Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 7 July 9 >

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 speedy delete as CSD:A6 attack page. 21:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

David John[edit]

probable hoax, mostly vandalism, google searching complicated by common name, prod was contested savidan(talk) (e@) 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. "Profeessional cleaner"? You mean... janitor? tmopkisn tlka 19:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. His dog is called "Lady Mover," then his friend is called "Mover" in later edits. It's a big hoax. --Richhoncho 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. The article doesn't seem to be fully coherent as written, either. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:19, 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 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henk van Houtum[edit]

Not notable, vanity. Sole article linking in should also be nominated? Coil00 18:51, 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. DS 16:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter St. Allerdyce[edit]

See Google results[1]. Nuff said. Mad Jack 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nod Mad Jack 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's just kind of sad.. tmopkisn tlka 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it is to be hoped that he continues to pursue his ambitions and grows up to fulfil his full potential, at present I fear his work has not seen sufficient exposure to warrant a biography here. — Haeleth Talk 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a rather innocent article, but delete per nom. --Coil00 01:48, 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 was Keep. - Bobet 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Right (France)[edit]

Non-noticeable. Dead link. Intangible 15:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC). Nomination withdrawn. Intangible 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The political party does exist, even though there is only one candidate DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 16:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. tmopkisn tlka 18:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page for a fringe movement. Not even the French Wikipedians consider it noteworthy: fr:Droite (politique). ~ trialsanderrors 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's noteworthy. Lovelac7 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Political parties who get on the ballot I consider inherently noteworthy. Especially if someone may vote for them, the wiki is a nice place to go look it up. It's what I do with minor candidates if I've never heard of them before. -Mask 04:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, for the reasons advanced by Mask. 68.50.203.109 08:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely non-notable. No web site, no notable candidates, no evidence they will be on any ballot. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Intangible apparently is completely ignorant about the French context! He has been recently asking for loads of unjustified deletion, and doesn't seems to be familiar with Charles Millon, known by any young French person who took part once in his life in the numerous anti-fascist demonstrations in France (Millon was elected thanks to alliance with the far right)... The fr:Droite libérale-chrétienne (article) is quite consequent, and this party is really lot more notable than the Rassemblement démocrate royalist party which Intangible seems to affect... Tazmaniacs 14:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although, given the one-man-band nature of the party, a redirect to Charles Millon, should that ever get written, might be a better idea. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:39, 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 17:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radius (band)[edit]

User:Lifelike77 added this band to the top of Radius, I merely moved it to Radius (band). Probably could be deleted as not notable under Wikipedia:Notability (music). Evil Monkey - Hello 05:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems rather notable, has songs in commercials and a well-known TV series. Also has a real website, and not just a MySpace page or something, not that this automatically certifies notability or anything, just another plus. tmopkisn tlka 06:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Removed extraneous deletion request from this AfD. Tevildo 09:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per tmopkisn. Expansion would be nice, though. Luna Santin 10:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for notability (per Tmopkisn), but it does need some de-advert work - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 13:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. but copy edit badly needed to take away tones of advert. -- Alias Flood 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tmopkisn. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:51, 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 was Merge to Guild Wars, as was already done by User:Stormie. - Bobet 10:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GuildWiki[edit]

Contested prod. Article does not assert how this wiki is notable. Fails WP:WEB... Google test ignoring "forum/s and wikipedia" gives 261 hits. [2] --Kunzite 05:30, 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 debate was Speedily Deleted ~Kylu (u|t) 04:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby janner[edit]

This article has no purpose, simply put. It should be deleted. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:43, 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 was Keep Eluchil404 05:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAP (disambiguation)[edit]

Finishing this. No own opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article disambiguates only two items

  • WAP as in Wireless Application Protocol and
  • San Diego Wild Animal Park!

Delete. Only serves to confuse, adds no value. It doesn't look as if there are any more WAPs to come. Perhaps if there was an article Wild Animal Parks but WAP would have to be a common usage for that meaning and it isn't. Ex nihil 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No evidence that the San Diego zoo is known as "Wap". Is it too late to delete this entry from the page and go for a G6? Tevildo 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Keep due to changes. SM247My Talk 01:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete never heard of Wild Animal Park as "WAP". Danny Lilithborne 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed. An "otheruses" template would serve fine. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless. Jmatt1122 03:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless disambiguation page. The Wild Animal Park -> San Diego Zoo redirect will probably need to be proposed at RFD (or speedied if this disambig page gets deleted). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It might be better to change the redirect from Wild Animal Park to the generic Zoo, rather than leaving it pointing to the one specific zoo or deleting it altogether. Tevildo 09:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What about Wireless access point? I've heard these referred to by this acronym (see [7] - first acronym definition after "Wireless Application Protocol"). Unless there's any objection to adding this as a definition to the disambiguation page, this by itself is enough to keep (though I agree with losing the distinctly shaky Wild Animal Park definition). ~ Matticus78 12:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as pe Matticus78. As per most TLAs I'd be suprised if it doesn't have a few more meanings. Artw 14:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Matticux78 and Artw: there are at least three uses for WAP and that doesn't account for whatever arcane uses exist by some notable sub-cultures. I'm not sure what the threshold of usefulness on a dab page is, but I'm pretty sure 3 is worthwhile (even if Wild Animal Park is somewhat suspect.) --Vengeful Cynic 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't care if this is deleted or not, since it's not taking away valuable real estate, but dabbing between access point and application protocol can be done via a dab header. ~ trialsanderrors 16:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added more entries where WAP is used within Wikipedia. I also removed Wild Animal Park, but if someone feels that belongs, feel free to put it back in. -- JLaTondre 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in it's current state, although I would have orignally voted to delete. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's respectable. Please God no - don't replace the animal park (that's now a disambig itself incidentally). --DaveG12345 23:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following updates. Tevildo 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after updates. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now. I started tagged this AfD but with these updates is useful enough to retain. Has been a useful exercise. But no animal parks please. Ex nihil 00:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a ridiculous nomination, and shame on those who voted 'delete'. The article might certainly be improved by bluelinking the definitions rather than the explanations. - Richardcavell 06:13, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gasoline[edit]

It's hard to figure out their their notability with a common word as their name, but it seems like a "well known" band should have gotten a longer article by now --Macarion 00:10, 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 discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Greatest Marvels of All Time[edit]

NN and lists by a single agency are their intellectual property Chris Griswold 00:11, 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 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in the Sword of Truth series[edit]

This page is unnecessary as the characters in it already each have their own pages (duplicate data - Giller, Panis Rahl). It also messes up the continuity of the categories, Category: Sword of Truth and Category: Sword of Truth characters. Please delete. 63.144.93.66 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page has evidently already been nominated for deletion some time ago, but apparently no action was taken (See above comment, already present when I tried to create this page). The page contains essentially no useful information, and is dwarfed by the individual pages of Giller and Panis Rahl. A discussion was already held 2 years ago on the page's own talk page, with the consensus being to delete. I'm nominating it again, hopefully this time an action is taken. Runch 00:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tevildo 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 00:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SM247My Talk 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary page, redundant to articles listed by nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous decision (!). The duplicate articles seem a bit crufty, though. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:09, 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. Roy A.A. 00:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It Didn't Happen One Night[edit]

What the fuck is this? --Macarion 00:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy A1-able, if nothing else. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 00:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Tevildo. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per all of the above Targetter 00:31, 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 debate was Deleted by acclamation. Just zis Guy you know? 21:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acadame north[edit]

Not notable; listing here mainly to resolve the back and forth that seems to be going on between the article's creator and JChap2007. RidG Talk/Contributions 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Danny, I am curious what specific violations of WP:POINT had occurred. The author is quite definitely guilty of vandalism, such as removing AfD tags and removing talk page entries (for which I did leave appropriate warnings), but what point was he/she trying to make? RidG Talk/Contributions 01:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno... Wikipedia is communist? I'm sure he believes he has a point, considering his choice of articles to vandalize. Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a point to ones arguments does not violate WP:POINT. Please do not go around slinging off WP policy docs as random buckshot in AfD discussions. If it does not in a definable and arguable sense meet the criterion, please don't list it in the AfD discussion. Georgewilliamherbert 10:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad, I was confusing one vandal for another. It was another user on an unrelated AfD that was doing the POINT vandalism. Sorry. Danny Lilithborne 12:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense --Xrblsnggt 02:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Article is like personal page. Article is also non-notable.*~Daniel~* ☎ 04:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable nonsense. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hogwash. ~ trialsanderrors 08:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn micronation Computerjoe's talk 11:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this page is nonsense. It keeps getting recreated after deletion, so banning the author (who has the same name as the page) as a persistent vandal may be in order as well. JChap 11:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth. A micronation that exists on a freewebs page? Puh-leaze. Fan-1967 20:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as this is total trash, and there is no mention of this on the internet except the wiki posts and two other random postings made by the writer about the "nation". If I all of the sudden decided I wanted my own nation, that doesn't mean it should go in a dictionary. This is what this basically is. Arod14 20:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wasn't this one up for deleteion last week? --DarkAudit 20:51, 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 17:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hickey-Voodoo Glow Skulls[edit]

What --Macarion 00:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article is nonsense (not patent nonsense), methinks someone just came home from the pub DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP00:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the fact that it's "...one of the most crucial pieces of punk drama this decade." --Bill (who is cool!) 00:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a little POV... it's a nonsense however. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 00:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn with low Ghits--Jusjih 00:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what it lacks in notability, it makes up for in POV -- Alias Flood 00:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David, somebody's had a few. SM247My Talk 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The dude does sound high on something. --Xrblsnggt 02:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Delete This is not so much a true split vote, as a document of WPunk rock and WPunk ethics. Hickey (band) should also be AfD'ed. ~ trialsanderrors 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely nonsense article in Wikipedia. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. Is this someone's eBay ad? --DaveG12345 05:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worthy of BJAODN. Delete it because of its "messed-up-edness." Grandmasterka 07:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, page is all over the place —Pengo 07:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the info with Hickey (band) (which is certainly a notable band... toured nationally, several releases on notable indie labels, covered in multiple works of legitimate media). PT (s-s-s-s) 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have re-written the article to make more sense. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:57, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quepapas[edit]

If this is a real thing, someone please stab me repeatedly in my brain until I am dead. If it is real though, are we considering minor menu items at Pizza Hut notable now? --Macarion 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please delete; this is not notable. Flayked 01:09, 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 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Strides Therapeutic Riding, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable company. Naconkantari 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 01:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete has more an appearance of advertising than information disemination. Ex nihil 01:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very few Google hits and not much in terms of independent sources and such. Never recall reading about this or hearing about it (I go to college within 30 minutes of it). Metros232 01:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability asserted but I don't think speedy. SM247My Talk 01:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep, This company is not notable, that means I've never heard this name of company as User:Naconkantari said on above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It isn't a company. It's a nonprofit organization which has no shareholders. That is, it's a charitable organization. And because it's fairly specialized, and out in the countryside, most people in the area won't have heard of it unless they or a family member need it services, or unless they're a health professional. But it's a good example of a center offering therapeutic horseback riding, and it's directly relevant to people in the area. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, well then all the nn-company comments should be understood as nn-group or nn-nonprofit-organization comments. "it's directly relevant to people in the area" doesn't assert notability on a broad scale. We're not building an encyclopedia for Montgomery County. Metros232 03:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:CORP applies to non-profit corporations as well. Bwithh 08:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. This is not notable to anyone outside Montgomery County. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORP Bwithh 08:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 16:42, 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. DS 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summersville Recycles Day[edit]

One-time recycling event in small town in West Virginia; nonnotable NawlinWiki 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. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judy![edit]

WP:NN magazine created by Andrea Lawlor-Mariano who gets 0 ghits DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment She may be misnamed in the article, as "andrea lawlor", which is certainly the same person, gets 258 hits and "andrea lawlor" writer gets 86 hits. --Grace 00:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know the details but it is certainly the same person; I imagine her parents got divorced or something of the sort, or perhaps she just chose to drop the hyphenated name. In 1993 when Lingua Franca wrote about her they used the hyphenated name.--csloat 07:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 01:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Much of this article appears to be a personal attack on someone named Judith Butler. --Xrblsnggt 02:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Butler is a notable academic in the field of gender studies. The fanzine poked fun at her, but the article itself isn't a personal attack. --Grace 00:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SM247My Talk 02:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 02:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the magazine was created prior to the rise of the web; I'm not surprised there are no hits. It was distributed at the MLA in 1991 or 1992; Butler threatened a lawsuit and it caused a stirring debate in Lingua Franca. I'm not sure how it can be interpreted as a "personal attack"; it was a fanzine created by a student who clearly was heavily influenced by Butler's work. It was also mentioned in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
  • Comment 99.99999% of things happened before the web, but there is plenty of info about the moon landing, World War II, Queen Victoria, Dinosaurs, the Big Bang etc etc etc DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, true enough; if your threshold for notability is the big bang or world war II, you're right, Judy! doesn't quite make the cut. Nor does much of what's on wikipedia for that matter.--csloat 03:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to csloat I'm glad you took my comment in the manner it was meant :), but I wasn't providing levels of notability (see WP:NN for more info), it was merely my daft way of saying that things did happen before the web and are well documented on it. Cheers! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I understood your comment, and I'm not going to pursue the case (though I'm still a little disturbed that anyone thinks this is a personal attack). But there is at least one web site that mentions the zine.--csloat 09:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per david --Macarion 04:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable local magazine. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. Sounds like a good joke, though. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic matters to me. I know who Judith Butler is and I found this article interesting enough to place it on my watchlist. I'd like to know more about it, too, but I can see I'll be outvoted. --Grace 00:38, 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 nomination was delete. DS 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny disc[edit]

Men in Black minutiae; übercruft. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:39, 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 17:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Saut De L'Ange[edit]

Was nominated for speedy, but if it really reached #3 on the charts in Peru it may be notable. ~~ N (t/c) 01:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any relevant Google hits other than Wikipedia and mirrors; the song would need verification for me to change my mind. Another point against the song is that Wikipedia has no article about the artist DanV. Apparently we did at one point, but it was userfied and speedily deleted upon recreation. [9] --Metropolitan90 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Userfied DanV entry: Revision as of 17:49, 26 December 2005 | DanV (Daniel Sánchez León) is a teenager peruvian singer (Perú is a country in South America) that has just begun his music career releasing his first double A-side single: Nothing Good About This Goodbye/Hey!, which is a cover of Rachel Stevens. Sounds hoaxy to me. ~ trialsanderrors 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoax /Delete "Le Saut De L'ange" is a song by Emma Daumas who a poster by the name of DanV from Peru on this forum [10] was apparently listening to one day.. --Kunzite 06:11, 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 17:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INTP Central[edit]

... it has been around for over a year, but I can't see how it meets WP:WEB and is a bit WP:SPAM aswell DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:53, 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 17:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Financial Professionals[edit]

I can't see how this passes WP:CORP also it is a bit WP:ADS Note the user who created it is User:afponline DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 02:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:VSCA. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artw 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a corp, so WP:CORP is the wrong standard to judge by. I think the specific standard should be WP:ORG, even though that is only proposed. There are a lot of career specific networking and continuing education associations. Finance has a bunch of them because CPAs and some other finance professionals are required to meet ongoing continuing education requirements. This association is international (U.S. and Canada at least), but I haven't found independent reliable sources to make much of an article yet. Organizations like this frequently do and publish surveys on compensation for their field and other topics specific to the field. This one does that, and also publishes a journal, but I'm not sure if they merit keeping as an author - the journal is free to members and we have no data on non-member subscriptions. (Disclosure, I work in Finance, but have no relationship with this specific organziation.)GRBerry 02:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article as it stands comes across as an advertisement, and doesn't verify it's contents per WP:VERIFY. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 00:30, 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 nomination was delete. DS 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Mayth[edit]

