in their personal attacks. Finally, there is no "fact that people across the planet have heard of Ava." That's a completely unprovable non-NPOV that would never be allowed to remain if it were put into the Wiki entry. I know of many children younger, more talented, more artistic and more publicly active than Ava and they don't have their own Wiki vanity pages. "Ava Lowery" is not a household name like "Cindy Sheehan" and the few media blurbs she's gotten hardly justify a Wiki entry. If she were to somehow keep her name in the "mainstream" news week after week, then perhaps you'd have some justification. Jinxmchue 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • please take into account the POV issues of some of the deletionists when deciding what happens to this page. Let's have this page stand or fall on its own merits or lack of them, rather than having it be a victim of broader ongoing conflicts not related to Wikipedia Richardjames444 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC) My apologies. Let's remember to assume good faith Richardjames444 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I would like to thank Crockspot for our succesful negotiations on how to incorporate the alleged death threat issue. He was willing to compromise in a way that makes me think that his input here is genuine. Richardjames444 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I can imagine someone looking her up, we might as well have an article that tries to be accurate and balanced, probably there won't be a lot of those on her. - Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Coghlan[edit]

This article fails WP:BIO, and its content is generally duplicated in the Jeffrey Archer article. Redirect to that article as a potential search term. Erechtheus 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) In light of the outstanding work of AnonEMouse, I withdraw this AfD. Erechtheus 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - nice work, want to do the same on the couple of hundred other articles up for deletion? Yomangani 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I greatly expanded the article, hopefully enough to save it. While she became famous via Archer's case, she did become famous enough for newspapers to write about her, rather than just him. She became somewhat notable as an unapologetic prostitute. Meanwhile, Archer's article is quite long, and covers a lot more than the scandal, because he did write several well selling books, and had a notable career before and after the scandal. So there is now more interesting, verifiable information here than can be effectively merged to Archer's article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent work. I have no reservations about withdrawing this AfD now. Perhaps there wouldn't have been an AfD at all if others critical of it were willing to put in this sort of work. Erechtheus 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps there wouldnt have been an AfD at all if it weren't for a trigger happy contributor with a Monica complex.Cardigan3000 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • . The point here is fairly obvious i would have thought, someone's notability is not based on the quality of the wikipedia article about them, nominating articles for deletion should not be used as a spur for upgrading current unsatisfactory articles but for removing inappropriate articles. There was, of course, nothing to stop either Yomangani or Erechtheus from working on the article themselves.Cardigan3000 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but the nomination wasn't just for WP:BIO and since the content was a)a stub, b)duplicated, c)original research and d)didn't establish notability (the onus is on the editor here), I think a delete was in order. Since it is now neither a), b), or c) and notability is established by multiple references I changed my opinion. You could have course, also edited it yourself. Yomangani 17:02, 1 August 2006
          • Why don't you just go through the whole of wikipedia deleting all stubs? Duplicated , no there was no mention of her death in the Archer account in fact she only gets one mention. Original research? again , no all the info was easily verifiable. Notability is established by her relationship to Archer. Once again , just because you have never heard of her doesnt mean she is not notable.Cardigan3000 18:21, 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 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Gothism[edit]

The only evidence for this concept is some guy's webpage, with no evidence of notability supplied either of the term "Neo-Gothism" (and only 77 Google hits [84]), or The "Neo-Gothic Art Manifesto". Note, there do exist concepts such as "Neo-Gothic" and "Neo-Gothicism", and I've nothing against someone writing an article on those concepts - but this article appears to be on about something else (i.e., a new movement since the 1980s). Mdwh 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Moffat. Mdwh 22:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find very much evidence of this being a real movement. Neo-Gothism without quotations returns only 43 links: one is the Wikipedia article, one is the creator's user page, and quite a few are Wikimirrors. The rest seem to be blogs and message boards. As of right now, there simply don't seem to be any reliable sources to base this article on, and even if there were, I'm not at all convinced of the importance or impact of this so-called "movement". Srose (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you go to the last page the Google hits drop to 12 (duplicates removed), then down to 8 when WP and mirros are eliminated. Not enough coverage to demonstrate that this is a notable movement. BlueValour 02:56, 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 all. I'm not deleting Victoria Cook since this discussion didn't get that much attention after her inclusion, listing her article on a separate afd instead. - Bobet 12:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Kendall (politician)[edit]

Non-notability: local politician of no great achievement. Martín (saying/doing) 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are councillors on the same authority:

