Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 6 July 8 >

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 of the debate was delete. John Wilkes Booth 19:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln (sex act)[edit]

Nonnotable, possibly totally invented sexual act. Found only one google reference, on urbandictionary. I don't think this quite qualifies for Speedy Delete. -- dcclark (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realise the rarity of this act but understand possible concerns as to its relevance. Whilst non-invented, it holds more of an urban myth role, and I included it simply for definition purposes. -- shorglin (talk) 24:27, 7 July 2006 (GMT)

  • Delete per nom. Dicdef. Tevildo 23:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non-notable, pornographic--Anthony.bradbury 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: While I support deletion, I don't believe that pornographic content is a sufficient reason to do so. The nonnotability is key here. -- dcclark (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Just want to second dcclark's point. We should welcome articles about pornography, or other sexual matters, provided they meet the criteria for articles in general. Tevildo 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete urbdicdef ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 23:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom totally invented nn notable, looks speedy.--John Lake 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. I mean this isn't the Cleveland steamer or anything. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Guinnog 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The description is actually the David Copperfield. (fake ejaculation for surprise to the face) 72.150.55.60 21:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Landolitan 12:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebTV Networks[edit]

Redundant to MSN TV Nominating for deletion. This article is almost completely redundant to the MSN TV article. Any relevant content should be merged, and this article deleted with a redirect in its place. Ameltzer 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Merging does not require AfD, and you already tried this anyways. I added the merge tags to both articles. —Whomp [T] [C] 21:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that this should be merged with MSN TV rather than deleted. --Riley 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge, per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shouldn't be merged anyway, as a former company doesn't equal the service they provided. SushiGeek 19:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep by popular demand - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dacha[edit]

This article is untruthful, incomplete, biased to overestimate the poor conditions and poverty in Russia, and lacks citations

  • Strong Delete This article lacks validity and neutrality. --GoOdCoNtEnT 01:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article looks intentionally biased to degrade the image of the Russian culture on Wikipedia. --Space Mistral 01:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Keep just short of Speedy Keep: untruthful is a naked assertion with which I disagree, incomplete is not a deletion rationale, biased to overestimate - doubt it very much, but you can feel free to slap {{fact}} on any assertion you dislike, and yeah, it could use a few more sources - but so could everything here. This nom is silly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AfD is not the forum for these sorts of issues. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- if you think it's inaccurate or incomplete, edit it. NawlinWiki 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-07 01:39Z
  • Keep Per above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dachas are notable. Quality of the article doesn't merit an AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 01:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Trialsanderrors. CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep At least the overview is accurate and NPOV. I can't personally attest to all the claims about plot size and governemtn ownership but their is no basis to delete the article rather than clean it up. Eluchil404 02:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This needs a copy edit but that is no reason to delete it. -- Alias Flood 02:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mangojuicetalk 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Gagliardi[edit]

Very limited assertion of notability as writer in college paper and advisor for highschool newspaper. No evidence of passing WP:BIO Eluchil404 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One book from a vanity press and 184 unique google hits do not constitute proof of notability. Eluchil404 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A vanity press, hmm? Looks like someone didn't do his research, eh? --Calton | Talk 01:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, except 1 book from publishAmerica, which appears to be a vanity press. Artw 00:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - legitimate writer that is highly rated on amazon.com --GoOdCoNtEnT 01:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Legitimate" writers don't need vanity publishers. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "highly rated on amazon.com"... Are you refering to the 4 stars which are the result of a whopping 5 anonymous votes? Or are you refering to the fantastic 1,384,727 amazon rank? Either way, I think this is making the case for this guy weaker if anything. Pascal.Tesson 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity bio (he's a member of Mensa!) of someone published by a vanity press. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No context, WP:VAIN. Ryulong 01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 02:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like a good writer, but just doesn't pass guidelines/policies. Per nom.--Andeh 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - good biography, but little details. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, yet. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep, this is not notable. *~Daniel~* ☎ 03:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep published author. — Reinyday, 04:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Published author, yes, but he only has one book, and it's published by a vanity press, and a sales rank of 1,384,753 is nowhere close to notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Publish some more stuff, then we'll talk. --NMChico24 04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not free hosting for his resume. Alphachimp talk 06:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable vanity article. RFerreira 07:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - anyone can pay to have their book published by a vanity press, it doesn't make them notable. He's a teacher. He's not WP material. Seb Patrick 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one vanity press book does not cut the WP:BIO mustard. --Kinu t/c 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominal. Black-Velvet 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Seb Patrick and Kinu. -- Docether 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and all valuable comments above. Note also that his sole publication (at least as far as Amazon knows) would fail to meet the proposed guidelines for the notability for books. On this note, let me shamelessly advertise that proposal: if you have an opinion on the subject please take time to read it and comment. Pascal.Tesson 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, doesn't quite scrape by. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one intrigued me. I actually found that he is considered the #1 teacher in the country (Ratemyteachers.com) and has been listed in a lot of magazines for his dual role as a teacher and stand-up. Sounds like he is more well known that the wiki edit gives him credit for. -- Fred Sturtz
    • Comment: User's only edit to Wikipedia; possible WP:SPA. --Kinu t/c 03:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 01:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buttigieg De Piro[edit]

non-notability and copyright questions (see talk page, copyright question has not been satisfactorily resolved. Original article at searchmalta.com that was cited appears to have been written by the subject of this entry, so it appears to be a vanity page Akradecki 19:49, 29 June 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, —Centrx→talk • 00:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a site that includes a picture and a brief description of De Piro and it seems genuine enough. http://www.germanmaltesecircle.org/newsletters/2003/200309.htm Gretnagod 00:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Page looks legitimate. Has several copyright errors that can be fixed by editing and inserting citations and references. --GoOdCoNtEnT 01:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-07 01:37Z

Little Skunk X[edit]

Little Skunk X is told to be coming to Nicktoons Network but I can't find anything on Google about Little Skunk X. --Caldorwards4 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks fake. All search results are taken from Wikipedia. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0 non-wiki Ghits - if it does exist no one knows about it. Artw 00:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not necessary to be in Wikipedia because it's just search results. *~Daniel~* ☎ 00:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, yeah, even if it isn't a hoax, certainly can't be too notable if there's no info about it. As it looks fake, I've removed the links to it added to Nicktoons and List of programs broadcast by Jetix. On the chance new information comes up and this page is kept, it should be readded. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete hoax and vivid example of vandalism. --GoOdCoNtEnT 01:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as extreme hoaxery. JDoorjam Talk 01:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tokeville Hotel[edit]

Hoax article, along with Tokeville, Washington. Neither one appears on Google. Author claims it is on the 2003 Rand-McNally Road Atlas; I have that as a computer program and it's not there. NawlinWiki 01:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete When I type "Tokeville" into Google, it corrects me for "Tocqueville", a bunch of restaurants in NYC, and various unrelated pages. Ryulong 01:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-07 01:35Z
  • Speedy deleted as ridiculous. JDoorjam Talk 01:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Consensus favors deletion, and besides, this article as it stands isn't about this list, it just gives the list. If the list is such a valuable source, perhaps it could go on wikisource? Here, though, it's inappropriate. Mangojuicetalk 05:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos[edit]

Copyvio, wasn't listed correctly (not the nominator for deletion) Ryulong 01:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have given the original AfD lister the right to change my comment to show the true reason behind his listing of the page. I do still think it should be deleted, though. --Ryulong 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, long list of guitar-wanking. Preeeeow. BoojiBoy 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless User:Daniel Olsen can demonstrate we have approval to run this. Even if, which I doubt, it's inclusion is debatable, the reason it is here.. Moriori 01:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyvio. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not necessary article in Wikipedia. *~Daniel~* ☎ 03:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if permission is given I'm working on obtaining permission from Guitar World, I think this is an important poll showing the most popular songs, and as many song pages list where the song ranks in popular polls, and shows the relative importance of the songs. If I can't get permission then I support the delete, but I've worked to get the page interlinked with the most popular songs on the list and I think this can provide information to people wanting to know about the most popular songs. --Daniel Olsen 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While true, the list is a copyright violation and is only a list of songs enjoyed by readers of Guitar World magazine. Every classic rock list has Stairway to Heaven as the most popular song, no matter what the list is for. This list of "greatest guitar solos" is no more notable than (e.g.) Q104.3's top rock songs (which has also had Stairway to Heaven as number 1). Ryulong 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that a poll by Guitar World is slightly more important than one from a local radio station, all I'm asking for is to have it kept until I get a response from the magazine on whether or not we have permission. Many of the top songs list many polls, I think it would help to tie it all together. If someone sees info about the poll on a page of a song, they'd be likely to click and see what else is on the list, and click some links there. That's the usefullness of Wikipedia.--Daniel Olsen 05:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article has already been added to AntiWikipedia , so it doesn't need to be here anymore. Get rid of it as soon as possible.24.90.233.29 06:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does it being added to Antiwikipedia mean that it doesn't still belong here? A screenshot on another site is no substitute for a wikipedia article. --Daniel Olsen 07:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iff permission is given. David Sneek 06:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as COPYVIO and WP:NOT Alphachimp talk 06:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for wow effect!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 09:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if permission granted in time, otherwise obvious Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 10:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for being Copyvio. If permission is obtained later then recreate together with proof of permission provided. --WinHunter (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:COPYVIO DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 16:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio Computerjoe's talk 18:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio and vandalism magnet (we went over this with the Blender magazine articles). -- nae'blis (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not sure that you need permission to publish poll results, but it's still non notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after reading WP:C, it seems to me that the data in this article ISN'T a copyvio: "copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves." --Daniel Olsen 08:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The world loves a trier, but there are limits. If any magazine creates a database, and publishes it in its own magazine, it owns the copyright. It can even own the original design of the format if it is a unique format. You or I cannot reproduce it without approval of the magazine. We can refer to it for various reasons, but not reproduce it in toto. Moriori 09:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From United States Copyright Law: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." -From the 1976 Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 102). I reproduced no more than the information itself, no commentary or writing. I really don't think this is copyvio. --Daniel Olsen 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. You mentioned the words "an original work of authorship". That is exactly the description of the work you have copy and pasted. Moriori 06:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure... or discovery...". The copyright protection for their original work of authorship (their original article) does not include the information they discover, therefore listing the information is not a copyright violation. --Daniel Olsen 07:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, I am pleased this seems destined for the chop. Moriori 08:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you be happy that a useful page is going to be deleted, especially after it seems it ISN'T in violation of anything? Shouldn't you be trying to figure out if this page truly warrants deletion instead of trying to get it deleted regardless of WP policy? Why do you have such a passion for getting this page killed? --Daniel Olsen 08:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

If this page lists it also [1] would that not imply that this is not a copyright violation? --Javsav 15:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. You apparently missed something at that site - "©2006 About, Inc." Just in case you are unaware, "©" means copyright. Moriori 21:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krazee Eyez Killa[edit]

Curb Your Enthusiasm episodal minutiae; single character from single episode of television series. Effectively cruft — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as cruft. Ryulong 02:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he was only in one episode, info on him can be added to a list of minor characters from the show.--Andeh 03:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This one is notable which is real person who appears in one episode. But Somebody could have added in the list of minor characters from the show, basically same as User:Andypandy.UK. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article on show, or article on characters if it exists. — Reinyday, 04:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7 and WP:FICT, no assertion of notability aside from the fact that he was a "memorable" character (and the article does not say why or how). That's not enough. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete, 3-1 to delete, with the only keep vote based on the need for a rewrite. Since it was not rewritten, the article at its latest form was just a resume, not an encyclopedia article. - Bobet 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layla Al Sayed[edit]

AfD submitted by AlasdairT. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral Tevildo 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment She does have entries on non-Bahraini websites (Bogata University) and given the problem of translation of arabic into english she may well be notable to a degree. OTOH The article appears to be a copyvio of her webpage. --Richhoncho 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be re-written, but appears notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this gets 100% reworked. All the other language WP entries are missing except the Arabic one, and this seems a 1-1 translation. Not saying anything about notability but we're not a repository for resumes. ~ trialsanderrors 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because this exists on AR.WP does not mean it should be here (maybe they haven't gotten to it yet.) I don't see how this fulfills WP:BIO in any way, although she sounds much more driven than I am... Grandmasterka 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offended Bus[edit]

NN Neologism, even UK ghits are few[2]; US ghits: [3] --NMChico24 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Hinduism[edit]

This article was PROD-tagged by a new user (<50 edits). It is a substantial article that a number of editors have clearly been working on. An article of this calibre cannot be arbitrarily deleted, and therefore I am putting it up for a vote. ImpuMozhi 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. per nomination. In case anyone feels that there are problems, they can be raised on the talk-page and ironed out. ImpuMozhi 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think I'd suggest Keep on the article. Just, at least find citations for what's on there and rewrite to comply to NPOV. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Re-write ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we can have Category:Criticism of Religion, which includes criticisms of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, we can have this. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'd say this should be a speedy keep, given no reason for the nomination has been given. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prodder seemed to explain his/her action on the article's talk page as "The article seems to do a lot of answering criticism. The article content does not match the title. If we were to change the title to "Reponding to Hindu Critics", that would not be an appropriate encylopedia article. This is why I have nominated the article for deletion." Kuru talk 03:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, AFD is not the place for content disputes. The article may not some pov problems, but if they can hash it out in Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam, I think you can do it here. Kuru talk 03:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep It is a start of a decent sub-article of Hinduism. It probably needs work, as it seems rather superficial, but I'm not an expert in Hinduism. TedTalk/Contributions 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - still needs expansion by somebody. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reason given for prod deletion is a good rationale for the NPOV tag, not removal of the whole article. Ziggurat 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I remember correctly, this article was created because the mother article Hinduism became too long and the editors thought this article required its own space. As a subject, definitely notable -- Lost 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has POV issues, but overall notable and a definite Keep. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above. Alphachimp talk 07:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Worthy subject, just needs to be made NPOV. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, because all the other major religions now have Criticism articles, so Hinduism should also. It needs cites but is generally well-written. - Merzbow 07:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if any of the criticism here is notable then make the Hinduism article NPOV. Criticism articles are a terrible idea. I don't care if the other major religions have them... they shouldn't. The Hinduism article is not too long either. Put each bit of criticism in context with the aspect of the religion under discussion.... in other words: take the notable criticisms and write them into the article... don't start a criticism section and just dump it in. Seperate criticism articles and sections within articles are just lazy article writing and magnets for crap and whinging (with the exception of subjects that make a name for themselves by/through criticism). - Motor (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NPOV it up. utcursch | talk 13:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Delete: All these are wrong just delete these article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.1.66 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2008 (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 of the discussion was PWN3D. Mailer Diablo 15:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counternoobs[edit]

Neologism; original author removed Prod tag Rklawton 02:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eh, more neologisms? Delete it please. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete author can't seem to settle on a basic meaning. Danny Lilithborne 03:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Results 1 - 10 of about 71 for counternoobs..--Andeh 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kalani [talk] 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trying to be a dicdef, only there's no definition. "surveys show that the word is just bizzare" (bizarre, too) Shenme 03:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism -- the reason it isn't often found in normal conversation. TedTalk/Contributions 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominations. *~Daniel~* ☎ 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very few google hits. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 03:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frag, non-notable neologism. Almost patent nonsense. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a new one on me. Can I use it to? Rklawton 03:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Alphachimp talk 07:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • De1337 \/\/P:N3Ω ~ trialsanderrors 07:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Knew those pesky online games would be involved. --DaveG12345 10:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just straight up non-nescessary --Chiyocide 15:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism -- Alias Flood 16:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. G.He 19:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. Targetter 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just repeating my PROD rationale here: "Bizarre mess involving a neologism netting 74 google hits... and some websites... or maybe both? Yep, messy. Both sites seem to fail WP:WEB." Doesn't seem to have improved a single bit since PRODding... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. - Bobet 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software Virtualization Solution[edit]

Blatant advertisement; parts were originally copyvios against this training document; author has reworded copyvio paragraphs. --NMChico24 03:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:Which parts are copyrighted from that document? --Jeremydallas 03:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the original version, the entire first couple of paragraphs were pulled word-for-word from that document. That has now been corrected, but the article still seems like nothing but advertising. Also, according to your talk page, you've had an article deleted before due to copyvio/ads. --NMChico24 03:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Response:That is true, there was a previous version that was deleted. This has been my first entry (of what I hope is many) and I didn't realize that I couldn't pull in information from other sites. I do now realize this and am trying to make this article purely informational and factual. --Jeremydallas 03:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After cutting down the google searches([4]), I found some reviews in PCMag, Inforworld, TUCOWS (no rating from there, it is too new), etc. It won Best New Product Award at TechEd ([5]). It definitely needs some cleaning up so it doesn't look, feel, or read like an advertisement. While not official policy, and subject to change, it easily fits the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (software) (proposed criteria 1 and 6). It is marginally notable. TedTalk/Contributions 03:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment:I'll keep working on the wording to make it not seem like an advertisement. It also won PCMag's Editors Choice, co-sharing the spotlight with Firefox, FOSE best new product of the year, Best New Product at Microsoft Management Summit, and many other awards. It's definitely noteable...it's has nearly 15,000 downloads on download.com with the latest version (less then a month old). I would also think it would fit criteria 2 and 3 and when Vista ships it will meet 4.


I will work on the wording later this evening to try and clean it up.

  • Keep per Ted. — Reinyday, 04:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - looks ok to me. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Virtualization. Delete as per request. Only a couple of hundred Ghits - that's nothing for software. No evidence company being advertised meets WP:CORP Keep Adverts have been cleaned up and it has won an award Dlyons493 Talk 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Merge Saying to Merge this is like saying to merge Chevrolet Corvette into Car. There are about 10 different types of virtualization out there, each with a unique way to do virtualization and each with there own patents. I would rather this entry be deleted then merged. --71.252.170.186 20:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable and advertisey. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • RESPONSE to "No evidence company being advertised meets WP:CORP".

      Actually Altiris has been ranked among the 25 fastest growing companies by Forbes for three years in a row (Forbes Article), is a publicly traded company Google Finance for ATRS, and has won an award or two (or 50). Altiris Awards

      .
      SVS Press (sampling) :
      • PC Mag Technical Excellence Award
      • PC Mag Best Products Q1 2006 (tied with new Firefox)
        • “Altiris' Software Virtualization Solution could reshape the PC landscape at the IT level…. SVS impressed us enough to share the spotlight with Firefox. And that's saying something.” – PC Magazine

      • InfoWorld Excellence Award
        • “…fundamentally alters your perception of what is possible with IT…SVS will have long-term ramifications for the Windows configuration management market…SVS is paradigm-shifting technology.” - InfoWorld

      • CRN Review
        • Everything you know about software deployment is about to change…SVS has the potential to rewrite the rules of how software is pushed down to client systems.” – Computer Reseller News

      • Best of MMS 2006 Best New Product
      • Best of TechEd 2006 Best New Product
      • FOSE 2006 Best of Show
      • “SVS could be one of those disruptive technologies we hear so much about.” – Government Computer News
  • Comment: So what needs to be done to remove the deletion suggestion at the top of the page? --70.129.142.176 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patiently wait until the deletion process runs to the end. Normally, it is 5 days to a week, then an administrator will look over the comments and make a decision. TedTalk/Contributions 01:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Merge to university article. The actual discussion concerning the worth of this particular article isn't very convincing in either way, but in its current form the article doesn't say anything that makes it worthwhile in a wider context, therefore the merge. - Bobet 18:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lumberjack (Humboldt State University)[edit]

A students newspaper that's restricted to one university. How can this be notable? Andeh 03:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominations. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 03:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --Xrblsnggt 04:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content to university article and redirect. — Reinyday, 04:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep See The_MIT_Tech, The Collegian of Walla Walla College, The Daily Collegian (Pennsylvania), The Daily Collegian (Massachusetts), The Harvard Crimson, and probably many others. These are all run mostly or entirely by undergrads from one university. We could delete or delete/merge all of them, or we could pick and choose which universities and which papers are sufficiently notable for inclusion, or we could keep them all. Millions of US college students read these, and every now and then a story in a college paper becomes national or international news. When it comes to articles about news sources, I think Wikipedia should err towards inclusion. Flying Jazz 05:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this newspaper breaks a story that becomes national news, then it might deserve an article. Dgies 06:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many student newspapers in the category Category:United States student newspapers. Student newspapers and their web sites are often the most reliable published source of information about a university and related cultural and sports topics on campus and in the community, and many people who work at student newspapers go on to become professional journalists. As well, a student-run newspaper can also be where people learn business and interpersonal skills that are valuable in the real world. And student newspapers bring a student perspective to the news, sports and cultural coverage that is missing from commercial newspapers. TruthbringerToronto

(Talk | contribs) 06:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Student newspapers may be worthwhile but that doesn't automatically make them notable. Of the newspapers listed in Category:United States student newspapers, not all should have articles. The ones worth keeping have something notable about them besides the mere fact that they exist and are valued by their community. Dgies 06:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Reinyday. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- 9cds(talk) 08:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Tychocat 09:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - and redirect. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge My college has no less than two WP articles devoted to university publications (the Brandeis Justice and the Brandeis Hoot immediately come to mind). However, both of those articles have a significant amount of content. If all the article states is "it's the student-run paper of XXX University," I think it should be merged into XXX U.'s page. -- Kicking222 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge in any case most certainly do not delete. This would be a flagrant case of systemic bias. While I agree that these are only mildly important publications, precedents clearly make this article un-deletable. Pascal.Tesson 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This article would probably stay a stub forever. It has no standalone value, but is worth a mention in the university article DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and with all those people claiming that all schools are notable, the next logical step is that their newspapers are notable too. Argh! Carlossuarez46 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think all university newspapers are notable, since they typically have circulation in the thousands and are home to many future journalists. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per T&E:FEQ ~ trialsanderrors 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above.--Joe Jklin (T C) 17:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per admin Pilotguy.--Andeh 03:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omer adhia[edit]

Notability in question. ghits: [6]; seems like possible hoax/vanity --NMChico24 03:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete nonsense.--Andeh 03:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, hoax, vanity.--John Lake 03:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was out of place, debate to be moved (momentarily) to WP:MFD. Mangojuicetalk 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Makaiju/merge[edit]

A temporary page that was created to merge several articles into one. As the contents have been merged into the main article, Makaiju, the temporary page is no longer needed. Couldn't find a speedy criteria to fit this. -- ReyBrujo 03:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized, when the header was a red link, that the temporary page was created as a sub section of a talk page. Finishing the nomination to prevent leaving this page orphaned, but the article could be speedied per CSD:G8. -- ReyBrujo 03:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehem... it cannot be speedied, I thought the root page was Makaiju/merge, but was Makaiju. So, back to my original assertion: the contents of the temporary page had been included in the article, so there is no need for this page anymore. -- ReyBrujo 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUPER SPEEDY DELETE I the original creator of the article wish it to be deleted. I went to change the rational on the speedy, but the admin got to it first. --Kunzite 04:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete all.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stereo Motion, Phat Chance, Bryan Nance[edit]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. The group renamed themselves from "Phat Chance" to "Stereo Motion" and were not notable with either name. They sold a total of two albums, which Bryan Nance states sold a combined "40,000 CDs". (Note that the album at Phat Chance, which states 30,000 copies sold, links to a totally unrelated song). In order of importance, Phat Chance may be slightly more notable than the other two articles, which essentially state outright that they are not notable, but none of the three meet WP:MUSIC. —Centrx→talk • 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio/possible attack page. JDoorjam Talk 06:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Werner[edit]

Deprodded. In addition to notability concerns, none of this is verifiable. The original prod tag was: no evidence of notability other than harassing celebrities; google turns up nothing about this person ("Nick Werner" gay porn) Chaser T 03:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC) After comparing the articles, I see that this one is more attackish than the one I prodded. I agree with the speedy suggestions below.--Chaser T 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a sneaking suspicion this is an attack page, so I would say Speedy Delete. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete preferably speedily as it sure looks like an attack page, and has no references to judge otherwise. Shenme 04:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Ryulong 04:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A6, attack page. Tagged. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Total bupkes. --NMChico24 04:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After a search, I can't substantiate any of the claims on this page. Spacepotato 05:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Userfy and delete redirect. - Bobet 18:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Cluett[edit]

Vanity page. Recommend userfy and delete. cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page --Xrblsnggt 04:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy per nom. Ryulong 04:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as working artist. — Reinyday, 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You do realize that the main author to the article's username is the same as the person the article is about, don't you? Ryulong 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete as vanity. Not otherwise notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy+Delete and inform user of the situation. Written as vanity using the word 'my' when referring to subjects work.--Andeh 09:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and I am not even sure if it should be userfied, Wikipedia is not a personal webpage. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO -- Alias Flood 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are 500+ ghits for this name, but half of them appear to be reviews that "Seth Cluett" has writen on Amazon.com (for example) DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO ;) Computerjoe's talk 18:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Userfy per above
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. - Bobet 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One good cop[edit]

useless page, about nothing in reality. Vague concept ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: no Wikipedia:Deletion policy compliant justification has been given for this nomination. Nominator: please state specific reasons and justifications for this AfD nomination. Georgewilliamherbert 09:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for completeness' sake, I also listed the companion article Cop on the edge, despite a somewhat weaker case for deletion. Opabinia regalis 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually Opabinia regalis we already have the That random ensign that always gets killed in Star Trek. BJK 22:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, it seems very true that such a stock character does exists, anyone who spent a few hours with The Wire would attest to that, but it doesn't cite sources, nor could I find any in a pinch (ie. Google). Actually, I got about 15 hits for "a good cop" + archetype... which isn't enough to pass WP:NEO to me. If there is an actual academic film criticism essay out there for this archetype, and if I had some money to burn I'd bet there is one, then by all means turn this vote to a strong keep. But until then it's a WP:OR violation. hateless 04:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. I'm having flashbacks to the article which wanted to list all movie clichés... Tychocat 09:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both per Tychocat. --DaveG12345 10:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to One Good Cop without prejudice to recreation IF some verifiable sources are attatched. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per young american. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR -- Alias Flood 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete because we have Red Shirt so no reason not to have this but the whole page does strike me as violating WP:OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Original research. In present form does not meet the verifiability standards as no sources are cited; in particular, there is no evidence is presented to show that "one good cop" is a well-known name for a widely-recognized archetype. Hey, what about Frank Serpico, in real life and in cinema? Oh, the temptation posed by lists... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabioacademy.com[edit]

advertisement and fails WP:CORP hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Big ol' advertisement. Ryulong 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise of course I'm going to say this because I made the page and would hate for my time and well-intentioned effort go to waste, but I'm curious as to what you think makes it so much of an advertisement and I'd like to revise it so that it does not have such a connotation.Mathninja 04:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mention of the money-back guarantee is probably what makes this read like an ad the most. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mathninja, it looks like an advertisement because the current version says things like "Sabio is known for...hiring only teachers that have perfected the course they teach..." and "Sabio Academy offers a money-back guarantee for all of its classes." That isn't what would be in an encylcopedia. But even if you revised these statements, it would still almost certainly be deleted because it doesn't seem notable. It doesn't meet the standards in WP:CORP#Criteria_for_companies_and_corporations. It's a shame that this is happening to your efforts, and I believe that they were well-intentioned, but I hope you see it as part of learning more about Wikipedia. I think you might be wasting your time trying to revise this article but I really hope keep contributing to other articles here. Flying Jazz 06:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like an advertisement. *~Daniel~* ☎ 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess i was comparing it with the sites of competing companies on wikipedia like Sylvan Learning who had things listed like "The Sylvan Advantage" and talked about their policy of a token reward system, and in the same way, I am just making mention of their hiring and money-back policies. I cannot see what makes this site different.Mathninja 14:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For one thing, Sylvan Learning is huge, and notable, and people have heard of it. Compare both companies against the standards listed in WP:CORP and you'll see what makes them different. Fan-1967 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. - Bobet 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magie Dominic[edit]

A cut-and-paste job from the poet's own website. Does not conform to W:MOS. Victoriagirl 04:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD-A8 - copyvio of [7] posted in the past 48 hours. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Coredesat. Alphachimp talk 07:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is no longer a copyvio. It is, however, a stub. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The copyvio is gone, so this isn't a speedy candidate, but she still doesn't seem to be notable. Her book has an Amazon sales rank of 1,512,470 (550,358 on Amazon.ca). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reworking to excise the copyvio has resulted in multiple writing credits and a section with award nominations, which both help establish notability, being cut [8]. I would consider a Foreword finalist notable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability. --WinHunter (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - now that it is a copyvio. It needs some expansion though. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep First, stop comparingg sales on Amazon, There are many other Canadian online bookstores and I stopped using them for my publishing company years ago. When I found the misplaced article in the Canadian Poets Category, I removed the whole thing and cleaned it up and put it in its own article. I was unaware of her own website Bio and tried to make it more neutral less vanity as I could. She seems to have some notability in Canada as she is a member of the prestigious League of Canadian Poets of which I and most Canadians know is hard to join. So my vote is KEEP WayneRay 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
  • Weak keepWhilst I am not certain of notability, I am prepared to give the article a chance and WP:AGF. -- Alias Flood 16:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article, as nominated, has now all but disappeared. Unfortunately, what is left is something that, at best, can be decribed as bare bones. While I disagree that the League of Canadian Poets is a difficult organization to join - and, therefore question the relevance - I am noow of the opinion that the article should be given a chance.--Victoriagirl 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't see this being notable. I don't think we should keep articles on the basis that they may possibly be notable in the future. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak Keep She certainly seems to be fairly notable in her field DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good stub. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 16:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed By A Broken Heart[edit]

non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. DS 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position[edit]