Non-notable remixer. Thought about speedying but there is an assertion of notability, although the author offers nothing to prove these assertions. Aplomado talk 02:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Duplicated in error - my apologies. -- Alias Flood 17:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quizillcotyll[edit]

7 ghits for this ... and they are for a non-existant entry at amazon.de and a number which are directories of words (probably mirrored from Wikipedia WP:NN fictional character DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 03:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gee, you think? Yeah, that pretty well seals it. (Looks like in Japanese it's Son Goku, the same god, frequently used in anime.) Fan-1967 17:05, 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 nomination was delete. DS 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newster[edit]

Non-notable. Cheese Sandwich 03:11, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inform.com[edit]

Non-notable. Cheese Sandwich 03:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to begin with an NY Times article for something is usually a big deal. I don't have the special access but from I can tell, it seems to be a legit article and source. Yanksox 03:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: However, the other article, at VUNet (or something), doesn't mention Inform.com at all, it just talks about how people are turning from newpapers to websites for news. --Cheese Sandwich 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over that and it isn't a link relevant to the site, so that can be removed, but that isn't reason for complete deletion. Yanksox 03:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link to BusinessWeek that is imbeded in the article just seems to link to a random article about math - no metion of Inform.com. Or am I missing it? Kuru talk 03:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The NY Times could link to any news story at all ... we need someone who can Log In and read it DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 03:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs to be rewritten, but is notable with inculsion of NY Times article. Thank you, Kuru. Yanksox 03:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I had a look at the NY Times article ... Good enough for me DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 03:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, seems to be quite a few other articles on the subject, but their position as a news distribution service makes it difficult to get a real feel for their web presence. Drop the bad links and add a few more cites and it should be fine with WP:WEB. Kind of a neat site, too, may give it a spin. Kuru talk 04:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Potentially a notable company, but its still in startup and beta mode!! the NY Times, like most major news sources, carries many articles insufficiently notable for an encyclopedia Bwithh 08:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artw 14:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This solitary, hard-sought mention does not determine notability. -- Alias Flood
  • Delete per Alias Flood and WP:WEB fail, which requires multiple relevant citations to be included in the article itself, not just one. --DaveG12345 20:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete website promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; the subject may not be notable now, but may become notable in the future. Also, if kept, may need to be cleaned-up for NPOV. 68.50.203.109 08:44, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sim Wrestling League[edit]

This article neither asserts its notability, nor comes close to meeting WP:WEB Seidenstud 03:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Also, I should point out that it was created by The SWL who presumably is the website's owner. -Seidenstud 03:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Totally NN website. So little context it's impossible to tell whether there's a physical activity involved or not. However, google speaks louder than words[11].--IslaySolomon 03:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sim wrestling - the only wrestling more fake than wrestling itself. Vanity, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 05:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Alias Flood 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Throne: Yes There is a physical activity behind this website. I'm part of the e-fed and we have a great comunity.
I think you shouldn't delete it as it the following days this page it's going to get more and more information.
Tommorow we have a one year anniversary and The Sim Wrestling League it's here to stay so why delete it?
The one who made this page it's Captain Random one of the GMs. And we also gained some new members by this Wikipedia page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.77.133.215 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment. While it's very nice that you got new members from the page, using that as part of the argument for keeping it here, effectively means that it is an effective adverstisement. Unfortunately, Wikipedia already has a policy against that. See WP:ADS for more info. -Seidenstud 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Throne: It's not an advertisment and I didn't say that! This is like a homepage for us! we keep all information here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.60.171 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. It's not a question of being accepted or not, it's answering the honest question of: "Does your group really belong in an encyclopedia? The official policy from WP:NOT reads:

Does this help to clarify at all? -Seidenstud 12:15, 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 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Davis[edit]

Non-notable person, doesn't meet WP:BIO Xyzzyplugh 03:38, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neighbours and Home and Away actors turned musicians[edit]

Listcruft. Indiscriminate collection of information. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ozcruft DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is that a proper criterion for deletion? "Cruft" has been seen to be a deroragatory slogan on the Mailing list and in the proceeds of the Concordia/Community Justice project. Ansell 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, but fascinating. Yanksox 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How much more fascinating would it need to be to be non-indiscriminate? After all, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that indiscriminate information is interesting. Ansell 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. If the content is considered useful to anyone, it can be included in prose in the separate articles about the two different series Neighbours and Home and Away. --Metropolitan90 05:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not indiscriminate. Ramseystreet 06:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 07:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep or Merge, this is a subject often referred to in Australian culture, not a trivial list. Although it would be better in the soapie articles Pengo 07:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the articles of the programs. I think the trend of Neighbours and Home and Away actors becoming pop musicians is largely due to these programs' huge popularity in the United Kingdom (are they still as popular there now? I have no idea. But it was de rigeur to watch them if you were aged 10-25 in the UK in the 1990s). This is strangely unmentioned in the article (Kylie would not be the global star she is now if not for her Neighbours celebrity appeal in the UK market) Other than that, these soaps arent really related. #Neiiiiiiiighbours... everybody neeeeeeds good Neiiiiiiiiighbours# #With just a little understanding.... Neeeeeighbours... can.... be-come..... good...... friends.........# or something like that. Bwithh 07:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the two program articles, since there's no real link between them other than their being Australian. Failing that, dividing the article into two separate ones ("Neighbours actors turned musicians" and "Home And Away actors turned...") would also make sense. BigHaz 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Considering BigHaz and Bwithh's ideas (and agreeing with Pengo that this is a cultural thing), would a rename to List of Australian soap opera actors turned musicians be appropriate? Also note that the list underwent a largish revision mid-way through this discussion, I'm not sure if the initial commentors would like to readdress.--Commander Keane 09:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bizarre criteria; just mention this stuff in the articles for Neighbors and Home & Away. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is so bizarre about a phenomenon that can pick that many famous celebrities and match them back to their initial starts in the two most popular Australian soap opera shows. Ansell 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm...not exactly sure what you're saying, but it seems like a better place for this info is in the articles of the two shows and of the people involved. I think collecting "X that is Y" with no sources associating X and Y is pretty OR-ish, as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Alias Flood 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with relevant articles. It is worthy of note somewhere the number of Australian pop artists who have been on either program.

Capitalistroadster 04:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this only interesting to fans of the two tv shows? I am assuming that is what you are saying. It is interesting as a cultural phenomena to me as a person who doesn't watch the shows, aka, not a fan, and not thinking it is an indiscriminate collection. Ansell 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it is well noted in Australia that Home and Away and Neighbours actors leave regularly to very notable singing and acting careers. It is not indiscriminate, it has a definite point and is appreciated by Australians who may want to search Wikipedia for this very verifiable information. Ansell 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in sort form or another, probably renamed article as per Cmdr Keane, or even merge into Neighbours/Home and Away articles. -- Chuq 00:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into respective show articles. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge info into the Neighbours and Home and Away articles. Does not stand on its own. --Satori Son 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- verifiable list. Agree with the above comment however that the two shows aren't related and separating the list contents may be in order if kept. - Longhair 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ansell. QazPlm 23:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a sub-category of Australian Actors and Australian Musicians Riscy 04:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is useful and interesting and a well established phenonom in Australian popular culture. Grumpyyoungman01 05:26, 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 was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE - DEFAULT KEEP. There are a number of keep and a number of merge arguments made, but there is no consensus to delete here. Hiding Talk 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolescence Management[edit]

Stupid --Macarion 04:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination does not list a specific justification under Wikipedia:Deletion policy for deleting the article. Nominator: please specify what specific deletable policy issues you are justifying the nomination with. Georgewilliamherbert 10:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid SCM/business topic. Could obviously use expansion, but it's marked as a stub. Kuru talk
  • Keep It's another word for AfD. (Actually per Kuru). ~ trialsanderrors 04:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend Keep if someone wakes it from its stubby slumber before this AfD is over, Redirect otherwise. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So should there be an article called "Marital Adjustment" where it just says "A marital adjustment is an adjustment for marriage"? that's basically what this is --Macarion 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure some military buffs can flesh it out. There's a whole bunch of articles on it, mostly military equipment related:
PR Newswire US February 14, 2006, "Air Force Awards MTC $7.3 Million Contract for Obsolescence Management" ~ trialsanderrors 04:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you want to hear. You can do a google search and find thousands of articles and books on the exact topic. Any of them could be used to expand the article past its stub state. Are you looking for cites? I'm not sure what your basis is for nominating this - are you saying it's not a notable topic, or that articles should only be in a stub state for a certain period? I'm afraid you have not given me enough to go on here. Kuru talk 05:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two words put together isnt the subject of an article. obsolescence management is the management of obsolescence. of course. i guess i am outnumber on this though --Macarion 06:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Obsolescence, if it must be kept (I agree with you Macarion; as an article, it's horrifyingly inane). This article has been around for a year without substantial improvement, and it's beginning to smell. --die Baumfabrik 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Baymfrabrik and as unclear nom Alphachimp talk 13:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I accidentally typed delete. I meant merge sorry. Alphachimp talk 13:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Obsolescence -- Alias Flood 17:06, 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 was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE - DEFAULT TO KEEP. Fairly evenly balanced, both sides make equatable arguments, a delete and then redirect might be an idea to entertain but to preserve the history I think a simple merge is just as easy, but there's no consensus here. Hiding Talk 12:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3-Minute Rule[edit]

I can't see how a track off an album that was never released as a single can warrant it's own page ... tell me if I'm wong !! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete you aren't "wong" --Macarion 04:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable individual track. List of references (references that the song apparently makes, not references used to write the article) violates Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Paul's Boutique GassyGuy 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. A merge would essentially mandate the same treatment for articles on each of the songs on the album, which isn't practical considering how jam-packed they are with song info. (Instead, I recommend that all song articles tied to this page be deleted, except the singles and any others that are notable for other reasons.) The album (a hip-hop classic) is known for its rich base of samples and allusions, but this isn't the place for listing them (this is). So peace out y'all, WP, song out. HumbleGod 07:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to delete them, I won't stop you...I worked pretty hard on these, but I'd rather have it be deleted if it means I'm not breaking any rules. Thebanjohype 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Paul's Boutique per GassyGuy (Merge All if possible). I believe there's some albums project guidelines for including sample data per album track. See Track Listing section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. The "references" part of this article is less essential though. --DaveG12345 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above.--Pokipsy76 13:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of original research here. --Burgwerworldz 20:15, 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 was Delete. - Bobet 11:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen Thirty-Six[edit]

NN, 528 ghits mostly not them, possibly hoax: "their front man, Justin Hearn, died of a sudden overdose when he inhaled too much airplane model glue." --Macarion 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it is a WP:HOAX, then it's a hoax on MySpace too (which is the first google result you get. Fails WP:MUSIC DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:HOAX and WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 08:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Alias Flood 17:08, 8 July 2006
  • Speedy Keep I know this band, every member, personally. The entire article is completely accurate. Justin Hearn did indeed die of an adhesive overdose while attempting to "get high". In addition to this point, Thirteen Thirty-Six "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city", that city being Port Huron, the style being ska and the scene being every local venue, and thus is notable by wikipedia standards. User:Casualtyken
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V (knowing every member personally and relaying anecdotes is not valid verification.) --Kinu t/c 03:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:This entire article (excepting the death of Justin Hearn) and the notability of the band can be verified through archived articles in the Port Huron Times Herald. The Times Herald is an acceptable publication according to the articles concerning verification. Passes WP:MUSIC and WP:V. The website at which these articles can be accessed is www.thetimesherald.com. User:Casualtyken 04:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Please explain which of the WP:MUSIC criteria this passes. Also, please add citations to the article so the community can decide if WP:V is met. --Kinu t/c 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Thirteen Thirty-Six meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC in that it "has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" (ie. Bill Chapin. "Play Offs" Port Huron Times Herald, January 13, 2006 and Bill Chapin. “CD REVIEW: Five Ways to Kill a Pirate by Thirteen Thirty-Six” Port Huron Times Herald, April 28 2006). These articles also serve to verify the existence of Thirteen Thirty-Six and all claims made in the article, excepting the death of Justin Hearn.User:Casualtyken 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Unfortunately, most editors, such as myself, don't consider that to be a "non-trivial" mention in the strictest sense of the word; for example, there is a review of CDs published by local artists in the arts section of my local newspaper as well, but I would hardly consider any of them to be worthy of Wikipedia, as most of them are self-published EPs and whatnot. (There is a discussion about this on the talk page of WP:MUSIC, I believe.) Assuming that there have been any mentions outside of the "home market" or if any of the WP:MUSIC criteria were otherwise satisfied, then I would be willing to reconsider. As it is, my vote still stands. --Kinu t/c 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: I am unsure as to why your opinion on what is non-trivial should outweigh my own or why you are so vehement in your argument against Thirteen Thirty-Six. I am shocked that you provide no more than a semblance of statistics (though "most editors... don't consider that to be a 'non-trivial' mention." hardly even resembles a fact) to support your assertion that the Port Huron Times Herald is a "trivial" periodical, even in the strictest sense of the word. There are currently no statutes concerning the definition of "non-trivial" for use as a reference for WP:MUSIC verification and therefore it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not a periodical is indeed trivial. Your opinion, or that of any other individual, weighs no more heavily than my own on this matter. Please clarify exactly how my support and citations aren't "good enough" for Wikipedia with anything other than personal opinions and challenges (or, if you prefer, a clarification as to how your opinions outweigh my own), and I will gladly concede the point.User:Casualtyken 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I apologize for not being more clear about this when I originally struck out your second "vote"... but while AfD is not a "vote" in the strictest sense, please make your recommendation (e.g., Save) only once, per WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette. If you have additional information you wish to provide, please use Comment or something to that effect. Thanks. --Kinu t/c 04:11, 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 was MERGE. Whilst a simple head count would give a four merge comments plays two delete and two keep, reading the debate most people accept a merge as an acceptable outcome. Hiding Talk 12:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts From the Past (The Pretender)[edit]

Individual episode of semi-notable TV show. This article is actually the only episode with its own article and the only member of Category:The Pretender episodes, but there's no indication that this episode is notable or unusual in any way. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does this fit into the concensus reached at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes? --Kunzite 18:21, 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 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icatch media production[edit]

They hope to "soon enter the mainstream market." When they do, maybe they can afford to buy adspace somewhere else. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination does not list a specific reason under Wikipedia:Deletion policy for this nomination. Nominator: please clarify this nomination with specific reasons per DP. Georgewilliamherbert 10:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're serious. WP:SPAM, WP:CORP, WP:WEB, WP:NOT (a crystal ball), and probably WP:VAIN given the creator's lack of other contributions. Opabinia regalis 17:10, 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 nomination was spam. DS 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InDplay[edit]

More blatant adspam. This page is User:Juliebaumgartner's only contribution, and - shock! - she's their Director of Marketing. Opabinia regalis 05:02, 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 spam - but don't belittle the Hormel corporation. DS 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innopharm[edit]