  • Delete all per nom. Hardy was a mayor, but doesn't seem like mayor of what is important. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, local politicians, nn. -Sanbeg 19:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost all; neutral on Derek Hardy. Derek Hardy seems like he might be somewhat more notable than the others; if reliable sources could be found to confirm the information, I might lean to keep. Otherwise, the others are figures of such little note that it's unlikely that there are any reliable sources of sufficient quality that we can write about them. Captainktainer * Talk 04:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - local councillors with no other claim to notability. I should like to add another Brentwood councillor Victoria Cook to the nomination. BlueValour 04:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't add Cook as she was Leader of the Council, which to my mind just confers enough notability. But in reality I am neutral - it's still hard to write a sourced article on her. Martín (saying/doing) 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it still fails WP:BIO since it is only a borough council. There may be an argument for the leader of a County Council but I think borough councils are too far down the food chain. The US equivalent is leader of a city council and we have previously agreed that that is not notable. I have googled for '"Victoria Cook" councillor' and '"Victoria Cook" Brentwood' and got no independent returns so if we keep the article, as you say, it cannot be sourced. BlueValour 16:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not sure I agree with the borough vs county argument in England. Here boroughs actually have a considerable amount of power and counties reduced to a rump providing rural education, transport and planning. Most metropolitan boroughs, including in London, have complete local authority with no county council at all as they are unitary authorities. My own 'borough', the London Borough of Croydon, has 350,000 residents and is larger than most counties. It's parish councils and town councils which are the non-executive, non-notable levels of authority here. In a UK context, we either would have to have no council leaders including counties, or allow counties, boroughs and districts. That said, I have no real objection in this case unless it sets a policy precedent. Martín (saying/doing) 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the huge difference is that the London Borough of Croydon has most of the broad powers of a unitary authority whereas a borough council doesn't have, most importantly, any responsibility for education. Brentwood is not a metropolitan borough (which Croydon is) (if it was I might well agree with you). I live in a similar borough (West Lancashire) and the leader of the council has low profile since the big decisions are made at Lancashire County Hall. BlueValour 17:14, 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. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Beings (movie)[edit]

NN unreleased self-released (via a print-on-demand service) film. 23 Google hits for "Shadow Beings" "Mind's Clay", all but one of which are directly related to the company (official sites, myspace, cafepress, etc. -- Vary | Talk 22:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Conspiracy[edit]

A vanity page about somebody's internet past/friends. Not notable. DonRexy 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. If you put it that way, it really sounds like a damning example of WP:NFT. However, it's a TMUISOD that can be found in Jargon File, and thus in printed form in The New Hacker's Dictionary, I think. But heck, it's still basically a TMUISOD. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Eric S. Raymond Tom Harrison Talk 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's an ESR thing that has no encyclopedic value. 200.162.232.187 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete NN Anomo 03:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxQuestions.org[edit]

Looks like vanity article to me as a place for members of the website to advertise it and it is just not notable. LQ.org is not encyclopaedic content. What about other websites? Should Wikipedia serve as an advertising board for websites like this? DonRexy 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep per WP:WEB. "Not notable" with an Alexa rank of 5,258? That's quite a laugh. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The website is rather significant among computer junkies --Shrek05 23:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs sources, but there are plenty out there. Ziggurat 01:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Site is near the top of every linux-related search I do. There are official reps from nearly every distro on the forums. Notability should not be in question. --DarkAudit 02:56, 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 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trx, inc[edit]

nn, possibly spam - Delete --Spring Rubber 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 Year Old Girls[edit]