Listcruft, prominent is a subjective word. Creator removed prod. So here it is. Crossmr 04:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,per the nominate, listcruft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.54.244.34 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 July 2006

commentProminent may be in the title but there are very specific guidelines in the article itself and no way around using "prominent" in the title. --Lord mortekai 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment and as pointed out, creating those guidelines is an attempt to control the article and a violation of WP:OWN--Crossmr 04:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created the guidelines because people felt that prominent was not clear enough so I am providing a definition of prominent in this context. This has nothing to do with ownership of the article I merely made the guidelines to make a better case against deletion. --Lord mortekai 04:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you move the article to a better name. Creating guidelines for adding content to an article regardless of the reason is attempting to control the article. That still doesn't address the issue of it being listcruft.--Crossmr 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say on WP:OWN that adding guidelines is ownership? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord mortekai (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 July 2006
Read the guideline. Controlling content is a violation of WP:OWN. Creating guidelines is an attempt to control the content. They don't have to spell out every single behaviour that could be interpreted as a way to control content.--Crossmr 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LIST says that lists are supposed to have clear guidelines as to what is included. It's not OWNing the article at all, unless he's trying to prevent anyone else from changing them. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How do you figure that it is indiscriminate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord mortekai (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 July 2006
please make sure you sign your comments and thread them appropriately. Its indescriminate because its a random, non-notable criteria to base a song list on.--Crossmr 04:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentAs I said, no more so indiscriminate than many other similar lists. --Lord mortekai 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something got lost in an edit conflict, regarding other lists: The article has to stand on its own. Other poor lists are not justifications for this list.--Crossmr 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentHow do you figure that it is indiscriminate? If you are asserting that this nature of article does not belong in wikipedia you have a lot more deleting to do. Articles of this kind are what make wikipedia wikipedia, in my opinion and many others'. You fail to bring up a specific guideline when suggesting that it is indiscriminate. --Lord mortekai 04:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, these articles are not what make wikipedia wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a home for random trivia.--Crossmr 04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculous listcruft. Why so many people like creating these weird lists about nothing, I'll never understand. Edit conflict addendum: no, it's the "free encyclopedia" bit that makes wikipedia what it is, not the presence or absence of this list. Opabinia regalis 04:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oh dear. You might as well have a list of songs featuring the piano. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you certainly enjoy making people miserable don't you; nobody gives a shit about wikipedia as a source of knowledge it's banned at many schools as a citation source. nobody will give two shits about it once you take away any vaguely interesting pieces of information like this --Lord mortekai 05:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA--Crossmr 05:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that does it then. If we delete this, students won't be able to hand in school papers citing our list of songs that use the word fuck. Oh, the humanity. Opabinia regalis 05:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Songs About Hair less indiscriminate than this? --User:Lord Mortekai 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't justify this article based on another.--Crossmr 05:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentanswer the question --Lord mortekai 19:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What question? Sign your comments and follow proper thread order please. --Crossmr 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unimportant CommentWe don't already have a kangaroo song list? I'm shocked. GassyGuy 10:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since "pointless list" is being questioned as a valid reason for deletion below, I should amplify my reasoning. The article fails policies WP:NOTA7 and WP:V. These policies are referenced in an apposite way in Wikipedia:Listcruft. --DaveG12345 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pointless list" is not a valid CSD and my comment was adressed to the user immediately below. Since you are amplifying your resaoning, please explain specifically how this violates WP:not (without referring to the listcruft essay, which has no validity here). --JJay 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." I would argue a collection of songs containing an unremarkable word is precisely an "indiscriminate collection of items of information", in violation of "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia." The door is opened to other lists of songs, containing other unremarkable words, ad infinitum. If you cannot see that (or if you can see that, but could not care less) then you need to re-read WP:NOT. Incidentally, the primary source nature of the list (it appears no one verifiable has catalogued these songs per some or all of the list criteria, allowing WP editors to then cite them as a verifiable member of this list) also helps it fail WP:NOR. Violation of any one of these policies is grounds for deletion. Multiple failures such as this make it an open-and-shut case. If you want to continue to debate this, you will have to explain to me how it does not fail every single one of these policies first. Because fail them it surely does. --DaveG12345 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete totally pointless. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic value and the whole thing smacks of twelve year olds buying CDs with parental advisory stickers on them to feel tough. Get rid of it! Keresaspa 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GassyGuy. Defined criteria is far too arbitrary to justify this list.--Isotope23 13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - crap, I mean cruft. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's all been said above. This has no place here. -- Alias Flood 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now. Maybe having an additional vote will get rid of a listcruft page faster? >.> --Targetter 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per all above. Article does not make a case for its own existence, and author tries to control content. HumbleGod 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only two users contesting the delete have been busy here today, yet one always takes a break when the other one's editing, and both comment in the same non-standard way. FWIW I suspect sockpuppetry at play. HumbleGod 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a valid topic for a list to me, not unlike a similar list we have for the use of fuck in movies. Inclusion criteria can obviously be tweaked. Having said that, I would respectfully suggest that the nom review WP:OWN, which he clearly does not understand [9]. Setting parameters for a list = editing an article. It is the recommmended course of action in the Wikipedia:List guideline. There is thus no reason to attack the author of this article and some of the editors here should probably review WP:AGF as well. The speedy deleters above also have no grounds for their "votes". "Totally pointless" is opinion; It is not a CSD. --JJay 03:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to talk page.
  • Delete. There is no article on the topic of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position, because it is not a valid encyclopedic topic. In general, "List of X" should not be created unless there is a valid article on X, and it should begin as a section of that article and not be broken off until it gets to be to long. (Say, I've heard of a lot of sexual positions, but the "prominent position" is new to me...) Dpbsmith (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there is no evidence that the inclusion of the word fuck in songs is an encyclopaedic topic, and the word "prominent" is subjective. And it's juvenile. Just zis Guy you know? 15:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence?? See Seven dirty words. Use of the word fuck in song titles has commercial and legal ramifications. Regarding the rest of your comment, are you suggesting that the title can't be changed? And since when is "juvenile", whatever that means, grounds for deletion? Is the corresponding cinema list, which has survived AfD three times, not "juvenile"? --JJay 16:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because if the list is expanded, it could turn out to be a very good informational list, kind of like List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck". - Bagel7 16:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When George Carlin or the Family Media Guide creates a list of songs containing "fuck", there may be grounds for writing an article citing them, per Seven dirty words and List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck". The "commercial and legal ramifications" of "fuck" are unremarkable on their own - the "ramifications" talked about are fairly minor in reality, they are crucially not restricted to use of this one word, and besides, JJay alleges that it's the use of "fuck" "in titles" that has significance - if that's so, why on earth is this article being mealy-mouthed about "prominent positions"? Maybe thirty years ago this would have been an exciting and edgy topic, but today, I personally find it rather tame and crufty - "juvenile" even, FWIW. Aside from my POV, I note no one has yet explained how this article successfully passes the WP policies that I cited above (WP:NOTA7, WP:V, WP:NOR). It would definitely help the article's case if this were done.--DaveG12345 16:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Carlin and the Family Media Guide may not be in the song list business, but the RIAA is and has been for some time with their parental advisory label (and fuck is a part of that). You may not believe that the "commercial and legal" ramifications of the word fuck are "remarkable", and you might have been right, except that the word "fuck" can lead to FCC and FTC investigations (ask Bono) and get your album banned at Wal-Mart. That is far from minor considering that Wal-Mart is the biggest retailer in the United States. You have claimed above that fuck is an "unremarkable" word. That is seemingly belied by our long fuck article and associated category: Category:Fuck. If you want to argue that this fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information that is your business, but this article does not come close to any of the specific clauses (travel guide, memorial, genealogy, aphorisms, etc.). Basing your reasoning on the line: That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia is also not a particularly compelling argument: (i) it is a generic argument that can be applied indiscriminately to any article up for deletion; (ii) the three AfD discussions involving the cinema list have already proven the viability of the subject. I won't address your comment on "edgy and exciting" or "tame and crufty" since I don't believe that those sort of subjective judgements have any bearing on inclusion of reference material. Lastly, I do not see any conflict with WP:V or WP:NOR. The song titles are listed on the albums. The albums are available through commercial sites and are reviewed. Are you really suggesting that editors can not confirm that America, Fuck Yeah is really called America Fuck Yeah? If that is the case, perhaps you would like to add a fact tag to the title of the America, Fuck Yeah article. --JJay 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Titles" - you keep mentioning "titles". And yet this article is not concerning itself with "titles" is it? How about a new article name - List of Albums Banned by Walmart? Assuming you can cite either Walmart or a reliable commentator that the albums were indeed banned, then that might be a viable topic. Or List of Albums with a Parental Advisory Sticker on the Front? As long as evidence is brought forth, even that might work. But please don't confuse albums with mere songs. This article is about songs, and does not mention or seek to address RIAA guidelines, Walmart practices, or anything else of substance whatsoever. You seem to suggest my criticisms are wholly "subjective", yet you do not acknowledge that your own arguments here are completely subjective also, and fail to engage with the WP policies cited. Don't ask me "are you suggesting...?"-type questions (you already said you dismiss subjective views, so why would you care what I'm "suggesting"?). Instead, cite the policies and explain exactly how this article complies. You seem to misunderstand (and pretty much ignore, in fact) WP:NOR in relation to this article. Please explain how this article complies with its requirements: i.e., that this article constitutes a tertiary source and not original research. Where are the reliable source citations, as explicitly required by WP:V whether you recognise them as a formal requirement or not? A lot of this discussion consists of setting up straw-men. Address the policies and this article, not rhetorical questions and other WP articles. It will help a lot. --DaveG12345 17:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting with my very first post much higher on this page, I indicated that the article could evolve and the title could change. That requires editing, which takes time. Certainly longer than the 26 minute window given to the author before it was tagged for speedy deletion. Therefore, considering the almost immediate deletion tagging and repeated removal of edits by the AfD nominator, I hardly think that it is fair to complain about what the article "seeks to address". Despite your refusal to answer my question, I will point out again that the article does not violate any of the specific clauses of WP:NOT. You apparently agree with me since you have not, despite repeated requests, indicated a specific clause. I commented above on WP:V and WP:NOR. I do not see how either is contravened by listing songs that have the word fuck in their titles. Other aspects of the list should be sourced, just like with any other article. --JJay 23:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. To summarise your view, if this article had a different title and different contents, you believe it may pass WP:V and WP:NOR. I dare say you are 100% correct. It would be a totally different article. I therefore don't see why deletion of this one is opposed, since you seem to agree that its title and contents intrinsically fail those policies. You dismissed my citation of WP:NOTA7 as "subjective" above. This being the case, I really have no desire to discuss that point any further - your own dismissal of it is "subjective" to my mind, so round and round that goes without any conclusion in sight. Thanks again for your time.--DaveG12345 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you reread my comments. The only time I used the word "subjective" in our discussion was in the following line: I won't address your comment on "edgy and exciting" or "tame and crufty" since I don't believe that those sort of subjective judgements have any bearing on inclusion of reference material. I will be happy to withdraw that comment if "edgy and exciting" or "tame and crufty" are actually in the WP:NOT policy. In fact, I "dismissed" your citation of WP:NOT by stating that it was not a "particularly compelling argument". It will remain uncompelling until you cite a specific clause in the WP:NOT criteria. Those criteria are there for a reason, essentially because the policy is specific rather than elastic. Other than that, I will say that your summary of my "views" was an excellent demonstration of your "subjectivity". --JJay 00:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes, whereas your outright dismissal of my argument as "not a particularly compelling" one represents a rigorous application of objective truths and logic, I suppose? Ho hum. If I have applied "subjectivity" above re WP:V and WP:NOR, please feel free to explain this article's obvious failure of those core policies in terms that do not ultimately advise a change in both its title and content - I should be interested to hear that. Until the WP:V/WP:NOR failure can be explained in such terms by somebody, I think this discussion is over for me.--DaveG12345 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to handle disagreement very well, do you? "Not particularly compelling" is very different from an outright dismissal...and once again, I never said you applied "subjectivity" regarding WP:V or WP:NOR. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to put words in my mouth. I have already commented on WP:V and WP:NOR multiple times above, such as when I wrote: I do not see how either is contravened by listing songs that have the word fuck in their titles. Other aspects of the list should be sourced, just like with any other article. Otherwise, I fail to see why you object to a change of title and/or content regarding this article. It is a frequent outcome on AFD that editing changes are suggested for nominated articles (merge or redirect are other possible outcomes). I have defended this article because I think the concept is valid and feasible within existing policy and guidelines. That you don't is fine with me. --JJay 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That you do is equally fine with me. --DaveG12345 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion: maybe instead of arguing whether the article is valid we could just change the guidelines to make it work? No one said the main criteria (appears in chorus, song title etc.) couldn't be changed. --68.227.185.195 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The problem here isn't just changing the criteria to make them work. As I see it, this article violates Wikipedia:List guideline ("Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources") and WP:OR (without a reputable source, everything on that page is original research). Unless an outside study can be found along the lines of "songs with prominent usage of 'fuck'" (and a quick search didn't find anything along those lines), the criteria (and this article in full) can't be modified in any way that satisfies WP policy. At best, we could delete the article and start over as "List of songs ordered by usage of 'fuck'"--IF an outside study by a reputable source has been done on that (which again, I'm not finding yet). Otherwise, this article will always inherently violate WP policy. HumbleGod 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: "prominent" is not one of the criteria for adding to the list, it is merely in the title for lack of a better word and because if the title consisted of the actually criteria it would be long and awkward. --Lord mortekai 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just contradicted yourself. You say the problem isn't changing criteria, then say that the criteria are ambiguous. If you feel they are ambiguous, change them. --Lord mortekai 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research; you can easilly verify whether or not any song contains fuck in the chorus, in the title or repeated in the song. --Lord mortekai 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think, with respect, this misses one of the points of WP:NOR. Whether or not what Lord mortekai says is true, we cannot "easily verify" whether songs not on the list have the word "fuck" more prominently positioned than the ones arbitrarily selected by the editors of this article for inclusion. Without a reliable source or sources whom we can trust to select the songs based on prominence beforehand, we are left with inherent WP:NOR failure (as HumbleGod notes above) through the unsourced song selections made by editors, and we are left with the (obvious) WP:V failure too, because no one can cite a single source for any of these editor choices. Rather than say "you can tell it should be on the list from the title", etc., I would like to know how we can tell there aren't other songs better suited for the list than these chosen ones. The only way we could be sure of that, would be by following WP:NOR, and making this article into a tertiary source, which currently it is not. Nothing - as HumbleGod says - is going to change this problem without some bona fide reliable sources for this list. Sorry. --DaveG12345 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied per author's request. Kimchi.sg 07:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoge Vanier elementary school[edit]

Error in title "Geoge" should have read "George" Johndowning 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am fixing this AfD nomination. The actual name of the school is Georges Vanier Catholic School which makes this particular name a poor redirect candidate. The author has requested a speedy delete [10] so this AfD nomination is being fixed merely as a formality. --Metropolitan90 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per author request. Alphachimp talk 06:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was -- Speedy delete recreated material, meets CSD G4 and A7 -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Sheikh[edit]

Establishes no notability, speedy removed by IP, reads like an advertisement. Crossmr 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Must be careful on this one, this is NOT the same person as this or this, as the imdb one did stuff before this guy was born, and the other link is obviously a different person. This name may be quite common in indian, as there are a lot of different people with this name. here's another No, this is vanity, plain and simple. Does read like an advert too. Kevin_b_er 05:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly vanity, as per Kevin. Cmcl14 05:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cop on the edge[edit]

Nomination inspired by the corresponding AfD on One good cop. Vaguely characterized subject. No sources makes this unverified original research despite appreciable amount of work put into it. Opabinia regalis 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Beaulieu[edit]

non-notable writer hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - in light of the recent expansion and removal of POV fodder from the article, I'm changing my vote. Whilst I don't think that a freelance writer such as Mr. Beaulieu is particularly notable, the article seems to pass WP:BIO with the reformatting hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable Canadian writer with several books published by non-vanity publishers that I have heard of. (He also operated his own book publishing company for a while, but closed it down.) I confirmed the titles and their ISBNs at the Library and Archives of Canada catalog at http://amicus.collectionscanada.ca/aaweb/aalogine.htm and I found independent coverage on a number of sites. In general, anyone published by Mercury or Coach House should be considered a serious author. I realize that there are a lot of nn authors out there, but some time with a library catalog and Google will help to sort the notable from the non-notable. For U.S. authors, visit the Library of Congress catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov and for British authors, visit http://catalogue.bl.uk I have sometimes been able to find out the year of birth of an academic by searching a library catalog because of the cataloguing convention of including the author's year of birth (and sometimes death) in a cataog entry. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm neutral on this vote at the moment, but I would point out that ISBNs and inclusion in these major national library archives may not be good indicators of notability:
    • ISBNs can be bought by anyone, who can then use the number to list a completely fake book on Amazon. This has been used for hoaxes on Wikipedia in the past (November 2005 example. Incidentally the hoax book in that afd is STILL listed on Amazon[11]. I emailed Amazon after the afd closed but apparently noone read my note or cared.). Wikipedia's guidelines on book notability should be updated to reflect this problem with ISBNs.
    • The British Library, and the Library and Archives Canada are legal deposit libraries. In the UK, every book published by British publishers must, by law, have a copy sent to the British Library for cataloging. The same applies to the Library and Archive of Canada see this link for Canadian publishers (and note that a very broad definition of "publisher" is used here - covering all individuals and associations as well as formal publishers). The Library of Congress, on the other hand, does not work as a legal deposit library and is more selective in what it adds to its collections. (though it does act as a copyright guarantor, requiring 2 copies of all copyrighted books to be sent to it - these undergo a selection process and may not be added to the collection, but I don't know if they are catalogued) Bwithh 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if copyright is not being claimed, U.S. publishers are expected to send 2 copies of their books to the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ07d.html This is referred to as "mandatory deposit" rather than "legal deposit". TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah okay. The Wikipedia article on the Library of Congress is inaccurate then. Though I don't think if this is really the same as legal deposit, since the LoC is still selective about what it retains[12] Bwithh 07:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I recognize that it is difficult for people outside Canada to tell whether a Canadian publisher is legitimate or not. The publishers that belong to the Literary Press Group, an association of independent publishers in Canada, or to the http://www.pubcouncil.ca/ are legitimate, in my opinion. See http://www.lpg.ca/publishers.html for a list. See http://www.obpo.ca/awards.cfm for another page that lists books from both Coach House and Mercury Press. Quill & Quire at http://www.quillandquire.com/ is also a good source of information about the book publishing industry in Canada. I hope that these links will be helpful for editors evaluating future articles about Canadian publishers and writers. I have dealt here only with English-language publishers. French-language book publishers have their own organizations. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - but let editors expand to further establish notability --Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as above. -- Alias Flood 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep has books with reputable publishers. The rest of the biog seems fairly marginal. Dlyons493 Talk 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A little-known writer, granted - but he has been published by three of the most respected small presses in Canada. Coach House has published Atwood and Ondaatje, amongst others.--Victoriagirl 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kungfu Adam. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, fairly well known int he Canadina Small Press world. WayneRay 20:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Server emulator[edit]

The term "server emulator" is not consistent with the established definition of the word emulator. At best, its introduction into various articles on Wikipedia is a breach of Wikipedia:No original research. At worst it is vandalism. -- Kethinov

Thats simply not true Kethinov, just google on the word "server emulator" and look how many hits you get. But good to have other wikipedians opinions to this. Please note that Kethinov with this deletion entry also deleted the notice of server emulator in the emulator page, if this deletion request will turn false, I request to undo kethinov revert of my work on the emulator page. (Be noted, A revert without discussion on wikipedia beforehand). But of course I vote for KEEP. Jestix 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to keep if the information was put into context and proper sources cited. "Server emulator" is a term used only within the MMORPG community, and is not accepted by the computer science community at large. The term is colloquially accepted gamers, but not technically accurate. -- Kethinov

Kethinov this place here and now is not for us to discuss, you filed your deletion request, I gave my opinion and voted, and now sit back and relax and let wikipedia community decide! Jestix 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, remember to be WP:CIVIL. Alphachimp talk 06:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous examples of projects which recreate a network server, either according to a spec (NFS, FTP, HTTP) or reverse engineered (Samba amongst others). None of these re-implementations are called emulators. Despite that, the definition in a computer-science setting clearly shows this is an incorrect usage of the word emulator. --Omnivector 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kethinov, you forgot to register the deletion request in the AfD list, so nobody could see it. To be fair I added it for you at the 7. July list. BTW: when I meant "sit back and let wikipedia community decide" what made you hear "log in with your sockpuppets to repeat usual arguments?" ;-) -Jestix 05:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: AfD is not cleanup. Nifboy 05:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Name is a clunker and article needs work, but deserves its own article because of the differences from other types of emulation. I would also support a rename, but I can't think of something better. Dgies 06:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 05:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, naming issues are not the province of AFDs, although according to WP:NAME it seems to be fine, if not the preferred title. Also, Google confirms it is a used term and that there are sources out there to cite. hateless 06:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per hateless. Alphachimp talk 06:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per nominations. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete, therefore default to keep. - Bobet 18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Transit Direction[edit]

Another editor labelled this for speedy deletion as nn-band. I disagree, so I am taking it here. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability demonstrated by record released on Some Records, a non-obscure indie label with multiple acts signed, and by tours as a supporting act. But the band's old domain, tntd.net, has been cyber-squatted, and the band's blog at http://www.thenewtransitdirection.blogspot.com/ was last updated on Sunday, December 25, 2005. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have to wonder how the website of a "non-obscure indie label" only gets 63 incoming links, as opposed to, say, 1680 for Subpop Records. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per TruthbringerToronto. "Opening act for Taking Back Sunday" Alphachimp talk 06:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the current state. Neither Some nor NTD come anywhere close to establishing notability. No reviews on metacritic, no Pitchfork seal of approval. ~ trialsanderrors 07:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions Going by the edit summary this was recreated after deletion (via prod) by TruthbringerToronto but the deletion log only states "nn band", was it deleted via the proposed deletion process? and if yes what was the prod discription? --blue520 07:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, comes close to but fails to reach WP:MUSIC. Only one, not two or more albums on a label, can find no reporting by notable and verifiable sources about the tour.--blue520 07:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being an opening act for a notable band isn't necessarily notable. A lot of times, when big acts come here, our local groups get to open for them at certain venues, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still local groups with minor local followings who don't deserve WP entries. This group seems like they might be on the way to passing WP:MUSIC, but currently they do not. I'll welcome their article back to WP when they do. GassyGuy 09:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Close but no cigar. Page at Some records seems not to have been updated since early 2004 see last lines, which is not an indication of growing importance or popularity. Allmusic page is very empty. Fram 11:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - enough tour locations to merit inclusion. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like the article was written specifically to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, and has the accompanying info to meet those provisions. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can not see that it meets WP:MUSIC guidelines as by my comment above, what sectons of the guideline does it meet.--blue520 08:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria, and the aforementioned tour. This article may need citations, but not deletion. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see a tour with 7 stops in 5 near by states (that is if Salt Lake City is seen as home) is what was realy intended by a national concert tour in WP:MUSIC.--blue520 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can any one find a notable and verifiable source (or sources) about the tour, as none are suppled by the article (excluding the forum link) and I could not find any when searching.--blue520 08:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Close call, but does not meet WP:MUSIC. --Satori Son 16:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete releasing a record on a non-obscure indie label and a small tour does not merit encyclopdic input.--Joe Jklin (T C) 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of UML tools[edit]

Nominated before with the result keep but rewrite. Article is still mostly a collection of external links. Moreover, the list will be very difficult to get comlete, which will also require the inclusion of all kinds of non-notable tools. -- Koffieyahoo 05:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the solution should be simple: set the list criteria to notable tools, and remove the external links and make red links instead, to make it an article development tool per WP:LIST. hateless 06:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Hateless. Alphachimp talk 06:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you delete this article it will be recreated within days (not by me, but I know of enough people that will do so). If you then blank and protect (by sysop), people will add the list to UML tool. You can then AFD that too. Then the tools will be added to Unified Modeling Language again. And then, we are where we were at the beginning. You might then put Unified Modeling Language on your watchlist and play that slow revert war with the anons and remove the one or two tools that are added every other day there. --Ligulem 06:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per hateless. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 12:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Alias Flood 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per last time. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list of UML tools in Wikipedia is more up-to-date and has more authority than a corresponding article by some SW magazine. Plus: you would have to find the magazine that last listed all the tools. gpermant, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. It seems the single external link to the UML tool directory will suffice as the complete listing, so only the notable ones can be listed on this page. Dusik 17:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of composers by name: S[edit]

This page appears to be an attempt to create a list of solo piano pieces composed by persons whose name starts with S. However, a more extensive such list already exists at List of solo piano pieces by composer: S. Spacepotato 06:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Redirected already. Jaranda wat's sup 21:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brickmation[edit]

The page was full of extensive word filler until I cleaned it up [13]. I then thought perhaps it could merge with Brickfilm, which is used by the wider community of Lego fans. I then decided that the page should more than likely be deleted, or at least be made into a redirect to Brickfilm. There is nothing at Brickmation that isn't already in Brickfilm, and the use of single photos is not any more notable (The Brick Testament is listed in the main Lego navigational template, so "Brick Tableaux" doesn't really need mentioning elsewhere). The article itself is a lot of external links to either personal pages, or pages that the various authors feel important to their medium of animation. Ryulong 06:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is also a redirect page for this article at Legomation that should also be taken into consideration for this AfD. Ryulong 07:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, bless your heart!! I'm sure this can be worked out without losing anything valuable!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 09:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse nominator's suggestion of making it a redirect to Brickfilm (and possibly merging the external links). Suggest ignoring all rules to do it, boldly. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect with a side of linkmerge, done boldy... per User:Kaustuv.--Isotope23 13:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per above. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main problem with the link merging is that there really is no need for say, the Lego porn link to go into the Brickfilm article, or the fan film "GTA: Lego City". I don't know which to send where. Ryulong 21:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Currently working on redirecting, salvaging useful external links (which aren't many). Ryulong 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirected - If other editors believe that there are useful external links that I hadn't brought over to Brickfilm, the previous edit prior to my redirecting is here. Ryulong 03:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Reimer[edit]

This former teenage blogger is not yet notable. There is no other way to put it. RFerreira 07:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. the kid's article even uses the "fifteen minutes of fame" phrase Bwithh 07:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I have actually heard of him, though his popularity may not be significant enough to warrant an entire article reading like a PR blurb. -Markusbradley 07:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the future, everyone will have a Wikipedia article for fifteen minutes. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He does seem to have attained some level of fame. I would almost like to keep this, but in the end, he seems to be just some guy on the internet. (Also, the article itself is kinda appalling; it's got some serious POV/tone of voice problems and whatnot.) -- Captain Disdain 15:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- Alias Flood 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.--DaveG12345 01:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POLINCO[edit]

Not completely sure about this one, but here we go: Non-notable extreem right wing, Dutch web forum. The forum only has 513 members. However, this is the big "but", the forum did get some mention in the Dutch press as one of the on-line extreem right wing, Dutch web forums. -- Koffieyahoo 07:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I get 23k Google hits for this (although admittedly the first two aren't relevant). The article on nl.wikipedia (Dutch) was put up for deletion in April, but it looks like either the process was never fully carried out, or the template was never removed. In any case, their article is longer than ours (but not by much) and has some semblance of real information. I don't really know Dutch, but I can figure a little bit out because of its (written) similarity to German. But probably not enough to accurately bring information from their article to ours. Someone who reads Dutch could do that to better this article. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 10:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment clicing thought them I see that the hits come only from about 280 different websites, about 20% of which I guesstimate is in polish or some language that looks like portuguese to me (definitely not related to the polinco.net we're dicussing here) or it refers to polinco.com (another site) -- Koffieyahoo 13:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if referenced. Appears to pass WP:WEB if it's been written about in the mainstream Dutch media. Tevildo 11:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment yeah, so mostly in a "one of a few scenarion". -- Koffieyahoo 13:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep someone who understands Dutch should translate nl.wikipedia article. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 13:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't call the Dutch version completely NPOV, except for the Controversy section (Controverse). The first part goes in the direction of the article under discussion here, which form a Dutch point of view, isn't exactly NPOV either. -- Koffieyahoo 13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN: "Onderwerpen: 6,034, Berichten: 35,958, Leden: 605" --Macarion 17:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowness[edit]

PROD tag removed without comment. Advertising for a nonnotable online community with no indication of meeting the guidelines at WP:WEB. Delete. User:Angr 07:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Decking[edit]

Hoax or WP:NFT. If not hoax then neologism. No sources cited, so appears simply to be scatological humour. Proded. Prod removed with no explanation by author Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hart (actress)[edit]

A non-notable actress, with no IMDb credits since 2001, and all of whose roles have been in projects starring her much more famous sister Melissa Joan Hart. Substantially the same content in this article came up for deletion before under the name Elizabeth Hart; during the discussion, however, the content was moved to Elizabeth Hart (1) and later to this page, while Elizabeth Hart was turned into a disambiguation page. Thus, the result of the AfD was that the disambiguation page was deleted instead. I recommend a delete for this page as well. --Metropolitan90 07:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Truthbringer, you can disregard the fact that she has no IMDb credits since 2001, because her pre-2001 credits are still not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 14:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is marginal, but I wanted to address the observation about "no IMDb credits since 2001". Wikipedia is not just for people who are currently active in their field, but for those who have been notable in the past, whether they are now working in an entirely different field, or dead. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but utterly irrelevant, since IMDB shows she was never notable to begin with, rending the history argument moot. --Calton | Talk 08:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not nearly as notable as her sister (fails WP:BIO), and the article is little more than a family tree and a really short list of single episodes she's appeared in. Could this be G4'ed? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. While I agree with what TruthBringer said, I find her IMDB entry little awe inspiring. Half her roles were unnamed. No major productions. About the touring: if she has any stage work, I'd be happy to support keeping if it can be referenced. - Mgm|(talk) 08:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bit player. --Calton | Talk 08:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 09:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and MacGyver as simply non-notable and as a failure of WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom . NN fails WP:BIO -- Alias Flood 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete been through this before. Dlyons493 Talk 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really, if all that is interesting about her is that her nickname is "Liz" (how original!) and that she has parents and siblings (!) then the only option is delete DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her filmography contains nothing of note. --Victoriagirl 03:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bwithh 07:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete per WP:SNOW. Hoaxity goodness, without the good.  RasputinAXP  c 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Brodie[edit]

An article about a WWII archaeologist, working for the Nazis at gunpoint in Scotland. Google turns up nothing. Requests for references have been ignored, and recent name-calling on the page suggests that it is a hoax. The only two significant editors have similar names to the grandchildren of the subject. Mr Stephen 08:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voicemail to text[edit]

Non notable product and/or service (600 odd ghits) that seems to serve as a magnet for spam links. Purge for being non-notable spam/advertising. Megapixie 08:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this article attempts to explore history of voicemail-specific speech-to-text service providers. If advertising is indeed kept to a minimum of only a chronological order of provider offering, this should continue to grow into an informative overview of this emerging application. Rygelski 09:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you, by any chance have any association with the company concerned ? Megapixie 08:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use the service, does that not make me simply a valuable contributor? Any agenda I have would be educational, not commercial or promotional. Does Wikipedia not support articles on technological advancement if organizated in a fair and balanced method? Rygelski 08:41 UTC

Not if you're the guy whose contact details are at the bottom of this - http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2005/11/prweb304961.htm Megapixie 08:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll notice, I also added many other details to competitor's services for better organization and additional non-biased information (as well as revisions to unrelated articles in Wikipedia). If I was trying to post self-promoting material, wouldn't I better hide my identity and focus on my own few documents instead of contributing as fairly to articles that would contradict my own "self-promotion"? Am I under review or is the educational quality of the article? Rygelski 08:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not remove votes from the AfD discussion - that can be considered vandalism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Opps. Pure accident. I got an edit conflict and resolved it badly. Sorry. Megapixie 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoops, didn't review the history. It's all right. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertisment. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. --DaveG12345 10:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. Tychocat 10:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. -- Alias Flood 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement and WP:WEB DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it already, I didn't create it. 24.217.127.128 23:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite. Seems to be a generic name for a type of technology/service rather than the name of a specific company/product. "Voicemail to text" gets 18500 ghits. Article should be made encyclopedic...emphasizing what the technology is instead of companies that provide it or first provided it. Include a link to speech recognition. An article that attracts spam/ads should be edited, not deleted. Flying Jazz 00:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic (service)[edit]

Non notable product and/or service (200 odd ghits) that seems to serve as a magnet for spam links. Purge for being non-notable spam/advertising. Megapixie 08:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This product is a trademarked name and does not serve as a spam/advertising document. It provides a history of the service which is available nowhere else on the Internet. It also clearly explains the detailed process of how this voicemail-to-text service functions, as well as fair and balanced links to additional resources for exploring this emerging technology. Rygelski 09:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Referenced from the Wiki Offical Rules, I believe this article meets the conditions for non-deletion as follows:

  1. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view.
  2. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Rygelski 09:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are several issues with the article. If it was just advertising then it could be re-written. But ultimately the product is not notable. Megapixie 09:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. Also an attempt to create a neologism, not showing on Google so nn. Note that if material appears "nowhere else on the Internet" then I'm also citing WP:OR. Tychocat 11:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Megapixie, Tychocat, Coredesat. Smerdis of Tlön 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Alias Flood 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB and is advert and is a bit spammy DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, I have removed anything that might be considered "advertising" or "spammy" to match similar articles such as GenieTexter, Mercury - SMS Sending Program, and Speedwords. The primary focus of this service (and article) is for Americans and Canadians with Disability (Deaf and Hard of Hearing), so perhaps it is not notable in your circles but many people who require this service would find it valuable to be listed here.Rygelski 23:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DictoMail[edit]

Non notable product and/or service (500 odd ghits) that seems to serve as a magnet for spam links. Purge for being non-notable spam/advertising. Megapixie 08:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoryuu Sentai ZyuRanger 2[edit]

The article was originally a copyvio from a well made fansite, describing basic plots that would have taken place if the stock footage from what is called "Zyu2" by Power Rangers/Super Sentai fans were actual episodes in the original Super Sentai series. The article was changed and brought to the attention of myself when it was linked in the article for ZyuRanger as well as the Super Sentai template. These were reverted, and the article was listed for merger at MMPR. When it was determined that a large trivia entry was more than enough information on Zyu2, it was decided that the information on the monsters be divided up into the Monster list articles. I did this this morning, and now this article is no longer necessary. It should be deleted because of copyvio and fancruft. Ryulong 08:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now also listing Zyu2, an article that has copied the well written trivia entry at the MMPR article that was recently created and then linked to the same section. I'm not sure if it should be speedied or not, but it's essentially the same information, and it is related to this AfD (the second article also seems to contradict itself). Ryulong 19:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ku3er[edit]

Article about a made-up word, failing WP:NFT and WP:NEO. Mr Stephen 08:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, total nonsense. Fails WP:NFT and WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Ryulong 08:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor thing not related to the AfD, but I can't seem to comment on this AfD from the AfD listing. For some reason, it's making me edit a section of the whole page and I get a blank editting box. I have to go to the article and then click on the link to get here. Ryulong 09:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was listed twice on the page for some reason. Ryulong 09:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Almost certainly my fault. Apologies. Mr Stephen 10:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Tychocat 09:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete though linked by Leet, it's a total nonsense. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 13:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. PresN 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete AfD Tag was removed - I rv'd it - Pure WP:NFT DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP20:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G1, A7, and WP:NFT. --DarkAudit 20:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per everyone. Quickly, before the stupid infects Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per all, those damned online games strike again. --DaveG12345 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torrance Hodgson[edit]

Two issues. Firstly, as it completely lacks sources I am unable to seperate this from a hoax; Google gives 100 some results and Google News gives zero. Secondly, I don't think he's notable anyways. He's been in trouble a few times, and got in the way of a tank. Whooopeee. His magazine and movement don't seem notable enough in their own rights to make him notable by extension. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom --Usrnme h8er 08:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Don't think it's a hoax, but I don't believe it passes [[WP:BIO] - I find citations for Mr. Hodgson, but they're mostly out of his own publication, and only 35 distinct Ghits (down from 148 total). No reliable third-party stories or quotations that I saw. Tychocat 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Definitely not a hoax. Aotearoa Indymedia has articles on all mentioned points. The protesting is interesting but perhaps not notable in its own right. However, he is a central figure and founding member of the Save Happy Valley Campaign which is currently engaged in one of New Zealand's longest land occupations. Also, the bi-monthly magazine was renowned amongst the radical left in New Zealand, despite the small size of that milieu. Fred Bo Bunkle 13:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete minimal Ghits include top 1000 Nicaraguans. Article claims he's a queer libertarian in breach of the police! Dlyons493 Talk 18:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just because a person exists and has participated in a few events does not, in my opinion, mean he is worthy of a page in Wikipedia. Heck, I want an article on me too. KarenAnn 12:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currigee swamp rat[edit]

Hoax mythical creature. No Google hits other than the Wikipedia article. The external links are just tourism sites for South Stradbroke Island and contain no information about this article. Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 08:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Scottish Festival Orchestra"[edit]

Page created with quotations - I corrected this title. I actually think this could be speed deleted under the "housekeeping" criteria, but thought this was a more conservative course of action, especially since the author has made no previous edits and may take a day or two to return DeLarge 08:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This should be listed at WP:RfD, but I do agree that it's a worthless redirect and needs to go. GassyGuy 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, cheers for that, I didn't know RfD existed. You learn something new every day. -- DeLarge 09:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-G6, housekeeping, if this isn't closed and moved to RFD. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -- per all of the above. KarenAnn 12:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as housekeeping. By the way, this should be at WP:RfD. --Zoz (t) 12:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Union[edit]

Bizarre social theory, strongly connected to OS 0 1 2, which was deleted and protected against recreation last year. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. NN political/philosophical movement. Apostrophe abuse, and inability to spell "principle", are _not_ good starts on the path to total world domination... Tevildo 11:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tevildo's opinion directly above... and remember kids, there is only one e in argument!--Isotope23 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"" just clean it up. First off 'bizarre social theory' is a personal opinion, and if you think a personal opinion about it being bizarre is a new standard for wiki, then you might as well delete a few thousand more entries. Secondly, 'the human union movement' is outlined in an offical peer reviewed publication and academic argument. Thirdly, spelling errors are not grounds for deletion, and since this is a wiki, you can correct them. It's called a cleanup. Fourthly, OS 0 1 2's deletion is being challenged as we speak and a hearing is forthcoming. I imagine that the wiki standard would insure you address these points rationally and this hearing would not succumb to rhetoric, which apparently is all some of you supplied. User:Tumbleman
  • Delete unless Tumbleman comes up with said peer-reviewed publications. Note that self-publication by groups consisting solely of the idea's adherents doesn't qualify. Gazpacho 18:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the link to his website [14]. The publishing company publishes the book soley to academic institutions, and is an academically accepted publisher[15]. I am not Lyndon, so I hope he can attend this hearing. That should provide you what your looking for until Lyndon can attend.User:Tumbleman
      • Not really, but perhaps it would be appropriate to reorient the article toward the book until the idea is more widespread. Dr. Lyndon should skim our No original research and Wikipedia is not a soapbox policies. Gazpacho 23:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really what? Is that a 'keep' with a clean up?' Look, you cant have it both ways. An academic peer reviewed publication is an academic peer reviewed publication. I agree the article should be cleaned up. Lyndon is NOT the first person to use this particular phrase either, he only created the academic argument. The phrase is self defined and the ideal has been discussed historically is some shape or form for millennia Tumbleman
      • That will be a "move" if and when I strike my original comment. I don't see anything indicating that this book was screened for publication by other international relations experts, which is what "peer review" means. The book's existence is easily verified, but your assertion that its idea is widespread (when the book was published 5 months ago) is not. As for the idea being "discussed for millennia," that's a point of view unless supported very specifically (e.g. a quote from Plato that defines a term exactly the way Storey defines "human union"). And if there is such a quote, there are probably many more people who have used the earlier writer's term than Storey's. Gazpacho 02:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Peer review does not mean 'screened for publication by other international relations experts' it means 'peer reviewed' by academia, in this case political science academia, i.e. the book was published soley by a institution that publishes for universities, Lyndon has his Ph.D in Political Science and his argument was also his thesis. Secondly, now your changing your argument to something else. I said the phrase 'human union' is self defined, but the concept of a governing body of co-operating humans HAS been discussed for millenia, so the concept is not new, the phrase is. Shall I list the wiki pages that already list this concept using other signifiers? really, I think your being unfair here.Tumbleman
  • Delete per nom. When the idea that bit torrent technology is going to take over the world grabs me, I reach for the silly novels, not half-assed dialectic. (I want to confirm that, per above, I do not "want it both ways", and do not believe a theory that cites P2P networks has been "discussed for millennia".) --DaveG12345 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, rhetoric is a poor way to have a discussion regarding this issue. If you can define or argue that this is a 'half-assed' dialectic, which I hardly think your qualified or able to do with me, I suggest you strike your comment, it bears as much wieght as a Fox pundit's commentary. Again, I did not say that a P2P network has been discussed for millenia, rather the concept of co-operative human beings has. Wikipedia itself is a perfect example of this process, and in case you havent noticed, Open Source P2P concepts ARE redefining the world. I dont think your informed enought to have this discussion. Try making a rational comment, and then will see if your qualified to discuss dialectic or any other concept that is on this page.Tumbleman
  • Comment If "rhetoric" is a poor way to discuss, then insulting my intelligence sure doesn't worm you into my good books (it's "hardly think you're qualified", BTW - see how annoying insulting people's intelligence can be yet?). Of course, you don't do it once, you do it multiple times. Please don't condescend to pompously lecture me on P2P and dialectics, you know nothing about me. Wikipedia is the "perfect example" of nothing, as this discussion appears to prove. You will also find that this discussion is completely based on "personal opinion". Learn to accept that other people exist and they have opinions. AfD is a good place to express opinions, otherwise nothing really gets discussed. While you're praising Wikipedia's perfection, you'll also find that my opinion holds just as much "weight" as yours in this discussion. Hope that doesn't shock you too much. Getting back on-topic, this article also insults my intelligence, and - ironically - it's also full of rhetoric. Fox pundits get fired if they spout pure hokum on air. I personally respect Fox for that. Ironically, if Fox had reported on this article's subject, you'd have been in a much stronger position re the topic's notability. Since they haven't, and since I see no evidence here that anyone else of note ever has, I will wait until somesuch evidence turns up before discussing this article any further. I hope I won't be waiting millennia. Why not read WP:AGF with me, while we both wait? --DaveG12345 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment My perception of you was based soley on your comments, and anyone can read this thread and note when your's began and when mine responded. Other than that, I do apologize for insulting your intelligence, that was uncalled for, but your comment about a 'half assed' dialectic surely does not put you in my good book either. I assumed a hearing about a topic would not rely on opinion but rather points addressed rationally in the wiki standard. ANyway, maybe I will join you, and I do agree the entry desperatly needs a clean-up, and I just did. Tumbleman
  • Comment No worries Tumbleman, thanks for responding civily, I will try to respond to you in kind from now on. --DaveG12345 05:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wonderful, same here. See how co-operative human beings can be on a wiki? ;-) Tumebleman
  • Keep. Sure, whatever. By the way, Storey's dissertation says "Discipline of Government and International Relations." Gazpacho 04:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- yet another opinionated movement -- not original really, just idiosyncratically expressed. Amateur in presentation. Must Wikipedia have a page for all the movements of the world? KarenAnn 13:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Karen, if your vote for deletion is based on your comment, which I assume it is, can you further define what you mean by 'opinionated' movement? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the standard of a peer reviewed academically accepted publication. It' not opinion, it is an academic argument, and there is quite a clear distinction. An opinion when voiced does not need to reveal the logical steps and arguments it took to arrive at the conclusion. An academic argument is quite distinct and therefore I suspect you are unfamiliar with this standard and have simply an opinion yourself. If I am mistaken, can you then break down your definition of opinion and show the rational steps you took to come to the conclusion that an academic argument is nothing but? If you cant do this, then I respectfully request that you strike your comment. Thank you User:Tumbleman
  • Comment Tumbleman, in my profession peer reviewed means documented evidence that standards of research in my field have been met by publication in a peer-reviewed professional journal. Some history (concise) of the author's thinking process leading to the current article and how his position fits into or adds to the field's academic history of the topic is expected (even if the position he is taking is new or original). All statements and evidence are referenced (and not just be a link to a vague Wikipedia page with no documentation) but to some verified neutral outside source. Using an unprofessionally-sponsored website as a publication site (a a poorly written one at that) would swiftly shunt you into the quackery bin in my academic area. KarenAnn 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please excuse me if I am screwing up on the wiki format here. I am new at Wikipedia and don't have wiki skills. KarenAnn 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that what I was trying to say is expressed very well by the comment of Tevildo right below mine, such as references to WP:N and WP:V. I would add Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources KarenAnn 12:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A couple of points. First, my apologies if you were offended by the flippant nature of my earlier comment, but such obvious errors in spelling and punctuation do _not_ inspire confidence in your readers, and can easily be corrected by a few minutes' extra diligence. As a show of good faith, I've removed a couple of minor errors from the text myself. Secondly, the issue here is _notability_, as described in WP:N, and _verifiability_, as described in WP:V. The article, as it stands, does not present any verifiable evidence of the movement's existence, let alone its notability; the link to its own website, not being independent of the movement, doesn't count towards this. If such evidence exists, you'll need to include it in the article - proof that the term has been used by academic or popular authors other than the movement's founder, proof of media coverage of the movement, or something of the sort. Tevildo 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. No worries on the flippant comments, I can handle them if you can respond back rationally with your actual point, which you have. First off, thanks for trying to make the page better. For sure things like spelling and grammar are always issues, but since this is a wiki, the whole point is we all share in editing. When we see a simple mistake, we don’t delete it, we correct it, right? Secondly, the intention and subject matter of this article meets those wiki requirements you mentioned, and I am monitoring this page until the page reflects that you the wiki standard. Notability and verifiability are very relevant in this article's intention to list the actual argument Lyndon puts forth. I understand that many wiki editors are not as familiar perhaps with an academic standard, so please note that having a political academic argument for the ideal that the phrase 'Human Union' holds is pretty noteworthy. Regardless of Karen's suggestion that this is nothing original, the point is that this is THE ONLY academic and political argument that addresses a very sensitive subject matter, human rights and the human right to bear full potential. It's not some hippy dippy dream like it appears some posters here suggest, it is an actual outline. Dialectical Materialism, for example, is the political and academic argument for socialism and communism, and we don’t say that is just another 'opinionated' movement. If the argument exists on this scale, then it is very relevant, more so considering the sorry state of affairs in the world. The argument is what one would bring to the UN, for example. So please don’t discount the relevancy of what this means, and please do a little more research into political science to verify yourself what I have just stated. Secondly, the argument has been accepted by academic and peer reviewed sources, so that takes care of the verifiability right there. This is not a philosophy entry, it is an entry of political science, and this is the only argument of it's kind in the world, thus making it extraordinarily relevant in this context. Does what I say here make sense?User:Tumbleman
        • Comment. also..the article is not about some 'movement', the article is about the peer reviewed academic argument, which is the foundation for such a movement and such a movement can not exist in the political science sense without the argument. Indeed, the movement is created once the argument exists. i.e. there was no communism before dialectical materialism.....User:Tumbleman
        • Comment Thank you for your reply - it does make your position more clear. Two further pages I'd refer you to are WP:SOAP and WP:OR. Wikipedia is neither a place to publish original research in any field, academic or otherwise, nor a platform to advance a particular political or social agenda. Dr Storey may be notable as a person (WP:BIO and WP:PROF refer), in which case this exposition of his views would be suitable for an article about him: his book may be notable, in which case it would be appropriate in a summary of the book in an article about it. However, as it stands, the article provides no _verifiable_ (and I emphasise that again) sources that show the "argument", if that's how you'd prefer to characterize it, is _notable_ outside Dr Storey's personal beliefs and writings, and, as the article's author, it's your duty to provide such sources if the article is to remain.. If the political views encapsulated in the article ever do achieve widespread notice, then it'll be acceptable - but Wikipedia is not the right vehicle for your attempts to assist it in doing so. Dialectical materialism is a good example; if we were writing in 1896, before that term came to the prominence it has now, it would be an equally-strong candidate for deletion. In 110 years' time, "The Human Union" might be regarded as the most important movement of this century; but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can't say that it has any claim for notability _now_. Tevildo 18:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • CommentTelevido, I actually agree with much of what you wrote. How about this, give me some time to do the proper re-write on the actual argument itself and consider changing your vote to a clean-up. I have a full work week ahead of me as well as playing mr.mom, so I just request some time to do this, as presenting the argument in wiki format is a task. Perhaps the article should also be moved to a proper entry as well. Thanks again for trying to make the article better. I disagree with you on your point about DM, Wiki also encourages us to look at relevancy. We dont just wait for history for something to become relevant, history is just one of the guidelines. Other than that, your critique is valid and I appreciate your time here. User:Tumbleman
  • Comment I am (I presume we all are) still waiting for those reliable verifiable sources to be cited on this one. No sign of them as yet. Without them, this is surely a WP:NOR/WP:V delete, no matter how eloquent or welcome the interlocutory badinage. --DaveG12345 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shasha Khan[edit]

Non notable un-sucessful candidate. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Proto::type 11:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HD 64180[edit]

This star is completely non-notable. SIMBAD returns no references to any scientific papers about this star [16] - it is basically just a number in the catalogues. Chaos syndrome 09:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. This star does seem to be completely unstudied, but in the absence of any definite benefit from deleting it, I will concur with Megapixie. Spacepotato 09:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Megapixie noted (in an edit summary) that this star was "Not notable other than being a star in a constellation - BUT- WP is not paper. No reason why we couldn't have an article for every star." However, one must note that this star isn't one of the stars which composes the constellation, but simply appears in the same portion of the sky. (This star, in fact, is significantly too dim to view with the naked eye.) Moreover, there are simply too many stars catalogued to create Wikipedia articles for each one. Rambot's mass-creation of US geography stubs would pale by comparison! Zetawoof(ζ) 10:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there are articles on other minor stars in this constellation, then merge into List of stars in Puppis constellation or somesuch. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 10:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do note, however, that this star isn't even a proper component of the Puppis constellation - it's simply in the same region of sky. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It lies in the constellation Puppis, regardless of whether it is a part of the purely unscientific "stick Figure"--Kalsermar 16:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If we list every tenth-magnitude star in the sky, the "Random article" link will become useless, if nothing else. Tevildo 10:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not really—we have 1,239,953 articles at the moment, and there are only 340,000 (or so) stars of magnitude 10.0 or above. At the moment, though, we're dealing with one article, rather than 340,000. Spacepotato 11:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. We don't need an article for every 9th magnitude star but it could be useful to have articles about a few of them so people can see how little information is known about most dim stars. I don't know why the HD 64180 article was created and I wouldn't go around creating more articles on other 9th magnitude stars just for fun, but now that it's here I'd rather keep it than delete it. By the way, I did find an article from 1952 that ADS thinks included HD 64180, but I couldn't actually find the star in the article. --Fournax 11:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Surely the lack of knowledge about random dim stars could be communicated more effectively on a more general page (maybe expanding stellar astronomy or something), rather than creating stubby articles to illustrate a point. Chaos syndrome 11:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see no reason to collect nn articles until they make an nn list. And this article makes no case for notability, either stated or implied. Tychocat 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An encyclopedia is a compendium of scientific or cultural knowledge. If we know nothing about it, it has no place in here. Fram 12:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm slightly concerned about having individual entries for every star that is mapped (do you know how many there are ?!?!??!?!) I think a better format for star articles would be to group them into constelations as a list or something (you may gather that I am not an astronomer, so have no knowledge about stars but there would be millions upon millions of stub entries if the articles where not somehow merged) DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search for HD 64180 on the ADS Abstract Server (at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html) produces one scientific paper (from 1952) that even mentions this star. It has almost no scientific significance. No one would be able to write anything more about the star than what is already in the Wikipedia entry.George J. Bendo 13:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn star. --WinHunter (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — We do have articles about stars down to 15th magnitude or fainter (c.f. List of nearest stars). But there is usually something of note about them. A 9-10th magnitude star of class A0V is probably going to be a long, long distance from us. It doesn't even have a parallax listed. Lord knows I love astronomy, but I just don't see a point to this article other than to disambiguate the name. — RJH (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have deleted asteroids without notability before. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, as before. Not a notable star, but still a star (and thus a huge flaming ball of hydrogen). With Wikipedia not being paper, I don't see any benefit from deleting it. It's not fiction, spam, advertising, or POV. I am puzzled as to why an article for this particular star was created however. Megapixie 23:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like stars but I don't see the value of articles for non-notable ones. Flying Jazz 02:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A star is hardly non-notable. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 11:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Do you know how many billions of stars there are? KarenAnn 13:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a notable star, doesn't have a proper name, a Bayer designation or even a Flamsteed number and there is no other claim to fame.--Kalsermar 16:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but citations/references are needed. 68.50.203.109 09:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a link to the SIMBAD data for HD 64180. That page contains links to three references: the Tycho Reference Catalogue, the SAO Catalog, and the Michigan Spectral Survey. --Fournax 10:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk Merge would be okay (maybe even better) too, since this article probably won't grow beyond a stub anytime soon. JYolkowski // talk 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep let many stars shine. gidonb 02:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there were a better target I'd say merge, but stars which are neither naked-eye visible nor scientifically notable don't need seperate articles. Eluchil404 04:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Merge to Dude Ranch. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degenerate (song)[edit]

doesn't appear to be notable and is very poorly written article Heidijane 10:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge a cleaner version to Dude Ranch, which even has a convenient Song Information section under which it can be deposited. GassyGuy 10:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per GassyGuy.--DaveG12345 02:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Merge to Chaos! Comics. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday (band)[edit]

Found this article through a vandals contributions page. Couldn't find a single thing on google about them, only this article. I don't know if this is an album or a band, the band is supposedly called Chaos! Communications, which I couldn't find ANYTHING on at all. So likely not notable and fails WP:V. Andeh 10:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no reliable source to support any of this info. Either extremely non-notable or hoax. GassyGuy 10:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC) No vote I have no idea how to judge this anymore. GassyGuy 22:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Chaos! Communications (better known as Chaos! Comics) is genuine, as are the characters referred to in the article. I've not been able to find anything about this particular album, though. Tevildo 11:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The band are genuine - they appeared at DragonCon '97 [17]. That appears to be the only enduring mark of their existence, apart from a couple of mentions on comic-fan message boards. Does their association with Lady Death bring them within WP:BAND? Probably not, but leaving the "Neutral" in place for now. Tevildo 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment. If anyone has a copy of the CD in good condition, it's probably worth a few bob these days, in the right market. :) Tevildo 11:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you can find a reliable source if it's notability/existence then I'll happily withdraw my vote to delete.--Andeh 11:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chaos! Comics or Lady Death. A mildly interesting bit of comic-book history, but one which isn't really notable in its own right. The DragonCon guest list is all I can find about it, I'm afraid. Tevildo 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chaos! Comics per Tevildo. This band meets none of the WP:MUSIC auto-keep criteria, but it seems verifiable. The slightly unusual way the band was created and sold justifies keeping the information somewhere. The publisher seems a better place for this than the character page. Smerdis of Tlön 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was No consensus. I do note that the article already has the "totallydisputed" tag. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics of Kurdistan Workers Party[edit]

Surprised this one has lasted so long... Delete for several reasons: 1. The majority of the text is not in English, 2. The text which is in English is either copied from the Kurdistan Workers Party page, or can easily be merged in, 3. The timelines are original research, 4. article is a POV fork of Kurdistan Workers Party where the timelines were rejected countless times for inclusion. - FrancisTyers · 11:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Merge and useful information into Kurdistan Workers Party. - FrancisTyers · 11:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would suggest renaming it as a "list" (List of tactics of Kurdistan Workers Party). --Cat out 12:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Non english parts can be translated easily but since they are not cited its best to comment them out for now.
    2. Correct and the reason behind that is also simple. Kurdistan Workers Party was getting too large and a breakup was suggested for that reason. Merging it back would be illogical.
    3. I believe it has been composed from news articles which is not original reserach. Iran-Iraq war is certanly citable. Better citation is necesarry no doubt.
    4. Timelines were not rejected on the Kurdistan Workers Party article but it was recomended that a seperate page should be made for them so as to evade clutter).
    Having said all this, I believe both articles require work (citation etc) and not deletion. --Cat out 12:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Possible salvage of list of PKK engagements into its own article with a neutral title. The Crow 13:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Karl Meier 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I totaly agree with coolcatneurobio 01:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 02:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Moby 04:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is not in good shape, but that's not a reason to delete it. The problems can be fixed and the article can be expanded as Coolcat pointed out 24.211.192.250 04:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article definitely needs a major facelift. I don't think the information presented is original research, it looks like it was compiled fron news sources. DeliDumrul 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. bogdan 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & merge useful info into Kurdistan Workers Party per nom. Inner Earth 14:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename into a title in line with Chronology of Provisional IRA actions as I intend to draw for ASALA/anything as per discussion on Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists. Cretanforever
  • Delete & merge as per Inner Earth and my note to Cretanforever. Fad (ix) 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom.--Eupator 01:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has its place lutherian 06:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Landolitan 12:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly POV from what I can tell of it. --InShaneee 00:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cat KertenkelebekⓉ 10:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verts of the NBA[edit]

The talk page comment explains it best. Summary: The article doesn't cite its sources, there is no standard measure of vertical leap and each player's is variable, it is a weird mesh of NBA players and players from other sports, it is totally incomplete and never will be. The article doesn't even agree with Wikipedia itself; compare the data of Michael Jordan and the data here. Punctured Bicycle 11:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep, consensus in this AfD appears to be sufficient enough not to require a relisting (plus this AfD is already long enough). Deathphoenix ʕ 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete, in light of additional information provided in the deletion review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What additional information? Wjhonson 17:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin Please relist rather than closing. In my view this is unverifiable - it's based on material in the possession of one editor and which may (or may not) exist in two Libraries. I'm not questioning the editor's good faith, but this is way beyond normal Wikipedia standards for verifiability. Dlyons493 Talk 23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one said verifiability had to be simple. As I've stated many times, there are people you just can't easily verify unless you go to the source. People of local notability are almost always like this. And people of historical local notable are even worse. Wjhonson 23:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty May Ellis[edit]

I'm sorry for the trouble the author took in creating this page, but the only claim to fame for Kitty is that she was a diarist, and the only place these diaries (well, two of them) are available is Wikisource. So there is no fame, no notability, and hance no place in Wikipedia. Fram 11:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. It appears you've made your judgement solely on the basis of your own personal knowledge and google abilities. However many people of note do not show up in google simply because no biography has yet published online anything relevant. The mere fact that you cannot find the person online is not a sufficient reason to delete. Wjhonson 03:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her diaries are a primary source for the earliest days of Spokane for one thing. That alone makes her notable. Then, she is one of, if not the, only sources to mention the brief existence of the post office of Ellis, Washington which otherwise might have been completely forgotten. She is a witness to an encounter with Chief Joseph, the unionization of the building trade in Spokane, the formative years of the town of Clearview. She is a primary source for certain events in Seattle, Prospect, Hillsboro, Portland... The list is already long and that's only reading two of her four hundred journals. Wjhonson 05:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the journals published? Dlyons493 Talk 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but as long as no more work is done on her diaries (publication, use in historical studies (which gets published in turn), ...), she fails WP:V, WP:BIO, and WP:NOR. Fram 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you get the prize for the most impatient person on wikipedia :) As you can plainly see I'm transcribing the journals day-by-day for the last week or so. So maybe you could hold off a bit ? The journals have been published in local newspapers and history books. Sorry those aren't on google, but she is a quite a notable person locally. That should be sufficient. Wjhonson 20:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which books? Gazpacho 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History of Snohomish County, J Daniels, 1962. Privately printed.
Clearview, founders and pioneers, Frances Smith, 1982. John Brown & Co. Everett.
Snohomish Tribune, various dates from 1956 to 1972.
  • Keep, I accept the author's claim of notability. Gazpacho 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is less than two weeks old and is being constructively edited, with the appropriate sources being transcribed as we speak. Noms, please be more patient, especially for topics more than fifty years old. It can take time to do the research. Captainktainer * Talk 01:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verifiability is an issue - Google isn't the be-all and end-all, but the above are difficult to verify! Books entitled History of Snohomish County exist but none I can find by Daniels. I can find no reference to Clearview, founders and pioneers. Snohomish Tribune exists but the online version [18] is just a Classifieds. So I don't feel any of the above meet normal wiki verifiability standards. Dlyons493 Talk 03:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment They're difficult to verify, but not impossible. The Snohomish Tribune, for example, will be available on microfilm/microfiche; someone in Snohomish County could go to the library and verify the information. The "History of Snohomish County" book, being that it was privately printed, I would agree is suspect, but I'm going to assume that the book exists for now, especially given that the article is barely over a week old. The solution to having doubts that are reasonable but not beyond a shadow of a doubt related to a source is to ask for verification. This is a more appropriate way to handle this article, not to run to AfD within seven or eight days. Captainktainer * Talk 04:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the comment. What exactly are you trying to verify? The statements of fact are cited to each journal page where the statement is made. Or are you saying that you're only trying to verify whether or not the journals (or portions thereof) have been previously published ? An autobiography is sufficient proof for the facts of the person that they themselves wrote obviously, of their own life. Wjhonson 05:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is verifying that the books in question exist. They aren't found referenced anywhere on Google, and I couldn't find them in the Library of Congress or in the online catalogs of the local libraries, and they aren't particularly well-known, so there's some doubt as to whether the books you mentioned exist. Personally, I doubt that you would make up books, but I think the point being made is that without an ability to check the references- any libraries where they can be checked out, etc.- it's hard to confirm the information. But, quite honestly, this isn't a discussion that we should be having on AfD about an article that is being actively edited and productively contributed to, and that asserts the subject's notability. Captainktainer * Talk 05:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My question is, what is the point of asking about the books? To verify what exactly? The statement was "about verifiability". I can tell you the complete contents of the article are not in the books published. Many of the events are in the journals which are cited and can be read online to see for yourself what they say. Is the person suggesting that journals published in wikisource are not sources ? Wjhonson 05:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's the point. From my reading of the poster's comments, the question is whether the journals are accurate, and he's not convinced that the sources quoted are sufficient to establish the reality of the journals. I could be wrong, but that seems to be the idea. Captainktainer * Talk 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then this has gone from ridiculous to downright looney. A person's journals are sufficient to establish what they said. Every biography on here is subject to scrutiny to its *facts* and that is independent of what is or is not said. If there is only one source for the biography then the person is going to have to do research to determine its validity. But the simple *belief* that it *may* not be valid, is insufficient to discard the statments that are made. There are thousands of articles in wikipedia that have no sources *what*soever, perhaps those would be a better candidate for this kind of Reductio ad absurdum (I got so high falutin that I lost my ability to spell ;). Wjhonson 05:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oh as to your comment about not being able to find the History of Snohomish book I referred to, the copy I have has no ISBN number and doesn't even have a copyright statment for that matter. Its a printed work, but is bound soft-cover, not really what you'd called a high-quality work, but I'm sure they sold a grand-total of perhaps 500 copies. It's not like Snohomish is a huge metropolis :0 Wjhonson 06:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the Clearview work isn't even a 'book' per se, its more like a phamplet, probably put together by a local history society or genealogical society (although not so marked). Also no ISBN number and stapled not bound. That's the kind of history books you get in little, dinky towns. Wjhonson 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't personally doubt that these exist, but basic scolarship requires that an independent check confirm their existence. I'd go to my local library to look them up, but that's obviously not possible. So where can physical copies of these works be found which will allow hypothetical Wikipedia representatives visit and confirm, first their existence, and, secondly, the notability of their contents? And I feel strongly this is a discussion we not only should be having, but would be negligent not to have! Dlyons493 Talk
There is a library in the city of Snohomish. It's a small town of perhaps 3,000 so it may not be open very often. I've never been to it. There is a larger library in Everett which *may* have copies of these. I have not personally checked either one to be sure. Wjhonson 06:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't mean that the author of the article has made up the diaries (although it would be hard to show either way): but why is having made diaries important? The diaries are unpublished, unverified (i.e. is what she writes correct? Important), unstudied, and unreferenced. There is no reason at all that this person merits an encyclopedic article at this moment in time. She has had no importance at all, has made no impact on anything, has made no revelations that have been the basis for serious scientific studies, has no literary merit, ... That an article is truthful, thorough, wikified, ... does not mean that it belongs here. As the article states, her only claim to fame is that she has written diaries (lots of them). So? How does that meet WP:BIO?