That stuff that Hormel makes. Formerly prodded and "cleaned up" by changing the original "Our company does blah blah..." to "Innopharm does blah blah..." Created by User:Innopharm, who has no other contributions. Please, speedy criterion for blatant advertising? Opabinia regalis 05:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanispamcruftisement. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quite an intersting phenomenon but this article is just an ad Dlyons493 Talk 07:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam spam spam eggs bacon and spam. Probably a copyvio too—the intro is, but I couldn't find the main page.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:SPAM. HumbleGod 07:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above, also, it's a copyvio from this page and other pages on the website. It's easier to take something to copyright problems than AfD, so you should do that if you know that it is a copyvio (I guess it wasn't in this case). Also, if it looks like a copyvio, you could try to find it. Since the nomination has already had a fair amount of participation, I suggest that it be speedy closed rather than being taken to copyright problems now. -- Kjkolb 09:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: wobbly pink cuboid. Clinical trials, eh? Did you know that TeGenero has filed for insolvency? --die Baumfabrik 10:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB & WP:SPAM DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 14:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. Danny Lilithborne 23:30, 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 debate was Speedy delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake County Council[edit]

small municipal counsel, asserts no notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I also recall reading something about non-local being the threshold for politics, with the exception of major cities which this does not appear to be. Crossmr 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Contextless and practically the definition of provincialism. Their meetings are Tuesdays and Thursdays on channel 2, but which state or even which country this is in - those are totally unnecessary details. Opabinia regalis 05:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is located in British Columbia, Canada. This information (with more reliable spelling) already appears in the article Lake Country, British Columbia. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TruthbringerToronto. Alphachimp talk 14:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as no-context ... if we can find which country spells their words thus: schedualed and hounerable it might give us a bit of a lead ?!?!? Anywho, I've tagged it for a speedy. DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 14:56, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Gribble[edit]

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as non-notable and vanity, but I am listing it here as I am not sure if it meets this criteria. - Tangotango 05:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If the information in the article is true, then Trevor Gribble is an Olympic-calibre athlete who will be competing in a world championship event. But I am troubled that I have not been able to find a list of members of the US triathlon team who will be participating in the event. If this is a hoax, then the article should be deleted speedily. I noticed that the original author has the same name as the subject of the article and has no other coutributions, but under the circumstances I do not view this as an impediment. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, this is the problem I have with your position. You say "if the information in this article is true." How can you base your position on an assumption like that? I was unable to find any really notable information about this person by researching on the internet, and you yourself even admit to finding the same result. So isn't it extremely obvious that most people haven't heard of him? This quite clearly displays a lack of notability. --NMChico24 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See [12] for how one can participate in the Aquathlon. I am not sure if being a representative at that event is enough to establish oneself or not. You can also visit [13] for the way in which at least one qualifier works. Abstain for now, but thought I'd toss those out there. GassyGuy 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A simple Google search relays only 260 hits, none of which seem to be related to a triathlete. Also, as mentioned above, the original author shares the article's name. tmopkisn tlka 06:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of them are the triathlete, but there's very little info actually about him, mainly just results from competitions he'd been in. GassyGuy 06:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete If you have to turn over rocks to find information about someone, the person doesn't yet merit his/her own encyclopedia article. What gold metals has the subject won? Silver? Bronze? If you're entering a triathlon which requires an entrance fee, then you're not at the Olympics yet. --NMChico24 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Event is not exactly at the highest level, and he only qualified. Perhaps if he gets a bit better..... michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 08:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with my same comments from the article talk page. This is a summary of the championship race he qualified for: http://www.triathlon.org/?call=TVRFdw==&id=NzIy&keep=sh. In general, if you have to pay an entry fee to compete, you're not exactly running in an Olympic-calibre race. No results on http://www.usatriathlon.org for "Gribble." So it's either: not a significant accomplishment or non-verifiable. Metros232 12:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO he does get a couple of ghits if you look very hard ... one is a directory of athletes that just mentions his name, and the other is results for a race (finished 27th ... not a particularly notable result) ... if he wins a medal at the Olympics then he should be included ... but don't hold your breath !! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO -- Alias Flood 17:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:32, 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 SPEEDILY REDIRECTED. Lesson of the day: a merge ends with a redirect, not a deletion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gift (Sword of Truth)[edit]

This article had been proposed to be merged with the Sword of Truth. I did just that, and all the information from the article is now contained within the Magic header of the Sword of Truth article. I also modified the two pages that had linked to this article to now go to Magic (Sword of Truth). I propose we now delete this stub. Runch 05:37, 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 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! (2005)[edit]

Marked as CSD, but claims to have reached #5 in the Peru charts. You lot figure it out. --fvw* 05:43, 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 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X3 Generation[edit]

Vanity. Basically promoting a website. -- VelocityEX 05:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to do with Wikipedia? Aren't pretty much all articles unrelated to Wikipedia?--APLmath 06:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Nevertheless, it's still vanity. You don't see other websites having pages here, do ya? --VelocityEX 06:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Half of the article is a list of non-notable users. Also, the article is completely unsourced, probably due to a lack of things to source. tmopkisn tlka 06:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the above user's only contributions have been to the article in question. HumbleGod 07:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I do. For example: YTMND, Gaia Online.--APLmath 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that X3 Generation has around 10 partner websites. If included in the article, how will this help?--APLmath 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If other websites are allowed to have wiki pages, why not this one? Orien

Comment Other websites are allowed, but not every website. What has X3 Generation done to make itself notable? What has it been involved with that would make someone outside of X3 care about it enough to want to look it up in an encyclopedia? Resolute 14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This wiki page wasn't given enough time to expand. This website has done tons of things for the community. For example, one of the adminstrators created a rather popular theme (SMFGeneration) for Simple Machines Forum. There are tons more that hasn't been added yet. Orien
I'm not sure why anyone outside of X3 and SMF would care, but good for that admin. Also, the page still exists. You can still expand it if you feel you can add anything that will add notability. As is often mentioned, this is not a vote, so all of these delete comments mean nothing if you can turn the article into something worthwhile to the encyclopedia. Resolute 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HumbleGod. Partnership with other sites means nothing. Danny Lilithborne 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe contributions to this article are all by members of the site. It isn't vanity. It isn't a big lost to us if the wikipage is deleted we have an active community after all. Fireport (UTC)
  • Delete per Fireport. It isnt a big loss to his community if this vanity article is deleted. Resolute 05:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete website promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 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 nomination was keep. Seems a bit pointless letting this run. I'm closing it. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber Cartel[edit]