This page was previously nominated as a potential vanity deletion. I am nominating on the basis that it fails to meet WP:MUSIC. In the prior AfD, it was said in the AfD only that this band met criteria 6, which at the time was that the band was the most prominent representative of that genre. In the time since that vote, there has been no addition of a verifiable source that makes that claim. Erechtheus 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A Google search for "14 Year Old Girls" nintendo yields over 14,000 results, and the previous vote was unanimous except for the nominator. -newkai | talk | contribs 23:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC) As a result of the below-stated evidence, I find myself corrected and hereby withdraw my "keep" and request to change it to a Delete.[reply]
    • Comments I have added a bullet to your entry for formatting. Also, a search for "HORSE the band" nintendo yields yields over 20,000 results. In addition, a member of HORSE coined the name for the genre and that band has a much more substantial article. It would appear to be clear that they, not 14 Year..., are the most prominent representative of the genre. Erechtheus 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. To Newkai: look at the google results, i went through randomly selected pages, 1-3, then 5-7, then 13, 15, 20, most of the search results have nothing to do with this band, but somehow have "14-year-old-girls" and "nintendo" in the article results. When searching 14 year old girls and nintendocore, there are 5 pages of results, most of which are myspace pages, redirect to this page, or some advertisement. --Shrek05 23:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nintendocore is a notable style of music and 14 Year Old Girls are a prominent representative of that style (such as The Minibosses, Horse the band, etc.). artistdirect and allmusic both know about them. Verifiable. Factual. Healthy web-presence. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment According to the record label, 14 Year Old Girls have appeared on G4 Tech TV's X-Play, The Screen Savers, and Players... been written up in GamePRO, EGM, GameNOW... Maximum Rock'n'Roll called them "Quite endearing" and Punknews.org declared them "the inventors of Nintendo punk." That's TV coverage (which I have cited in the article) and multiple coverage by non-trivial media (harder for me to track down and cite, maybe someone with more experience in gaming magazines can lend a hand). That clinches it for me, and this link shows you all the videos of these appearences. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete it seems there's very little web presence for the genre or the band. 90% of the links are wiki mirrors. Certainly just using common words in the name isn't notable. "viagra nintendo" gets 787,000 Google hits. -Sanbeg 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to reveal the group's notability. Google hits are not meaningful because of the commonplace nature of the band's name. Show us something that documents their achievements. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. --G VOLTT 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. *drew 01:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 05:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rebecca 05:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per PT (s-s-s-s)s comments. dposse 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep two albums on AMG makes them notable enough for me. — brighterorange (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add expand tag. The article isn't great and could be a lot better. The group as a representative of their genre are probably the best there is (I realise this is difficult to prove). Two albums are listed on www.amazon.co.uk. I cannot see how wikipedia would be 'better' without it.Mallanox 23:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mallanox. Both albums are on Amazon USA as well. Thatdog 07:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add expand tag. I actually wanted to know more about them after hearing some of their music. Does that count as a reason to keep and expand? Reader-interest? Bladestorm 13:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:MUSIC Wildthing61476 16:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why? We have a article on HORSE the band, so why can't we have a article on 14 Year Old Girls when they have two albums on Amazon.com? dposse 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and expand, based on two albums on Amazon --Wafulz 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WKeep and expand, in light of the two albums -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kind of borderline, but they seem notable enough to me. Shimeru 20:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question two albums helps meet one criterion for WP:BAND - but it depends on the labels. Give me an afternoon, and I can produce two albums as well... So, under what label(s) were these albums produced? The article doesn't say. Rklawton 20:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer - The article KIND OF said, but I have re-edited it to make more clear. Retard Disco is the label, a major indie. And if you REALLY can produce two albums in an afternoon, I know some musicians who might be able to use your services. ;) PT (s-s-s-s) 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Albums I can produce said albums when needed. But I said nothing about quality - and that's the point. Rklawton 01:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Show us that Retard Disco is one of the more important indie labels. I visited their site prior to listing the band. They have eight acts signed. Let's compare them with Side One Dummy. That indie label has 19 acts, and I'm not even sure that they'd count as one of the more important ones out there. The criteria for this measure is spelled out in WP:MUSIC -- they'd need a history of more than a few years as a label and a lot of their artists would have to be notable. Erechtheus 23:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:26, 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. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bryan[edit]

NN film director. 16 Ghits for "Charles Bryan" + "Mind's Clay" (his production company). Looks like a vanity page. See Shadow Beings (movie), his film, also on AFD. -- Vary | Talk 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 23:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: grats for making a feature with no money, but there's little particularly notable about that anymore. Mark Grant 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Timan123 02:46, 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. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Amtower[edit]

Reeks of vanity. RedRollerskate 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brownell Bailey[edit]

Delete NN bio, suspicions of vanity. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and possibly promotional Tom Harrison Talk 23:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -- Ratarsed 11:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; doesn't seem notable to me. --Natalie 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johns auction[edit]

Obvious WP:SPAM, does not meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB, article's creator's only contributions relate to this site. Sure wish we could get a speedy tag for this sort of thing. VoiceOfReason 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JohnsAuction. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:10, 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 Redirect to World Wrestling Entertainment roster --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Television Roster[edit]

All the information is copied in its entirety from World Wrestling Entertainment roster with other information removed and no new information gleamed or required --- Lid 00:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article will have the names put in alphabetical order and only have Superstars on the active list once they debute on television. (Promo videos do not count), but that can be covered by a category if required. Yomangani 00:41, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_31&oldid=1081095949"