You give as arguments: Her diaries are a primary source for the earliest days of Spokane for one thing. That alone makes her notable. Then, she is one of, if not the, only sources to mention the brief existence of the post office of Ellis, Washington which otherwise might have been completely forgotten. She is a witness to an encounter with Chief Joseph, the unionization of the building trade in Spokane, the formative years of the town of Clearview. She is a primary source for certain events in Seattle, Prospect, Hillsboro, Portland... The list is already long and that's only reading two of her four hundred journals. Why is a short lived post office important? How is she a reliable witness? Until her diaries are the source of historical works of some importance, she is just an anecdote. Fram 13:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying, if someone writes a work, say the Gospel of Judas. That work is not itself important *until* it is referenced by someone else? And you're saying if wikisource accepts a work that that itself does not make the person who wrote it an author who deserves encyclopaedic representation? I find those two positions untenable. I don't think very many people are going to be flocking to that banner. Wjhonson 16:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikisource accepts" has about the same value as "Wikipedia accepts". The texts have not been challenged on WIkipedia, but that does not mean that they fit the inclusion criteria very well: "Most texts should be published in a medium that includes peer review, such as a newspaper or published book; a Usenet posting or blog entry does not qualify.". These diaries don't belong in that category, do they? Fram 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote Wikipedia:Notability "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It is an extension of the notion of prominence for biographical articles. It differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important." Wjhonson 16:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just quote the first text line of WP:V (a policy, not a guideline): "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.". This article fails this (wrt the "claim of fame", that the peson existed is verifiable but not important), and is thus against policy. Then the only option is to delete the article. I repeat, the notable part of the article is the unverifible part of the article as defined by Wikipedia policy. Fram 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person's diaries give us some insight into history --rogerd 04:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Verifiable does not mean by a peer-reviewed source. It only means that there is a source. Wikisource is a valid source for establishing verifiability. And I have already posted other sources which you admitted were veriable, albeit perhaps not *simple*. But verifiability does not stand on what is simple, only on what is possible. If you wish to go to Snohomish and visit the library you could probably verify that this person existed. The article itself also has links, to places other than the journals, which do verify certain events in the person's life. A biography of just *public records* would be fairly dry, every biography has statements writen from first-hand knowledge of actors associated with the person. Those statements outside of their primary, published venue, are not *verifiable* in the strict sense that you wish to employ here. The notes of the author are elements to verify the details of the biography and those notes, are not usually published themselves. Only the result of the research is published.

Again, the limitations in writing Autobiographies do not apply to Biographies, even if those biographies are writen from statements made by the subject themselves. The elements of this life are not gradiose, bizarre or suspect. They are merely notable. So the majority of your case dissolves from a lack of conflict. Wjhonson 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, it sounds like Wjhonson (talk · contribs) has a lot invested in this article, and therefore the lines of WP:OR are being blurred. Is it appropriate for someone transcribing diaries (that are not currently published) to start an wikipedia article on the same topic? Wikipedia cannot be a place to publish primary sources, and we cannot be the first place to write on a topic. We also get into WP:RS issues. In all honesty, this sounds like genealogy work being published for the first time here. There is a fine line between notable history and genealogy, but WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, including genealogy entries. This article to me sounds like something more appropriate for User:Sam Francis/Genealogy wiki or a similar project, NOT wikipedia. But like I said there is a fine line.--Andrew c 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not creating original statments of facts from my own personal experience or efforts. I am transcribing a diary in which those statements appear. That is not original research. You could just as well say that transcribing a newspaper is original research which is isn't. Just like transcribing public records, regardless of the amount of time you expend, its not original research, its a mechanical representation of facts in an alternative media. There is no artistic effort involved. Your next objection, wikipedia is not being used to publish primary sources. The primary source is where it should be, on wikisource. It has been accepted there, which is where primary sources go. Your next objection, this is not the first time that Kitty May Ellis has been writen about as I've stated above. She is obscure that is true, she is not googleable that is true. The same was true for my article on Frantz Hunt Coe, however he is notable as well. Your next objection, this is not genealogy, it is biography. She is notable not for her family, but for herself. Hopefully that addresses all your concerns. Wjhonson 22:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's problematic using something only published at wikisource as a source per WP:RS and WP:V. If this person was reported on in newspapers and such, then your job is to summarize those sources. Instead, it looks like you are cherry picking information at your whim from the unpublished, unreliable source that you are transcribing (which is why it goes into the realm of WP:OR). Transcribing isn't OR, but basing a wikipedia entry off that work MAY be OR. You should probably not use the diary as a source, or at least keep its use down to a bare minimum (right now it seems like it is the bulk of the article, also, you may want to use the format found int WP:CITE and cite.php in regard to intext citations.) Franz Hunt Coe appears to be deleted, so if this is the case, there is precedent on wikipedia to NOT include these sort of articles. I urge you to read your article. It is not encyclopedic. It reads as a family history, not an encyclopedia article. Take for instance the 2nd paragraph in early life. Do you seriously consider that good writings? In 1870 they are in Lincoln, Nebraska. In 1876 Andrew applied for and received a Civil War Pension. By Sep 1879 they were living at Tarkio, Missouri. They left Takio about Mar 1883 and went by "team and wagon" arriving in Colville, Stevens Co, Washington on July 3rd 1883[4]. Soon they had moved to Spokane Falls, Washington or the vicinity,. Can you point to a features or good article on wikipedia that has a similar format? This article needs some major editing, if it is kept.--Andrew c 00:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awful lot of assumptions for one paragraph. Let me just tackle your main one first. You are assuming that the biography is gleaned simply from the journals. That is false. The citations to the journals are to show where she states the things that were *already known* from other sources. Of course the underlying original source in all cases, is... herself. So the entire premise falls to pieces. As in almost every biography, the most primitive, underlying source for most statements is the person. Other documents can be used to back up what they say about certain things that were recorded elsewhere, but not in all cases. "President Clinton says he likes potatoes." I mean who the heck cares if it's true or not. He said it, it goes into his biography. It's his quote. Whether it's true isn't going to change a thing. "President Clinton says he was born in September". May be true. You can verify it by looking at his birth certificate. But his birth certificate isn't going to say he likes potatoes. And if you ask his mother, that's just another source, equally failable.
The major problem in this particular biography is that people are moaning that it's HARD to verify because it's not online. But it is verifiable, it's just not easy to do so. I mispelled Frantz Hunt Coe so it wasn't deleted, which destroys another pin in your argument. History will thank me for digging up obscure but once famous people. And finally be bold, if you think my writing sucks, rewrite the paragraph to make it flow more smoothly, without loss of information of course. And my ref style is my choice. There are several styles in existence here, not everyone uses the same type, I didn't wish to clutter the article with 42 footnotes. This isn't paper and I don't really see the point. Wjhonson 14:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frantz Hunt Coe was (speedy) deleted, and is since recreated. The article still does not assert why he is a "prominent physician", but I'll let it be for now. My main reason for putting this up for deletion is not that the existance and facts of the life of Ellis are hard to verify, but that her claim to fame is hard to verify (not that she has written a diary, but that any info in it is important for historians). For now, we have only your word that her writings have historical importance, and none of her writings have been checked by historians. As far as we know, they may be delusions, misremembered facts, ... or a mixture of all of these. For now, niether her life nor her diaries have any importance, no studies based on them or studies using them as a source have been published, the diaries themselves have not been published by a real publisher, ... Let me again post the first line of WP:V: the policy: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.". This article does not meet this policy, and hence should be deleted. Wikisource is not a reputable publisher. Fram 14:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure in your view, schools get named for people of no particular renown. The fact that Frantz had a school named after him, that fact alone, is enough to make him notable. Not even counting the other things he was famous for in his life. As for the journals, as I have mentioned several times now. They have been published. And no you don't have just my word that they have historical importance, you have the contents of the journals themselves. Go read them. The vast majority of her writing is quotes from the newspapers, so I think you'd be awfully hard pressed to say those haven't been previously published or aren't reliable sources. At any rate this is going nowhere. There are enough votes to keep the articles. There is no overwhelming consensus. Wjhonson 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have it both ways: if the vast majority of her writing is quotes from newspapers, then her diary is not a possible primary source for historians, and isn't notable. If it is not a collection of quotes, then it has to be verified by historians, to see if her writings are truthful and reliable. Until then, she fails WP:V. Fram 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That statement only proves that you haven't even read any of the journals at all. So you're not arguing about this case. You're arguing some hypothetical which doesn't exist. A source doesn't have to be primary to be useful. And sources don't have to be "verified by historians" good grief. It's as if you have no idea how biographies are even constructed. Do you really think that newspapers articles you read every day are "verified by historians" ? Yes you want to set this incredibly high bar for anything you don't like. Why waste everyone's time? Wjhonson 15:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. Either she is inherently notable (i.e. not because of the diaries), and the diaries provide a biography. But she isn't. Or she is notable because her diaries are historically interesting and provide a valuable source. But now you have said that they don't do that either. So what exactly is the reason Wikipedia should have an article about her? Fram 21:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable because of her life experiences. And if you're conceding that diaries are historically interesting, than that along makes the author interesting as well. And I did not say the diaries don't provide a valuable source. They do, in fact, provide a valuable source, to many events. Primary in some cases, secondary in some cases. You're going in circles. Wjhonson 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reset indent. Three things to keep in mind. Diaries CAN have historical significance, but not every single diary is historically significant. Next, Afd is not a vote. The most votes do not always win. If the arguments are compelling enough to to closing editor, they may take whatever action they feel is most appropriate, considering wikipedia policy and general consensus (not simply tallying votes). Secondly, you keep scolding us about how "biographies are constructed", and we keep scolding you about how encyclopedias are written. Seriously, I think you are using the wrong project to publish your "biography". Listing the places someone of questionable notability lived does not belong in an encyclopedia. You should make the article consice, focusing in on the aspects that make the individual notable, not relaying boring, unecnyclopedic, trivial, biographical information. If you honestly want me to edit the article, I will, but I'd probably delete most of the trivial content. Is that acceptable to you?--Andrew c 21:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xmlitude[edit]

Not notable. --Amit 11:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete totally pointless. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 13:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Utter nonsense. -- Alias Flood 18:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. --DaveG12345 02:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO, certainly not speedy, however. Non-wikipedia mirror sites for it on google indicate there is a company called "Xmlitude," seeming more frequently used than the word. Not even in urban dictionary. --TeaDrinker 04:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Policy and precedent are being cited by the delete voters, while all the keep voters have is "I think this is useful" and "Here is a fansite which duplicates this information"... (ESkog)(Talk) 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in the Halo universe[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide - this is one of the facts stated in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The article is also entirely unreferenced and unsourced, and contains a heap of original research, such as the Halo games (so far) only two Monitors have been seen. However, there are most likely seven Monitors, each corresponding to a certain installation.

If you need further convincing, apply Calton's Theory on Gamecruft:

Spilt the world into two groups: Those who own Halo: already have the game manual which contains all this information. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none. Those who do not own Halo: have no possible use for, need of, or interest in, the information in the article. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none.

Precedent for decisions of this kind can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG), or, perhaps more pertinently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series. I am aware that Halo has its own project, and therefore the article will no doubt attract some block voting from a special interest group. I hope the closing admin is able to take into account both the strength and applicability of arguments, rather than just counting numbers. To summarise, the article fails WP:NOR, WP:V, and, most importantly, WP:NOT. Delete. Proto///type 11:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Gameguidelistcruft. Wikipedia is not a replacement video game manual. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. Also, the article fails WP:V, so the content can actually be deleted without an AFD. (Yeah, it would cause an edit war no doubt, so this is a better option). ---J.S (t|c) 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Article seems to have at least one reliable source in the context of a video game. I do not believe it satisfies any solid criteria for deletion any more. That's enough for a week-keep out of me. Not a strong keep because the article needs more sourceing and some work removeing OR... but thats something that don't need to be hashed out here. I'd keep for now and renominate in a month if problems stay. ---J.S (t|c) 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I like Calton's argument. And for the record, I like the work done by the Halo wikiproject, but I have played... let's say around 300 hours of "Halo" and "Halo 2" combined (give or take). I'm a huge fan, and I see no reason this article really needs to exist (both per precident and per rational thought). -- Kicking222 17:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Using the reasoning provided, all lists anything like it, in the Halo Wikiproject or not, are "useless" and thus should be removed (lists of weapons, characters, episodes, etc.) I admit it needs sourcing, etc. But I see no reason for its total deletion. David Fuchs 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a (good) reason to keep it? Proto///type 12:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AfD nomination seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the WP:NOT. This article is not a manual, guide or a "how-to", thus WP:NOT does not apply. A manual contains instructions for how to do or use a certain thing, and this article don't. I think it's important that we all understand what a manual is, and what it's not, in order to avoid future AfDs without justification or support from the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The second reason for me voting to keep this article is that this AfD nom. seems to be based on someones personal opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't contain info about games. This means that this AfD nom. in a way violates WP:NOT (censorship) and WP:NPOV, and as long as the Wikipedia policies and guidelines doesn't state that Wikipedia is supposed to be kept free from game-related information, I will vote against AfDs like this one just out of principle. However, this article do need more sources and references, but that can be worked on, and doesn't justify a deletion. /Magore 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may not like it, but failure of WP:V really is a justification for deletion. Those who want to keep something are the ones who are required to provide reliable sources. ---J.S (t|c) 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking proper sources and thus not being verified isn't the same thing as not being verifiable. WP:V only applies in AfDs if something is inherently unverifiable. Ace of Sevens 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article can be verified, then by all means, please provide this verification. Or will you just claim it's all verifiable, and then not provide us with verification? Proto///type 12:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of WikiProject Halo, and as stated above. Also, deleting this would kill several of the links based off Halo, Red vs Blue and its supporting pages. Just look at how many things link to this page using "What Links Here". If you kill this article for acting as a replacement, then think of all the information we'll have to delete to stay within the precedence a decision like that would set. --Targetter 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You raise an interesting point. Since my primary consern is that lack of sourceing I'd be totaly willing to change my "vote" to keep as soon as someone provided some sourceing. 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I will happily fix all the broken links if this article is deleted. One of the things an admin is asked to do when closing an AFD dicsussion with a 'delete' verdict is to fix the redlinks. The article being linked to in a walled garden of Halocruft is not a reason to keep it. Proto///type 12:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of Wikipedia. Needs cleanup, but a useful page. RelentlessRouge 21:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a part of wikipedia? This discussion is to decided if it SHOULD be part of wikipedia, not if it already is. (You can only AFD things that are already parts of wikipedia afterall). ---J.S (t|c) 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because its cruftiness to quality ratio is actually fairly low. If you want to kill the cruft-Hydra this ain't the way. Outriggr 23:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not a video game fan, but the article seems very relevant to the Halo project, similar to FF7 locations. Agreed that cleanup and citing is needed. -Markusbradley 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. This is a collection of data about the game, but that ddoesn't make it a game guide. If it were a list of vehicle strategies, that would be different. This is just a section of the Halo articles that got toolong for the game pages. Ace of Sevens 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I would rather say that this AfD no longer has any justification. This is not a manual, so the WP:NOT does no longer apply. The information is verifiable (although some editors confuse verifiability with verified, it's not the same, vefifiable means that it can be verified, not that it is), meaning that it doesn't violate WP:V either. And since it's not original research, WP:NOR doesn't apply. This leaves us with some administrators and editors personal opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't contain any game info, and that's not an acceptable argument for deletion, since it violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not censored. Personally, I absolutely detest cruft, and would like to rid Wiki of it. But this isn't gamecruft, since gamecruft (as well as other forms of cruft found here and there on Wikipedia) is based on conclusions and assumptions made by some individuals (ie fantasies and their own little "contributions" and "improvements" to for the example overall storyline of a movie, or a fictional universe), and are non-factual/non-canonical information. According to my experience, people tend to condemn everything they personally don't like or are interested in as "cruft", although it is often based on facts and reliable sources. And when you're fighting cruft, you don't use AfD templates, you clean up the crufty articles instead. /M.O (u) (t) 16:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, that is WP:NOT a game guide and WP:NOR and WP:V are not optional. The existence of a whole lot of other unencyclopedic gamecruft is no reason to keep this article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above, it's not game guide info and has no strategies.--Zxcvbnm 16:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - While there is a huuuuge amount of cruft in this article, if it is edited down, I feel it can become a relatively respectable article. Wickethewok 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are far too many things linking to the page and the information can be sourced. Just because an article sits there with a template saying that this article does source it's statements for a long period of time, that doesn't mean it should get an AfD vote. These things need to be fixed. That's what this whole thing is about. A collaboration between the people of Earth. And collaborations take time. We'll get to these things, that's what we set up the Halo WikiProject for. It just takes time. Get rid of the AfD vote, and slowly but surely we'll get to these things. -007bond 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if it has been tagged for sources for a long time, and they aren't provided, an AFD vote is exactly what it should get. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added sources to about two thirds of the vehicles in the article -007bond 23:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though some sections--Warthog in particular--are too detailed for their own good, the page is needed as a vehicle index. Halo's vehicles are too entrenched in culture to simply delete them, in my opinion. Also, keep in mind that having one comprehensive page for Halo vehicles is much better than having a dozen seperate pages, each for a vehicle. --Ourai 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not game-guide content, article does need more sources. In case an article lacks sources, tag it for cleanup .. don't drag it through AfD. jaco♫plane 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - it's been tagged for sources for months. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no advantage in deleting what can be salvaged. RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd realy prefer it if you would quit with that. Just because you feel logic is wrong, dosn't mean it isn't there. ---J.S (t|c) 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This information can be found in any game FAQ, walkthrough, or guide book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarroSIN (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 July 2006
  • Keep but cleanup. If you believe in m:immediatism, sure, this article is in bad shape. But I think that this is an encyclopedic topic, and we should approach it from the viewpoint that it is an incomplete article, rather than one that is unsalvageable. When WP:WAF was being developed, many felt that it should not be made policy because that would potentially spark deletion of salvageable articles on fiction. Although I am nominally part of WikiProject Halo, I'm not a big content contributor; I go through a copyedit articles from time to time. I would say that the focus needs to shift to describing the vehicles as cultural artifacts. By this, I mean that the following questions should be answered (and sourced):
    • How did Bungie come up with the idea for creation? Did they take anything from their earlier games, or perhaps from other fiction?
    • For vehicles in both Halo and Halo 2, how did they change? Were the changes aesthetic or for reasons of game balance?
    • How did game critics and other reliable sources react to the vehicles, or any changes made between the games? Are there any reliable reviews that mention the vehicles' handling and shift to third-person perspective?
    • How have the vehicles been used in notable machinima pieces? For example, the Warthog was the subject of both Warthog Jump, a video that exploits the Halo physics engine, and an entire episode of Red vs Blue (where the characters wonder why it's called the Warthog in the first place).
In short, I really do think that this topic can be treated encyclopedically, and, in researching along the lines that I mentioned above, editors may find that they have enough material to justify splitting some of the more notable vehicles into their own articles. — TKD::Talk 18:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My god ... if that happens, the terrorists have already won. ;) Proto///type 14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article contains genuinely useful information and is salvageable, per JJay (below)--Cornflake pirate 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no reason to keep provided. And, how?Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that TKD made some very compelling points as to the usefulness of some of the information. If Wikipedia is meant to be a truly comprehensive dictionary, then deletion should be a last resort--we can always try to salvage the article first by removing that information which is more suited for a strategy guide than an encyclopaedia. Ourai 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Proto///type 15:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I do, however, believe it is possible to reject dictionary-like discourse in favor of encyclopaedic analysis. After all, isn't that what Wikipedia's all about? Ourai 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm going to play devil's advocate for articles like this. You just mentioned analysis, but on such topics as these, how can the analysis not be "original"? These articles cannot possibly meet Wikipedia's formal article criteria, for what is the "source" of the material in this article other than the game itself? To the extent that an article like this is allowed, it needs to be judged on its balance and reasonability vis-a-vis the small world it describes. That description is always going to be "original research", in the most trivial possible sense of that term. I have to wonder about anyone who thinks that observing and synthesizing certain facts about a video game violates Wikipedia standards. The standard should be: this is too silly for an encyclopedia that wants to be taken seriously, or it isn't. I fail to see how any of the listed WP policies--original research, strategy guides, dicdef--meaningfully apply to this article. I say either develop a policy that says a video game can have only one page to describe it, without going into excessive detail, or let it rest, unless the article in question is just crap. Which this isn't. That's my opinion... Outriggr 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: "article contains genuinely useful information" is a reason to keep. You may think it's a bad reason, but it's a reason. "Keep because my toe is yellow" would be a bad reason... but still a reason. ---J.S (t|c) 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for the "bad reason" given, see JJay below. --Cornflake pirate 12:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't play video games or know anything about Halo. That's why I found this article on its vehicles quite informative. There is no reason that we shouldn't be documenting important aspects of these games, which have become a form of literature for an entire generation. Could be useful for people like me who might need the info in the future, perhaps as part of a research project, or in order to discuss halo with the grandchildren. Doesn't seem to violate seriously any policies, but does have some extensive footnotes at the bottom of the page. --JJay 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V and/or WP:NOR? ---J.S (t|c) 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both satisfied by references (see bottom of article). Furthermore, since this article is about a text, the text itself is a reference. For example, The Lord of the Rings's article doesn't need a reference to say that the main character is Frodo Baggins, since that text itself is a primary source. In the same way, this article doesn't need a reference to say that the vehicles are Warthog, Tank, etc. There is probably a policy page on this somewhere but I have no idea where to find it. --Cornflake pirate 12:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm seems like I'm wrong according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Popular_culture_and_fiction (although I could be reading this incorrectly). :S --Cornflake pirate 13:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Full of advice. Wholly unsourced except for the games in question. Lots of in-universe writing. There is nothing encyclopedic one can say about 99% of these vehicles. This is one of the worst game-guide articles I've seen in a long time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom (Game manual/gamecruft) and Man in Black. JJay's comment: He doesn't play video games and and has never heard of Halo but says "Could be useful for people like me who might need the info in the future, perhaps as part of a research project, or in order to discuss halo with the grandchildren." I was just imagining what the research project could be ("The Warthog jeep in this Halo controllable screen picture thingy appears to be totally indestructible even when fighting the alien tanks with technologies far advanced beyond mankind's knowledge (their Achilles' Heel? destructability!). JJay, the DoD is assigning your team $10bn over 5 years to discover how to replicate this incredible technology in real life".), when the next image of JJay's grandkids' facial expressions when JJay starts talking in detail about Halo vehicles out of nowhere made me laugh so hard I spat out my dinner all over my office desk. Thanks Jjay! Bwithh 00:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFreeWorld[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. The tone is completely inappropriate: that could be fixed, but no point. Delete The JPStalk to me 12:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm, agreed. Delete -- Francs2000 12:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tone can be changed, why should it be deleted? It represents a large online community. It is an original concept. It is unique online. A phenomena of the net generation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barnabyferrero (talk • contribs) 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please reconsider until you have had at least a requisite number of discussions upon which you can base your opinion?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 7 July 2006.
    This process takes five days. That's long enough. -- Francs2000 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 July 2006
  • I have reworded the entry...please tell me which part of the tone is still completely inappropriate? --Barnabyferrero 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Please read WP:WEB. These are our guidelines. Unless you can provide evidence that this article meets our criteria then it will be deleted. The JPStalk to me 12:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Delete Pure WP:SPAM fails WP:WEB also article partly lifted from here and the external link to the web page is a log in page, so nothing further can be learned DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding those last two points...the login page actually has more information on it if you follow the 'about' or 'join afw' links...these pages are all extensions of the index.php file so cannot be linked to directly from wikipedia. The article party lifted is lifted from the website and is text that I wrote originally - so there is no copyright breach. Regarding the first two points. Please tell me how this listing breaches WP:SPAM where asmallworld does not? I was neutral in my description!! Regarding WP:WEB fair point - working on finding some published independent articles right now! [AS IN LOOKING FOR THEM] --Barnabyferrero 12:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be spam for a blog site.--Michael Johnson 13:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, for a start. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- How could it be spam? This is non-commercial and new users have to be invited. Even if 10,000 people visit the site, none of them can get in, so I fail to see how a posting on wikipedia can be of any advertising benefit to the site. If you wanna delete the entry then fine. But the entry is more about the concept rather than an actual URL address. A concept which is rare to find - as Wikipedia is currently proving....--Barnabyferrero 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not spam.

I am loathe to compare, but what is the difference between including asw, friendster etc and not AFW?

Is the tone anything but more apt in the progressive stride for a VERIFIABLE source of entertainment?

There are no published articles.... I fail to see why that is required? Had we wanted to publish such blatent attempts at self publication we would have done so. However, that is not the point of AFW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) .

It is a site that has brought together people with wide vision and great tolerance. And has outlived the 6 month life span of newly opened forums.

A venue which has over one and a half thousand members and has been opened for nearly two years. It is active, revoloutionary and a testament to the free license that we all are gifted with.


With no disrespect intended, AFW is no less a station of notice than Michael Johnson (above). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) .

I have heard numerous mention of this site on asmallworld and from what I understand it is an offshoot of a number of memebers of this site. From what I understand it is mainly an experiment in absolute free speech without moderation and using relative anonymity. I hear they have well over 1000 members and that they are well beyond being a blog. From what I have read they have held a number of gatherings and parties in London, Paris, Italy and even Dubai. I think the entry of this site is as legitimate as the one for asmallworld or friendster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmcnamara (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006


§This site is a truly innovative idea and part of internet culture. It is not a blog, this site as the founder described in the entry is a place where people discuss political, cultural and mundane things. This online community is well renowned and has a growing membership. anna --Furball1975 15:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sock-puppets so far. Please check the address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006

Please check my e mail address. This is ridiculous. You can not accuse without proof.--Furball1975 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---It's ok. Wikipedia can see from which IP address each comment comes from. I sign everything I write with the same name. No WP:SOCKSs here! Michael Johnson, according to your profile it says you are against internet censorship....--Barnabyferrero 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The first edits to Wikipedia by both Sbmcnamara and Furball1975 were made to this debate. The JPStalk to me 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think so yes! Glad you noticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 July 2006)

Could you please observe the request about signing comments left on your talk page. The JPStalk to me 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and block the sock puppets - virtually all of the defendents have only edited this discussion... michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above - to the defendents: please read Wikipedia deletion policies before trying to defend your entry or taking offense to this nomination. I personally categorize this article as WP:Spam. Srose (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, webspamming. NawlinWiki 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB -- Alias Flood 18:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article would throw out its arm trying to pat itself on the back. Could be rewritten, but it comes down to the fact that it fails notability requirements. Danny Lilithborne 01:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bigtop. This is an advert, not a verifiable article.--DaveG12345 02:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like it is advertising and/or a vanity entry. Davidpdx 09:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND PROGRAMS[edit]

It's original text of some kind of constitution. -- Francs2000 12:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. Almost certainly a copyvio from [19], although that link is a 404 at the moment. No context, but rather too long for an A1. Tevildo 12:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is an article about the actual school (needs work) and this article is linked from it - apparently as the first of several proposed sub articles. Clearly inappropiate. Maybe they should be told where they can start their own web site. --Michael Johnson 13:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tevildo. The JPStalk to me 13:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and possible copyvio. -- Alias Flood 18:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Random copy-n-paste-n-vio. --DaveG12345 02:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does not seem original text to me. KarenAnn 13:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Just kidding. extremely strong delete Captain Harr 15:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Of A Doubt[edit]

NN band, fails WP:BAND, prod removed by anon without explanation. Delete --Huon 12:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the google hits are for the movie and the other band named Shadow of Doubt. --ColourBurst 16:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No apparent notability whatsoever, and appears to be vanity - the author (Aaron-2) appears to be the lead vocalist. Dsreyn 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 18:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very few relevant google hits found. Their myspace page shows that the have no label and no touring. --Joelmills 02:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly the content of this entry is not significant and should be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.85.168 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete without a shadow of a doubt. Wildthing61476 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MetalArchives.com is a great reference. They usually have every effing metal band you could ever hope to hear. Their date base gives zero results for "Shadow of a Doubt", and "Shadow of Doubt" is a canadian Prog. Metal band. Google restricted to music gives the same canadian band or other bands with albums with this title. I have every reason to believe this is a self promotement. Kedi the tramp 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete by Mailer diablo. Tevildo 11:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Torrence[edit]

NN actor, minor role in one major film and two other roles, involvement in band Glo seems to be unsourced, just four Google hits for "Molly Torrence"+Glo. Does not meet WP:BIO. Delete --Huon 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion, so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small ping pong man[edit]

Subject of a throwaway reference in one short scene of a comedy show - easily fails notability for minor characters. Googling for "small ping pong man" returns only Wikipedia mirrors. The scene is already referenced in the page for Alan Statham, so no need to merge; delete. --McGeddon 13:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article can be deleted, as it is already mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia, and it can easily be taken of the main Green Wing Template. ISD 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a cult figure??? --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 13:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Small ping pong man was mentioned once in the British channel 4 comedy Green Wing" nuff said DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very funny show, but - contrary to this article's claims - popularity of this subject has grown not one measurable iota anywhere. --DaveG12345 03:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low noteablity Davidpdx 09:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Causal determinism[edit]

This article is a spawn of another article pending deletion. Please see this discussion for more information. Again, "Causal Determinism" is not an actual philosophical proposition. I've encouraged that if the author has anything to contribute on the subject, that s/he focus on the main entry for Determinism, rather than creating seperate stubs based on nothing more than person opinion. Grendel 04:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep for now, article appears to be going through a fair bit of rewriting. No prejudice against re-AfDing this article in the near future if the concerns of this AfD have not been met. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical state[edit]

The opening line uses the phrse "...is synonymous with..." - it is a repeat article, using an unpopular term to apparently describe a fundamental of chemistry - ox. states. It is repeat info, and should be deleted - Jak (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. Looks like a hypertrophied disambig page more than anything. Perhaps it should be trimmed down to a standard one? Tevildo 14:21, 29 June 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, Herostratus 00:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What is this a repeat article of? I do seem to remember commenting on somehting similar. --Bduke 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. This article is an attempt to define and explain the term chemical state (which is not synonymous with oxidation state—it's a more general term.) However, it's unclear and overly discursive. Spacepotato 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an amateur contributor, I'm ready to modify the article as needed. I just added 5 references yesterday as requested; ref 4 is one which should satisfy the validity of the term. The other references serve as dated material to establish when the term came into common use by surface scientists, chemical analysts and materials scientists. The term chemical state was used in a 1979 reference: ref #5, but that reference was published privately and does not have an ISBN number. The term was came into existence in the late 60's, but I've not checked my older books just yet. When you guys and gals have a moment, please review my user page User:bvcrist, which I've just recently added so you can know a bit about my knowledge and experience. I admit I did not follow protocol for this page, but give me a bit of time as I'm still learning Wiki protocol, and take a look at my contributrions to the page called X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy. User:bvcrist23:31 9 July 2006
  • Been busy improving page Have added organization, references, significance, list of methods using term, ISBN numbers, refined some sentences, fixed some typos, related links Bvcrist 19:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Lopes[edit]