All sources fail WP:V they are all self-published and unverifiable. Artcile is speculative, written vaguely, and conveys no usable encyclopedic information. Complete WP:OR. Might be a nice blog entry, its not an encyclopedia article. References unsourced opinion. Crossmr 05:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification the debate about this article is not about the existence of Lumber Cartel. While the Jargon file does provide a published source for their existence and a very general description of what it is, it does not serve as a credible source for any other claims, theories, information put forth in this article.--Crossmr 23:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional info This article has been here over a year plenty of time for someone to actually turn it into something if anyone cared about it. As such, regardless of whether or not the topic may be notable/encyclopedic in itself, as there is precedent for no one caring about the article and it should not be here until such a time that someone is willing to write about the topic properly.--Crossmr 05:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak delete If the author doen't want it that's fine by me :-). Keep On second thoughts, it's not really up to the author - I've no objection to Merge either. It certainly was talked/joked about a lot on usenet. Should be verifiable via archives of news.admin.net-abuse.email for example. Dlyons493 Talk 07:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would of, could of, should of. This article has been here over a year. There has been plenty of time to clean it up and provide something verifiable that fits with wikipedia policy. Obviously no one is interested in doing that. It also needs major re-write because it reads like a conspiracy theory blog entry. I also used usenet a lot and don't recall once hearing about this. This is subjective, and may not have been that notable. As they currently don't provide a single credible source for this article, its complete original research, especially given the style of writing used in the article. This is a policy violation and is non-negotiable as per the policy WP:OR These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus The article cannot exist on wikipedia in its current form and no one is interested in cleaning it up. There is no reason to keep this. --Crossmr 07:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    and as as a secondary note, WP:V points directly to: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources as a see also, which includes Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources so no, you can't use the archives of news.admin.net-abuse.email to source this article.--Crossmr 07:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax without any credible references.--Aguerriero (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this was a Usenet phenomenon then Usenet is the primary source for it - the groups have date-stamped postings. [16] has 33,600 hits. It was pretty much a daily thing on news.admin.net-abuse.*. which was a group I used to follow in the early days of spamming. As DarthVad says it's much along the lines of There Is No Cabal Dlyons493 Talk
And usenet isn't an acceptable primary source, regardless of where it happened. WP:V is non-negotiable and you can't verify those postings to usenet. The timestamp does not verify who wrote those messages. The timestamp can also be forged as can the from header. And as I pointed out below regarding TINC its never been put up for deletion and it should. Its a neologism and defining and explaining it is WP:OR. Those jargon files cannot be used as primary sources as a definition.--Crossmr 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'm following all this - are you saying Google Groups timestamps and/or headers are forged? And what is the primary source for Usenet happenings if not Usenet postings? Dlyons493 Talk 15:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never made the leap from using a newsreader to one of the web-based alternatives like google groups, but does it just not show usenet content and allow you post to it through the web? Whether or not the specific google interface allows you to forge time stamps, I have no idea. But that group you're referring to is just a usenet group. Anyone can access that with a newsreader and forge their timestamp. Not-withstanding that, you cannot verify who made any of those individual posts which goes against WP:V this is why forums are also not acceptable as sources. As for the primary source of what happens on usenet, there may not be a primary source. Regardless of how notable a topic this may be within the usenet community, if no one outside it has ever covered it (like say Wired) then you may not have a usable source. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of all information WP:NOT and from WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth" Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. As true as this article may be, if we can't properly verify it, it can't be here.--Crossmr 15:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may vaguely recall something called deja news? Google acquired their database sometime ago. Those archives go back to 11 May '81 [BBC]. The database is certainly more secure than many, many sites that are routinely accepted as reputable sources. Indeed, much of the uproar over Deja was because of the concern that they kept your words set in stone, so you could never take them back. You can forge a datestamp easy enough on your usenet client, but that doesn't keep the server from accurately recording when and from where it received your message. Keep in mind, as Bryan pointed out, this is not a case of using a usenet post as a source for anything other than it's own occurence. In that context, this is about as reliable a source as you're ever likely to see for anything. Arker 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for joke spam from usenet. Bwithh 08:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This appears to me to be notable and the article seems to be in fairly good shape anyway. We have decided that There Is No Cabal is notable enough. DarthVader 08:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't justify keeping this article on the basis of a poor decision to keep another article. This article is also not in good shape. Its not written professionally, and doesn't contain a single credible source. I also see no evidence that it was ever put up for deletion so I don't see any concensus reached there for a keep on the claim that it was notable. The argument for deletion put forth doesn't even suggest deleting this article based on notability, its based on multiple policy violations and the fact that no one is interested in actually writing the article properly.--Crossmr 14:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Crossmr. I'm not sure that we should have "There Is No Cabal", either, since it does not have any reliable sources. I also find it very annoying, as some people say it at every possible opportunity, but that is irrelevant. -- Kjkolb 09:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - not verifiable. Inner Earth 14:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep notable meme documented in a published book. Honestly, this idea of unverifiable possibly-forged Usenet postings is a little paranoid in itself. Opabinia regalis 20:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't putting forth that it was, I was putting forth that it could be and that is why, among other reasons, they can't be used as citations per WP:V. Where is this book that is published in? Its not cited in the article. As I pointed out in the nom the only references in the article all fail WP:V and as such this is original research. Notability notwithstanding if no one can write properly about it, thats no reason to keep a poor article.--Crossmr 21:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Published in The New Hacker's Dictionary, which - as the dead-tree version of The Jargon File - is semi-cited in the article. With regard to verifiability, Usenet postings are obviously primary sources about themselves. In this case the authorship of an individual post is irrelevant, as the article is about the meme, not the spreaders of it. I'm ambivalent on its notability - I think There is no cabal is appreciably more widespread, and would support a merge - but deleting this on verifiability grounds is pretty wikilawyer-y. Opabinia regalis 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this [17] doesn't work as a source for the entire file. While it provides a basis for the name, it doesn't provide a basis for most of the content in the article. For example "Somewhere around late 1997..." that reference in the jargon file doesn't give any verifiability to that statement. As for wikilawyering, please read WP:V the policy is non-negotiable and a cornerstone for content on wikipedia. Thats not wiki-lawyering, its safe-guarding necessary standards to ensure quality. A single source saying "Hey this exists" isn't license to write whatever unsourced information you want on a topic. --Crossmr 23:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original post was in Nov 1997. And is cited in the article. The long rant to which that post was a reaction was written not long before, though it no longer exists. So "Somewhere around late 1997" is about right, if poorly written. Opabinia regalis 23:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the citations are usenet postings, which are not acceptable for citation. The fact is every single claim made by the article outside of it being a mysterious cartel mentioned, which is covered y the jargon file, isn't properly sourced. Putting together theories and claims and drawing conclusions based on usenet postings is the definition of Original research.--Crossmr 02:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as a Usenet in joke that isn't actually that notable or encyclopaedic. I'll reconsider if mainstream coverage can be shown. GassyGuy 22:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and referenced. Please keep in mind that the Jargon File, as it has been published several times, can and is considered a reputable reference for such things. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mackensen. Personally, I don't understand the logic behind this nomination. It could do with better sources than USENET, however; it has been published. Danny Lilithborne 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The name has been published with a short couple of sentences on what it is. That does not qualify as a citation for the entire article. Other than the name and those couple of lines off the jargon file everything else is unsourced. WP:V is non-negotiable. This has been here long enough that IF credible citations were available and someone cared to cite them, it would be done. It couldn't just do with better citations than usenet, it can't do with citations from usenet as they are unusable as primary or secndary sources. While I appriate that some feel its a notable subject, its immaterial to debate. The debate is not centered around whether or not it exists, its centered around everything else in the article, and the fact that once all unsourced information is removed you're left with a 2 or 3 line copy of the jargon file.--Crossmr 23:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to withdraw my vote (Neutral) in consideration of Crossmr's points. Danny Lilithborne 02:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yes, this has phrase has been in published works, I remember it being mentioned in a book about the history of spammers that I read, but it is such a very, very, very minor concept (a conspiracy theory by spammers that anti-spammers adopted as a joke) that it deserves no mention in Wikipedia of any kind, and certainly not its own article. Recury 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:V. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mackensen above. Tom Harrison Talk 00:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability isn't in question, and its not referenced outside of its existence, so what are you keeping it per? I suppose if it would make it clearer for someone, I could remove all the unsourced content from the article so that all that was left was 2 lines so that people got a clear picture of the scope of the unsourced content.--Crossmr 00:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I questioned its notability, but yes the verifibility thing needs to be addressed as well. Recury 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, I don't believe it can, and obviously other than claiming it should be kept, no one else is interested enough to either. Which is exactly why this article was put up for AfD. While the Jargon file is a publish source that indicates the Lumber Cartel exists and why(very generally), there is no other credible source for the rest of the information.--Crossmr 00:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP != catch-all for every stupid joke on the Internet. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the original author of the article. Personally, I think reference to the original posting and mention of Jargon File / The New Hacker's Dictionary is enough of a source in cases like this. Yet, I'm happy to admit that this is topic isn't of a great big relevance and isn't exactly in great big wide use these days. Agreed with Wile E. Heresiarch that WP isn't a place for every silly net joke, even if they're quite dated and well-known =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak delete instead, see below. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No its not enough to be a source. Every claim and piece of information put fourth has to be sourcable per WP:V. So while Jargon File can source the fact that the lumber cartel exists, thats all it really provides. It provides nothing else, so when you removed the unsourced information you're left with an unexpandable sentence.--Crossmr 13:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now I've had my coffee and actually read the crap I wrote in the article. I'm an idiot. You're absolutely right, of course. Articles on obscure pieces of net humour are very, very hard to ultimately source, especially when a lot of discussion about this stuff happened on some forums (or Usenet, in this case). My only defense when writing the article is that I certainly did not make new claims, just repeated the same stuff that people said when debunking this "conspiracy". So yeah, of course it looks like OR, while actually just KSRTPWRMFITHBAP (Kinda Shoddy Research the Professors Would Roast Me For If This Had Been a Paper). =) I certainly wouldn't begin such article nowadays... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, not particularly notable. 68.50.203.109 08:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to There Is No Cabal (TINC). This is a single concept discussed in two places. There is good evidence that this temr exists and was widely used (aJargon File is a reliable source for that) and TINC gives some other sources, including subject experts. Consolidate there. Just zis Guy you know? 15:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence it was widely used. There is evidence it was used within a small group on usenet. Jargon File sources its existence, but sources nothing outside of that. TINC has no other usable sources on its page outside of Jargon File.--Crossmr 19:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to trust the Jargon File on this, since its author was there at the time. I certianly remember the humorous allusions ot the lumber cartel from my early days on Compuserve and Usenet. This is, of course, anecdote, not evidence, but if I can remmeber it I'm inclined to believe that others can too. So, merge what is verifiable and redirect to TINC. Just zis Guy you know? 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Lumber Cartel is, in one sense, on the same order as Time Cube -- it is a kook notion that has gotten wider discussion well outside of the vanishingly small circle of its believers. Yes, there actually were spammers who told the press that anti-spammers were funded by the paper industry. However, the Lumber Cartel is also notable as a cultural phenomenon online, more in the sense of the backbone cabal, because anti-spammers took on the absurd aegis of the "Lumber Cartel" name. --FOo 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you can cite that wider discussion?--Crossmr 00:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's nn and per WP:V. --WinHunter (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:DragonflySixtyseven is working on the article. I urge those who have argued for deletion to make it clear whether the rewriting satisifies their concerns. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've rewritten the article substantially and added many pre-Wikipedia references, including Salon, Wired, and Gambling Magazine. Also many mailing-list archives containing posts with Lumber Cartel references, thereby indicating that the concept has retained its notability. Also anti-spam companies calling themselves the Lumber Cartel. Also note that, despite Crossmr's concerns, Google Groups doesn't allow posting via an external newsreader, so you can't falsify your datestamps. I'll concede that the Wired article has a warning that the reporter later faced some verifiability issues regarding her sources... but the fact is, the article mentioned the Lumber Cartel as anti-spammers, and that's the point of notability of a meme. Remember, this is a hoax, a confabulation. The Lumber Cartel per se never actually existed, and no one is claiming it did; therefore, we need no more prove its existence than we need prove Piltdown Man. DS 20:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    again, its not the existence that needs sourcing. Its the rest of the information put forth by the article. I've read the 5 acceptable sources (I've organized them) and while google groups doens't allow you to post via an external news reader, the usenet groups it allows you to read do. Not-withstanding google groups is no different than usenet, a forum, a blog or anything else that any random person can just create. It fails WP:V as a primary or secondary source. I've begun removing any material thats not sourced appropriately.--Crossmr 21:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Opinions and information culled from an unverifiable source, while many might believe it to be true, can't be used on wikipedia. They can be linked as external links, which I've done on the article. They might need to be sorted and gone through to ensure relevance to the subject. I would consider withdrawing the AfD, or supporting a keep on this article so long as a concensus was reached and enforced on this and other articles like it (i.e TINC) with regards to ensuring proper verifiability. If people aren't interested in keeping the articles within the policies and guidelines, then there is no other course but to delete them as essentially useless in the context of an encyclopedia.--Crossmr 21:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Mackensen, FOo. This is an important piece of internet culture and history. Deletion would be a travesty as well as a tragedy. As to the WP:V argument above, this is a clear case where the rule being cited was worded without this sort of case in mind. It would not be appropriate to cite a usenet post for a source 99.9% of the time, and it's a good rule on that basis. In this particular case, however, usenet posts are verifiable and verified primary documents! They're much better sources, in this particular case, than exist for most articles. It makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater simply because a particular rule was worded with the majority case in mind. Wikipedia:Interpret all rules and Wikipedia:Use common sense apply here. Arker 22:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A travesty as well as a tragedy?" Those are some pretty strong words to throw around for something like this. "Internet culture and history" is more than well-represented on Wikipedia already. Let's counter this bias by removing or merging borderline articles like this. Recury 22:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • unfortunately the rule is a non-negotiable policy and a foundation for content on wikipedia. Usenet posts are not verifiable. Can you prove to me who wrote them? No you can't. They are never to be used as primary or secondary sources on wikpedia. I've included them as external links or they could be labelled "further reading", but they cannot be the basis for facts. --Crossmr 22:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what is non-negotiable is the principle expressed on WP:V, the principle of verifiability. It states clearly that it may be edited "to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles." Keeping this would not violate that principle in the least. It would violate a legalistic reading that treats every word on the page as equally important and sacrosant, but I believe a fair reading of WP:V as a whole, particularly the two introductory paragraphs (where the quote above may be found) as well as sections 1 and 2 argue strongly against such a reading, as does WP:SENSE. Arker 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usenet posts are verifiable as Usenet posts. ie, if the relevant fact is that "x was posted to usenet" then a link showing that x was indeed posted to usenet serves as verification of that. You can dispute whether they'd be verification for the fact that "y wrote x" but categorically excluding all Usenet posts as references under every possible situation is going a bit far. As one example of a case where Usenet references are perfectly reasonable, see Newsgroup spam. Bryan 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't disclude it, its already been discluded by wikipedia policy and guidelines. WP:SENSE has no bearing in this, as it clearly states that WP:V cannot be worked around by another other guideline, policy or editor concensus, let alone an essay. I can already see problems with Newsgroup Spam, and its not a proper example. Their first citation is in fact original research. They're making a claim "x was the first piece of spam to hit the newsgroups", however their only citation is the actual post itself. Thats the definition of original research, because there is no independent verification for that fact. A published source has to make the claim or present that as fact for it to presented as such in the article.--Crossmr 02:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is your interpretation. Several of us have already disagreed with that interpretation. The text of WP:V itself seems to militate against your interpretation. WP:SENSE and WP:DIAR merely reïnforce that. Please keep in mind that you are not the Supreme Court here, and just because you read the rule to disallow something does not necessarily mean that it's so. Arker 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References in Wired and other media establish sufficient notability. Might be worth referring to in the Spam (electronic) as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is all it establishes, well not really as the credibility of that article is called into question by Wired. The question put forth after I cleaned up the article was whether or not people could agree to only add properly verifiable information. Which should be easy but is a tough agreement to get around here sometimes.--Crossmr 02:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment[ [User:DragonflySixtyseven]] made a very good start at cleaning this up. Please look at it, rather than or in addition to the current latest version, before making up your mind. Arker 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    actually he didn't, which is why its in the current state. While it read nicely, absolutely nothing was sourced in it. See all my subsequent edits for the reasons each thing was removed. The problem with the article is the lack of credible sources, writing it so it reads well, or looks nice, does not solve that problem. The article currently contains all properly verifiable information per WP:V. If more proper sources can be found, additional information can be added to the article.--Crossmr 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crossmr, am I correct in reading your statement to mean that Usenet posts cannot be considered verifiable at all, because people can fake the settings of their system clocks and claim that their posts are years old? Please answer yes or no. DS 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No they can't be used as per the wikipedia policies and guidelines. All I'm saying about being able to forge timestamps and from fields is a possible reason they're not acceptable to make it easier for people to understand why they can't be used. The actually nitty gritty of it is meaningless here, because it boils down to: These things can be used as examples to illustrate a point, i.e. "Here is someone using TINLC in their signature on usenet", but you can't use it as a primary or secondary source for facts, opinions, theories, etc that you want to include in the article. --Crossmr 04:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've read enough of the references to be confident now that this subject is worthy of an encyclopedia article, and enough of this discussion to be wondering if some WP:POINT violations may be going on here. Or at least excessive quibbling over minutiae - this isn't a court of law here. Bryan 07:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V isn't minutiae, its the cornerstone of the foundation for content on wikipedia. --Crossmr 14:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V isn't, but all this nitpicking over whether a Usenet post is a valid reference is. This is an issue of interpretation. Bryan 03:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. Crossmr, you may want to be a little less aggressive in arguing your side. Your point is clear; there's no need to muck up the discussion by replying to each "keep" vote individually. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a debate, not a vote. When people who want the article kept make the same argument over and over thats already been addressed, I'm free to respond. I've already put forth as its been rewritten, I would agree to keep on the condition that proper sources are maintained for all information, but if people can't agree to abide by those rules then the article serves no encyclopedic function.--Crossmr 16:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When a version of the article including several "proper sources" was included, you reverted. I don't understand this if your intent is really to ensure that everything has proper sources. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The version didn't include proper sources. I've already covered that. You can look at the edit history to see why each bit of information was removed per the sources not passing WP:V. As I've said, while its written to read better, the information included was still not sourced.--Crossmr 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that Crossmr is removing wide swaths of sourced information in order to help build the argument for deletion. A very good rewrite with several good sources by DS is here. Please note that my "keep per rewrite" vote includes an endorsement of this version. One person is trying to WP:OWN this article. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually if you vew the history, DS used his administrative power to WP:OWN the article to rewrite it with a wide swath of improperly cited information. I've covered the citations on the talk page, if you liked to discuss them, please do. I encourage it.--Crossmr 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known internet meme. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Complete nonsense --Pilotguy (roger that) 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mackensen and Tony Sidaway. SushiGeek 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems in reasonably good shape. Stormbay 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well known internet meme, article is thoroughly sourced despite protestations of the nom, who seems to be advocating his point rather strongly, and spreading the conflict to other places in what is in my view inappropriate ways. Deleting swaths of the article as unsourced, without consensus to do so, while the article is up for deletion, strikes me as a very bad practice, not to be encouraged. USNET is an acceptable primary source for information about usenet lore and usenet memes, whatever the nom thinks. Perhaps the nom could spend some time working to properly source bios of living people, where the restrictions on what sources are fit his model better than how we source usenet terms. Keep ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So then you'll have no problem sourcing the policy that supersedes "Usenet can never be a primary or secondary source"?--Crossmr 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensusI believe that was already addressed here at some point as well, or on the talk page of the article.--Crossmr 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're swapping policies around. Your Usenet quote, where you have hung everything, is from our guideline on reliable sources. The concept of verifiability is non-negotiable. Reliable Sources outlines one way (arguably the best way in most cases) to achieve verifiability. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the entirety of what WP:V says. Its not just the concept of verifiability, its everything in the policy that is non-negotiable. In addition to it linking to reliable sources for clarification, it also says in "Self-published sources (online and paper)". Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Usenet is a self-published source. Now going to the article, we see this source [18] in addition to not knowing who Vladimir is, we have no way to ascertain if he's a professional researcher or journalist, and if his work has previously been published.--Crossmr 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mackensen, an interesting piece of internet culture. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gamaliel 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm. Article about usenet. There are pretty solid usenet archives out there, looked after by google I think. I'll take your verifiability, and raise you a google test. Sheesh! :-P (I seriously can't think of a more serious answer at this hour. Oh, and yes, if you enjoy counting, take this one as a keep) Kim Bruning 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge/Redirect to Sanford Wallace - and Crossmr, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. KWH 23:24, 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. Mailer Diablo 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Gross[edit]

Weather forecaster, marked as speedy but claims to be notable. You lot sort it out. --fvw* 06:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As a Boston television personality, he's famous there. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I lived in Boston for 4 years not so long ago. Never heard of this guy. hmmm. Bwithh 07:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's a weatherman at a major Boston news station, has his own website, and even Google thinks he's notable. tmopkisn tlka 06:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's a bit too soon to cast this article into the void. Nevertheless, I'm worried that the lack of detail on his TV career when weighed against the amount of space devoted to his new websites might look like SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM. I've posted a more considered argument on Talk:Todd Gross. --07:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - He seems to be notable and the content in the article will not change that. Mário 20:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being on TV != notability. TV is an industry, and the people who appear on it are as interchangeable as so many boxes of Cheerios. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A major-market TV personality should have lots of independent, verifiable info available on him out there. -- Mwalcoff 05:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I agree. Todd was a major market TV personality, and may show up soon again in the media. In Boston history, he's famous for his work predicting The Perfect Storm, which was the basis of the movie. --Bjs1234 13:36, 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. Mailer Diablo 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jgk computer solutions[edit]

Advertising for a non-notable small business in Australia; just 41 Google hits and an Alexa ranking of more than 5,600,000. Created by Jgk-cs (talk · contribs), who removed a prod notice added by me and seconded by NMChico24 (talk · contribs). szyslak (t, c, e) 06:18, 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 was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Courtney (politician)[edit]

Delete Violates Wikipedia's discussion on political candidates according to Wikipedia:Candidates and elections; non-notable candidate, not noteworthy in own regard if suffers deafeat. Plus no article for this House race. RexRex84 06:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. He can come back if he wins. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A candidate does not warrant a page on the basis of his candidacy alone. --DarkAudit 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis that Candidates and Elections has not been adopted as community consensus yet; it is unreasonable to have the expectation that the race will yet be covered when the community as a whole doesn't know that it's "supposed" to. How can you violate a "discussion?" As for notability, the article itself mentions that he has been a state representative (so he isn't a crank candidate, which would be grounds for deletion on notability grounds, I suppose), and that he has been the major party candidate for lieutenant governor in Connecticut. Furthermore, on the basis of Coredesat's objection, WP:BIO states that political figures that have held office in a state legislature are notable (see second bullet point in WP:BIO). Captainktainer * Talk 23:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The WP:BIO guidelines allow "major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" to receive WP pages. According to Google News, there are 472 recent articles about Joe Courtney, and Courtney has recently been featured on the front page of The New York Times. Additionally, Courtney has been elected to the Connecticut General Assembly, has raised millions of dollars of campaign contributions, and is one of the more prominent politicians in the state. Removing this entry would be a non-NPOV commentary on the race.--Francisx 00:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I placed Chris Murphy (politician) and Joe Courtney (politician) pages up for deletion because the Diane Farrell page was delete (which I objected to). All I am saying is that Farrell should not have been deleted and these 2 not. Like Courtney, 2006 is Farell's 2nd time running against Shays in a tight contest. What we need is CONSISTENCY here. Perhaps we should just create another page on Farrell and defend it from AfD again.
Comment I agree completely. Deleting Diane Farrell's profile was ridiculous. While the current political notability policy is misguided, even following the policy, all three candidates (Murphy, Courtney and Farrell) have received more than adequate press coverage per WP:BIO requirements (all three have been profiled on the front page of the NY Times, among others) and should not be deleted. What needs to be done to petition to resurrect Farrel's bio?--Francisx 04:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disagree strongly. Even if Courtney weren't running for Congress in the Second District, he'd deserve a WP:Bio of his own, as he is a prominent Connecticut lawyer, political figure and former state representative who has received considerable personal (as opposed to election-specific) press coverage. Write an article on the race as well, but don't delete this. --Francisx 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.. so the article needs to establish notability. Former state reps are a dime a dozen, and so are lawyers. Has he done anything notable? Authored any notable bills? Lawyered any notable cases? --Aguerriero (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Aguerriero. Francis, if you want Wikipedia to have an article on Joe Courtney, you do the research and write it. What we have now is not a full article but a tiny stub that has no business being an article of its own. The article can be replaced with a redirect to an article on the election in question until there's enough info for a full article on Courtney. -- Mwalcoff 04:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has held public office and is the Democratic candidate in a very compeditive race, he is not merely a primary hopeful or a long shot candidate.--Tdl1060 21:25, 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 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sullivan[edit]

Delete Sullivan was a mere candidate for a House race that did not even have its own page and lost. Nothing notable in own right. See Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. RexRex84 06:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; non-notable bio, doesn't demonstrate encyclopedic significance--WilliamThweatt 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A candidate does not warrant a page on the basis of his candidacy alone. --DarkAudit 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2004 Democratic nominee for a House seat; lost 54-46% in general election after winning contested primary. Otherwise non-notable. John Broughton
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. `'mikka (t) 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Murphy (politician)[edit]

Delete Mere candidate for House race that does not have own article. See Wikipedia: Candidates and elections. Non-notable in own right. RexRex84 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, and state senators aren't notable in their own right unless they've earned notability somehow. He can come back if he wins. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, Chris Murphy is notable as a State Senator. He's the Assistant Majority leader of the Connecticut State Senate, the author of the Connecticut civil unions law, the chairman of the Senate Public Health committee (which, if you know anything about Connecticut politics, you'd know is of the two or three most important committees in Hartford). But even if he weren't a State Senator, he'd be notable, because he's the Democratic Party's candidate in one of the fifty most closely watched Congressional races in the country. The WP:BIO guidelines do allow "major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" to receive WP pages, and Murphy, who has twice been featured on the front page of the New York Times certainly and unequivocably qualifies.--Francisx 00:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:BIO. Suggest transwiki to Wikia:Campaigns. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 10:49, July 8, 2006
  • Keep: If I read this correctly, it indicates that candidates can have their own entry if there is enough pertinent information, and this page indicates that current members of a state legislature can have their own entry. Murphy has been in the news a lot in Connecticut; just do a search on Google News. In addition, the race is expected to be much closer than the average House race, making this especially notable. I don't know why there's no page on the race itself, but someone is free to create one. If he loses I can see the justification for removing the article, but not now. Frankg 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny how people who cite Wikipedia:Candidates and elections keep missing (or choosing to ignore?) the part: "articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates." Fan-1967 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, if you think we need an article on the election itself, create one. I think it's more constructive than deleting articles. But people coming to Wikipedia looking for information on the race will likely be searching for candidates' names, rather than the abstract concept of the election. Furthermore, I notice that the policy about candidates and elections is still under debate, and in that debate there is support for articles on candidates for offices such as this. Frankg 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a voters guide, and most certainly is not free webspace for candidates. (BTW, the vast majority of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are under debate.) Fan-1967 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia is a place people go when they want to find (hopefully!) unbiased information on a subject all summarized in one place. Either way, I don't see why this article fails the (more established?) notability guidelines. Frankg 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell. This is a deleted article on another CT House race candidate. This is the 2nd time this person ran and the race is closer than the Murphy-Johnson race in CT's 5th District.
Farrell was never a state legislator, though, at least not to my knowledge. (Man, sure wish I could look this up on Wikipedia. ;) ) I don't really think her article should have been deleted either. Compromise suggestion: We remove this article but create an article for this race, and redirect searches for Chris Murphy to that page. What do you think? Frankg 19:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a sitting state legislator. --DarkAudit 20:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep You can't seriously believe that a three-term State Senator, the chairman of the Connecticut Senate's Public Health Committee, the author of CT's civil unions law, and one of the more prominent politicians in the state is not prominent enough for a Wikipedia entry. The guidelines cited are proposed, not active, and anyway would not affect Chris Murphy who is a prominent elected politican. This RFD seems like a partisan attempt to include only one candidate in the upcoming House race, which is non-neutral and contrary to the NPOV purpose of WP.--Francisx 22:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not so. Most of the editors come from way outside the district in question, and have no interest whatsoever in this campaign. What is objected to is the blatant posting of campaign materials for the candidate and calling it an article. In other cases, the article ends up as only a sentence or two saying the subject is a candidate, nothing more. Neither applies here. --DarkAudit 23:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If you feel that the article is insufficiently NPOV, then by all means, submit your suggestions and edit the article to make it so. But if Sen. Chris Murphy, of all people, isn't sufficiently notable, then neither are all but a relative handful of the biographical entries on WP. This is a powerful, prominent figure, and excluding him simply because he's a candidate for higher office seems silly and contrary to the purpose of WP.--Francisx 00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually I only included this article for deletion in response to the deletion of the Diane Farrell article (see link to discussion above). I supported keeping that article of a democratic candidate. I am only trying to be consistent. Plus Murphy's opponent deserves a page as a sitting congresswoman. Moreover, Murphy really is a minor CT politician (being from CT I know this). Nevertheless, I think an article on the race itself is warranted.--RexRex84 23:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe deletion of the Diane Farrell article was a travesty -- 'Diane Farrell' gets 4.7 million Google hits, 118 current Google news articles, has raised more money than the vast majority of sitting members of Congress, and is perhaps the most prominent Congressional challenger anywhere in the country. If new or proposed WP standards don't count her -- or Chris Murphy (who dispite what you say is one of the most powerful members of the State Senate) -- as sufficiently prominent people, then it is those standards that are lacking. Excluding biographies of prominent politicians would place a chilling effect on the amount of useful information available on WP. It also has the perhaps-unintended effect of editorializing in favor of incumbent politicians at the expense of their often equally notable challengers. We may not need WP pages on every single person who has ever run for elective office, but Diane Farrell and Chris Murphy are serious, well regarded politicians who have each raised millions of dollars, and who's names are justifiably familiar to the majority of residents of Connecticut. Keep the bios non-partisan, but don't remove someone's bio just because they're a politician.--Francisx 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Diane Farrell article was merely 'candidate and member of town council'. If she had raised millions of dollars and had statewide notice, it wasn't in the article. Just being a candidate isn't enough to warrant an article, and Diane's article was just her being a candidate. --DarkAudit 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok. Well, if I wrote a bio for Diane Farrell that mentioned more than her just being a candidate, could I post it? I'm hesistant to undelete this, but she is clearly an important and notable person, even if her past WP article was lacking. --Francisx 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is it just my perception, or are almost all of the proposed deletions of articles about Congressional candidates in fact about deleting Democrats?? John Broughton 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that is Wikipedia -- at least this week. Previously, it's been the cabal suppressing crank alternative physics, white power, the truth about 9/11, Islamophobia, Islam, Evangelical Christians, Zionism, Biblical truths, and perpetual motion machines; and acting as a mouthpiece for Ayn Rand, Polish nationalists, Romanians, Freemasons, Islamophobics, Islamists, Evangelical Christians, and Zionists. They're still working on the schedule next quarter for the Catholics, Canadians, and Reptilian Baby-Eaters from Outer Space, and when exactly Wikipedia will suppressing them and when they'll be the acting as the propaganda mouthpiece for them. So, any other questions? --Calton | Talk 00:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no other questions, since you didn't answer my original one. All it would take is a couple of specifics - a few Republican nominees that were deleted. Or do you think that sarcasm suffices? John Broughton 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since that went over your head, let's try again: you're being a paranoid axe-grinder -- far from the first and sadly far from the last -- making up evidence-free self-serving nonsense. Was that clear enough for you? If you're going to try to dish out vague smears, try offering up something other than passive-aggressive "prove me wrong" smirking. Your made the charges, so you come up with the evidence. --Calton | Talk 06:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have violated the Wikipedia:Civility policy. John Broughton 13:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is a sitting State Senator and the Democratic candidate in a very compeditive race, he is not just a long shot candidate or primary hopeful.--Tdl1060 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and write article on the race if it is indeed a battleground race according to the claim ("According to a recent New York Times article, Johnson's district, Connecticut's fifth, is being targeted by Democrats who want to eliminate Republicans from the traditionally liberal Northeast.") Also, remove or cite some commentary from the article (e.g. "has a good chance of winning"). KWH 15:12, 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 nomination was deleted. WP:SNOW. Proto///type 13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous right-handed people[edit]

As right-handers are the overwhelming majority, this is not nearly as useful as its complement, List of famous left-handed people. The list will also become unwieldy if properly filled, and the title's utility as a redirect has been challenged on its talk page. There is also a related CFD discussion. ×Meegs 07:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete According to Right handed, 90% of the population [of the earth] fits that bill--limiting the list further just to those notable enough for an article that meets WP:BIO would still leave us with a few hundred thousand names.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. List of right-handed people is impractical —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RexRex84 (talk • contribs) 2006 July 8, 7:17 (UTC).
  • Strong delete. Something like this must be squashed hard, as otherwise we're going to get List of notable buildings with doors, List of famous Germans with two eyes and the like. Further to Fuhghettaboutit's 90% observation, perhaps there should be a guideline (if there isn't already) that you shouldn't have a list if the specific criterion covers more than, say, one-third of the base "population". (If someone can express that last sentence more clearly, please help!) --A bit iffy 07:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, nowhere near as interesting or distinctive as list of famous left-handed people. HumbleGod 07:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, absolutely useless list. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above. --Nydas 07:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:A bit iffy. I'm not convinced that the lefties list is much use either. --die Baumfabrik 07:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per all above. --Shizane 08:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Meegs. According to the Wikipedia article 8–15% of people are left-handed, so I don't see a purpose in the list of famous left-handed people, either. It's almost as pointless as a list of people with a hitchhiker's thumb or widow's peak. -- Kjkolb 09:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure about the left-handed one either, but I can at least see where it has some potential. This, on the other hand, is not an encyclopaedic list. Being right-handed is hardly remarkable. GassyGuy 09:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless list DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 15:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Baumfabrik. —Caesura(t) 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one, it's like having a list of male scientists or male politicians (they're the vast majority in their category, and their being male is hardly a reason for notability). I can see a weak argument for left handed people despite their lefthandedness not being very noticable. Kjkolb, 8-15% of the population would be an argument for, not against - there are American ethnic groups that are around 15% of the U.S. population and they're certainly notable. --ColourBurst 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. List criteria are inadequately remarkable to pass WP:NOTA7. --DaveG12345 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best unmaintainable list, at worst pointless listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 02:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete joke. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Landolitan 12:47, 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 CSD A7 by Kimchi.sg. Tevildo 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinerate[edit]

This page appears to be self-promotion Will.Brunner 07:42, 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 debate was delete per WP:SNOW, and article creator also acknowledges impending deletion. Kimchi.sg 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation desert kill[edit]

Non-notable video made by "a really bored guy on holidays" and hosted on YouTube. It appears to be vanity, and also violates the crystal ball clause of WP:NOT. Originally prodded by me, prod tag removed by only editor. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPERATION DESERT KILL IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!! Dakoolest 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Dakoolest--Dakoolest 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment User has no other edits. Also, the editor of the article blanked this article's listing on the AfD log - I have restored it. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what the crystal ball clause is so i can fix it. Also on that note how is it being Vane and in what way? I don't want this page to be deleted because i believe that it isn't really breaking any rules.- The Burnanator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.32.15 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Sorry, but this video is not notable. DarthVader 08:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What do i have to do to make it notable?- The Burnanator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.32.15 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment The crystal ball clause is mentioned on WP:NOT. Also, please check out WP:N for more info about notability. Based on what the article says right now, the video is something someone made up in his spare time (see WP:NFT), and doesn't seem to be very popular outside of YouTube. I'll withdraw the vanity part since it's pretty clear you didn't make the movies yourself. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Trust me dude, It's on other websites as well. The only reason that the link is to you tube is because it is the best quality one that will give people the most infomation about it.By saying that it was made in "his spare time" is only there to give people more information on the subject at hand. - The Burnanator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.32.15 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment The only problem is that searching for Operation Desert Kill returns one hit on Google (two on Yahoo), and the hits aren't to these videos. And whether they're on other sites or not, the videos have less than 50 YouTube views combined. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically what part of the deletion policy to i not follow. If it's the verifiability part, please specifically tell me what i can do to pass that.The burnanator 09:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, notability not established. Google hasn't heard of it, three (related??) hits on author's name. WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. Weregerbil 09:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a rule that if the subject of an article doesn't exist on google or Yahoo that it is considered unreliable. Come on, Just if something doesn't happen to come up on a search engine that is always 100% reliable, why should it be deleted. Also it is new on the internet and it will catch on (I think)... The burnanator 09:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You THINK, but you don't know, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article does not prove the subject's notability with cited, verifiable sources; this is independent of Google hits, though those results back up that judgement right now. If it catches on, great, it'll belong on WP, but it's too early to expect that now. HumbleGod 09:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a proposed guideline that if something is allegedly an Internet phenomenon but it doesn't show up on Google, it's non-notable. In this case, the article doesn't even claim that the subject is an Internet phenomenon, just that the creator hopes it will be. --Metropolitan90 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. HumbleGod 09:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No present notability, no reliable sources GassyGuy 10:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, it's not that I have anything against the videos or anyone involved with them, but more that I don't see their usefulness on Wikipedia; we clearly can't have an article for every video ever made, so there has to be a cutoff point. Cutoff points favored by many editors can be found at WP:WEB or WP:MEME. Per WP:MEME, this article's subject has no major media exposure; a web meme like all your base, however, would be encyclopedically notable because of mass media attention. Other questions to ask include, "Will this article be useful and helpful to people a year from now? Ten years? A hundred years?" Is the article's subject notable enough to be historically relevant? Make sense? Thank you all for your time, and I hope that none of you take this as a comment on the work itself; I wish you nothing but success. Luna Santin 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, you guys raise a good point, so if it does become popular, you'll expect to see me again. Thanks for your help The burnanator 13:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Alphachimp talk 14:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per any youtube link thats passed around for a week or so and forgotten about. Artw 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Incidentally, the {{AfdAnons}} template here seems premature, given that there has been no vote stacking or sock puppetry. Other than Dakoolest, no one has voted to keep the article. —Caesura(t) 15:48, 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 as repost. Kimchi.sg 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliptical ferns[edit]

Violates WP:SPAM ; this is a band advert, makes no assertion of notability, and nonsensical to boot Graham 08:07, 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 was Keep Eluchil404 05:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Raygun[edit]

This article is about a non-notable company. Its only links are to a disambiguation page and a commercial website. --Sbluen 08:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC) The article looks a lot better now, so speedy keep because the nominator has withdrawn this nomination. DarthVader 09:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I have re-written to establish notability. The criteria for notability of record labels is not really specified in WP:MUSIC, but I believe releasing a top 20 single and releasing records for other prominent breakbeat artists is notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Aguerriero expanded and improved that article enough to keep it. --Sbluen 01:30, 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.