A page by this name has been deleted three times as CSD A7. This version of the article at least asserts a significance so speedy is inappropriate. However, whereas it can survive a speedy, there doesn't seem to be enough information to create a usable article or even confirm everything in this one. The creator of this article is User:Ejtl, so there is at least a decent chance that this is an autobiographical article. (EJTL could be Eduardo Lopes's initials.) BigDT 05:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable as either a musician or an academic --IslaySolomon 06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have articles on studio/session guys like Nicky Hopkins, this is a different story as it doesn't state anything that would appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC, no indiction that his music or projects are notable. Also, I don't see much that meets WP:BIO. Yanksox 06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable. Mário 13:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet any of the twelve criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. --Satori Son 03:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Not delete, whether this article is redirected or recreated as a disambig page is up to the editors to decide: no need for the closing admin to decide this in an AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-determinism[edit]

This article is a spawn of another article pending deletion. Please see this discussion for more information. The article itself is irrelevant, being that "Non-Determinism" is not an actual philosophical proposition. Grendel 04:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roper Board[edit]

I love this band, and I even got their cd today, but having an article about their messageboard is a no-no. —EdGl 04:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game seven (NBA playoffs)[edit]

  • Delete: Appears to be some strange WP:NOR violation, listing only a subset of NBA postseason series with commentary on percentages, etc. (I originally simply changed this to a redirect but, on second thought, it doesn't make sense as a redirect either.) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a listing of what NBA playoff games reached a seventh match, and who won that game. Should be part of a discussion of all postseason games per year, if anything. PresN 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:PresN. Dsreyn 18:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy G1 by Naconkantari. Tevildo 00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darek Domeracki[edit]

Nonsense, remix of differents articles, including Władysław Sikorski --Alonso49 13:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy patent nonsense sorry, just waffle nonsense DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, obvious remix, and fake, can't find anything on google about this guy, despite his supposed achievments. Interested in seeing the author's comments, as per the hangon tag. PresN 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP -- Francs2000 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XUpdate[edit]

"Linked to from the XQuery and XPath pages which deal with XML and the content appears to be random whimsy" Tony.seebregts 13:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. - Bobet 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth and courage[edit]

non-notable collegiate club - prod tag removed Tom Harrison Talk 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted - Hoax articles are potentially damaging to our credibility and need to be removed as soon as possible. --Cyde↔Weys 17:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Buckley[edit]

Completely a hoax. Australia didn't win the Confederations Cup in 2005 FIFA_Confederations_Cup. He's not on the Australia World Cup roster [20]. There's more that I could research but I'll just point to the fact that the article's creator is named User:Buckwit. Metros232 13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:HOAX DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it bothers me that articles as blatantly hoaxy as this can't be speedied; so, even though it's filled with lies, because it does "assert" notability, it has to go through this process. Anyway, this isn't the place for that. Hopefully this'll be got rid of as quickly as possible, though - blatant lies such as this compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. And he's never been near Liverpool FC either, I can tell you that much. Seb Patrick 14:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is more damaging to Wikipedia than someone banging their head on the keyboard and calling it an article. I'd call it patent nonsense for out and out lies, because there's no salvaging this pile of dung. --DarkAudit 14:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Obvious hoax. Theoretically, this sort of thing _can_ be G3'd, if anyone wants to give it a go... Tevildo 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong delete as hoax. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The name of the character seems to be a Frenchified version of William Buckley (convict), or perhaps William F. Buckley, Jr.. Smerdis of Tlön 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete, and also delete Neamh Bannatyne - Bobet 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Compostion 1[edit]

Completely non notable: combination of director and title gives no Google hits, no other claims to notability have been made Fram 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: using the correct title (article is misspelled) Composition, I get 4 Google hits. Still non notable in the extreme. Fram 14:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also up for AfD is the director, Neamh Bannatyne. Fram 14:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the nom says, "Completely non-notable." Only claim to fame is that they filmed the whole thing on a budget of £2500, which doesn't really weigh in its favor. Fan-1967 18:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both per nom, that list of credits in the infobox tells a vani-story. --DaveG12345 03:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • compost. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per author request --Pilotguy (roger that) 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Gruber

Christoph Gruber is really Michael Gruber (Nordic Combined). There is also no information listed on Christoph Gruber on the website I accessed this information. Chris 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I'm removing the AfD template from this page. It goes on the main article page (where it already is, not on the AfD discussion page.--Isotope23 14:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment removed speedy template from this page. NawlinWiki 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed and relisted again. – Will (message me!) 15:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Venter[edit]

NN Porn actress, does not meet the requirements listed in WP:PORN Wildthing61476 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - This article pass WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) (she've performed in about 100 films). She is more notable from most of porn actress who have a Wikipedia article. 659,000 Google results [21] and 2,480 Google Image results [22]. --Haham hanuka 14:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - as Haham Banuka said but is stub is have to have more information --Jackys cy 14:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and expand -Seidenstud 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete 83 films listed at IAFD does not meet WP:PORN BIO and there is no other claim to meeting WP:BIO's general criteria. Google tests are basically useless for porn subjects. Eluchil404 04:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this AFD was "closed" by the creator of the article, who was also involved in edit warring around it, as "keep". I doubt whether this is allowed by Wikipedia policies. The creator is not an administrator (he failed the nomination 6 times) and is often banned from using Wikipedia. gidonb 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete does not meet the relevant treshold. gidonb 13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the closing admin before closing the AfD, please note that the AfD appeared to be closed for part of the period since it was started by user:Wildthing61476 on July 7, 2006. gidonb 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of similar mythological figures[edit]

Wikipedia is not a miscellaneous collection of information. This article is; and the information is unsourced original research at that.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity Systems[edit]

  • Delete Unless author changes it, article seems like a promotion piece for the company. KarenAnn 15:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no content whatsoever, only marketspeak. But on the plus side, their corporate performance management solution is highly integrated and scalable... ~ Booya Bazooka 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And it offers on-demand flexible reviews, and integrates with Hyperion Essbase. 180 hits in Google, all press releases, company sites, or directories. Can't even find a review of the thing. Blatant advertising. Please, if you're going to dump your product ad into Wikipedia, at least write a decent article. Thank you. --John Nagle 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP and also WP:ADS DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 02:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CorpCruft of the worst kind. --Satori Son 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SwapitShop[edit]

Blatant advertisement for the site in question. The site does get quite a few Google hits, so it may actually be deserving of an article. However, I'm completely unfamiliar with the subject and hunting down Google hits that aren't teenagers in net forums going "ne1 no how 2 hack in2 swapitshop plz plz plz" seems very difficult, so I can't do it myself, and I'm not at all convinced that it meets WP:WEB, anyway. Hence this nomination. Obviously, if I'm entirely wrong about SwapitShop's notability, I'll be happy to withdraw it -- supposing that someone rewrites it so it's no longer an ad, that is. -- Captain Disdain 14:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. -- Captain Disdain 14:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notable or not, it's clearly an advertisement, first person and all. PresN 16:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete w/o prejudice as advertisement. Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. No assertion or evidence of notability. UK ghits are underwhelming [23]. The site itself [24] looks underused, with 8357 items up for "swapping", a drop in the ocean versus the likes of ebay. --IslaySolomon 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. spam -- Steel 23:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy close and redirect to Zaheer Khan (if there is anything worthwhile in the history, it may be merged by whoever is interested). up+land 15:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheer Kahn[edit]

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Gay Cdn 14:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. The evidence is overwhelming that this term is not commonly understood in mathematics. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regular number[edit]

The article's claim is just false; "regular number" is not a standard name for a number with a terminating decimal expansion. --Trovatore 14:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It _does_ appear to be a standard name for such a number. [25] refers. Tevildo 15:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)+[reply]
  • Keep per Tevildo. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 15:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've never heard the term before, but Tevildo's link cites sources quite well enough. PresN 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The link is to Weisstein's encyclopedia. We've had this problem before. Eric propagates silly neologisms and people at WP blindly copy him. Let's nip this one in the bud. --Trovatore 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and forward to decimal expansion. I agree that the terminology is uncommon. Even if it were common, this article could never be more than just a definition; it makes more sense to merge it into a full article. Consider the case of even numbers. CMummert 17:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. Term appears legitimate after a quick google search. I would support merging this to decimal expansion and making the page in question redirect. -- Chet nc contribstalk 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question did you follow a sample of the Google links to see how many of them ultimately pointed back to Weisstein? --Trovatore 17:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a standard term, many google hits are for other meanings. Doesn't seem to be used much outside MathWorld and possibly the one reference given there. JPD (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak deleteKeep: at the moment, this is a dicdef and deletable. I recall a slightly different use of "regular number" for base 60. If this checks out I may vote to keep. Septentrionalis 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found it: [26]; also discussed in Conway and Guy, under this term IIRC.
  • No vote. I think it would be appropriate to keep this if relevant material from decimal expansion were moved here and linked. Otherwise, it should be merged into it. It should not be deleted, as this is obviously a legitimate search term (it's on Mathworld). Deco 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment why does its presence on Mathworld make it a "legitimate search term"? While Mathworld has its uses, the fact that it has all these articles giving silly definitions for concepts that mathematicians don't find useful or well-motivated is absolutely a bad thing. We should not be compounding Weisstein's offense by repeating him on these. (By the way, Weisstein is not even a mathematician; he's an astronomer.) --Trovatore 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Do you have the same low opinion of Thabit ibn Qurra? Anton Mravcek 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Semi-barbed attack: Yeah, Trovatore, do you hate ALL astronomers!?? What are you insinuating??? That if Thabit ibn Qurra wrote an online math resource, you would similarly bash it? Or that you think online math resources should have someone with significant math training involved in the editorial process? Ridiculous! Go home. --C S (Talk) 12:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inconsistent with regular prime and normal number. Definition is just a base 10 analog of dyadic rational so could perhaps be better called 10-adic rational. DRLB 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete not a useful definition, and I don't believe it is in widespread use apart from Mathworld readers. At the most, mention the concept somewhere else, but certainly not worth its own article. Madmath789 18:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In more than forty years of doing mathematics I've never encountered this terminology. Mathworld is a useful source, but is also known for not being reliable. --LambiamTalk 19:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -lethe talk + 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article is rewritten to generalize to other bases, I'll vote keep. I'm not voting today. PrimeFan 20:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trovatore. Dmharvey 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Anton Mravcek 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I first saw this, I was a bit confused: I was thinking of regular prime. Maybe other people will make the same mistake I did, and an explantory note would be nice. Then again, maybe I'm out to Lunch 23:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trovatore. --KSmrqT 23:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • K33p. This is CLEARLY a standard math term. No researcher uses it, e.g. no relevant hits on MathSciNet, but IT'S IN MATHWORLD. It shouldn't even matter what sources MathWorld cites, or if they cite anything!!! We're talking about MATHWORLD here. And for those of you trying to smear MATHWORLD, let me point out that it is NOT a "self-published resource". The ONLINE version may be run by Wolfram who employs Eric Weisstein, editor in chief, and Weisstein himself writes many of the entries, but CRC PRESS, a fully independent entity and publisher, publishes the book form. Take that, Trovatore! Finally, we have [27]:

    MathWorld continues to grow and evolve with the assistance of thousands of contributors. Careful oversight of all aspects of its content and interface by creator Eric Weisstein, and more recently with able assistance from MathWorld associate Ed Pegg, Jr., provides an exacting level of quality, accuracy, and consistency. As a result, MathWorld is considered not only the clearest and most readable online resource for mathematics, but also one of the most reliable.

    What's your beef, Trovatore? Envy, perhaps? --C S (Talk) 12:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Chan-Ho, does someone have your password? I have trouble believing you'd write the above, with an edit summary in leet of all things. Everyone, please note that the source for the claim that MathWorld is considered reliable is—wait for it—MathWorld. --Trovatore 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, this immoderate post is strikingly inconsistent with the history of posts by Chan-Ho. --KSmrqT 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • On reflection, it's probably satire. Asking me if I'd object to an online math service written by a 9th-century astronomer should have been a clue. I just didn't get the joke the first time around. --Trovatore 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is certainly not a common usage in mathematics, as a bit of Googling for "regular number" shows. I've also not heard this term used in many years of mathematical experience; what this article describes is most commonly called a "finite decimal" or "finite decimal expansion"; the MathWorld article also acknowledges this use as valid. Merge into decimal representation and delete the redirect from "regular number" unless other supporting references for this usage can be provided from independent sources. (Mirrors of Wikipedia and sources that cite MathWorld as their sole support don't count for this purpose.) -- The Anome 12:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. Giftlite 15:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term isn't in common use outside MathWorld, and this may not even be the most common use of the term outside MathWorld. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Following Septentrionalis' findings above, I came across this document on Mesopotamian maths (it's a PDF), that goes into more detail about "regular numbers" in its 2nd section (page 1). Importantly, the article generalises the definition of "regular numbers" beyond base 10 (whereas Mathworld talks only about decimals). If this WP article is to be kept, it would appear to me that the right thing to do would be to generalise the WP definition the same way for any base, or redirect to the appropriate existing article that does this job, if there is one (i.e., decimal expansion apparently wouldn't fit the bill here). --DaveG12345 03:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after generalizing to other bases $b$ as suggested by PrimeFan and DaveG12345. CompositeFan 22:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into decimal representation. No point generalising to other bases, as every rational number is "regular" in any base which is a multiple of the prime factors of its denominator, and no irrational number is "regular" in any base, so the generalisation simply duplicates the distinction between rationals and irrationals. Gandalf61 11:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to avoid generalizations, even if they are easy, unless they are well documented (because original research WP:NOR is not allowed). The paper on Mesopotamian math doesn't even have a reference to who uses the phrase regular number; it seems in that paper that the author is just using the phrase as a bit of local notation to help the exposition. You might think the author is trying to claim that regular number is a well known term, except that it isn't. I think nobody has exhibited a use of regular number as a defined term in a published monograph other than Mathworld. CMummert 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's how it looks to me:
    • The link in the article's history to WP:MEA suggests the article was, in fact, created specifically because a corresponding article existed on MathWorld. The MathWorld article, in turn, cites two entries from the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, and two books.
      • One OEIS entry (A117920) lists Weisstein as the author.
      • The other (A003592) actually uses the term "terminating decimal". Both OEIS entries refer back to MathWorld.
      • The book Gamma: Exploring Euler's constant is apparently cited to justify the term "finite decimal", and not "regular number", although it is ambiguous. But in fact, Amazon's "Search Inside This Book" feature does not find "regular number" in this book, while it does find "finite decimal" and "(non-)terminating decimal".
        • Checked my copy of Havil's Gamma and I can confirm he does not use the term "regular number". Gandalf61 08:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The book Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers is not cited in the context of the term, but of the interesting integer sequences. (Interesting? Well, if they say so.) Again, "Search Inside This Book" finds "finite decimal" and "(non-)terminating decimal" but not "regular number".
    • The links above to "regular number" above on this AfD seem to be something related, but quite different. In both places, a regular number is an integer of the form 2a3b5c. It does not apply to arbitrary rational (or real) numbers at all, it has to do with ancient mathematical practice. They do not however appear to be local notation, as suggested above, because in fact they both cite:
      • Papers by A. Sachs from the Journal of Cuneiform Studies : "Babylonian mathematical texts I: reciprocals of regular sexagesimal numbers" (1947) and "Babylonian mathematical texts II: approximations of reciprocals of irregular numbers in an Old Babylonian text" (1952). And if this is not the source, then I surmise it is something else in this discipline. I surmise that the mention above of Conway also ultimately refers to these Babylonian techniques, which, I repeat, is a totally different context from the "regular number" of the article as it stands. 192.75.48.150 15:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The last extensive comment by 192.75.48.150 has convinced me that the current article is describing a neologism created by Eric Weisstein. At best, we could try and rewrite the article to reflect the perhaps well-known use of "regular number" in the study of Babylonian mathematics. But I think given that this usage seems to be fairly restricted to Sachs and some people quoting him, there is doubt as to how widespread it is. I have a suspicion that "regular number" may be used just as (in)frequently in other contexts. Additionally, nobody here is really knowledgable about that subject, so I'm leery of biasing this discussion on future rewrites. I think the best thing is just to delete and if someone writing about Babylonian mathematics needs an article on "regular number", then it can be created and written appropriately. --C S (Talk) 16:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generalize to other bases. PrimeFan 21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No citation has been offered (not even Mathworld) for the generalization to other bases. Generalization seems like original research WP:NOR to me. I would appreciate it is somebody who is in favor of generalization could explain how such an article would meet the original research criteria and the verifiability WP:V criteria, which says The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. CMummert 21:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Repeating point made above ... my own objection to including generalisation of "regular" to other bases is that it is both trivial and uninteresting. Every non-integer rational number is "regular" in an infinite number of bases - it is simple to determine which ones - and not "regular" in an infinite number of other bases. No irrational number is "regular" in any base. Only integers are "regular" in all bases. None of this is rocket science ! Gandalf61 07:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm no math-head, but is it possible (I ask genuine math-heads) that the PDF I mentioned before could be in any way be cited? TBH, I got the feeling on finding it that this 'regular number' stuff was obscure to the point of 'specialised/obsolete'. Maybe Mathworld only mention it out of some archaic tribute or other? And I am not really (again, as a non-math-head) convinced at the end of the day that this is a particularly standard term for a current and non-ancient notion of what it describes. Mathworld alone, in this case, is not enough IMO. And generalisation definitely needs proper sources. --DaveG12345 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, simple. Melchoir 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Term may be used in several ways, and not really a necessary term, but the appearance on mathworld is enough to convince me of significance. --TeaDrinker 04:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a backup service for unreliable websites. Have you read through this AfD? Melchoir 06:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thank you for checking. Indeed, I concur the citations in Mathworld leave much to be desired (the principle editor Eric Weisstein, I am not conviced always reads the citations in mathworld; I take them to be suggested further reading rather than references). Additionally, I never heard the term "regular number" while I was getting my BS in math. Having said that, mathworld is not given to the creation of neologisms in my experience. I am not convinced the article is comprehensive in its descriptions of useages, but further checking on MathSciNet indicates thirty articles which use the term "regular number." There are several references to TA Springer's "Theory of regular numbers." I have not had time to look up and digest these references (and they may use a different definition). However there seems to me to be evidence the term is used. --TeaDrinker 22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not listed in the Oxford dictionary of mathematics, or the OED. Ubermichael 22:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Move discussion to MfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia strategy, was at Wikipedia strategy[edit]

Original research. TomTheHand 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep --matador300 05:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Of course I'm the author, but surely there is a place for such tactics as used by wikipedia users, as they have been documented on the f-14 talk pages. There are no "odd" opinions, only the documented fact by engineering manager Bob Kress that the F-14 was designed for maneuverability, and Flight Magazine 1969 that calls the F-14 an air superiority fighter. Unfortunately it appears that the majority of WP users sympathize with Mmx1 in being able to be persons with zero credentials dismiss all reliable sources and construct factually incorrect positions that can be placed in WP while cited sources can be removed, and innocent collateral articles can also be removed with full approval of WP editors. This is a rather shocking learning experience for me, and I will certainly transfer this information elsewhere if the WP community won't stand for it. I would encourage other people who are similarly appalled by what goes into WP to please support me, I don't see any of them here which is disheartening to say the least. --matador300 05:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • It's not intended to be an attack page, however it is difficult to identify these practices without identifying 1 or 2 specific people --matador300 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment matador300, Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies are verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. Please read about those three core policies of Wikipedia; the fact that you wrote this article in the Wikipedia mainspace, and the fact that you believe it should remain there, makes it obvious that you have never done so. TomTheHand 17:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to meta, where the information is more appropriate. --ais523 14:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment seems to be quite specific to Wikipedia. I think it'd be better userfied or moved to Wikipedia: namespace, rather than going to meta. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to WP namespace If there is sentiment to delete it there, that should be a separate discussion. Septentrionalis 15:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I kinda agree with the guys above. This seems more like (a fairly sensible) essay than anything else; could be useful under the Wikipedia: namespace. It's clearly not an encyclopedia article, though. Userfy or Move to Wikipedia: namespace and categorize as an essay. -- Captain Disdain 15:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC) I wasn't aware that this was an attack page (thanks for the heads-up!). As such, delete the goddamn thing and give the creator a wedgie for violating WP:POINT and generally being a jerk about the whole thing. -- Captain Disdain 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -although there are a lot of good points, it looks like just letting off steam to me, and duplicates stuff already on the user's talk page (plus he/she was expecting it to get deleted and it would be a shame to disappoint) Yomangani 16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to be only created to continue personal attacks at User:Mmx1, the creator has some strange view about some plane's history (like F-14 Tomcat and others). He does not listen to valid arguments and sources but prefers personal attacks and insults. --Denniss 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Denniss seems to make sensible contributions, so does Denniss believe that Bob Kress told Modern Marvels that the F-14 was designed for good turn performance? Flight Magazine 1969 titles a photo "VFX air superiority fighter: F-14", does that mean that the F-14 was the first "air superiority fighter", not the F-15 as claimed by Mmx1? If you agree with Mmx1 that both premesis are false, then I am indeed and we are all in a good bit of trouble. I'd like to know on my talk page what you think is a "strange view" of the F-14, and Mmx's claim that the F-14 never had a dogfighting requirement and must be removed from the air superiority fighter page. --matador300 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia: namespace per Captain Disdain and Septentrionalis. Delete mainspace redirect. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and delete, as above - Bravada, talk - 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per ais523. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as obvious attack page and warn user - this is the author's reaction to the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous failures in science and engineering and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous successes in science and engineering, which were nominated by User:Mmx1, plus previous personal gripes with same user. --DaveG12345 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DaveG12345 appears to be a professional article deleter based on his contributions or lack of them , he is part of the problem I am documenting --matador300 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete This could be a decent essay for namespace, but as of now it is too attackish. Footnotes to specific incidents verge on violating WP:NPA.--Chaser T 06:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this an AfD or an RfC on me? I can't really tell. --Mmx1 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An AfD. Attack pages are grounds for speedy deletion, which is why I referenced the policy. No point in keeping it if it may violate policy. Sorry to make you defensive, though.--Chaser T 18:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment was tongue in cheek. Note that Matador has moved it into Wiki space and removed the AfD tag. --Mmx1 15:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops! Missed that. :) --Chaser T 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So the article has been moved to the Wikipedia namespace. What are the criteria for inclusion there? Can you just put anything there? TomTheHand 18:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom, essays are generally allowable in Wikipedia space (as far as I understand it) provided that they are marked as such (with {{essay}}) and aren't attack pages. That's generally decided at Miscellany for deletion, I believe. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say Wikipediaspace is not the proper place for this "essay", it somehow "institutonalizes" it, and its still somebodys angry statement over a personal feud and injured ego. I'd rather see it within userspace, without redirects from the namespace. This whole thing just caused far too much ado than it is really worth. Bravada, talk - 20:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'd like to move it to Wikipedia:Gaming the system (currently a redirect) and make it into something worthwhile. It'd be easier not to start it over, but if it's deleted, no big deal to me. The original author seems to be moderating his stance over the last few days. -- nae'blis (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's improving. I'd suggest a big fat message over the last section warning that some of those are just bad moves that will help you make enemies fast.--Chaser T 06:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and relist on MfD, as this is now Wikipedia-space rather than an article. --ais523 10:49, 13 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 of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zbark[edit]

Is an advertisement and a non-notable corp. Gay Cdn 14:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a legitimate article. The term is used in Wikipedia under Flat Fee and has been edited and it is valid.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SgForums[edit]

Non-notable forum, with Alexa rank of 50,853. Fails WP:WEB, prod contested. Delete. Kimchi.sg 15:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boon Docks TER[edit]

User L901 has removed the speedy deletion tag a number of times. Article is utter and complete nonsense. Requesting deletion of page, protection from recreation and further action on user Wildthing61476 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fridays The Day[edit]

-The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here (Non-UTC) 25:39 2/07/2006

Keep - it roxzorz my gee golly boxzors! You're all just jealous you couldn't think of this stuff.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.150.139 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy userfy by Tom harrison. -- Steel 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hentenaar[edit]

Yet another nonsense page that the author continues to remove the nonsense tag for. What is in the water today? Wildthing61476 15:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC) this isnt nonsense![reply]

  • Comment The last comment was by the Author, who is the namesake of the article's title and YES the article is complete nonsense. Wildthing61476 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i believe it. people believe the lochness monster, why not this? yea just let it be. somebody is trying to tell us this is out here and if you take it off no one will know about it

  • Comment The page has been moved to the author's user page. I propose deleting the now blank article and closing this AfD. Wildthing61476 15:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's blank now, so goodbye!PresN 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 16:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Xiangzhi Paper Industry Cooperation Co.[edit]

Non-notable company; Linkspam; Advertising Avi 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a non-notable group. I'm 99% sure the speedy tag was removed by the author, so I'm going to retag it. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete non-notable, pretty blatent advertising as well. PresN 15:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Talk - Defense News - Military Pictures - Defence Forum[edit]

spam/copyvio rogerd 15:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here is a link to the article before I replaced the content with the {{copyvio}} tag --rogerd 20:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Leroy Heller, Franklin Pierce Heller and Anne Eyre Heller for lack of notability and verifiable, reliable sources. Even though it was withdrawn I am also deleting Jehu Eyre as hoax and unverifiable. None of the "references" support the article's text, they merely point out that he existed. The article may be recreated with reliable sources. Joelito (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Eyre[edit]

This is a series of artilces related to Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States (also see associated AfD). Basically, this seems to be a chunk of geneology research. Hard poking at the references yield nothing. I noted that there's a castle eyre, but then again, there's a castle Breitenstein sitting in Europe too, but there's no article on that. The thought of a hoax comes to mind, but its probably more likely, as I said, geneology research. I really can't find anything special, nor can I find substantiated evidence beyond the wikipedia articles of any sort of dynasty. Its just a family line. However, if someone can actually clinch the existance of a serious power-management dynastic old-money family that existed under these names, I will happy withdraw this nomination. In point:

A group of non-notable people (WP:BIO) and original research. Kevin_b_er 08:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to this AFD is the following articles, of the same reasoning as the first:

Jehu Eyre Leroy Heller Franklin Pierce Heller Anne Eyre Heller

Withdrew the nomination on Jehu Eyre due to what occured in this AfD discussion. Kevin_b_er 23:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yikes. Wow, I wrote all of these articles, and didn't realize they were up for deletion. I suppose that's my fault for not sourcing them better. Okay, here we go:

Hold on, let me look for more.

History21 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Okay, this:

Title: Business papers, 1795-1847 (bulk 1800-1805). Description: 720 items. Notes: Manuel Eyre, a Philadelphia merchant of Quaker ancestry, was born in 1777. His father, Manuel Eyre, Sr., [take note, as this man was the subject of one of my articles] (1736-1805) was a shipwright in Kensington and a colonel in the Contintental Army. He obtained his training in the counting house of Henry Pratt and Abraham Kintzing and in 1803 joined with Charles Massey, Jr., (b. 1778) to form the mercantile firm of Eyre & Massey, a partnership that lasted until Eyre's death in 1845. The firm of Eyre & Massey owned over 20 vessels, ranging in size from ships to sloops, and traded around the world, mounting voyages to Europe, the Caribbean, South America, China, India and the Pacific Islands. Manuel Eyre also served on the Philadelphia City Council and was a founding director of the Schuylkill Navigation Company (1816) and the Second Bank of the United States (1816). After 1820 he gradually retired from active trading and devoted much of his time to agriculture. He owned two farms outside the city and three in Delaware. He was the founder of Delaware City, Del., at the mouth of the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, buying the entire site in 1828, erecting public buildings and dividing it into lots.

comes from here: [40]

This:

Mr. Rumsey says in page 2, "That in the month of September, 1781 he exhibited the model of a Boat to his Excellency General Washington at Bath in Berkeley County, calculated for stemming the current of rapid rivers only constructed on principles very different from (his) present one ; satisfied of the experiment of her making way against a rapid stream by the force of the stream the General was pleased to give me a most ample certificate of her efficacy." Here it is to be observed, that no mention was made to General Washington of steam at the time of such exhibition ; the principles on which the Boat was propelled, were entirely unconnected with, and distinct from steam; being simply a model propelled by water wheels, cranks, and setting poles ; a mode which was many years ago tried on the river Schuylkill by a farmer near Reading, but without success. From an exhibition of this plan it was that Mr. Rumsey procured the certificate from General Washington, and on that certificate were Mr. Rumsey's laws founded. In his petitions to the several legislatures, he prayed for no exclusive right, for the use of Steam Boats; neither did be make mention of Steam, to their committees; or even suggest an idea of the kind; as proof of which, I offer the following petition to the Assembly of Pennsylvania the certificate from General Washington, accompanying it, and the certificate of Manuel Eyre, Esquire, who was one of the committee of Assembly, who reported in Mr. Rumsey's- favor.

comes from here: [41]

This:

"Memorials of Colonel Jehu Eyre." Edited by Peter D. Keyser. Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 3 (1879), pp. 296-307, 412-425

comes from here: [42]

This:

The same day the Navy Board recommended to Council that as there were reasons to believe that some vessels of the English fleet would attempt to approach the city, a certain number of persons should be assigned to flood Hog Island, and that ninety or one hundred men should garrison the fort at Darby Creek. Council requested the Navy Board to see to the flooding of the Island, and ordered a company of artillery and a company of "Musqueters," under the command of Col. Jehu Eyre, to the works at Darby Creek.

comes from here: [43]

This:

Since its founding, the cemetery has had a self-perpetuating board of trustees to look over its affairs. The board has included such notables as the Emmanuel and Jehu Eyre, shipbuilders to the Continental Navy. The board of trustees has kept the cemetery independent over all these years and has also withstood an attempt by a local church to usurp it.

comes from here: [44]

This: When the Revolution broke out in 1775, Hewson organized a company of volunteers from his own Kensington workmen and served as their Captain. He was joined in this patriotic response by the shipwright Jehu Eyre, who captained his own ship carpenters, workmen, and apprentices in the "Kensington Artillery." The Eyre shipyards at the foot of Columbia Avenue hastily constructed thirteen gondolas and galleys for use in the defense of the city.

comes from here: [45]

This: Manuel Eyre built the first gun-boat for the Government. It was launched at Philadelphia, July 26, 1775, and was called the “Bull Dog.” He organized his workmen into a company of minute men and commanded them at Trenton and Princeton. When he was selected by the Council of Safety as a member of the Navy Board, his company was merged into that of his brother Jehu.

comes from here: [46]

Other sources:

If their wealth is in dispute, this: [49] should clear that up.

I'll find more and post them soon, I promise!!

History21 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

  • Keep all While they are not on the frontline of notable historical figures in US History, the line IS notable for a few things, not the least of which was basically keeping the early US government financially afloat during the war. TruthCrusader 19:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Crusader for Truth! (uh... given your hardline keepist stance, don't you find your chosen nom de guerre a bit of an ironic drag on your general thrust?), where do you get the idea that the early US government (I think you mean the Continental Congress, but lets not nitpick) was kept afloat by the Eyres? The $6,032 claim is completely unsourced and the claim on the Jehu Eyre page that this amount is worth $1.8bn today is grossly inflated and misleading (its more like $85,000 - see my comment on the Jehu Eyre talk page). You do realize that Wikipedia attracts all kind of unreliable and sometimes deliberately hoax material every day? Bwithh 00:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your uncivil comments, as usual, have been recorded and reported. Calton, you do nothing but make snide remarks in your comments and edit remarks. You really should re-think your attitude on Wikipedia as we have no time for uncivil remarks (well in theory anyway) TruthCrusader 14:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buy a dictionary: this might correct your constant misuse of such terms as "uncivil", "vandalism", "notable", and "reported" -- you DO know that "reported" means to actually TELL someone else, not "sputter and mutter to oneself"? --Calton | Talk 00:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I mentioned on the author's userpage, I'd like to see these properly sourced, using the above information if it's applicable, and then I'd be fine with them being kept. Until then, no vote. Tony Fox (speak) 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jehu Eyre, delete the others, who even by the sources cited were very minor historical figures. Perhaps they could get a sentence in the Jehu article. --MCB 21:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jehu Eyre, nuke the rest. Original research and hopelessly puffed up ("...Franklin is considered one of the ablest leaders the Eyre family has ever had. He came to power in the late 1870's..." He came to power?) --Calton | Talk 04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The family remained wealthy and powerful long after the Revolution, retaining its political sway until 1929 and its monetary strength until 1934. The Revolution was important in establishing the Eyre family, but it was not the defining event of the dynasty. The Heller family was itself enormously wealthy (which is the main reason that Anne Eyre Heller and Franklin Pierce Heller are significant in their own right). George Eyre was the first member of the family to live in what was then the American Colonies, which makes him noteworthy as the family's American founder. And, of course, Leroy Heller saw the downfall of Eyre/Heller might, which makes him highly important.