Plastic Raygun were also the recipient of a number of Welsh Music Academy awards.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 an attack page. -- Kjkolb 08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afrobean[edit]

Vandalism. Graham 08:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily delete Pure vandalism. --Sbluen 08:19, 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 was keep (although tiny 2:1 participation does not preclude relisting). `'mikka (t) 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Jam and Friends: The Radio Show![edit]

I'm not quite sure how this one isn't vanity for a non-notable radio show. There's no evidence that this has been syndicated or widely broadcast (the article doesn't assert this), and while the article does assert that the show is "award-winning," there no source to back this up or even any information on what awards this show has won and when. Additionally, there seems to be a walled garden of JJaF pages; I'm not sure if this is merely evidence of an enthusiastic fan or group of fans focusing on this subject, or if it's just a case of low-key vanispamcrufizement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like WP:SPAM at the moment, but clicking the external link you can find a list of about 50 stations that syndicate it. I'm going to suggest to the author that it be rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV. Graham 09:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I didn't get much out of the external link; it steadfastly refused to do anything but crash my browser. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote yet. The external link [19] worked for me. Based on the fact that this is apparently a syndicated radio show, I will probably change my vote to keep, if all the pages about characters from this show are merged back into the main page and all the redlinks are unlinked during the AfD period. We do not need separate articles about every character per WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 15:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This radio show appears to be completely notable (although not currently in play). It is currently turning up over 1,000,000 Ghits. I'd like someone to do a little bit of work on the article (I'm flagging it for cleanup and wikify), but I think that it is worth keeping around. Alphachimp talk 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I use quotes in a Google search, to exclude results that just happen to include "jam" and "radio show", I get a much-more-conservative 60 unique hits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah. Good point. I sort of realized that after my initial search, but I saw 600 results, so I didn't think that the result was too notable. I think the fact that it is a syndicated Christian radio show with some regional distribution is enough to merit its inclusion. Alphachimp talk 00:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did not write the article, but I've contributed substantially to it. The article does not claim that the show is award-winning, but that it includes music from artists who are award-winning. This refers to country music stars Buddy Miller and Julie Miller. Buddy has won Song of the Year and Album of the Year awards from the Americana Music Association, according to wikipedia's page on him (which I have not contributed to). I believe the involvement of the Millers in this project makes it notable, in addition to the reason advanced above (i.e. the number of stations that syndicate it) and its success on CD and cassette. I'd agree that the show probably does not warrant separate pages for each character, but the article itself does not warrant deletion. -- CrimsonLine 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with your assessment of the individual character pages. Can you merge those into the article as a whole? Alphachimp talk 00:14, 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 was : Alexa rank is unlikely to mean anything much to our readers (yes, not everyone here edits) and the claim made is very shaky grounds for notability. The second-highest? Really? Because it's "316,670"? What, only one of the 316,669 sites above it are related to Tango? If you actually checked that, that's original research. Notability rests on non-trivial, independent, reliable external coverage, none of which have been demonstrated here. Both weight of opinion and weight of argument result in delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tango.info[edit]

Hmm, this article survived VfD last year, but I think this article should be wiped per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM, and for reminding me of that big fat bald orange bloke. die Baumfabrik 09:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 09:49, July 8, 2006
  • Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 14:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This probably should not have been kept based on the previous VfD. Fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer Don't make a new article for your own product or Web site. Most often, when a person creates a new article describing his or her own work, it's because the work is not yet notable enough to have attracted anyone else's attention. Articles of this sort are known as vanity pages and are usually deleted. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about popular products and Web sites, but it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia to popularize them. - a page with 4000 visits a day certainly attracts attention already. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly confused here, Tobias; are you voting for the deletion of the article that you created which refers to your own website? --die Baumfabrik 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. No I am not voting for the deletion. The website is the second most used among tango dancers, so I don't really understand why you vote for deletion. It also has some unique feature which make it valuable for tango music collectors. I very often tried to bring tango people to edit in wikipedia, but most of them simply don't do it, sometimes because they don't like WP very much. I wrote the article myself, since I know the website quite good. I also started an article on todotango.com - nobody accuses me of vanity there. I also started List of tango music labels, List of tango singers, List of public domain tangos, Sociedad Argentina de Autores y Compositores de Música, I edited other tango related articles. I created lots of stubs for locations where tango people where born. I asked lot of people to create basic tango articles in other language wikipedias, since I don't speak romanian etc. I love tango. And if I am not sleeping I either dance it or develop tango.info or edit in wikipedia. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity, website run by article author, completely non-notable. pschemp | talk 04:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:WEB and above. The JPStalk to me 15:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing encyclopedic to find inclusion here. --Bhadani 15:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa rank of 300,000 and no evidence of other notability outside the community of fans of tango. Therefore fails WP:WEB. Delete ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • you want en.wikipedia not to be something for tango fans? The value of 300k increases steadily, since the internet grows in numbers of hosts [20] and numbers of users. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I want wikipedia to be an encyclopedia of general interest. That means that we don't necessarily include everything we possibly COULD include, we filter. Read WP:WEB which, while not policy, is a good guideline in this area. This site fails the Alexa test. Last I checked it wasn't shown to be notable in other ways, although there are other methods than Alexa. Reviews in notable publications, for example. Please demonstrate the notability of this site with verifiable references and I'll change my opinion. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe this spam. I can't see that Tobias Conradi is acting in anything other than good faith. He has clearly been chucking just about every tango related resource he can at Wikipedia... his website happens to be, in fact, one of the most notable ones. And in fairness, we are talking about what seems pretty clearly to be the internet's second biggest resource on the entire tango genre - we're not talking about a "fansite" as if for a minor rock or pop group. Should we include the second biggest website on the classical genre, for instance? I think we should. It's also clearly not a commercially-led website driven to sell viewers as much as possible: in fact it appears to be an extremely useful database. Bear in mind that we do keep comparatively minor (in "it's small when you compare it to the whole internet" terms) statistical databases for sports, at least partly, I suspect, because they are used so often in our references. The article is pretty badly written, but it's certainly not written as an ad. It's very easy to get hot under the collar because the page has been written by the site's creator - it would have been a better idea to allow somebody else to do so - but given that (1) it's a useful database of encyclopedic information (which means we should brush over it less harshly than we would for a forum or sales-based site), (2) it seems notable within the tango community, (3) tango is not just a minor band, it's actually a major musical genre, and (4) there is sufficient material to write a substantial article without it verging anywhere near an advert, I think that there's a chance this should be given the benefit of the doubt and kept. TheGrappler 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "chucking just about every tango related resource he can at Wikipedia", in the face of our policies about what is and isn't notable, and after they have been repeatedly explained to him, is not necessarily acting in good faith, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong KEEP. citing WP:SPAM is not warranted; just check back-links. Notability and verifiablity are established. I also strongly object to usage of alexa rank in the way done here. Tango dancers are pretty much narrow community in the world, as compared to pornography lovers. Therefore alexa must be reasonably used as a comparison tool for websites in the same topic. Clearly, #2 among tango websites is a feat of notability, contrary to most assertions made in this vote. `'mikka (t) 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mikka.--Pan Gerwazy 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 This article needs to be deleted for being absolutely incorrect. Argentina & Africa have nothing in common, Neither culturally nor historically. Please delete this erroneous article. Thank you. Magiko.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claremore Adventist Elementary[edit]

non-notable, very small denominational school Travelbird 09:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 14:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Steel 22:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not because of notability, but because of lack of verifiable information. --Rob 23:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inactive, no real way to tell if it's ever been active, and non-notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice due to lack of verifiable information. Bahn Mi 20:29, 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 close CFD is thataway. Kimchi.sg 16:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Roman Catholics[edit]

This category must be eliminated. There are simply too many American Catholics, as opposed to other countries. What is more it is completely unnecessary. There are so many sub and sub-sub categories that this broad a category is unneeded, and if everyone who belongs is added it will be unmanageable. karas 09:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Close Should be in CfD, not AfD. Tevildo 09:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment CfD (and formal AfD) nomination now completed. Tevildo 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CD VINYL COLLECTIBLES[edit]

deprodded. This is an advertisement for a company with no assertions to notability that would fulfill WP:CORP or WP:WEB. In the unlikely event it is kept, it needs to be retitled to something that is not all-caps. Chaser T 09:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I personally think the site should stay because there are little resources available via the internet, or otherwise, for music collectors who have a vested interest in Latin Pop music collectibles from the 80's, 90's, and present. Many people appreciate the site as well as the site on eBay because they end up finding music that they thought they would otherwise never find. The site offers many imports from foreign countries, which the seller visits personally to satisfy the needs of collectors. The online shop also makes a large array of promo's and out of print titles available to collectors.
  • Just change the title from CD VINYL COLLECTIBLES to CD Vinyl Collectibles. Mario 11:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, advertising. --Tim1988 talk 12:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement (WE sell...?). Emc² (CONTACT ME) 12:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert for a non notable company Nuttah68 14:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy "What We Sell" - "Who We Are" - Fails WP:ADS DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Cites no sources. No indication whatsoever that the company is considered important. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. It is hard to believe that an important commercial enterprise would use a Geocities website. Note, too, that earlier text presented a URL that performs an eBay search for the seller, and misrepresents it as a "website," as if it were a true online store. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done some POV surgery on the article. Those who wish to understand the earlier comments about the promotional nature of the content should look at earlier versions such as this one. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jaranda wat's sup 20:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, blatant advertising. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam/advertising. --Zoz (t) 12:19, 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario's Short Films[edit]

Vanity spam article that fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 09:58, July 8, 2006

I am also nominating the following with the same deletion rationale:

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 05:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Cahill[edit]

Violates WP:SPAM. Graham 09:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This needs to be checked for NPOV. This needs to be wikified. In fact, this needs major, thorough cleanup. A source wouldn't hurt, and some parts probably need to be rewritten. Still, she is a notable singer who passes WP:MUSIC, so she ought to have an article on here. GassyGuy 10:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to have been lifted directly from Patricial Cahill's website. Obviously, that causes problems with copyright and NPOV. It should be rewritten or deleted. AnnH ♫ 11:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see that someone has removed the copyright material from the page, so it is no longer a copyvio. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she's well-known over here. Dlyons493 Talk 13:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the self-promotion's been dropped. Graham 21:54, 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.

Graham 10:01, 8 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ===The Flood in ancient Chinese writing===hi this is fake by Andrew Kraley This page violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR. The article also basically only talks about one Chinese character for "boat" and expand on this one single issue. I do not think that that ONE argument (based only on one character) is enough to be a proof for "The Flood in ancient Chinese writing"; or that it's important enough to have its own Wikipedia article. To assume such conclusion based on just one single Chinese character is simply POV and non-encyclopedic. Furthermore, no important references are in place.[reply]

Heilme 10:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per reasons above. Heilme 10:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Noah's Ark or Deluge (mythology) or possibly Flood geology. Whatever one may think of the reasoning, this _is_ one of the standard Creationist arguments, and I think it should be represented somewhere. The article as it stands seems NPOV enough to me - it states the case against the theory as well as the case for it. Tevildo 10:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Heilme. It's a shame that the article tries to rebut the argument with some reasonable points instead of ignoring the preposterous idea altogether. --die Baumfabrik 11:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment By that reasoning, we should delete everything about creationism. NPOV works both ways. Tevildo 11:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. We certainly should; you and me against the world, comrade. --die Baumfabrik 12:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Flood geology. David Sneek 13:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original thought and totally unsearchable. --IslaySolomon 18:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For those wanting to delete this for being OR, it would be easy to paraphrase the talk.origins discussion of this issue [21] to preserve the information on a more appropriate page. Consider this also to be a cited reference. :) Tevildo 19:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the basis for this article (Chinese character for "boat" = proof of the Flood being recorded in ancient Chinese writing) comes from a book, then the title of the article should be a title of that book and the content should be a summary of that book. Otherwise, to draw a conclusion and assume that an argument from an author is a "fact", is totally POV and non-encyclopedic. This is the same degree of speculation as that book by Gavin Menzies - 1421: The Year China Discovered America. I mean, just because an author - Gavin Menzies - put forth an argument that the Chinese discovered the Americas in 1421 doesn't translate that into a "fact" and doesn't mean that we can make an encyclopedic Wiki article on that, unless the article itself a synopsis of the book. It's at best a hypothesis, not even a "theory". Furthermore, another reason why this article is Original Research: the "pros" and "cons" points beings put forth in this article cannot be found in any references and reflect the opinions of the editors. Heilme 21:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This laughable argument has not been brought up nor verified by any scholar with appropriate qualifications (the source I trace back is a reverend in Singapore, the notion was publicized to the West by a pathologist). It doesn't deserve an article. I'd suggest to merge it back to something like Noah's Ark or some related article. --Yenchin 23:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Flood geology or to the book in which this argument was made, if that has an article. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Article creator seems to have jumped to conclusions, based on the discussion here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems like original research to me. 68.50.203.109 08:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and original research. TheRingess 08:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a mention could be made somewhere else but frankly this theory is nonsense Cause of death
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nick Summer Pack[edit]

A meaningless piece of listcruft WP:LC including "various Nicktoons" as well. --Richhoncho 10:15, 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 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Bo's Chicken[edit]

Article is of a non-notable fast food outlet (and may well have been created as a joke). NB: possibly the establishment's name is "BoBo's Chicken" according to the one Google reference I could find (a blog entry). Also: I originally "prodded" this, but then an anon. removed the prod notice 4 days later for what I suspect was a spurious reason. What a drag. A bit iffy 10:22, 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 was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Stringer[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable biography. In addition, the article's author appears to be a brother or other relative of the subject. And the text is a direct copy and paste of here. Metros232 12:16, 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 was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Veterans of other conflicts[edit]

The last time we looked at this, it was decided to split. That was 5 months ago. Since that time, nobody has done any maintenance on the article, and it's just as pointless as it was before. As my mother used to say, shit, or get off the pot -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. This article is silly. What are "other conflicts", and why are there only five people listed? Cmcl14 15:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless, useless and as per nom DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 16:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "other" seems to be a reference to these being conflicts not listed on List of military veterans. There is not a chance in hell that anyone will search wikipedia for a list of six unconnected people who fought in the American Civil War, the Falklands and the Mahdist War. Also, this serves no purpose that categories, such as Falklands War people and United States Army soldiers, do not already. --IslaySolomon 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strange, badly thought out and almost empty list. Bwithh 20:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and because obviously no one cares too much. --DaveG12345 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless list, no criteria for "other conflicts". --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Landolitan 12:48, 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 was : no consensus between deletion and merging. As the parent article Hwa Chong Institution currently contains nothing about the club but its name, in a long list of about 50-60 other societies, I have redirected the article there, and anyone who wants to do a merge if it becomes viable can go into the redirect's history. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tahan Mountain Trekking Team[edit]

Insignificant. A high school's recreational club of some school. Either delete of merge to the school's page. __earth (Talk) 12:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. __earth (Talk) 12:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have unclosed/reopened this AfD (closed here: [22]) because I'm pretty sure that the close was made because of the mistake of the header originally being PageName. This club is not notable. DarthVader 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. __earth (Talk) 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with school's main page DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 16:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if viable, otherwise delete, per nom. Minutiae of nn club. I wonder if those song lyrics are potential copyvios? --DaveG12345 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, school clubs aren't notable on their own. A mention on the school's page would be a good idea. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to parent school article. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. -- mh 13:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete SKINT - no consensus on whether Skint should be a redirect or not so I've played safe and redirected. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skint[edit]

Slang dicdef; Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide. Deprodded with message on the talk page. Weregerbil 12:51, 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 was delete. (Pages which start "Danijel Turina is a Croatian writer [and] a lunatic" don't merit relisting so they can remain so for another 5 days.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danijel Turina[edit]

This semi-random eccentric's article does not meet the notability criteria for biographies. The talk page already has one complaint about the existence of the article. I have personally heard about this person on the Croatian newsgroups, but that's about it, and it doesn't make him suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Joy [shallot] 13:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I have heard of him on the Usenet, but that doesn't make him notable enough. When his congregation reaches 10000 people, I might reconsider my vote. --Dijxtra 13:34, 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 was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASOG (Arab Special Operations Group)[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!

"ASOG is a fictional Group in the Project Reality Tournament". Ghits for project reality tournament seem to point to it being a fictional campaign within Battlefield 2. Article is WP:NN as gamecruft that does not meet WP:WEB. Alphachimp talk 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://tournament.realitymod.com/index.php shows >600 members http://realitymod.com/forum/index.php shows over 35000 hits to the tournament website from that link alone Also that site has over 7000 members — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASOGMaverick (talk • contribs)

  • Delete possibly a Walled Garden, but there is no indiction of satisfying WP:WEB. Yanksox 13:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete A wiki already exists for the mod and is not up for deletion. A large numebr of those involved with the mod play in the tournament. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Reality_(Mod) ASOGMaverick 16:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Note I didn't ask that poster to post. I have been civil - if confused - throughout! ASOGMaverick 16:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I quote wiki Policy : The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7] how does this wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Reality_(Mod) fulfill this criteria and my wiki not? As I understand it a wiki only has to fulfil one of the criteria outlined hereWP:WEB to be seen as Notable. I would move that this wiki is notable as a direct result of that Project Reality wiki and also general interest citing previously referenced figures. Also note that the 21CW tournament has a wiki [[23]] ASOGMaverick 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Project Reality (Mod) may also need to be AFD'ed, as that article reads like a strategy guide, which Wikipedia is not. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why don't you respond to an argument that is perhaps valid? I read somewhere that the basis for deletion is not the number of people sayting 'delete' or 'it fails WEB' etc but the argument and the corrrectness fo that argument. To this end I find it highly bizarre nobody responds to my argument. Perhaps because it is too valid?ASOGMaverick 10:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. First off, please indent your comments using ":". It makes reading this thing a whole lot easier. I would be careful that you don't start wikilawyering. Project Reality is not a notable online publisher, and does not distribute the content of ASOG through its site. ASOG is a limited group of people who play using that mod. Alphachimp talk 13:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RetortI understand what you are saying and thank you for your advice - I often find it hard to argue cogently without using 'Legaleeze' as it is known. I would thus like to take a different approach. TBF2 (Total Battlefield 2) is the leading authority on BF2. Thus I would take their word as 'credible'. To this end i would point you to this post: http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1000117 , made by the owner of the site - who also happens to be involved with IS - who run tournaments across the internet which involve thousands of players. Again a notable source. Further more Planet Battlefield, another very notable source for BF2 information noted the PR Tournament (of which ASOG is at least half). http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/pagetools/pagetools.php?act=printnews&id=83266 . BF1942 Match also commented on the commencement of the tournament http://www.bf1942match.com/view.news.php?id=551 . Also in Germany the Tournament is recognised. http://bf2.4players.de:1045/index.php?area=1&p=news&newsid=556&koobi=faf5933f9713511bbb1f83f6888985bc . ABR - a group recently consulted by DICE and EA (the companies responsible for creating BF2) - also referenc ethe tournament on numerous occasions. http://www.battlefieldranking.net/4/24.html . Battlefield Files also references PR Tournament. http://battlefield2.filefront.com/news/Project_Reality_Tournament_Campaign_2_Signups;27357 . Another site is here http://www.infragiliscommunity.com/ . By this time I am very bored of finding so many links simply by GHITS for "Project Reality Tournament". I do however recognise there is an argument that states ASOG is only a part of the tournament and thus is perhaps a 'closed garden'. To argue against that I would state that anybody who is interested in the tournament (and many are - as I established above) have to be interested in both teams! Otherwise there would be no tournament! Thus the figures for memebership of the sites show popularity again. I hope this has laid out my case more clearly. ASOGMaverick 18:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I don't see how this is relevant to anything outside of the video game. Arguments that the article established notability via WP:WEB, while I appreciate their fervor, fail. You quote the passage: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." however, I don't see how the article conforms to this. What independant site distributes your content? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:32, 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 Speedy keep "unsourced tripe" is not a valid reason to delete. - FrancisTyers · 08:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zamanfou[edit]

AfD submitted by anon user 212.251.125.15, with comment - "deleted unsourced tripe (probably some editor's personal musings) on the background behind the so-called phenomenon, per WP: no original research". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 13:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Previous AfD's here and here. Tevildo 13:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author of the article states some books as sources, so he should inform us if the 'background' description is first shown in those books. Pictureuploader 13:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE Per WP: Non-notability and WP: Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

The so called "phenomenon" returns only 25 results in Google Groups, of which most consist of a single usenet user's signature. On the world wide web, almost all returns are reproductions of the wikipedia entry, or unrelated websites such as "zamanfou casino" and forum usernames. In fact describing "zamanfou" as some complex Greek social phenomenon, when in fact it is nothing more than a slang expression, similar to "devil may care", while amusing, is completely incorrect. Last time I checked what Wikipedia was not, I read that Wikipedia is not a Dictionary or jargon guide [24]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpapatelios (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. It is sourced (although I cannot verify the sources because I don't read Greek) and appears well-written. Google search results mean nothing, especially when dealing with international subject. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. For the 3rd time. Let's see if we'll make a pool for the 20th deletion of the article much like the GNAA article has. Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 07:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears well written, and if I could read greek, I'd imagine well sourced. The previous AfD's were keeps, I cannot see why this is up again. ShaunES 06:34, 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 was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floating Solar Chimney Technology[edit]

This is typically a vanity article; the only person interested in it is its author. The issue has been covered in a single sentence in Solar updraft tower, and that is probably more attention than it deserves anyway. We have seen a proliferation of "Solar Tower" type articles in the past. Just a few months ago we had 3 almost identical articles Solar Tower, Solar chimney, and Solar Tower Buronga, all of which were riddled with commercialism. Those 3 articles have now been merged into one single article, i.e. Solar updraft tower, which btw still needs a lot of cleaning up as it bears the traces of its torturous past. But these kind of articles keep popping up; another example of that is Vortex engine. I think it is about time to put a stop to it. JdH 13:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless we get proof that this is a notable technology from an independant source. The term gets very few google hits, and similarities in language indicate the same source. The word "innovative" crops up a lot, for instance. Artw 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless notability asserted per Artw. --DaveG12345 21:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with above comments. --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 08:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to solar updraft tower, after removing "innovative" lots of times and wikifying, the last section of this article could be added to that article as an alternative way of building the chimney. --Scott Davis Talk 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already put in a single line about it. I wouldn't want to spend more characters on it, because it is one of those hairbrained schemes that wouldn't work. What the author didn't think of is that the Solar chimney is based on the fact that there is a pressure difference between outside and inside the tower; and that pressure difference gets bigger the higher the tower gets. Schlaich actually describes the use of internal bracings (spokes) to strenghten the tower. In short: The tower needs to be pretty sturdy to keep it from collapsing under the pressure difference, and it will therefore be far too heavy to keep it up with balloons. JdH 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether it would work is not necessarily the point. It has been published about, so citable references are available, and it is a variation from building a concrete tower.
  • All there is is one single article, nothing else. There are no independent confirmations from other investigators. JdH 08:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments about weight and strength could be used to prove that neither a Zeppelin nore a Boeing 747 can fly, too. Those floppy "men" at used car yards are a lightweight tube with air flowing through them. In that case, they are powered by a fan or air compressor, not a solar collector and chimney effect, but they do stay up because of the pressure difference—stability is the issue. --Scott Davis Talk 05:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case there is a positive pressure difference; in the case of the solar chimney there is a negative pressure difference. Therefore, an unsupported floppy solar chimney would deflate rather than inflate. JdH 08:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Steele[edit]

None of the books written by this Tim Steele appear to be notable. "Tim Steele" plus the titles of each of his three books gets 17, 104, and 1 Google results. There appears to be other Tim Steeles, but this one's not notable. Metros232 13:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verifiable bases of notability are provided. The first two books are listed on amazon as being published by Palmerston & Reed Publishing Company. I found them through this site:[25], who in turn lists Palmerston's website as here, which is one of those redirect sites--appears to have nothing to do with this publisher. Hard to tell if it's a vanity press. The first book's listing at amazon [26] states it is not yet released, despite being listed as published "July 1, 2001". The third book is published by Stellar Press. I can't confirm anything about them either. However, I checked the Library of Congress database and found nothing for all three.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:16, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of final boss monsters in the Sonic series[edit]

Complete fancruft. Has no place in an encyclopedia. Randall Brackett 13:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The information is already included in other articles (redundant). I didn't read each of those articles, but if there is something not included, go edit those ones instead. Cmcl14 15:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.. hmm, could probably be put into a template instead.--Andeh 15:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't see why these aren't individually named in the template either. This looks like an excuse for a POV fork to include the (completely rumoured and crystal-balling, it seems) "Disaster" entry. --DaveG12345 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a template would work so much better here, though even then, it's borderline excessive fancruft. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe the relevent links already exist in the template under "Villains". At any rate, nothing here that isn't elsewhere other than the "Disaster" stuff that appears to be just rumors. BryanG(talk) 07:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, grossly incomplete and rather crufty. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 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 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Punchline[edit]

Delete as it is nothing more then an advertisement - the notability of the performers does not convey notability to the club. Gay Cdn 13:35, 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 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock (University of Michigan)[edit]

Merge content into the UofM page and delete this article as the rock is not notable in of itself. Gay Cdn 13:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The work involved for a closing sysop to perform a GFDL-friendly merge-and-delete is not justified for this article. If anyone wants to add a line about this, preferably with a picture, to the University of Michigan article, they could of course do so. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dpbsmith. Given that there are three tags on it, it would probably be hacked and sliced at post-merge, leaving the original content unrecognizable and previous page history unnecessary. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem notable outside of University of Michigan community. --Pboyd04 23:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to University of Michigan. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 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 debate was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stapleguns[edit]

Delete as the band fails WP:MUSIC. Gay Cdn 13:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 14:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment tagged for speedy as it appears to meet criteria for Speedy deletion.--Andeh 15:43, 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 send to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Altieri[edit]

Delete as this page is an advertisement and based on the choices of language, may be a vanity page. Gay Cdn 14:12, 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 debate was Speedy delete, as the article cried out for it. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium (band)[edit]

Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC. Gay Cdn 14:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment tagged for speedy, appears to meet criteria for Speedy delete.--Andeh 15:41, 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 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town topics[edit]

Delete as a non-notable publication; it may also be seen as an ad. Gay Cdn 14:21, 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 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TradePoint Systems[edit]

Delete as advertising. Gay Cdn 14:24, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trek Travel International[edit]

Delete as a non-notable corporation. Its news coverage is the result of hack attack not the company. Gay Cdn 14:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami in Sangam[edit]

Delete as this seems to be original research. Gay Cdn 14:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are references in the article somehow, but the article is quite incoherent. The subject, from what I can gather, sounds like opinionated, original research rather than encyclopedic content. joturner 14:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as likely copyvio. Take particular note of the broken footnotes ("...beneath the sea1", "Chola9", "respectively11", etc). Zetawoof(ζ) 02:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Probable copyvio, but the Wikipedia article is the only google hit for a random sentence of the text. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 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 was keep, unfortunately - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Whelan[edit]

Non-notable bio whos speedy deletion has been contested by a new user.[27] Delete as per Wikipedia is not a memorial and WP:BIO. Jester 14:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Search for "Tara Whelan" on www.google.ie and see what comes up. This was a national news story in Ireland for the summer of 2005. Just because it means nothing to you, try and show some shread of respect for the grievence of another nation. This incident showed how terrorism effects ordinary people. If anyone agrees that this should be deleted, well why not delete the July 2005 London bombings while you're at it? That was the main story in Britain in summer 2005, and this was the main story in Ireland. Consider keeping it and do a more thorough search for notability, you'll see that this is a very notable story. The death of this girl moved an intire nation, which could have also contributed to the end of the IRA's armed campeign, after seeing how a person from their country could be taken with such an ammount of inconsiderate bloodshed at the hands of another terrorist group. Please see search results here http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=tara+whelan&meta= Surely an international act of terrorism is notable? Spaingy
    • Comment An act of terrorism is notable but being a victim of that act is not in itself notable. This article is not about the incident as the July 2005 London bombings is. Nuttah68 15:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see where you're coming from but I also ask you to reconsider. Please see the external links on the page. As you may know, young James Bulger was also taken through an act of evil, his story also bringing a nation together (Britain). I understand that it was the trial that attracted most attention, but it was the death itself that brought grievence and confusion to ordinary lives on a large scale. Located here is a video clip from RTE News of the girl's funeral http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2061384.smil I sincerely request your reconsideration. Thanks. Spaingy
  • Merge If there isn't an article about the bombing itself(after a quick search I couldn't find one) then one should be created and the bulk of this information merged into it. If this person's death had the political impact in Ireland that the author asserts it did then it should be kept, but within an article about the terrorist attack and its consequences. This article should then become a redirect/diamg. --IslaySolomon 17:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There was no major political impact, but rather what I referred to was the impact on the psyche of the country. This death was one of the major and most notable occurances in Ireland in 2005. Spaingy
  • Delete or Userfy Since we don't seem to yet have an article on the attack, when such an article is made, some information from this article might make sense to move into it. However, one victime of an attack is not notable by themself, as sad as the occurence may be. JoshuaZ 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spaingy. National coverage of her funeral asserts notability. That being said, the article needs cleanup for tone. Meets WP:BIO per "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Northenglish on WP:BIO grounds. Captainktainer * Talk 00:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Northenglish --Gil Gamesh 13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is neither a memorial, nor Wikinews. And I am Irish, and remember the news coverage. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Stifle, if you admit that you remember the news, well then why suggest that this article be deleted? Are there not articles about other murders on Wikipedia? I believe there are. Wikipedia is universal after all, or so I understand. If this happened to a person of another nationality it would most definately by kept. Sorry if it sounds like I'm accusing you of being unpatriotic or anything, that is not the case. Just interested in why this article is still listed for deletion, even given the amount of reliable background and information sources in the form external links, media files, etc. Please do not take this comment in the negative. Do get back in touch. Spaingy
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infonation[edit]

Looks like spam for a nn tech company, though the company no longer exists Artw 14:37, 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 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CARNIVAL of the DAMNED[edit]

Non-notable, non-released (except through Google), with minimal Google hits Rklawton 14:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It doesn't even seem to have an IMDB entry. joturner 14:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete the DVD cover image says visit us and a myspace account URL..--Andeh 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NN movie by NN people. The trailer (complete with fabricated MPAA message) pretty much speaks for itself.[28] --IslaySolomon 19:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 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. Overwhelming consensus to keep. --Tony Sidaway 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There Is No Cabal[edit]