I will soon be posting sources about the Hellers. I ask that you give me time, and please also look at the Articles for Deletion for Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States.

Okay, here is the first thing on the Hellers: [50]. I am going to get more, I just need some time!

History21 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Resources on the Hellers:

More are coming. The Hellers aren't as easy to find as the Eyres.

History21 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Comment It would be more beneficial to put citations of resources into the articles themselves and then posting a simple comment in the AfD that you've updated the articles with refs/cites/etc., instead of listing the references and other commentary in the AfD. That way, you've increased the quality of th articles (strengthening their case for being kept) without messing up the AfD discussion and making it hard to follow. Paddles TC 02:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eyre Empire was one of the first articles I ever debated on Wikipedia. I supported it enthusiastically then, and, while I have since had reservations about some of the material contained therein, I still stand by the essence of the piece, which stated that a family of greatly powerful patricians existed in this country that played a pivotal role in the Revolution, the Civil War, and later financial developments in American history. I hope that everyone will please actually read the sources that I provided. The reaction of some members leads me to believe that that has not been happening.

Eyre Empire first sparked a deep interest in this family for me, and led me to do extensive research and then write the articles now up for deletion themselves. I worked quite hard, scoured the Internet, went to various libraries, and even spoke with several descendants of the family.

As an American patriot (some would so jingoistic, though I disagree with them), I think that the Eyre and Hellers ought to be hailed as individual heroes, and that, as a group, they should be recognized for the tremendous influence that they have had in forming and then helping to lead the greatest nation in the history of the world.

The United States is the single most wondrous power that the world has or ever will see, a beacon of freedom that has stood as a symbol of hope in the hearts of millions of immigrants for centuries, has been almost solely responsible for the salvation of democracy (through heroic struggles in World Wars I and II and in the Cold War), has defined the very idea of modern liberal government and human rights, and remains the world's brightest light in the dark.

America has given millions not only the reality of freedom, but has granted the people of Earth the very conception of liberty. The idea itself was a mere fantasy to the thinkers of the Enlightenment, trapped as they were in their Absolutist kingdoms. The American Revolution and the subsequent establishment of our Constitutional system showed legions of oppressed, impoverished wretches everywhere that freedom was not a myth but something that could be achieved.

The French Revolution of 1789 was directly inspired by its American predecessor, as have countless other liberal revolts throughout history. And without the selfless sacrifices made by Jehu Eyre and his kin, none of that would have been possible. The influenc of this family on world history is incalculable.

His descendants went on to continue contributing to the American Republic, finally reaching their ignominious end in 1929 under the disastrous leadership of Leroy Heller (a historical figure who, the more I learn about, the less I like). For two hundred years, from their arrival in 1727 to their ultimate collapse in 1929 (and/or 1934), they were one of America's greatest and riches families. They founded cities (Delaware City, Hellertown), established banks (Second Bank of the United States, which a Heller still sits on today), fought in wars (the Spanish-American War, the Civil War), and maintained a position as an economic powerhouse (Eyre/Heller shipping yards and trading companies in Philadelphia). All of thi points to a highly significant family deserving of the articles I have written about them.

History21 03:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

  • History21: to reiterate my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States, I urge you to please read Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. Amateur genealogy from unreviewed personal web pages like those cited above from Angelfire, Rootsweb, Tripod, and Geocities are not reliable sources, and if you have to resort to them to "prove" the existence and notability of this "dynasty" of Eyres and Hellers and Vanderwhoositses, you have basically admitted lack of verifiability for Wikipedia purposes. Again: Wikipedia is not a place to research and present your original research or personal theories on American history by digging through obscure personal web sites and interviewing people. When you have convinced the community of mainstream historians of the existence of this "dynasty", and we can verify the identities and facts about the lives of its members from reliable sources, that is the point when it should be included in Wikpedia. --MCB 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • H21, I have a response regarding the nature of some of your arguments above, but it's too long and not neccessarily appropriate for inclusion within the AfD discussion, so I've posted it in your talk page. Paddles TC 09:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For one of America's powerful and wealthy families, as History21 claims, why isn't there more information about them out there? Why does History21 have to fall back on vague amateur websites that have no evidence of this family's wealth and power? Bwithh 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment History21, you claim that a Heller sits today on the board of the Second Bank of the United States. This bank ceased to exist in 1836. Bwithh 23:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment History21, you claim that the Eyre/Heller founded the Second Bank of the United States. That is not true. The Bank was founded by the United States Congress [56]. The very detailed history in this book has three mentions of a "Eyre" - all in footnotes and without saying who the Eyre is (possibly a member of the bank board at some point[57]. No mentions of Heller. Bwithh 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment History21, you claim that the Eyres founded the small city of Delaware City, Delaware. While Manuel Eyre Snr's son, Manuel Eyre Jr., is sometimes called the founder of Delaware City, Delaware as in this description of a bunch of books he owned that are for sale (note that it is the interest of the seller to claim that he was the founder - and this was the most authoritative source I could find for this argument btw), other very authoritative sources such as Delaware City's own official website claim only the Newbold family as the city's founders. This history book source states that Manuel Eyre Jr. was just someone who bought land from the Newbolds after the Newbolds had already founded the city. And yes, Hellers did found Hellertown. But incidentally, Hellertown population today = about 5,600 in 2000. Delaware City population = about 1500 in 2000. Hardly the works of a great dynasty Bwithh 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For crying out loud... Keep all. I know Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but sometimes I think people are a little (okay, a LOT) too trigger happy on AFD. The author needs to put all his/her sources into the articles in a "references" section, but other than that, there is nothing wrong with these articles. They provide informative insights into early American history and should be kept, if cleaned up a bit. ONUnicorn 20:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and article statement "George is not a historically famous or even terribly significant figure..." That pretty much sums it up.--Isotope23 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehu Eyre I have put the {{hoax}} tag on the Jehu Eyre article, as just a couple of minutes' research on the net have turned up inconsistencies which make me question the entire thing. Every single thing which is not sourced should be removed from the article, which would leave us with about one sentence. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to have been an American Revolutionary artillery commander called Jehu Eyre - see this google book search. I don't know if he's sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. In any case, I agree that his article seems to have numerous dubious details, possibly introduced by a malicious hoaxer - for instance the $1.8bn claim is totally wrong (see my note on the article talk page) and the article has a childish view of the American Revolution. The external reference sources given currently are very unsatisfactory. Bwithh 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per arguments above except Jehu Eyre which should be purged of unsourced or improperly sourced items. Even if the other articles are not hoaxes, Wikipedia is not a family genealogy site, and these articles do not assert their encyclopedic notability anyway. The keep voters concerned about "trigger happy" afds should realize that this kind of unverified, unencyclopedic articles are a serious threat to Wikipedia's reputation Bwithh 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup After doing some research, I've come to the conclusion while not all the information is hoax material - Jehu Eyre and Manuel Eyre Snr did exist (though I don't think Manuel is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia at all), but there seems to be no evidence that the other people did. It does seem increasingly clear that History21 is for reasons of his/her own, is making very inflated and misleading grandiose claims about the Eyres/Hellers. Bwithh 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Question for History21 History21, can you tell us where the idea that Jehu Eyre was a member of George Washington's cabinet comes from, as is currently suggested by the George Eyre article? Especially as the Cabinet of George Washington only contained 4 members (with no "kitchen cabinet" minor members), all of whom are well documented, and was first formed in 1789 - 8 years after Jehu is supposed to have died?[58] [59] Also please see my comments about the Second Bank of the United States and the general lack of info about the powerful and wealthy Eyres/Hellers etc. above if you haven't seen them Bwithh 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD was not included in the main page. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but Jehu Eyre. PLEASE. This seems like an attempt to rehash someone's previously deleted attempt at a hoax. -- Chet nc contribstalk 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all assuming that the references above are added to the articles before the end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that very few of the "references" listed above meet the standard of reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. They are a collection of amateur genealogy sites, personal web pages, opinion, theory, possible hoaxes, and non-scholarly "research". Adding them to the articles does not provide verifiability for the material in the articles, as required by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --MCB 23:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (including Jehu Eyre) as hoaxcruft per Bwithh. (It is possible that the Jehu Eyre piece contains some small kernel of truth, but it's hard to be sure.) WP:NOR means that articles need to be based on WP:RS, and these aren't and never will be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Proto::type 11:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiknowledge[edit]

A wiki with 900 articles, no Alexa ranking and its (redlinked in article space) creator as the last editor. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB or any other criteria for inclusion. WP:NOT a web directory. Just zis Guy you know? 15:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertisement. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 15:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Emc²
  • Keep The website is small now but it has the potential to be big. Pseudoanonymous 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When it grows big, it can be rewritten. -Seidenstud 20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I am grateful to Pseudoanonymous for creating an article about my website, it would probably be more helpful if people contributed to my public domain wiki more. That way it could become bigger, faster. Gerard Foley 22:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB -- Steel 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:ADS DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP23:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. When the potential becomes reality, let us know. --DaveG12345 03:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the relevance of every wikipedia page from List of wikis is to be questioned- also seems like it might be a more friendly place for things that get challenged as "game guides" here - WP:NOT can make WP:NOT a nice place to edit. Ace of Risk 17:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Chaser T 06:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 13:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there somewhere that List of wikis can go, maybe on the meta server. Hardly any of the wikis on that page deserve articles. They seem highly like self-references to me. Ansell 06:23, 12 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 of the discussion was delete. Proto::type 11:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free mobile content[edit]

The author describes a new, significant and ongoing trend in the mobile content space. Article has been modified since complaint and includes now also other market player. --Bmwdriver76 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article is no advertising. Describes a serious market trend. --Bmwdriver76 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article does not violate the 'Wikipedia:Neutral point of view' policy because it draws attention to a growing tendancy for cellular content to be freely accessed via multiple exclusive websites. --gregular01 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs expanding, and needs to have a bit of crystal ball-ism deleted, but doesnt' seem to violate anything. PresN 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to violate our Wikipedia:No original research policy and our policy that Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. This is in part because the article is little more than the sort of puff blurb that one sees in corporate brochures, full of buzzwords but devoid of information. There's pretty much zero content in the article that tells one about the concept of free mobile content, and I'm highly suspicious that the intent of this article is actually to have the phrase "free mobile content" linked to the web sites listed in the external links section, rather than to have an encyclopaedia article on some subject. The article tells the reader that there is a "new revolution in place" and a "new trend" that is "contributing at the democratization the mobile content value chain". Until this trend/revolution is actually documented in some secondary source, there can be no encyclopaedia article on the subject of free mobile content. The article, of course, cites no sources. I can find borderline sources on the subject of free mobile content (none of which support the notion that there's a "new revolution" or a "new trend") such as "The Problem With Free Mobile Content". MocoNews. and Richard Martin (2006-06-27). "Mobile Content, No Lifeline". Unstrung., but they can just as easily be discussed in mobile content, which seems the better place to address anything that can be said about mobile content, free or otherwise. Ironically for an article that purports to discuss content, there's no actual content in this article. There's nothing worth keeping here. Redirect to mobile content or just delete, according to taste. Uncle G 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Looks suspiciously to me like an article created only as an excuse for the weblinks. Fan-1967 16:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept may be notable, but there's nothing there worth keeping. (Uncle G said it in a more wordry manner, but this seems adequate.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is too stubby and will benefit from citations. If not deleted, then at least get rid of any spammy hyperlinks. 68.50.203.109 07:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete, if anyone wants to create a redirect after the article is deleted, go right ahead. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakish[edit]

Uncommon protologism [60]. Note that many of the Google hits refers to people having "Pakish" as their family name. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The first part is a dicdef, the rest is material that belongs in the Pakistan page. Nothing here worth noting. PresN 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. If the term can be cited as notable, may as well redirect it to Pakistan. -Seidenstud 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Chesney[edit]

Possible hoax, or non-notable, vanity. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if not a hoax as nn/vanity/attempt to get free webspace for campaign. NawlinWiki 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Has lots of ghits, but very few satisfy "significant press coverage" (of WP:BIO). Seems a bit vain, in nature, but really any article on a candidate of whom not enough to be able to provide multiple sides, and complete coverage, would seem vain. -Seidenstud 20:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a campaign press release. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=42064.0 , a forum user admitted that he had perpetrated the hoax. It's embarassing to people such as me who had supported the campaign. -ABAsite
  • Delete Per the Atlas entry, and Captain Vlad's personal assurance, this is a hoax. Phone records support this. --Trafton 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as admitted hoax. --DarkAudit 22:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. - DNewhall
  • Speedy Delete as admitted hoax, or turn into an article covering the hoax (it may have fooled enough people to be notable ...). Georgewilliamherbert 09:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick question. This raises an interesting point. Does the number of blogs fooled and the public nature of this event justify leaving an article in its place describing the hoax itself? --Trafton 10:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -- This kind of thing should not be encouraged by rewarding it with attention. An article about such hoaxes and how they are perpetuated would be interesting KarenAnn 13:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles "Chuck" Wille[edit]

Yet another in a long list of candidates listing their info on Wiki. If he were to win, then he would become notable, as it is, non-notable until then. Wildthing61476 15:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of notability. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PresN 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless elected, candidates for sub-national legislatures are default not for inclusion unless there are circumstances that dictate otherwise. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 18:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not here to promote your political campaign. --DarkAudit 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. - brenneman {L} 01:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossroads[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP (Liberatore, 2006). 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun with akatsuki[edit]

Article for web cartoon, fails WP:WEB with only 437 Google hits. -The Splendiferous Gegiford 16:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The iBox Project[edit]

Violates WP:NOR, unverifiable, Google points to another "iBox project". Delete --Huon 16:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 16:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, yet. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 17:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that it was founded two days ago by a non-notable company pretty much says it all. -- Kicking222 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • iDelete I fail to see how it could be notable having been created two days ago. DrunkenSmurf 19:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable project created two days ago. But feel free to drop me a line when I can run iPod firmware on my Xbox. --Optichan 23:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Woah, bit premature with the commemorative WP article. --DaveG12345 03:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Delete ~Kylu (u|t) 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teracom Training Institute[edit]

It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:

reason: The article is nothing more than company specific advertising content. Furthermore, it also links directly back to the vendors website in violation of the rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndowning (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. Might be careful with your nomination protocol, though. :) There are several such templates on the page already. -- dcclark (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sure it's subtle (only 11 instances of 'we'), but it's still SPAM. --die Baumfabrik 06:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, delete per nomination. BLATANT advertising. Nich 21:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Silvernich[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Proto::type 11:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rost[edit]

Was nominated for uncontroversial deletion since it is clearly a hoax, and if not it's still crystal balling, but prod was removed anonymously without comment, so listing for AfD. ~ Matticus78 16:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: The same anonymous editor who removed the prod went on to add the same nonsense to Rost (crater). ~ Matticus78 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hoax/Crystal Balling/Possible attack page against boy in the youtube "trailer" (stranger things have happened) --IslaySolomon 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. -- Chet nc contribstalk 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. NawlinWiki 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save, Unless genuine evidence can be found proving this to be a hoax. Moomccow 03:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save, Possibly genuine, cannot yet be judged. Teamkeogh 04:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save per above. Naconkantari 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save, Like above, could be genuine.Tcarins 04:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save, I rekon it's real. Nortelrye 08:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save, As there is nothing offencive or proof of a hoax. Topgearisgreat 07:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; WP:NOT a crystal ball, but 99.9999% hoax. WP:V would make good reading for the "possibly genuine" crowd; note where the burden of proof lies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save, as it could indeed be genuine. DjibrilCisse 09:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation: Guess what? Users DjibrilCisse, Topgearisgreat, Tcarins, Teamkeogh and Moomccow all joined on the 8th of July and have no edits except to the article and its AfD, with the occasional foray into other articles to vandalize them with Rost references. Fancy that! It must be a coincidence!! I'm not sure where the Nortelrye vote came from, since there is no edit by him/her in this AfD history or that user's own edit history - the comment was in fact added by Topgearisgreat. Also Topgearisgreat added "unfairly nominated" to my initial AfD rationale. For the love of all that is sane, someone ban this joker and his sockpuppets of doom. ~ Matticus78 10:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a crystal ball. Inner Earth 14:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. If later turns out to be true/notable, can always re-add. 68.50.203.109 08:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystallized hoaxery. Someone do something about User:Topgearisgreat and his sockpuppets. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 00:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save, The movie is real and I have seen a preview in the cinemaUser:Fadewolf
  • Delete As hoax. Hoax tag added to page. --TeaDrinker 04:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmed I too thought that the information put up was possibly a hoax, until a number of my work colleauges saw the trailer at the cinema. I researched into the film a little and added what information I could. 220.237.138.91 06:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxes suck. A lot. Danny Lilithborne 11:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterCommerce[edit]

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 16:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Chet nc contribstalk 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's something ironic about a Cheese Sandwich wishing to eliminate spam. Dlyons493 Talk 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The more spam consuming space in Wikipedia, the less there is for yummy sandwiches. By banishing spam from this online resource, I am making it more available for my kind. --Cheese Sandwich 18:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Davidpdx 09:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enix (hosting)[edit]

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 23:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N-able Technologies[edit]

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 23:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temis[edit]

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 16:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 23:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Stor Technologies[edit]

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bootnr[edit]

Vanity page for a non-notable wesbite/forum. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like about 5 unique Ghits for this site. NawlinWiki 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boot it This particular forum just opened a few months ago and is not notable as far as I can tell. As an aside, why do all these forum articles have the moderators listed with their Uber l33t handles there, drives me crazy. DrunkenSmurf 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NawlinWiki. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:Articles that name clan members are always vanispam--DaveG12345 03:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Boots are notable, but that doesn't mean that sites about boots are notable. Kickaha Ota 03:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom:

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Book of Moses[edit]

Another article from the Lost Books series. For a comprehensive account of the problem see User:Em-jay-es's comment in a related AfD. The "Lost Book of Moses" that this article is about is an account of the victory over the Amalekites mentioned in Ex 17:14.

The problems here are threefold:

  • The article asserts that the document (account, poem, inscription) related to the victory over the Amalekites is indeed a "book"
  • The article asserts that that document is called "Book of Moses" and a few other names and does not mention who calls it that
  • The article also asserts that several references in the Bible refer to that document (again without references)

Delete as original research. Dr Zak 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tevildo 16:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination and as original research per my reasoning on the other related AfD's for "Lost Books" (which I can rehash here if anyone requests it).--Isotope23 18:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and probable POV forking. --DaveG12345 03:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - choose any one of the following = POV forking, OR. This editor seems highly motivated to create "lost (biblical) book" entries. Em-jay-es 07:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identify software[edit]

Finishing this one for User:KarenAnn. No opinion for now. ~ trialsanderrors 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because it seems purely a promotional for the company and links to no other Wikipedia pages. KarenAnn 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Tevildo 17:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and as copyvio. It's basically a copy of the company's "about" page. --John Nagle 17:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, corp, copyvio, you name it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Proto::type 11:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor K Grant[edit]

This author gets no Google hits, and his book titles get no Google hits either, which probably means they don't exist. The 'fansite' is under construction and has no contents. Probably hoax. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB when deletion time comes there are two redirects that I created that should go as well DJ Clayworth
  • I can assure you Trevor *is* real, and is sitting here with me right now. the only reason he isn't typing is because he has a blister. (unsigned contribution from User:Geoff Panner)
  • Delete I can find no evidence that any of the novels listed in the article or the author in question actually exist. Perhaps the gentleman who made the comment above could update the article with some links which verify the existence of such items. DrunkenSmurf 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Part Crystal, part Cruft ~ trialsanderrors 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article clearly needs rewriting, for tone if nothing else. But the article cites no sources and I can find no sources of information about this purported author. There is no need to employ our WP:BIO criteria. Xe is outright unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonnotable/possible hoax in absence of any verifiable sources. NawlinWiki 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Delete hope he didn't get the blister The Day the Earth Frazzled Dlyons493 Talk 18:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain how you think that this article is verifiable. Uncle G 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep [61]Two seconds on Google.co.uk and up it came... and you can all keep up with whatever Trevor is up to here [62]--Geoff Panner 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A blog with one entry, created today? That's the evidence? Oh, and Google.co.uk doesn't know about it. Probably because it hasn't indexed it yet. DJ Clayworth 19:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not my fault if your Canadian computers can't read Google UK. Can someone please verify that DJ Clayworth is real please?--Geoff Panner 19:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cut the crap please. I have better things to do. DJ Clayworth 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I honestly don't believe you have anything better to do Deej, and please don't swear at me.--Geoff Panner 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, google.com finds nothing, that blog you linked to only proves that it exists, and that he exists, doesn't make it notable, as per the rules. Also, don't think that it really helps your case when you insult people, and change their votes. PresN 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the blogs were both created after this deletion process was started, so really they don't prove he even exists. DJ Clayworth 15:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As if the reasons already given weren't enough for deleting, I'd also agree with NawlinWiki; the author of that page has removed any question of good faith by vandalizing user pages and changing votes. HumbleGod 23:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, possible hoax is being polite. Unverifiable, and author's behavior should probably close this out. Kuru talk 00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it has to be a hoax. Lords of the Ninth Oval? No doubt the tale of a five-day battle won by Flintoff the Merciless. And I know ITV are hard up for ideas, but I'd rather watch 24 hours of Heartbeat than The Day the Earth Frazzled. --die Baumfabrik 06:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and strong delete. Bad hoax — not even funny! — by a wannabe writer. --128.40.182.6 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well 'funny'ness isn't it itself a deletion citeria is it, what matters is whether this is true not whether or not it's amusing (as opposed to pathetic), it occurs to me that the books are probably comedies, and the original poster structured the wikipedia entry in the same light. I can affirm Trevor K Grant is indeed a real person, he was in the year above me at Quarry Bank Comprehensive school, and was friends with Clive Barker. On the basis of acquaintance and because Trevor is notoriously IT-weak I have given him some of my flickr space to host the art from his books. While this is poor, it doesn't strike me as worse than many a self-published writers. I haven't actually seen any of the books themselves though. Simon Bucher-Jones

Strong keep Although I've only joined today, I've been a Wiki fan for many years, and have joined to come along and Support Trevor. I am a *real* author too. Look me up, on Amazon go on, you know you want to :-) Trevor is an old friend, and a bit (I'm sure he won't mind me saying) Up Himself, but his books are real, I've read them - and although a little florrid in style they are in existence. Trevor has many fans. I know, I've been scared by many of the perspiring plump be-moled women who buy his books (for something more than thrills and chills I'll wager)! So Trev is real. Trev is cool. And trev is noteworthy. Please, please let him stay. Many thanks.--Paul Ebbs 12:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response Sorry, we can't just take your word as to whether this person and his books are real. Can you post a verifiable source? NawlinWiki 12:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • [63]Does that count? I'm sorry I'm new to all this.--Paul Ebbs 13:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that doesn't count, because I looked at that website on the same day that this notice was published and it had no content, just an 'under construction' notice. So the entire website was put together since this deletion notice was started. Full marks for effort guys, but please go and do something constructive. DJ Clayworth 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's 10 unique Google hits, which are either the Wikipedia page in question or a few comments on blogs and message boards. That pretty well establishes lack of notability. NawlinWiki 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • without wanting to get prissy, (and my oh my, looking at some of the posts above, wiki community is certainly is *way* prissed-up LOL) I just did a random Jump and came up with this guy [64]Markus KuhnI googled him...[65]and he gets 14 unique hits (2 of which point to Wiki), which makes him 4 hits more notable than Trevor...what exactly is the cut off point, if Google is your criteria? Don't want to start a flame war, but if Dr Markus is allowed, why isn't Trevor K Grant? Just asking like.--Paul Ebbs 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • and don't get me started on Indiana State Road 7That gets 15 unique hits on Google - 8 of them point to Wiki and 7 point to Answers.com....please explain how a road that doesn't seem to exist *anywhere* except on the web, can stay, but Trevor who buys me drinks, laughs at my third nipple and who shares my love of early Yes, can't? All seems a little unfair to me...but then what do I know? :-)--Paul Ebbs 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Norton Sports F.C.A little more random jumping and we have [66]A football team in kent who have Less google hits than Trev. Do I need to go on, or is someone going to answer me as to what the google criteria has to do with an article staying? ;-)--Paul Ebbs 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply on User talk:Paul Ebbs. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bcs habitat for humanity restore[edit]

Appears to be a copy of a Habitat for Humanity store manual. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a copy of a HFH Store Manual. It is a detailed description of how to run a Habitat for Humanity ReStore. It also serves to provide information on the inner workings of HFH Restores operating in the United States. I am currently updating it with more information.

User:BCSHabitat

  • Delete - No. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal website. This isn't somewhere for you to post suggestions for how to run an HFH Restore. Start your own wiki if you want one, but not here. Oh, and don't delete other users comments for your own, 'k? PresN 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Also, wtf? "The following is a draft of the BCS HFH ReStore manual prepared by..." Yeah, it is a manual, you said so yourself. PresN 17:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you guys are right, I will take out the parts that are not relevant to wikipedia. I shouldn't have the author in their either. If you look past that opening part you will find good information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bcshabitat (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Seems to constitute Original Research, if the purpose of the article is as the author describes it. Non-encyclopaedic, in any case. Tevildo 17:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Containing "good information" does not constitute being in an encyclopedia. -Seidenstud 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Coaches[edit]

A bus company. No evidence of anything notable, fails WP:CORP by a mile. The suggestion by the person who removed a prod was possibly could be merged into List of bus routes in Kent, but I think that this information is already present, so I suggest deletion. Inner Earth 09:36, 30 June 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, Avi 17:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tevildo 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. JYolkowski // talk 22:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coach companies, even small ones, are of interest to people interested in public transportation. I believe that we would keep railroad companies of a similar size. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, as someone who writes articles on small railways (-: I agree. The significance of companies like this is because of their interaction with the general public, even if they might not meet the WP:CORP guidelines. Changing my "vote" to keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poynter's Coaches[edit]

A bus company. No evidence of anything notable, fails WP:CORP by a mile. The suggestion by the person who removed a prod was possibly could be merged into List of bus routes in Kent, but I think that this information is already present, so I suggest deletion. Inner Earth 09:31, 30 June 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, Avi 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tevildo 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why do editors feel obliged to get rid of any article of interest to people with Asperger syndrome? Keep the article. There are many people who are interested in coach services. Proper coverage of coach and rail service in the UK helps put the failures of Margaret Thatcher's privatizations of public services into context. Eastmain 07:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coach companies with scheduled routes are of interest to people who want to read about public transportation. We would most likely keep a railroad of similar size. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Water[edit]

Nonnotable self-published book (Lulu is a self-publishing house); only 10 unique Ghits; KMOX and Post-Dispatch "references" are merely links to general articles NawlinWiki 17:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom:

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Disk Recorder[edit]

This article is and advertisement and has copyright issues. Gay Cdn 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is an advertisement; it is a copy of the introduction to their website, but it is free software and not marketing-speak. —Centrx→talk • 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being free, does not does not exclude it from WP:SOFTWARE. -Seidenstud 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there are copyright issues, tag it as a copyvio, don't list it here. JYolkowski // talk 22:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move and history merge. Per the explanation of User:Michaelas10 given below it is apparent that the placement of this article in the main namespace instead of the project namespace was a mistake. I've therefore merged the article into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Youth Foundation. Please discuss the merits of this project on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Youth Foundation and take any proposed deletion nomination ensuing from such discussion, if that happens, to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Uncle G 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Youth Foundation[edit]

Non-existant group (SD tag removed) - two Google hits - both Wikipedia (tell me we don't have a double standard here) Rklawton 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That group exists. That's the intire point of this page: finding the group. Michaelas10 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and merge with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Youth Foundation (which is even less of a stub), then delete the articlespace redirect created thereby. I tried to do it myself but couldn't due to the pre-existing stub, which seems to relate to the same up-and-coming project. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the same, I created this page here so I could move it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Youth Foundation but it couldn't. Could someone help me out getting the user box automaticly add the username to the category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelas10 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-07 18:26:06
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VisionWorks Solutions[edit]

This article is an advertisment Gay Cdn 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Seidenstud 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page was modified as of July 11 2006 and any reference to phrases that were too advertisement like were deleted.
  • Delete. Still looks like an adverstisement. CQJ 23:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added in more informational material and information about competitors and differences in technology. Please advise if anything else needs to be changed. 21:54, July 11 2006 (EST)
  • Delete per nom, it's seems like advertising to me. Davidpdx 10:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pjotro[edit]

  • Delete - Pjoto is a gimmick to create advertising buzz, according to this website [69]

In order to create some buzz before the release of the Nokia N91 music phone we created a somewhat odd character by the name of Pjotro. He loves music so much that he became music. A viral clip of his brake through performance on tv led to a site where you could explore his background and test his greatest innovation: The Musical Suit. A totally viral campaign with no media back up.

Looks to me like Pjotro and his musical suit are pure advertising gimmick. KarenAnn 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not even a musical suit - just a normal suit and some clever sound dubbing. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Seidenstud 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the video is a minor internet phenonena its in the top 100 films at on the ”TOP 100” list on http://www.ifilm.com/ [70]. Its also of interesting to the field of human computer interaction, motion to sound is an active field of research, there a senior lecturer, Kia Ng, at leeds uni[71] who does similar motion to sound work but uses computer vision techniques. This is something which I've heard many people talk about doing and it seems that Pjotro is one of the few who have done it. --Salix alba (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Except for the fact that Pjoto isn't a real person so hasn't actually done anything apart from sell phones. Minor internet phenomenons aren't really worthy of articles given that there's about 20 of them a day. --Daduzi talk 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from reading http://www.pjotro.com/ I though he was a odd ball who then got sponsorship, but I now realise that he was an invention on Nokia admen. --Salix alba (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Might just be worth keeping to spread the anti-virus that Pjoto isn't a real person, I've fixed the page accordingly) --Salix alba (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheggit[edit]

There's no indication that this website meets any of the criteria of WP:WEB. In particular, there are no links (as are required) showing that it is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", and none are readily apparent from Google. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. This appears to be just an advertisement for an nn-website.

  • Delete per nom. Zzzzz 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has not yet been launched. Let it be launched, let it grow, then see if it meets WP:WEB. Right now it does not. -Seidenstud 19:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This could just be another vapor site that is all hype. Let it exist first, then write about it. Once created, it must be notable in it's own right. Simply being competition of Emponium is not enough. HighInBC 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

qq more gimps. how is this effecting you having this page on the website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.164.131 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep as a breakoff from the largest porntracker there is, and quite interesting story about why it is breaking away from empornium. even more interesting than the piratebay case if you ask me ;) this article got prospects of being very interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ookah (talk • contribs)
user's first and only edit Zzzzz 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment A potential breakoff, it is just a pageholder now. HighInBC 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even thought it could look like a blatant ad for the new website from the Empornium creators, who lost Empornium to a corporate takeover, it should be kept because it IS the new website from the ex-Empornium founders and so the continuity of this story Johnnyg0 7 July 2006 (UTC) (the previous comment was posted by 66.36.141.82. HumbleGod 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
anon user's second edit (both AFD votes) Zzzzz 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal-balling WP:WEB fail. --DaveG12345 03:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep qwm 19:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its a crucial part of the fall of empornium. at the worst, this article could be merged with the main empornium article. Carterhawk
  • Merge and Redirect. Changed my vote from Keep or Merge to this, because it doesn't meet WP:WEB yet, but it is a significant part of the Empornium article. As much as its users want to distance from Empornium, Cheggit is still not yet important, Wikipedia-wise, on its own. TransUtopian 21:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carterhawk — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonKyoto (talk • contribs)
  • Keep or at least Merge This will become a major community later on so let it grow... from the Citybug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citybug (talk • contribs)
  • Keep : for now, the interesting thing is not the page itself, but the community (more than 600.000 people worldwilde) movement, and the commercial putsch against Empornium.
user has less than 20 edits Zzzzz 01:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Sockpuppets abound but I still don't see any rationale for deleting this article.  Grue  14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empornium[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion among Wikipedia's editors. The aim is to reach a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia, using Wikipedia's policies as the benchmark. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

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

Keep this article. It is information about a wellknown website on the internet. Som people might not like it. Even if we don't like nazi, KKK or satanic people we have to share information about those kind of people too. Information instead of Censorship!

Advertisent for non-notable pornographic website.

  • "KEEP!" - Notable history of this website; I didn't see anything about a sales pitch...BCT 7/9/06 5:51PM EST
  • Keep - it's clearly not an advertisement - the text is even somewhat biased AGAINST the new site. As has been said elsewhere - a good example of a company taking over a site and trying to silence its critics. Anjow 08:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"" - if this article goes because "it's an ad" then the page for Burning Man *has* to go, because it is definitely nothing but a big ad.
  • Keep Wikipedia deletion policy not aplicable. Sorry Jimbo you gotta do this one yourself Joey.dale 20:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No wikipedia policy being violated. No reason at all to delete this just because someone doesn't like

the content.

  • Keep Revelant article, at worst to be edited, but not suppressed. --Saw192837 13:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC) <1>[reply]
  • DEFINITE Keep This article should stay around. It's got relevant info on the website (which has a large base of users), and the quality of writing is at least decent.
  • Keep I appreciate having any information available upon any websites that I have strong interests in, such as Empornium.
  • VERY Keep I came here for the expressed reason of looking for information on this site. It needs to stay, there's also no tgood reason to remove it.
  • Keep Whats the basis for the delete?
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an advetisement, its a major torrent site going thru major changes that users do not like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.83.247 (talk • contribs) <2>
  • Strong Keep. Major notable torrent site. Many, many ghits. For the most part, non-advert article. -Seidenstud 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or neutral As far as torrent sites go, I'm pretty sure this is among the largest. I know Alexa rank doesn't show up in any notability guidelines, but that number is really good for a site that's nothing but a torrent list. My weakness of the keep comes from that I'm not really convinced that even being among the largest torrent sites really means it needs an article. There's simply not a lot to say about any website that only exists to list files. Exceptions of course would be places like The Pirate Bay, because of huge news coverage. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is the largest site of it's kind, and is very notable, that is evident. As for being pornographic, well wikipedia not not censored for children. I don't see the basis of this nomination other than a mistaken belief it is not notable. HighInBC 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. No duh; Empornium is the pornography equivalent of regular torrent depositories like mininova.org, TorrentSpy and isohunt.com, all of which have articles on Wiki. As HighlnBC pointed out, the fact that it is strictly pornographic in content does not automatically merit its exclusion. RidG Talk/Contributions 20:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page should be kept, it is one of the most popular torrent sites out on the net, there is no reason to delete it.

  • Keep - Doesn't violate WP:NN, as it is notable. Not an ad either. PresN 20:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably the biggest English-language porn tracker on the net, or else the second biggest. --210.84.35.70 20:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, forgot to login. Above comment is mine. --Rankler 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Not only can proponent not spell "advertisement," but he/she obviously knows nothing about this site with upwards of half-a-million members. Not only is it noteworthy, it is arguably one of the most notable sites in existence, and it has never and will never need advertisement. -Ayeroxor 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. One of the largest torrent sites around, and the changes it has gone through are very encyclopedia-worthy.Thisisnotme 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC) <3>[reply]
  • Strong Keep. One of the biggest porn-related communities in existence. ComaVN 22:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REALLY STRONG Keep. A clear example on how a company took over a community supported website and tryed (and succeeded to some sort) to shut off the people who created it, and the people who used it. All to profit from an already very popular website with a large userbase and a large amount of content contributors who themselves didn't profited from it. Johnnyg0 7 July 2006 (the previous comment was posted by 66.36.141.82. HumbleGod 23:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Keep So I've read the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and especially the "Problem articles that may require deletion" table in it, and the Empornium page does not match *any* of the deletion candidate criteria. In fact the thing it most matches is WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. So the question comes down to "is it an advertisement". I don't think it is. The website is not for profit. It has a long history. It's going through political changes (for which I came here this very night to find out wtf is going on, the forums are down and probably being censored as long time moderators and admins are evicted), and it's literally had hundreds of thousands of users. If anything the page needs to be expanded by people in the know. Furthermore if you delete this page, you need to delete the Slashdot page and a hundred others, just because they describe websites that have large communities of users that are interested in them. Which is just silly. Someone doesn't like porn - and that's not a criteria for deletion. (I have an account, but hey, this is porn so I'm going to be anonymous this time) --65.95.239.51 07:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Dunno where you got the idea that this is a non-notable site, the fact that it has almost a million users and is probably the biggest porn community on this planet is more than enough reason... janey the crazy 08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly notable, and hardly an advertisment considering all the negative info it has on the recent changes to the site. --Krsont 14:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, very notable website. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP provides valuable info on the nature of the site although im not sure how much current info is genuine. Such as Targetpoint deleting accounts? I cant see it because the material on EMP which people want is provided by the users, so if they delete accounts they annoy and remove uploaders, which reduces the torrents available which reduces the need to visit the site, which reduces hits and revenew.

Also, the old mods keep saying different things such as Target point are deleting accounts to charge a fee, changing ratios to stop people leeching and reinstating an old database to hide the members who have deleted their account. All of those points contradict the other. Such as would deleting accounts not reduce the overall membership? Why change ratios just to restore them barely hours later? If they want membership fees then why reinstate people accounts?

Also, I believe that the old regime are voting low on peoples torrents. Why? Target point wouldnt do it as they would be annoying their own users. Saz and the rest will be doing it to annoy the users enough to go to their new site. Probably do the opposite, if they think doing what they are doing will get them new members they are dead wrong. Loyalty counts for nothing in this, most people just want porn.

Keep the facts and remove everything else designed just to bad mouth target point cause not all of it can be proven.

useless comment Well, there is a lot of misinformation out there, but the accounts were for the most part deleted by the users themselves, possibly as a protest against Targetpoint's apparent intention of making emp a paysite. As for the stats being fudged, I have no idea what that is about. --InitHello 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's currently in the process of adopting a pay account system, and so this is advertising. Joffeloff 19:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
read the page. It mentions several times the heavy criticism of the recent takeover of the site. Pretty much seems like the complete opposite of an ad. --Krsont 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Lots of companies that charge money for their product have articles, I don't see the connection. HighInBC 20:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Playboy, SI, Maxim, CNN, Fark, Something Awfull, MILF Hunter all have undisputed Wikipedia links. Consider yourself trumped. --DariusMDeV 72.240.209.78 03:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–Keep This provides an unbiased outline of the history of this site and no matter the outcome be it good or bad. Just from the popularity of the site should prove at least at one point in it's history it was the largest site of it's type and should never be forgotten.--Daguesingman 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DEFINITE Keep Good information here about what Empornium has gone through. This is certainly not advertising and it is a notable site (just because you don't like it does not make it un-notable). It has been the biggest and best of it's kind. Besides all that, why does one wiki page draw the ire of so many people? Those looking for information about the site and what has happened will find it here and isn't that what Wiki is really all about? If you don't like the information contained in the article, add more. Deletion should only be considered in extreme circumstances. Chronocore 8 July 2006
  • Keep Just make it editorially clean and factually correct.
  • STRONGLY Keep This article is being contested because the controlling interests of Empornium want to hide the truth about what has happened. The current article is unbiased and factual.
  • THINK ABOUT THIS - this site served to me as an advert to emporniums free alternatives now empornium has gone pay. This page is the opposite of what you think it is when you recommended delete.

Keep - There is no reason to delete this. --John Lunney 14:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I can't see why the deletion was even suggested in the first place. There articles about other for-profit companies on wikipedia, so this is nothing new. InitHello 15:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- How are target point hiding the truth? If that was the case why are they telling us new members are paying a fee? Stop being a fanboy and use your own eyes. Sazaraki and the rest are currently ruining EMP. Its funny how everyone moans at Targetpoint but nobody moans at Sazaraki for selling the site up the river to no doubt line his own pockets. Who is to say that wouldnt happen with his new site?

Keep - Just as notable as Pirate Bay, mininova, etc, if not more so. In reply to above, they have taken the forums down claiming it be maintenance (Ive been a part of the community for over 2 years, and I dont recall the forums ever being down this long without there being some news on it.), as well as removed any torrent comments critical to Targetpoint, I have had several of my comments deleted in the past few days, they were not spam, nor flaming, but rather observations about what was going on & the information control (whether real or perceived) myself & many others believe to be going on. Cyraan 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep //tagash


Keep- The arguments for deletion so far are weak: "I'm not really convinced that even being among the largest torrent sites really means it needs an article. There's simply not a lot to say about any website that only exists to list files. Exceptions of course would be places like The Pirate Bay, because of huge news coverage." Just because one doesn't think much of a bittorrent site doesn't mean it's unworthy of listing. It is a controversial movement, it is a site that covers a controversial aspect of a controversial movement, and its current seemingly hostile takeover is controversial. Ironically this person recommends the listing of piratebay, which is controlled by the same company which has allegedly taken over empornium, and therefore to list piratebay and not empornium would create a subjective imbalance in wikipedia. "Keep the facts and remove everything else designed just to bad mouth target point cause not all of it can be proven." "It's currently in the process of adopting a pay account system, and so this is advertising." When one considers these two arguments for editing/deletion together, they actually support the need to keep the article mostly intact. The listing discusses the controversial move by the targetpoint corporation to charge new users for the system. That is an unsavory and unappealing aspect to a bittorrent site (bitorrent's purpose being the controversial free sharing of information) and therefore not only should the negatively critical aspects of the article be held intact, it is clearly not advertising, as that aspect of the article presents the site's transformation in a negatively light.

Strong Keep- I see no issues with keeping this page. It is not advertising. The recent changes at the site must be taken into consideration when weighing whether to delete or keep his site, as the motivations of these voters may be biased by their feelings about the site itself and not the Wiki entry. This is not the place to debate those changes. The site is large and notable and its entry in the Wiki should remain. --Sarty 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC) <3>[reply]

Keep Well, I came to wikipedia to look up information regarding the recent torrent of controversy (pun intended) around empornium and its takeover by targetpoint. Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia? If the article didn't exist, me and probably tens or hundreds of other people would have not aquired this information. Definitely keep as long as the article is correct and unbiased.

Keep Same as above, would never have known why a controvery existed if this article wasn't here.

  • Keep Article contains historical information on a popular topic which is being deleted, hidden or does not exist elsewhere. Zanfar 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of other porn related Wikipedia articles so why should somethings as popular as Empornium be an exception? Aussie Jim 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its information about something that is important to many people.

Keep As a former Admin ousted by the new controling parties and even in light of their continued practice of deception and censorship of whats really going on... I still say Keep. Why? Emp was the largest and best of it's kind. Perhaps I am biased. I'm upset overwhat it's becoming, but even the King gave the colonists respect after the war was over. If Targetpoint can manage to turn a dime over this mess, then more power to them, but it won't be with my sweat or bits.--204.8.204.108 07:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Vic <4>[reply]

  • DeleteThe site is not noteable and the article an advertisement. It does not contribute any useful information to Wikipedia. I'm not against porn sites being listed, but this one isn't worth of mention. Davidpdx 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are at least four (maybe more)votes that were made by people who have never used Wikipedia and have no contribution history. I have put numbers by the ones that are bogus votes. Also at least 11 of the keep comments are unsigned. Maybe this isn't truly a vote, but those who are coming here just to vote keep without any history are suspect at best.Davidpdx 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This site is very important to the bittorent community 203.214.112.235 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • CommentThis is yet another person who has no contribution history. Davidpdx 22:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is hardly an advertisement or non-notable. It succinctly describes the site and the most recent occurences with regard to management changes. It is as notable as any torrent site. Contrefait 22:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice and Data Solutions[edit]

The article is simply an ad. Gay Cdn 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Yeah, it's an ad. PresN 20:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fasshonaburu[edit]

Wikipedia is not for slang neologism definitions.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Seidenstud 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kawaii super-genki baka no delete, desu! A few references on some "burogguzu" sites does not a widespread term make ~ Matticus78 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were dead![edit]

This is a non-notable phrase from the movies. Doesn't have any references, seems like original research. The article has been around for a couple of years, though, so maybe I'm missing something. Nydas 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Borderline encyclopedic. But could be, if expanded and sources cited. -Seidenstud 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Original research, but if expanded, could be acceptable. Better hurry though. PresN 20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the article itself, which does a bad job of asserting notability. Danny Lilithborne 01:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Flayked 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. You looking at me? no doubt next up. --DaveG12345 03:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. —  MusicMaker 05:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl junkies[edit]

WP:CORP - weak if any claim to notability Rklawton 19:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. GregorB 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ad, non-notable. PresN 20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronitors[edit]

Non-notable book series, with exactly 0 Google hits and 0 Amazon.com hits. Wildthing61476 19:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Redirect to Prussian Blue (duo). Deathphoenix ʕ 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April Gaede[edit]

I don't see why she is notable; being the mother of the Prussian Blue teen racist rockers doesn't qualify IMO. NawlinWiki 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was DELETE and BJAODN. Mo0[talk] 19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fork Knifing With Crunchy Tape[edit]

Someone's creative writing project, we can only assume. Kickstart70-T-C 19:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom -Seidenstud 19:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA --Macarion 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This [72] pretty much speaks for itself. --IslaySolomon 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Potential G1, very potential BJAODN. Tevildo 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but please don't let this disappear into the ether - it belongs in BJAODN on the strength of its title alone! ~ Matticus78 19:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unimportant Comment More By This Author, Toasts --Macarion 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stick a fork in it, it's done and send to BJAODN. NawlinWiki 20:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hahaha PresN 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, potential speedy (nonsensical). --ColourBurst 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Please let it disappear into the ether. --DaveG12345 03:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and/or DAFT - but D, whichever. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lupe Fiasco's Failure[edit]

Delete, What wikipedia is not --Macarion 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: No stated Wikipedia:Deletion policy-compliant specific reason for nomination. Nominator, please update this nomination with the specific criteria or policy. Georgewilliamherbert 09:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom per below --Macarion 16:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tashbann[edit]

79 Google results, only 21 unique. None of them can really clear up what this is. Only one Google result for Tashbahn Draka (and it's this article). No context and no verifiability. Metros232 19:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears to be a hoax and/or something someone made up. No Google hits for "Draenor Tashbann" either except for the article and one mirror. No context has been provided despite requests. Gwernol 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom I am not clear on what this is supposed to be. I find no hits on any of the areas or items mentioned in the article. DrunkenSmurf 20:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can not tell what on earth it is refering to - a game, book, movie, what? Nothing, maybe. KarenAnn 21:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete would be A1, but it's obviously not "very short". Danny Lilithborne 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy. Roy A.A. 21:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Edye-Mazowita[edit]

Nn-bio. A really bad case of vanity. GregorB 19:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited characters in Jaws[edit]

Delete as this is a list of non-notable actors, the latter part of the list does not even include names. Gay Cdn 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Somewhere in the guidelines (can't find it right now) is something to the effect that Wikipedia is not the place to document the Star Trek character in the third row of scene 27 of such-and such episode. This is perilously close to that example. Fan-1967 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sharkruft. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 20:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 23:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VNU Global Media[edit]

100% Spam, article article listed for speedy deletions, changed to Prod, which was removed by author (who is the namesake of the article). Sending to AfD now as prod was removed. Wildthing61476 20:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Yes, but that's referring to the parent company which already has its own article. The article under discussion is for their San Francisco office. Gwernol 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Nick Y. 00:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Gwernol Bwithh 08:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Will concur with nom and Gwernol about parent company notability. This little wierd almost department doesn't need an article. Kevin_b_er 06:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity/adspam/POV/etc -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soy Cowboy[edit]

Nonnotable defunct band with only one album (which was unreleased). NawlinWiki 20:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal apocalyptic figures[edit]

A non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC Gay Cdn 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC) At the bottom:[reply]

Unreal Tournament: Assault[edit]

Fails WP:OR. Gay Cdn 20:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 23:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete THis seems to be original research. With a complete rewrite and a new namespace, it could be a valid topic like Capture the flag or Deathmatch (gaming), but you might as well delete and start over if neither the article or namespace are worth salvaging. Ace of Sevens 01:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Proto///type 12:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and rebuild as a new page, per Ace of Sevens. RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ace of Sevens. --Cornflake pirate 14:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC
  • Delete and rebuild the current entry looks like a mess, but if rewritten and referenced properly it could become a good article. Maybe as an entry for an "objective based team multiplayer" article that goes beyond UT? Danorux 23:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete, after discounting invalid !vote. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uwharria[edit]

This group does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria, delete. Gay Cdn 20:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentIt is not just releasing records, WP:MUSIC states, "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" and in ghits, neither Slave Magazine Records and Magic Bullet Records comes up with anything remotly notable. --Gay Cdn 21:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to state that exact same thing. -- Kicking222 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some failure of WP:MUSIC, some advertisement, some original thought, all non-notable. The "bands" section of the first link, magicbulletrecords.com, doesn't even list the band. -- Kicking222 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guidelines state: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Uwharria's connection to Oi Polloi is enough to keep the page. User:Goodintentions 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failure to meet WP:MUSIC. Not much more than an advertisement, really.--Victoriagirl 03:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. nn-band. Catherine breillat 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. nn-band.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safend[edit]

Appears to be a promotional piece for Safend products, though it makes a stab or two at generalizing. Still, all but one external link lead to Safend company page. KarenAnn 20:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Smells like spam to me. Dipics 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds too much like an advertisement. -- Targetter 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete "Safend is a leading provider..." says it all. Danny Lilithborne 01:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Dawn Schneider[edit]

Delete. 2nd nom. 1st nom was June 2005. Still marginal, still NN, still one link shy of WP:DEP. This article is doing nothing, and the significance of this person is extremely dubious. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete See nothing notable. Dipics 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything warranting her own article, yet. -- Targetter 22:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the first issues that arises with this page, is the question: Does being a reporter for a major news network make one notable? The answer, unless the subject can satisfy WP:BIO, is no. With that claim of notability aside, the rest of the article is left fringing. Major newsources don't seem to garner coverage for this person[74] Also, it seems the subject isn't really notable in terms of being an art dealer from what I can see[75]. Yanksox 20:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please she is special columnist at a major news agency on the arts Yuckfoo 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [76] [77][reply]
    The first link is an article that links to an article that she wrote. The second link is the only non-trivial source, I could fine find, I don't see any proof of meeting any of the requirements of WP:BIO yet. Yanksox 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humanism and Star Trek[edit]

Article was created as an essay through original research and does not provide a neutral point of view. If not deleted, it should be moved to wikisource. Targetter 20:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Make it so! -- Chet nc contribstalk 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place for original research. -Fsotrain09 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Unless this has been published somewhere, it doesn't belong in wikisource, either.--Chaser T 21:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Original Research Emc² (CONTACT ME) 22:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I dinna care. HumbleGod 23:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who defines humanism best of all? The answer: Dr. “Bones” McCoy, and Mr. Spock! Now back to Enlightenment age Europe..." You have much to answer for, Mr Roddenberry. --DaveG12345 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aspe (musician)[edit]

Originally speedied. Helping page author list it here instead. Non-notable musician. My vote would be Speedy Delete Dipics 20:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. - Bobet 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nongermane amendment[edit]

Dicdef. There is some additional info thrown in, but it doesn't really belong in this article, especially since it's somewhat POV and is already covered in the Ted Stevens and Gravina Island Bridge articles.-Big Smooth 21:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pik (profane word)[edit]

Article was tagged Speedy Delete for WP:NFT, and tag was removed by author. Another editor PRODed the article, and the tag was removed again. Article is at least a neologism, most likely WP:NFT-- Chet nc contribstalk 21:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quikscan[edit]

not notable, maybe vanity (check creator's user name)?-- ugen64 21:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Userfy. - Bobet 14:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris derose[edit]

Article was created by the person featured in the article. Not-notable yet, as he's only seeking election; he's not an incumbent. Suggesting either Delete or Userfy. --Targetter 21:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. A fellowship at a British university is quite difficult to obtain. This guy is at University of Southampton, one of the top ten research universities in the UK, and he holds several patents. This article is not a deletion candidate. It's a bit hagiographic and would benefit from being cleaned up to encyclopedic standards. --Tony Sidaway 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Parker[edit]

a short Google search didn't turn up any evidence that he is notable-- ugen64 21:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- doesn't seem notable, also reads like an advert. -- MrDolomite 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a bio, not an advert, and while he may not be the most famous person ever, Wired did use him in part of an article - http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65642,00.html PresN 21:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are many, many young professors doing interesting research in many fields throughout the world. This is just one. Altough there is a certain distingoushing feature to being a Ph.D. or a professor that does not make one notable enoguht for an encyclopedia entry.--Nick Y. 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is clearly more notable than the average academic, so he should pass WP:PROF.--Runcorn 07:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has a professorship at a British university. If we (per WP:BIO) include people who play ball in American college teams, I don't see any valid argument to delete people who have achieved a real and somewhat important position in academia. up+land 06:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep and rewrite. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Private revelation[edit]

This is almost certainly a copy and paste from somewhere; it reads like an essay, and it is stated in terms which support a single, restricted view of what a "private revelation" might mean. It's part of a fairly active campaign by Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) to promote Roman Catholicism on Wikipedia. If it's not a copy & paste job it is probably original research, since there are precisely zero sources. It's also written in unencyclopaedic tone. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per ((db-copyvio | goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/11/memetics-in-catholic-church-part-2.html)). --Targetter 21:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Per comments below, this is a copy-paste of the Catholic Encyclopaedia article; the title is wrong in the context of a general encyclopaedia (needs context), it violates the guidelines on the Catholic Encyclopaedia but is not actually a copyvio since the source is now public domain. Perhaps a candidate for transwiki to Wikisource, if that's appropriate? Just zis Guy you know? 07:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - as the article you link there has an anti-catholic opinion, and contains none of what the article does, not a copyvio there. Also, he claims to have taken stuff from the open source catholic encyclopedia. Being Roman Catholic is not against the rules, and if you feel that the article is limited, expand it. Unless someone can find somewhere else where he may have copyvio'd it, it's a keeper. PresN 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be silly - nobody suggest that being RC is against the rules. B ut the odds against new and substantial articles on genuinely encyclopaedic aspects of Catholicism springing fully formed to life at this stage in the project's development, and not being either POV forks or copyvios, are pretty small. As yourself this: with over a million articles, and an active Catholic Wikiproject, what are the chan ces that this concept has remained unaddressed in Wikipedia up to now? To the extent of requiring an essay of some 2,600 words? Fro an editor whose recent edit history includes several tendentious edits against long-standing consensus? Just zis Guy you know? 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for bringing to my attention that the article is not identical. The first few lines were, but my filters at work blocked the site. I will look further. --Targetter 21:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep per PresN -- Chet nc contribstalk 21:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found a site that wasn't blocked: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm. If you look really close at the site, you'll see that most of the content is the same, just that a lot of the spots in parentheses are removed. Removing things doesn't reverse a copyvio. Clearly the person that wrote the wiki article did not type all that himself. Targetter 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote Change: Rewrite. I'm gonna be nice and say that if the person can rewrite the article without borrowing all that information from another site, it can stay. Targetter 22:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment claims to be from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia - if so it wouldn't be copyvio. Dlyons493 Talk 22:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And from what site is the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia? If I can see it, I'll reverse every vote on this topic I've made today. Targetter 22:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [78] has the online version which is copyright but the original 1907 Copyright by Robert Appleton Company would have lapsed. So while I am not a lawyer it looks to me like the editor could in principle have retyped some of that material without copyright infringement - and we are to presume good faith. Dlyons493 Talk 22:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Here is the text. And here is is the policy page: Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 22:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Instructions/Paragraph 2: While the text is public domain PLEASE do not simply dump text from the CE into Wikipedia without modification... Targetter 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are serious issues with this article. It is a POV fork of revelation (or maybe religious experience. The title is very poor. I would suggest changing it to Revelation (Catholicism) or Revelation (Roman Catholic Church), if it is demed appropriate to fork out the catholic POV from the main revelation article. That said, the article lacks wikification and formating. There is inappropriate use of the 2nd person. The Catholic POV is still overbearing. This article has not been converted per the WP:MISSING guidelines. I am not sure if that is reason enough to delete an article. I personally feel that this is a very poor example of a wikipedia article and would rather it be worked up a lot before having gone live.--Andrew c 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridicious[edit]

There are 641 Ghits for this word, but all or most appear on forums and are probably spelling errors, none I saw related to food. It's the only contribution by Absurd21 who apparently likes cheese and pork chops. No entry at Mirriam Webster [79]. --Richhoncho 21:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as Nonsense. --Targetter 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of misspelled words or new made up words. --Allen3 talk 21:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Nonsense, WP:NFT, etc, etc. -- Chet nc contribstalk 21:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, WP:NFT, WP:NEO, dicdef. 3 in 1! PresN 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per all above. HumbleGod 23:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete ridiciously quickly per above. Danny Lilithborne 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a wanton waste of our time. --DaveG12345 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedy Delete as nonsense. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mission First Solutions[edit]

Article specifically states that nothing is known about it and that this article is an attempt to "have a mainstream source". Google hits for company name: 2. —Centrx→talk • 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Targetter 21:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I like ads that admit they're ads though. PresN 21:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. If it's intelligence we'd better keep it a secret! --Richhoncho 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 22:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article itself. Danny Lilithborne 01:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steman[edit]

Hoax; supposed action-game hero with zero Ghits NawlinWiki 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Razor key exit[edit]

Contested prod for a band of dubious notability. The article claims that the band has recorded four albums with the first album having had 50 copies produced. Search for the groups albums at on-line retailers such as Amazon produce no hits as does a search for the group at AllMusic. Google finds indications of MP3 recordings but nothing close to meeting the WP:MUSIC quidelines. Lack of reliable sources supporting the articles claims also justified deletion based on lack of verifiability. --Allen3 talk 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Label is My Bedroom Records? Right.... PresN 21:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HumbleGod 23:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails to show verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:MUSIC.--blue520 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Sypolt[edit]

Looks a rather undistinguished candidate with no track record of political success. Delete. BlueValour 21:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. - Bobet 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smack-Off[edit]

It's a contest on a radio show. Recury 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I gave my reasoning for this in the AfD for the individual Smack-Off articles, but I'll put it back here. This article is a supporting article for The Jim Rome Show, and the contest is no small, rinky-dink matter. The contest is a yearly feature of the show, ties directly into one of the principal features of the show's content (namely the "smack talk" that Rome uses), and is a source of multi-national attention given that the show broadcasts into both the USA and Canada and attracts participants from both countries. The article is in need of copyediting, but should stay. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would probably have to have a good level of media coverage (besides that from the show itself, of course) for most people here to consider it notable. Recury 03:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete A contest that happens once a year on a mildly notable (if notable at all) radio show does not deserve its own page.--Nick Y. 00:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Since the show (and, thusly, the Smack-Off) has been around since the mid '90s, is carried on over 200 affiliate stations through Premiere Radio Networks, is heard in both the US, Canada, and pretty much worldwide through Podcasting, and Rome has both a show on ESPN and The Jim Rome Show, and hundreds of athletes from several different sports have participated in interviews on both shows, the description "mildly notable" is...well, just silly. Additionally, Fox Sports radio host J.T. the Brick got his notoriety through this contest, as he was its first winner. I'd also like to point out that the comment about "most people" is a rather arrogant assumption. While I'm sure that most of the people who are members of Wikipedia could give a toss about anything related to Rome (and I'm assuming that that's the case with the people who are suddenly up in arms about these articles), the average joe's curiosity about the radio show and the activities that are associated with it deserves to be sated. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "It's a contest on a radio show" is not per se a valid reason to delete. The smack-off is an annual event, and the biggest day of the year on a very popular radio show. It deserves an article. TacoDeposit 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I'll rephrase. Contests on radio shows are not notable and don't deserve articles. Recury 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, being a contest on a radio show doesn't per se make something undeserving of an article. TacoDeposit 18:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other than the fact that it is a radio contest why is it up for deletion? The contest has been going on since 1996 - it's not some lame game you hear on your local sports radio show. It is a syndicated show. Also, if you attempted to merge this with Jime Rome or The Jim Rome Show both articles would become excessively lengthy to the point of having to be massively edited. --NRK 17:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the only reason why it is up for deletion. Articles on radio show contests are not encyclopedic in any way (unless they are related to some newsworthy event; the other radio host being discovered wouldn't come close to qualifying as newsworthy) because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That is what people mean when they say articles are non-notable. Recury 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zapper (set-top box)[edit]

Non-notable product. Edcolins 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tricky Nicky[edit]

Do I REALLY need to give a reason? Wildthing61476 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Delete because it's a neologism, just in case ;) -- Chet nc contribstalk 21:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dicdef. Tevildo 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save This Page this is a common practice of my culture, and others needs to be clarified about our termanology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nliotta (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above comment added after blanking AfD - previous comments restored. Tevildo 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (ROTFL!) Emc² (CONTACT ME) 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. That's just sick... (per nom). --Targetter 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge this article, and hope I don't do likewise with the meal I just ate. GassyGuy 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and maybe BJify Nliotta's post? Eh, nah, just delete. HumbleGod 23:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as more crap (pun intended) from bored kids. Danny Lilithborne 01:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT for things made up before you were potty trained. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save This Page The Tricky Nicky saved my marriage! I, as well as my beautiful wife and 3 darling children, thank the creator of this page from the bottom of our hearts.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD criterion A7). Tangotango 05:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effigy(band)[edit]

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability --Ted87 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. - Bobet 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon James Martin[edit]

Appears to be a single-editor vanity article for a non-notable writer (11 Ghits). Much of it is unverifiable. It is unclear what is the basis for being recorded as an outstanding alumnus of Walsh. His book A Mans life is from a small publisher - I can't determine whether or not it's effectively self-published. The other books seem unverifiable from here.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not quite an A7, some attempt to assert notability is made. Not a successful attempt, though. Tevildo 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read his works on the internet and purchased his latest book from Amazon.com. There is no vanity in my facts -- Mr. Martin was an outstanding alumnus of Walsh University based on the criteria listed from Walsh College, in North Canton, OH . I find little vanity in telling how his wife died, and the conditions underwhich he wrote his poem, A Night's Prayer. facts, not 'appearances'. I do find one person's view of what is 'notable' or not, unacceptable. Do not delete.


WT Osgood [email protected] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William t osgood (talk • contribs) 22:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. The accepted consensus for notability (not "one person's view") is stated at WP:BIO. If you can provide verifiable information that Mr Martin meets any of these criteria, your article will be welcome on Wikipedia. Tevildo 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Maritn's qualifies for 'notable' inclusion in Wikipedia set forth as:

Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews

--A Man's Life was independently reviewed in newspaper articles and literary reviews in newspapers and other publications.

--The same book was independently submitted for The Pulitzer Prize as Distinguised Verse by an American author in 1994.

--His philosophic and poetic writings and contributions are commeted upon, and reviewed in detailed when googled under 'Sheldon James Martin'


WT Osgood [email protected]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by William t osgood (talk • contribs) 00:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. (1) Please do not remove any text from AfD discussions. (2). If verifiable sources for the "newspaper articles and literary reviews" mentioned above are added to the article, it will become acceptable. Tevildo 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"articles and literary reviews" mentioned above are added to the article, it will become acceptable."

Thank you. I will have articles/reviews in a few days[[User:|WT Osgood]] 23:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 21:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm relisting this debate now that the author has put in citations. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - said citations don't actually link to anything showing that he's notable. And I can't find anyhting about this pulitzer nomination. Again, it needs sources for the "newspaper articles and literary reviews", not for some hotel he went to. PresN 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author [[User:|WT Osgood]] promised articles/reviews in a few days but has actually delivered nothing. The citations aren't really verifiable or relevant :-( [80] is his own website, Times Leader doen't mention as far as I can see, Walsh mentions him but as I said above it's not clear what criterion he meets, [81] is his own corporate site, Geoffrey Klempner.- doesn't mention him, Oxford doesn't mention him, I requested information on the status of the International Society of Philosophers but none has been forthcoming. Dlyons493 Talk 22:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per DLyons. Looks like vanity with little to support it. Fan-1967 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My opinion, stated above, still stands following the updates. Tevildo 22:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There haven't been updates. Dlyons493 Talk

Ahh, sorry. Caught out! I thought the links in the article had been added since the AfD started, hence Deathphoenix's comment. I didn't check the edit history or my own memory thoroughly enough. I'll be more meticulous in future. :) Tevildo 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Newspaper reviews added [[User:|WT Osgood]] 13:0, 08 July 2006 (UTC) Comment Do not delete.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TASTE Youth Church[edit]

Delete as this is a non-notable group. In searching for the name, I got 1 ghit and for B:United 5, got not applicable hits. Gay Cdn 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, author has only contributed to this article, which doesn't make a case for its notability. HumbleGod 23:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tastes like WP:NN ~ trialsanderrors 06:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bromeo[edit]

Neologism. -- Fan-1967 22:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (possibly speedy?) per nom. -- Steel 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. English-only Ghits returns 647 hits, many of which aren't in English anyway, and few if any seem to relate to this usage. HumbleGod 23:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 00:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have found a comment relating to this AfD on this article's talk page. The comment, made by AustinRyan (talk · contribs) is this: I dont' knwo why you would delete this. Wikipedia is all about getting new information to learn new things. If people want to learn more about being a surfer and the surfing culture/lingo, this could be a useful page. It isn't a made up word. It appeared in the May 2004 issue of Transworld Surf. By deleting this page you would be defeating the purpose of this whole web site. DarthVader 09:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. Nix[edit]

  • Delete - Person is not noteworthy. Few hits on Google beside geo-cities vanity page and Wikipedia. Article is confused and mostly about a battle and not the person. No references and no links to article. Has not been wikified March 2006 KarenAnn 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. The contributing author's name is Jimnix2054. No other contribs. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 23:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This site does list him, but he only gets 3 ghits in total DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP00:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 09:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Che Nuevara. Possibly merge details about the battle into article on the battle, if one exists. Possible vanity page. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 23:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity and as per WP:NN. --Bill (who is cool!) 02:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 19:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cojawfee[edit]

NN web site and forum w/ fewer than 200 members. -- Vary | Talk 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Punkmorten 22:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Abandoned (DS9 episode)[edit]

Delete as this is a non-notable episode of a notable series. Gay Cdn 22:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the nominator, I am willing to remove my nomination - now that this 'unspoken' consensus has been spoken to me. The nomination was never ment to make a point, but the article looks way better then it did - thanks for the work. --Gay Cdn 13:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naïve keep, but only because almost every episode in the series (which lasted about 180 episodes) has its own article. Since I never watched the show, I can't claim that one episode is more notable than another, but I'd assume per DS9 precedent that this article is as good as most. -- Kicking222 22:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The problem with deleting an episode is that there are other series that have each episode as a separate entry. South Park is an example of this. Every episode has it's own article. If we deleted this episode, it might spark a precedence where we might have to go back through and delete a bunch of episodes of various shows. Targetter 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the pecedent is that episodes of notable shows are notable. This is debateable but AfD is probably not the place to debate it. Eluchil404 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's sort of an unspoken consensus that episodes of significantly notable enough shows warrant their own articles, if only because then WikiProjects Dr Who, Buffyverse, Firefly, Star Trek, and many others would have nothing better to do. If you want to start deleting tv episodes, I would suggest a new guideline instead of diving right in here. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 23:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above regarding other series with pages for every episode. Granted though, this one does need considerable work, so maybe a cleanup tag would be more appropriate than a deletion Chrisd87 23:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As episode of a notable TV series. I cleaned it up a bit - but it could use further work. Megapixie 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete an episode just because you don't like it. It just needs to be improved. TJ Spyke 03:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above precedent. I did some wikifying, but it probably could use some more cleanup. BryanG(talk) 06:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Asymptote For Corporeal Zion[edit]

Not really sure what this is; it could be WP:OR or copyright violation. This is just no context for this very large article. Gay Cdn 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Looks like either a hoax religion or someone who's trying to start a genuine one - in either case, not for Wikipedia. Tevildo 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a personal essay. -- Vary | Talk 23:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:HOAX or poss WP:NN religion DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP00:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jabra[edit]

Article sitting in wikify bin since March 2006 about a company that gets 10 or so commercial hits on Google but is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia -- a poorly written article (probably copied from company PR) about a technology company that is not a household name. No links in Wikipedia except to User pages. KarenAnn 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Googling for Jabra EarPHONE returns many hits. Needs cleanup and linking from appropriate articles, but it seems above the bar for notability. -- dcclark (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am familiar with this company without doing any research. If my memory serves me they produced the first bluetooth headset for cell phones, or at least one of the first successful ones. There was a brief period of time in which bluetooth headsets for cell phones were called "one of those wireless Jabra headsets" as they really caught the attention of the public for being like star trek-like communication devices. Now Jabra is just one player in a crowded market.--Nick Y. 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, Nick Y., but are we really going to clutter up Wikipedia with this sort of thing? Just my point of view, and I could be wrong, as I am not following companies in this area. A person in the discussion part of this article said the headset really wasn't that good. KarenAnn 00:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never used a Bluetooth headset and I've heard of them. They were (are?) the dominant company in that market and their name approached becoming a generic term for a wireless cellphone headset. And I don't see how their product quality has any bearing on whether or not to keep the article. Dgies 07:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep and Cleanup. Article currently reads like an advertisement for the products, and without cleanup and citing sources of information fails WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Terrace Hotel, North Augusta and Hampton Terrace Hotel[edit]

Luxury hotel that burned down 90 years ago. Does not meet WP:CORP. It googles better than one might expect given that context but I don't see any independent assertions of notablity. Eluchil404 22:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, verifiable and seems like quite an interesting place that deserves an article. JYolkowski // talk 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JYolkowski, but NPOV it and move it to Hampton Terrace Hotel, as there is no article there. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CORP doesn't apply here. Appears to be an important part of North Augusta's history. Could use a picture - I'd imagine it shouldn't be too hard to find one with an expired copyright. -- Vary | Talk 23:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And move per CheNuevara. -- Vary | Talk 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done and Done. Still needs a rewrite because I suspect this could be a copyvio. ~ trialsanderrors 00:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adds nice colouration to North Augusta history, Needs much work on it (the article, not the building!)--Richhoncho 23:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CORP doesn't apply, this is a part of local history ~ trialsanderrors 00:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 19:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Newsletter[edit]

Delete because it is non-notable; by its own admission, it is hardly known, and also the website listed is not found. Gay Cdn 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 19:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (song)[edit]

Delete. While the band is notable, and the album may be, this particular song has non-nobility offered. Gay Cdn 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article doesn't suggest why the song by itself is of any importance. --Targetter 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn song. Would consider redirect, but the song name is not that distinctive and it might complicate creating an article on a song of the same name that is notable. Just wikified the article to make the relevant band and album's pages more accessible for this discussion. -- Vary | Talk 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fun song but not of any note. HumbleGod 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't really see the need to have a track off an album with its own article - seems pointless when just as much info would be on the relevent album page. DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP23:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 19:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kings_Forums[edit]

This is an article about some school gang which wants toadvertise itself. The provided link does not exist anymore. It is strongly POV, if the things written are true. Cantalamessa 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 19:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Search Party[edit]

Delete as the band does not meet WP:MUSIC and may be WP:VANITY based on the use of words like 'our' in the article. Gay Cdn 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 19:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrowby Road estate[edit]

Housing esates (what we call sub-division in America I believe) are generally non-notable. This one doesn't appear to be an excpetion. If the controversy over redevelopment is notable as a controversy (though it seems just like many others to me) it should get its own article not be merged into one focusing on the size, location, etc of the estate itself. Eluchil404 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn--Jusjih 00:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete residential subdivisions are not notable - there are always controversies involved with developments like this and squabbles over fair value. SM247My Talk 02:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 09:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 19:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blender (Artscene)[edit]

Finishing this abandoned AfD. No opinion for now. ~ trialsanderrors 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I couldn't create the page myself, so here the initial opinion: Page is non-notable. A webpage for a contest that was held by a few people on a few evenings many years ago, not mentioned anywhere else. Also considering WP:WEB, this should not have its own article in the current form. --71.149.171.169 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:WEB or establishing any notability beyond a small group. Eluchil404 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 09:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per eluchi. Catherine breillat 23:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. - brenneman {L} 01:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Hills Mall (Cary)[edit]

Another mall, in close proximity to The Crossroads (see AfD). Was prodded and de-prodded but has no sources whatsoever. WP:NOT a mall directory. ~ trialsanderrors 23:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - article too short. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 23:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs expansion and references, but clearly has potential given its age. --JJay 02:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What exactly are you planning to use for the expansion? Cary Towne Center at least got some local news articles to its credit if you plan to turn it into some vacuous mallstub. This one got nothing. ~ trialsanderrors 03:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not all malls are notable, not even if they were built in the days of yore known as the 60s. --DaveG12345 04:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Inner Earth 15:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on a similar AfD. Yanksox 15:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should be verifiable (I'm sure there's lots of articles in the local newspaper etc., among other sources). JYolkowski // talk 01:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I pointed out above, local Lexis-Nexis search yields zero hits. ~ trialsanderrors 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Try Newsbank, where ("South Hills Mall" Cary) yields 139 hits. --JJay 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good one, I have to bookmark that. Although I'm not too sure how encyclopedically useful news clips like "After retiring to North Carolina, he played a Santa Claus for a few years at the South Hills Mall in Cary and became well-known" are. ~ trialsanderrors 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that what Al Gore is doing now? Good to know. --JJay 00:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. - brenneman {L} 01:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Towne Center[edit]

One more NC mall. This one actually links to the website, but a Lexis-Nexis search digs up some local scraps at best. WP:NOT a mall directory. ~ trialsanderrors 23:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no real assertion of notability or uniqueness. Yanksox 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either expand with sufficient info or delete. About 24,300 Ghits.--Jusjih 00:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Decent stub on this mall. --JJay 02:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly makes it decent or worthy of surviving AfD? Yanksox 02:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a stub with a few good lines including square footage + anchors. I can't see any reason to delete it, nor do I think that the nom has made any case for deletion. --JJay 02:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, describing the structure of a building assists in notability? I'm sort of confused by how this would assist in making an article instantly notable. If I made a club up and I wrote a well written article about it, it would still be deleted for not being notable. What gives this mall a free pass exactly? Yanksox 03:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused about why you are talking about "notability"...or "notable" articles. If you made up a club and wrote an article about it then the article should get deleted because the club does not exist. It would fail WP:V. This large mall does exist. It has 1m floorspace, large anchors and an important economic regional presence. Which can be confirmed, unlike your imaginary club. Getting back to "notability", please let me know when you can define that "concept" in a satisfactory way to meet the sensibilities of all global users and contributors to this encyclopedia. Until such definition is established, "notability" or lack thereof is merely opinion. --JJay 03:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something exists does not mean that it is notable, for instance a little league team is not notable. Just because of it's confirmation or existance does not make it notable. WP:NOT covers ALOT of terrority in regards to this article. I think WP:BIO is somewhat of a good measure of how to judge the notability of alot of articles. For instance, has this mall been noted for anything happening in/with it in a non-trival source? Yanksox 03:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you just used the word "notable" or a derivation five times in five lines. That is quite a lot of opinion for a short comment. I shouldn't have to remind you that there is no policy here on notability. There are, though, a few essays on the topic, although these lack any validity whatsoever. Regarding WP:NOT, I do not believe that it covers any ground with regards to this stub. Its examples are quite specific and they do not include malls. WP:Bio is a guideline for people. As I have indicated, I would be quite happy to see this article remain on the site and do not believe that it violates any policies or that there are grounds for deletion. Many of the mall articles become quite informative over time and I think they are a valuable resource. They fit very nicely with our extensive coverage of small towns and regions. Much of that may not be "notable" to you, but is to many, many readers here. I sincerely hope people contribute more mall articles to the point where we can boast encyclopedic coverage of the topic. I also would have no problem with articles on little league teams. Those are some of my opinions. --JJay 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the word "notable," it just because of the time (EST) and lack of a better word to describe this article. So, by what you are proposing would half of what exists on AfD should be an automatic keep since the concept of notability is ambigious and should not apply to any argument. I'll put what I see in this article as simply as I can. It's an average mall that is typical and unextraordinary, it's not deserving of an encylopedic article since it's not unique or special in anyway. It's just a mall. An encylopedic mall would be the Mall of America. It's not an issue of policy but usefullness and overal value. All, I am asking is really simple: why should this mall remain? It's boderline promotion, nothing makes this mall stick out nor does the mall do anything to assert importance. Articles are speedied for not asserting there importance, that is the basis of CSD. This article is about some kind of a structure that is ununique and has no importance stressed. Yanksox 04:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I'm sure some of the citizens in Cary would as well. Large malls are all unique to their areas and become local and regional landmarks. As far as I'm concerned, they are de facto important, just like schools. That meets my criteria for inclusion. If we delete this based on your argument, the next step would be to delete most of the articles on small towns, since what really makes them so unique? I expect an encyclopedia to have comprehensive coverage, not just the top ten or the largest as you seem to be implying with the Mall of America. From my standpoint, that means all towns, malls and schools (and many, many other things). --JJay 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, I have an easy lenancy for schools and towns, since 98% if the time, there is something that makes it unique or interesting is listed within the article. When you cut down to the core features of this article you get the follow: this article is about a mall, it has stores. Not exactly shining material or anything that meets any guideline, essay, that I can think of. I also respect your opinion and admire you for having one of the finest debates I've engaged in AfD. Inculsion is a rather strange thing on Wiki, but it is and should be done on a case by case basis. If something can be presented to make it somewhat different, then, well, you have a Wikipedia worthy article. However, if you create something that is generic and not useful, well, you have potentional lly deletable content. Yanksox 04:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep uniqueness is not a factor for inclusion in Wikipedia of which I'm aware - there are many generic articles about things arguably the same. I think large shopping centres should be kept (certainly if high schools can be) by dint of their commercial notability and importance to surrounding areas. Added assertions of notability only help. SM247My Talk 02:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does nothing to stress the commerical, social, or anyother importance to any area. It just looks like a typical mall, which stands as normality. By uniqueness, I am really refering to the easiest question to establish notability, "how is the subject different from anything else that is similar to it?" This seems to be a normal, average mall. No assertion of notability and no real reason to exist on Wikipedia. Yanksox 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article fails WP:NOT. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not the Yellow Pages. Srose (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not all malls are notable. By a long sight. --DaveG12345 04:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT the yellow pages, directory, or travel guide. I was just looking for something similar to WP:HOTELS for malls, Talk:List of shopping malls by country has an old discussion, and mentions Cary Towne Center in particular.EricR 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree that a guideline like Wikipedia:Notability (hotels) would be a useful aid, as several malls have been on afd recently (I've also nominated some). I've been using WP:CORP as the nearest guideline. Inner Earth 15:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice despite and in spite of and to spite prior precedent. All individual retail outlets are NN unless they either occupy notable/historic structures (e.g. The Passage) or are of monumental significance (e.g. same or Mall of America). Otherwise, they are to be listed in the articles of the corporations operating them, if such corporations meet WP:CORP etc. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 04:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. If there is something in the mall that makes it notable, then indicate it in the article. 68.50.203.109 09:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 01:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing here that makes this subject worthy of an article. If there were some reliable sources with more detailed information on the mall I might change my mind, but not until then. --Hetar 02:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 23:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Pepsidrinka. Yanksox 23:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Who We Are[edit]

If you're going to make a useless page at least make it funny. --Macarion 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete speedy as A1, no context at all. Yanksox 23:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And tagged as such. Yanksox 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 19:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orlandu Syndrome[edit]

34 Ghits including WP & mirror sites, others all on game related forums. Looks like somebody wants to be known for inventing an expression. --Richhoncho 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 00:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eat my Ass And Balls[edit]

The article is unencyclopaedic, orphaned and irrelevant - if anything needs saying on the subject, a line or two on the page of the band in question would suffice. Chrisd87 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was a suitable candidate for a speedy. --Richhoncho 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eat this article. David | Talk 23:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not sure about being speediable - has enough context to pass A1, not eligible for A7 as it's not about a person or group. Tevildo 00:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't sure whether or not to speedy it, so erred on the side of caution Chrisd87 00:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if possible as nn notable, unencyclopedic.--John Lake 00:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibbins[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to document every name, this no has no notable member listed and the last sentence and has been borne by some of its best citizens looks vanity much John Lake 00:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Redirect to Maryland United States Senate election, 2006, after discounting invalid !votes from new users and socks. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Zeese[edit]

Minor party senate candidate casting about for support. Delete. BlueValour 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the key point is that notability has not been established and a reference in the Maryland Senate article should suffice. BlueValour 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Maryland United States Senate election, 2006, just in case he is searched for here. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless elected. Running for office does not necessarily make somebody notable unless it is a very important office (even US Senate isn't enough for me, although US President probably would be). You must have something else to establish notability. SM247My Talk 02:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (that was in the middle of RevRagnarok's signature for some reason) One: this is not a vote as noted above. Two: I ain't no meat puppet. Ad hominums are no substitute for a reasoned argument. Tim Willard Karma432 12:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.234.83 (talk • contribs)

Comment the meat puppet reference is that it is obvious that the subject of this article has asked his family, friends, and coworkers, who have never contributed to WP before, to come and vote, with little to no understanding of the policies that WP is run under, most notably WP:AUTO and WP:OR. Now, if I didn't want to follow the rules that are in place myself, I would vote to delete just out of spite to all the people who came here and post, despite the warning block at the top. I'm sure it hasn't been fully read, or I wouldn't be putting all these 'unsigned' flags in there for all of you. But regardless, this vote is not about personal feelings towards the raw data but how the data fits into WP as a whole. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a sock. I've only contributed to a Wikipedia article once before, so I am not an expert. I apologize for my lack of knowledge. But I am a fast learner. Tim WillardKarma432
Pretty fast... Tim WillardKarma432 12:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect just to be nice. KWH 20:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave It Alone - I was just watching him on C-SPAN and came to Wikipedia specifically to find out more about him. From the article, it looks like this guy is a very prominent activist totally apart from his perfectly legitimate Senate run. Jessesamuel 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what grounds does BlueValour propose to delete the article? I'm looking at the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I don't know how anyone can claim that Zeese doesn't qualify based on those criteria. Here's a brief rundown of his multiple qualifications for notability: 1)He is a "[m]ajor local political figure who receive[s] significant press coverage." 2)He is a published author who has received multiple independent reviews of his work (32 hits on Amazon.com). He also qualifies under several "alternative" criteria. To wit: the professor test, verifiability, expandability, and, as mentioned by previous posters, the Google test (205,000 hits for "Kevin Zeese" and 38 hits for "Kevin Zeese" in the "News" search). I think it's a mistake to only use the criteria at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections for a person who is well known outside of their candidacy. Jessesamuel 15:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as its own article - For the same reason as listed immediately above: from what I know of Zeese, he's significant enough for his own article, and not just for the sake of being nice SCGC
  • Keep, its not just about his running for office, he has been a leading advocate for civil rights issues and ending the war on drugs for 30 years. His run for senate is unusial as he unites parties at opposite ends of the political spectrum (G's and L's), this is the first time in History that has happened in the state of MD if not the US.
  • It states that the article lacks sources, I am unclear as to what it is refering too. I have known him my whole life and I will testify that all of its background history is accurate, -Alex Zeese (his son). PS- I personally think this is a partisan Democratic attack to get rid of this page, I don't see any threats on any of the Democratic Senate Candidates, or Republicans pages to get rid of them, and most of them are less significant then my father is.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.87.4 (talk • contribs) No previous contributions from this user. BlueValour 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep (assumed): I send the wiki link to reporters covering my campaign so I hope you leave it up. I was amazed to see it updated almost as soon as I received the Libertarian nomination and then again after I received the Green and Populist nominations. So someone is watching it.

Thanks. Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.20.108 (talk • contribs) This is the only contribution from this user. BlueValour 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep: I have known and worked with Kevin Zeese for years and can testify to the accuracy of the article (as does his own son! SEE BELOW). I have run into people throughout the DC metro area, Maryland and across the country who know and value Kevin Zeese's long history as an adocate for human rights and an end to the so-called "Drug War" which has become a war on American communities, turning them into combat zones! The advocates of Deleting or Redirecting are obviously partisan corporate liberals who favor continuing this costly policy making drug-related free-fire zones out of our inner cities. I wonder if they also advocate Deletion or Redirection of the Corporate Democrat and Republican candidates for U.S. Senator from Maryland?

The claim that Kevin Zeese -- with his three-decades-plus career of public service on the national political scene, acting as an avocate of basic human rights and representing the majority position on national drug policy on network television shows like ABC Nightline and in numerous other national media -- does not deserve an article in Wikipedia is so far beyond reasonable that I would think the request would be thrown out immediately!

Sincerely, Chris Driscoll— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdriscol (talk • contribs) This is the only contribution from this user. BlueValour 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Strong keep. BlueValour - why didn't you mention the 217,000 hits when one does a google search on "Kevin Zeese"? This isn't just a minor party senate candidate casting about for support - that statement seriously mischaracterizes who Kevin Zeese is. Also, I have cleaned up the article by moving much of the campaign detail to the main article about the election, which still leaves a significant amount of text about him. I invite those who have voted against keeping this article to take a second look, and to keep in mind the google search results. John Broughton 21:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Kevin Zeese's biography is easily verifiable, as he has been a public figure and political activist and has been participating in electoral politics for 30 years. There are many people, myself included, who have worked with Kevin Zeese on activist and electoral political issues [my personal issue being voting system integrity] and who can vouch for the details and the relevance of his work. I can see no reason to delete the Kevin Zeese article other than that someone here in Maryland, likely a Democratic Party official, might be trying to keep Kevin Zeese's activist light under the proverbial bushel because of his third-party U.S. Senate campaign. But if one looks at the whole of Kevin Zeese's resume, and tallies the number of activitst organizations he has founded, headed, or worked for, and tallies the broad array of political issues that he has been involved with in his 30 plus-year career, one should be able to recognize that the relevance of the Kevin Zeese article goes far beyond his current U.S. Senate campaign. However Kevin Zeese fares in the 2006 U.S. Senate Campaign, the relevance of the whole of his work should be recognized, and the Wikipedia article should be retained.

Sincerely,

Robert Lanza Takoma Park, Maryland --Rlanza 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Account activated today. This is the only contribution from this user. BlueValour 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment

It would be nice to know who "BlueValour" is. A basic American core-value is to know the identity of the accusser! In this case, the slander against a nationally known leader of the movements for sane drug policies, varifiable voting, and peace should be ignored when it comes from one who hides behind a fake name!

Sincerely, Chris Driscoll— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.51.189 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment There is no accusation here, nor accusers to face. Please read the big block at the top of the page again. As for a lib conspiracy, feel free to click my name right here and read a little, you'll see this is strictly WP policy we're working with. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 11:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In five minutes of searching I found pages for two other minor party candidates who are running for office this year and one who ran for office two years ago. None of them had the resume that Kevin Zeese has. None of them has a delete notice. Why did this page get singled out?

Tim Willard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karma432 (talk • contribs)

Indeed, more of this article is about Mr. Zeese's prior career than about the Senate race. It is not substantially different from Michael Steele and Ben Cardin's pages; the major party candidates in the same race. The candidates and elections criteria state that there should be one page for each race. If you apply that criteria to one candidate in the race, you should apply it to all. Tim Willard
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karma432 (talk • contribs) These are the only contributions from this user. BlueValour 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Tim - in response to your first paragraph - Wikipedia has over a million articles in it. It's pointless to point to articles that are WORSE than the one under discussion and ask why they have not been deleted, UNLESS they were proposed for deletion and such proposals failed (THEN they ARE precedent). The existence of other articles that should be removed, but have not yet been, does nothing to prove whether the article under discussion (Kevin Zeese) should or should not be removed. Please focus on the criteria in wikipedia policy regarding whether the subject of THIS article is newsworthy or not. John Broughton 12:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John - At this point it's not clear what criteria is being used to judge this article. The first criticism "notability" has been repeatedly refuted with no counter from the critics. The second, that this is a "Minor party senate candidate casting about for support" seems to imply that it is being judged under the candidates and elections criteria. But the article is primarily about the man and not the campaign. You need to be careful about deleting this article if that is the criteria used because there are undoubtably hundreds of other articles written in the same format that could be challanged on the same grounds. You are opening a can of worms. Could you specificly state under what criteria this article should be deleted? -Tim Willard
Tim - please check your scorecard - as you can see from above, I voted to keep the article. And may I suggest that it's about time for you to stop posting to the discussion, and to trust the process? All the relevant points have been made, I think. John Broughton 12:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please let me know what is not verified and I'll see if I can verify my own biography! I'd prefer to be contacted directly about this as I do not check this page -- kzeese@##BADIDEA##.

Kevin Zeese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.87.4 (talk • contribs) These are the only contributions from this user. BlueValour 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samosnet[edit]

Pure spam. No further comment needed. BTW I did add an external link to Samos, which anybody is welcome to edit if they feel so inclined. --Richhoncho 00:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Messina (open source ambassador)[edit]

Non notable possible hoax fails google, The start up browser Flock in the article is a link to Herd as in cattle and since been corrected by creator but still does not mention article subject, website is a blog.--John Lake 00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The links do not point to Chris Messina (open source ambassador) but to Factory city. It simply fails WP:BIO. It is up to the community to decide and that is why it is on Afd.--John Lake 01:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The links do not point to Chris Messina (open source ambassador) but to Factory city." With the greatest respect did you read the description for each entry in google? That's what it says. Also, FactoryCity is simply the name of Chris's pretty famous (high technorati ranking) blog. Most people don't have blogs or personal sites that match their personal names. In Chris's case it looks like a different Chris Messia owns' his .com anyway. I think this does pass the WP:BIO test - "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". I would also point to many of Chris's peers having entries, including Tara Hunt and Tom Coates - neither of which have Afd's on. --Fligjam 02:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "article subject"? Also not sure what the issue is with website being a blog - this is the wikiepdia entry for a person and most personal websites are blogs these days. Don't see how that effects the validity of this entry? --Fligjam 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt create a disamb page caused this Afd to point to the wrong article. It has been repaired.--John Lake 00:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand my creation of a disamb page was the correct course of action under wikipedia policy. In fact, if you put the Afd on Chris Messina (open source ambassador) page I can't understand how the disamb page effected this? --Fligjam 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was created on Chris Messinas page [82] not on a separate page which it needs to be.--John Lake 01:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A disamb page must be created for both titles on a separate page, not on the articles themselves. You can still create a separate page for both.--John Lake 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so why have you put an AFD on this article Chris Messina (open source ambassador)?
Not sure how this "fails google" - a google search for Chris Messina actually returns this Chris Messina top, above the actor who's entry was the original (and now disambiguated) --Fligjam 00:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The disamb link was corrected and yes the Ghits they do point to the actor Chris Messina but not too this articles title.--John Lake 00:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: google. No, that is not correct, plz look again. The google results have Chris Messina (actor) come in 3rd. This Chris Messina (not the actor) is first and second.
I looked, Chris Messina Chris Messina (open source ambassador) has only 2 hits on top both Factoryjoe.com/blog/ This isn't about Chris Messina (actor) though.--John Lake 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My edits, creation have nothing to do with Chris Messina the actor. I only moved the existing Chris Messina (pre-disamb) entry to Cris Messina (actor) because the original entry was about the actor. If your issue is over the validity of the Chris Messina (actor) entry, then that's beyond the scope of my interest -- other than the fact that it was already there. I'm really sorry, and I'm not trying to be dumb, but I'm still not clear what your issue is with the the Chris Messina (open source ambassador) entry, and assuming that to be acceptable why the disamb page is wrong either.--Fligjam 01:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explantion for creation of page

This page was created due to numerous erroronous links on Wikipedia pointing to Chris Messina (the actor) when the context was Chris Messina the opensource ambassador. Links include Image:2004_New-York-Times_Firefox_ad.png and Tara Hunt.

This article was not completed (and links to flock, etc checked) before deletion notification was slapped onto this page!

Unfortunately I am not in a knowelgable position to give further details as to the details of Chris' biog which is why I have created this stub. --Fligjam 00:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This ifrom the Flock browser article Flock is the successor to Round Two who raised money from Bessemer Venture Partners, Catamount Ventures, Shasta Ventures, and other angel investors. Bart Decrem is Flock’s CEO and co-founder with Geoffrey Arone. does not mention Chris Messina (open source ambassador), so I don't think that he is as notable as Blake Ross is with Firefox.--John Lake 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Boderline notability but does exist. Notable programmer that assisted in creating a few notable groups and browsers. The flock link has been fixed. Google gave me some good hits. Also, look at the text in this image, I don't think this is a hoax from what I can tell. Yanksox 02:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read the text in Firefox or Opera and ie is out of the question, what does it say.?--John Lake 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image was uploaded around November of last year and states, "The two-page advertisement for Mozilla Firefox in the New York Times of 16 December 2004 featuring the names of the over 10,000 users who donated the US$250,000 to Mozilla Foundation which was used, in part, to pay for the media space. The ad was designed and laid out by Chris Messina, a SpreadFireFox volunteer at the time." Yanksox 03:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chris Messina is sufficiently notable to the Web 2.0 world for BarCamp alone. He was one of the original five founders (which also include Tantek Celik) and is arguably its most active evangelist. In under a year BarCamp has become a successful worldwide phenomenon which has spawned multi-day events in over 30 countries, and a growing number of spin-offs including DemoCamp and CaseCamp. --User:Heyjohngreen, July 9th, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_7&oldid=1081096006"