Neologism, the jargon file website while it defines that the term is used on usenet, the rest of the article is complete WP:OR. There is no basis given in that source for how the term is used, what is meant by its use, or why it is used. The article puts forth unsourced theories and draws unsourced conclusions, all of which is original research. I'm not arguing the notability of the statement. If you want to argue for keep, please address the points raised, this is a debate for concensus, not a vote. Crossmr 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article definitely needs to be rewritten, ideally with some sources - I won't argue with that. Also, discussion of power structures in Usenet are not appropriate to that article. The rough history of the term and its spread through the internet would be nice. I'd say keep, hoping we can find someone to fix it. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 15:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been here almost 2 years and no one has cared to write it properly. What gives you any indication that any further time will change that? --Crossmr 15:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Hacker's Dictionary and the New Hacker's Dictionary are published works. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see either of those listed as references, and do they contain any besides saying "TINC = There is no Cabal and this is used on Usenet?"--Crossmr 15:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then they can be listed. The point about entries from the Jargon File is that they have been published; therefore the Jargon File in itself is a viable source. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But it doesn't say anything. All it says is: "Abbreviation: “There Is No Cabal”" It doesn't go on to provide a source for any of the rest of the material in the article. Removing the unsourced material, all you are left with is the first sentence and the first 4 words of the second sentence. At which point WP:NOT wikipedia is not a dictionary applies.--Crossmr 15:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's under "backbone cabal." Tom Harrison Talk 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And is that also in a published source? This jargon file is just hosted on Eric S Raymond's personal site.--Crossmr 15:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The jargon file is also ISBN 0262680920. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could use interlibrary loan and check, but I think Eric Raymond is a reliable source for "backbone cabal." It's available at McGill as well, if you prefer. Worst case, we could say, "According to Eric Raymond, the term came into use..." Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True or not, your guessing that you think he's a reliable source doesn't exactly meet WP:V, is there some evidence that he is indeed a subject matter expert?--Crossmr 16:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... Tom Harrison gave you the link to his Wikipedia page. Did you read through it? It establishes him fairly well as a subject matter expert. Captainktainer * Talk 00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - It needs to be sourced a little better. As of right now, it's an OR dicdef. It's obviously notable and I don't like the idea of deleting it considering that it is referenced so often in Wikipedia discussions. Also, the self-reference doesn't seem appropriate here. When it's something like RFA or Assume good faith that is obviously fundamental to Wikipedia and soemthing a newbie would search for, having heard the name, but not knowing about namespaces, the self-reference needs to be there - but this one is an inside joke and really not appropriate for a SR. Personally, I think the article needs to be rewritten substantially ... but deletion doesn't seem necessary. BigDT 15:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hmm, I got a huge amount of g-hits for the term so it may be notable.--Andeh 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I address this issue in the nomination.--Crossmr 16:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful, notable, cited, and mostly harmless. Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Its still currently uncited. The possibility of citations doesn't save an article if no one wants to do the work. Notability was addressed in the nom, and "useful and mostly harmless" are not criteria for inclusion in wikipedia.
  • Keep The Cabal (TINC) forbids deletion of this article. Just zis Guy you know? 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite if there's a problem, but keep or merge into lumber cartel (although if anything I think the other way around would make more sense). People years or decades hence who see the mysterious inscription "TINC" and come to Wikipedia for enlightenment should get it. --♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, forget the merger part. Hereafter I preview. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is a total lack of credible citation. Rewriting doesn't solve that.--Crossmr 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I've never heard this statement before and reading this article hasn't exactly helped me. Is it a statement used by members of the cabal? Is it a statement that implies in actuality just what it says, that a cabal does not exist? Do people really use it, or is it just some Internet message board people? Unless this can be unambiguous and sourced, this is useless, and I'm not seeing much potential for development. If someone rewrites it to address this stuff I'll reconsider. GassyGuy 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obligatory keep per my comments on Lumber Cartel. Opabinia regalis 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this isn't on notability and whether it exists, its about the fact that other than its existence the rest of the article is unsourced and a violation of WP:OR and WP:V--Crossmr 00:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Words of Wisdom references this page, it's adequately sourced per the Jargon File (which is the online version of the New Hacker's Dictionary, written by ESR who is a giant arse but is an expert source for the evolution of the Internet), heck, here's the Google Groups search for it. I can't really see a good reason to delete. Captainktainer * Talk 00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Google groups can't be used as sources, the Jargon file only sources its existence and The words of wisdom page linking to it is of no concern. How about some valid ones that actually address the problems with the article? The fact that nonthing outside its existence is sourcable? And what contained in the Jargon file is all that can be written about it on wikipedia as this is the only credible source on it, and thus doesn't qualify for an article at 1 sentence.--Crossmr 00:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    as for good reasons WP:V being the corner stone and non-negotiable policy of wikipedia is reason enough by itself.--Crossmr 00:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you follow the link in Jargon File to "Backbone Cabal"? I've also added the original FAQ from alt.conspiracy.usenet-cabal that addressed the issue- and while postings from Google Groups are unacceptable as reliable sources for matters not directly related to Usenet, they are a reliable primary source for matters related to usenet itself. There are enough sources to meet WP:V; everything else is context for interwiki links. Captainktainer * Talk 00:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    faqs from newsgroups are again not usable sources. Usenet posts are NEVER usable as primary or secondary sources on usenet. WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 points to this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources which clearly states: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources" That doesn't say "unless you're talking about usenet".--Crossmr 01:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    the backbone cabal link is pretty meaningless since the it says "This phrase did not come into existence until after the cabal dispearsed" and the backbone page makes no reference to the phrase.--Crossmr 01:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    and since there are no credible sources outside the mention in the Jargon File, everyone claiming how notable it is should really reconsider that. I believe this falls under only being notable to a limited a group, as in those within a small circle of all the people who used usenet, and not so notable that the only attention its received outside the usenet circle is a small mention in a dictionary style book.--Crossmr 01:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not keep, at least merge into Backbone cabal. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral While I'd rather see the article kept, per Crossmr's points it's difficult to have an article that does not consist of original research. The phrase is at List of Internet slang. Danny Lilithborne 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is probably the only place this actually belongs as the only information sourcable is just big enough to make an entry there.--Crossmr 02:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge to Internet jargon and history section of Usenet article. Usenet trivia, even in Usenet's heyday. Usenet is defunct; its trivia was of questionable notablity in its prime. At best merge with Usenet article, otherwise delete. dryguy 05:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per JzG and Mackensen. Uncensored anarchic nature of of Usenet was seen as a great advance over previous publication methods. Note to closing admin: Nomination was good though. Why haven't we invited that man into the Cabal? Stephen B Streater 11:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability has been stipulated to not be in question. So the term exists. As I understand the argument of the nom as of now, (it seems to have shifted around a bit, I can't quite tell though) the contention is that the article is bad, and that no one has fixed it since it has existed, and that it's not sourced. The nom seems to have a strenuous objection (near as I can tell) to the use of the Jargon Dictionary. The JD is a published and purchasable work with an ISBN, which is itself highly notable and has existed for a very long time relative to most internet things, by a notable author who many recognise as an expert in this area of culture. I think the objection to the JD as a source is therefore clearly unfounded. I think the article itself could stand improvement but is already sourced and cited adequately enough as of this moment. I think the suggestion that this article is OR is spurious. Strong keep. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    actually I've addressed the Jargon dictionary being a source, its only a source for an explanation of TINC and absolutely nothing else in the article. The rest of the article is unsourced OR, and once thats removed all you're left with is "TINC = There is no Cabal and this was used on usenet" and that in no way qualifies for an article.--Crossmr 13:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Actually", you haven't addressed the issue to my satisfaction. There is lots of info out there on this term. Reasserting that it's OR doesn't make it so. Feel free to remove material you clearly feel is unsourced though, and justify your work on the talk page for each removal. No change in my view that this is a strong keep and that there is a lot of spuriousness in the nomination. And no, I'm not in any cabals, to the best of my knowledge, well, except that one I guess. ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bear in mind that the linked "backbone cabal" article in the Jargon Dictionary contains more information on TINC. Calling the rest of it OR only works if you discount the official FAQ as being of dubious source, which is an unnecessarily strict reading of WP:RS per this discussion in the WP:RS archives- especially since the authorship of the FAQ never came under challenge from the author, who was intimately involved in Usenet at the time. As for the unrelated assertion that the term is defunct Usenet trivia, a quick scan of the talk and Wikipedia namespaces should be enough to permanently disabuse anyone of that notion. Captainktainer * Talk 13:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the source, the contemporaneous references and the publications I'd call this reliable enough. Plus, there is apparently no dispute that the phrase exists, has existed for a long time, and that this is the most common explanation of its origins; I'm not sure what needs to change here. Just zis Guy you know? 15:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per dryguy, not notable. Usenetcruft. Recury 16:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How then do you explain the claims of "cabalism" (by the way, TINC) on Wikipedia, given that WP:NOT Usenet? Did I mention that any attempts to delete this article are pointless (see Wikipedia:List of Cabals, which doesn't exist) and that TINC? [ælfəks] 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I explain them by pointing out that Wikipedia is filled with giant nerds, like yourself, just like usenet was filled with them. Shouldn't you be working on Pokemon articles or something? Recury 16:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Usenet was full of nerds, and the nerds propagated the TINC meme. And the mem crossed from Usenet to Wikipedia, and has been around for over twenty years. I'd say that was pretty good grounds for assuming it has legs... Just zis Guy you know? 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the inclusionist cabal demands it. Oh, and TINC. [ælfəks] 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Jargon file references clearly establish that this is not a neologism. As for the rest of the complaints about OR and such, AfD is not the place to resolve those. Just edit the thing. Bryan 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    and in editing it, there would be nothing left, other than whats covered in the Jargon file. Which would be about 2 lines and doesn't qualify for an article. It would be a pertpetual 1 or 2 line stub that couldn't be expanded.--Crossmr 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I obviously believe TINC, although apparently that does not count for much (I stopped keeping track of such things when I got booted out of TC 8 or 9 years ago). I'd go into the whole spiel about "There is No Documentation" or "There is No References" but Dave Hayes might crawl out of hiding. And, the irony of deleting the "There is No Cabal" page knows no bounds.... --Mschnierle 06:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment For reference, this user owns this page, which claims credit for the original cabal conspiracy FAQ. Captainktainer * Talk 12:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an enyclopedic topic. At best merge into an article on Usenet jargon or something. --kingboyk 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - any content problems with the article are a need for cleanup, not a question of possible deletion. This topic is verifiable and sufficiently noteworthy and encyclopedic for inclusion. Johntex\talk 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic is verifiable in that it exists, and since you want to bring up noteworthyness, please provide some credible citations to support that comment. If you read above, I mentioned that once all the non-verifiable information is removed, you're left with only a line or two and its not worth its own article. In addition this article has been here a long time, and its been in the unsourced, original research state that it is now for about the same amount of time. If no one wants to maintain it and bring it up to wikipedia standards why keep it? Maybe to save time we should just create one-line stub articles on every notable topic and piece of information on the planet and hope someone comes around and actually turns them into something worthy? There is no credible source for this outside the jargon file. That speaks to its notability and to th expandability of the article. --Crossmr 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be a great Idea! We could maybe then have people slowly adding to those, slowly refining it. We could even put them on one of those new fangled things called a "wiki". It'd work great! Perhaps we could call it wikipedia? :-) (by the way, don't the usenet archives also contain this information?) Kim Bruning 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Daniel Brandt, wikitruth, wikipediawatch.org, or a related article. DyslexicEditor 01:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - worthwhile information on a common phrase on Usenet, not a neologism. And of course it is true, TINC. --67.111.218.175 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need articles on common Usenet phrases. Recury 19:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Caba— NO CARRIER
  • HA! I was going to say "Gosh, what next? Are we going to call this usenetcruft?" . But someone actually came in and said that. TINC is relevant to wikipedia in many ways. If for some bizarre reason the history of usenet and internet is not encyclopedic enough, then at least move to wikipedia: namespace or meta. This page gets (over)used a lot in wikipedia discussions. Kim Bruning 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I'd voted 'keep on this before. Do you have any idea how many pages link to this already? DS 02:17, 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 was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HVATOS[edit]

A drag car whose claim to fame is that it "holds the record for quickest 13B Turbocharged, tubbed drag car in New Zealand." Recury 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very well known car in New Zealand and is a New Zealand record holder.Stevee2 22:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has local relevance and fame in New Zealand among car enthusiasists, and Wikipedia is not paper. Hauser 22:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article could use some verifiable citations to ratify its claims. I confess I don't know the significance of that record, and can find no reference to it online. --DaveG12345 23:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re:Comment Thanks for pointing that out :) Ive fixed it up and added another verifiable resource.Stevee2 00:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this article up for deletion? People proposing deletions need to state reasons, rather than expecting authors probably not familar with Wikipedia bureacracy to second guess them or wade through reems of policy waffle. My best guess is non-notability - though the car, (and its silly number plate)seem to pass the google test. Presumably the assumption is New Zealand racing is unimportant. Tell Chris Amon, Craig Baird, Andrew Bagnall, Denny Hulme, Robbie Francevic, Bruce McLaren, Possum Bourne, Scott Dixon, Paul Radisich, Jason Richards, Jim Richards, Greg Murphy, Burt Munro, John Britten... Winstonwolfe 02:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good guess! Not-notability it is. For the record, if this car's claim to fame was that it holds the record for the quickest 13B turbocharged, tubbed drag car in the United States, then I would feel just as strongly that it should be deleted. Even if it were the quickest 13B turbocharged, tubbed drag car in the entire world, I would still be nominating it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, like which car held the record for the quickest 13B turbocharged, tubbed drag car in New Zealand in 2006. Recury 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, especially per nom's restatement of nom's position. Tevildo
  • Delete per Recury. Hulme and McLaren are famed for careers of driving championships and carbuilding innovation that influenced the sport. This car is of only local and niche interest, that I can see, unless multiple non-trivial coverage in major publications can be shown. Somebody else will build a faster car in this particular class, and then this one will be forgotten by everyone except a few for whom this is their special interest. In my own particular form of motorsports, I assert that Richie Evans had major influence and will be remembered in a hundred years, but I do not claim that any one of his cars (even one that he set records in) is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Barno 02:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Recury. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 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. Mailer Diablo 18:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Subramanian[edit]

Delete as is a vanity page based on the author being the name of his publication and the only edit. Gay Cdn 14:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity. Cmcl14 15:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trying to use WP to find customers for his investment guides. NawlinWiki 15:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Some AlphaProfit web site visitors wrote to us about their search on Sam Subramanian in Wikipedia. Since no information was available on Sam Subramanian, we thought it will be worthwhile starting a page with this content in Wikipedia. The AlphaProfit Newsletter has grown substantially in popularity over the past few years based on its performance. The Newsletter is currently ranked #1 by Hulbert Interactive, a service of Dow Jones MarketWatch. Since the presence of the external link to http://www.alphaprofit.com does not provide any specific benefit to AlphaProfit, we have deleted this external link from the stub. AlphaProfit July 11, 2006.
  • 'Delete as per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 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 was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sample Master[edit]

Delete as an advertisement for ATL. Gay Cdn 14:51, 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 was keep stub, no relist necessary - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Games Corporation[edit]

Delete as this is basically an advertisement. Gay Cdn 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. Artw 15:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though if they are on the nasdaq, then they do meet the criteria for notability per WP:CORP "A company or corporation is notable if... The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices...". --Xrblsnggt 15:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about that at the time of nomination, but if the advertising portion was deleted, all that would exist in the article is the fact it is a NY company, listed on Nasdaq, and its ticker.--Gay Cdn 19:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. This is one of the biggest gaming-equipment companies in the world. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 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 was no consensus though a merge is strongly suggested - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Develop don't destroy brooklyn[edit]

Spam, loaded with POV, probably cut and pasted from a press release or website. Artw 15:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Nuttah68 15:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with modification. The topic seems notable, but obviously needs to be massively overhauled, preferably by a different author. Cmcl14 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: User's 9th edit. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "DDDB is a volunteer-run organization. We have over 5,000 subscribers to our email newsletter, 6,000 petition signers, and a nine-person steering committee." Sounds pretty local, I'd like to see some news coverage or something. Recury 16:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Keep per joturn. I'm going to stubify it though because the current version is pretty awful. Also, the article should be moved to correct the capitalization after the afd is finished. Recury 17:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is very poorly written, but the project looks notable to me. It's appears to be an important organization in New York City that has been mentioned in thirteen different articles in The New York Times. joturner 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedically notable as an organization. Mention of local protests against development may be noted in the Brooklyn Nets Arena article but there's no evidence that this organization is significant enough in its own right for its own article or even inclusion in the Nets Arena article. Many New York Times articles are not encyclopedically notable (as with almost all major news media channels) and so not a completely reliable indicator of significance. This is even more true of local interest stories which appear in the New York Times' Metro and New York Region sections as the stories on this organization do - the New York Times is not just a national or international newspaper, its also a local New York City newspaper covering stories only of local interest. Bwithh 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Bwith's logic. JoshuaZ 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Changing my opinion to keep and rename following Kmf164's logic below. JoshuaZ 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am actually not opposed to this becoming a Redirect to one or other of the foregoing articles. When the article was AfD'ed it was pure spam. It's now a stub that, alone, isn't ever going to say anything that can't be said in those other articles IMO. As a standalone article it doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG (activities are local in scope, and see the example case cited on that proposed policy page), so I cannot go with Keep. --DaveG12345 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Brooklyn Nets Arena and/or New Jersey Nets#Planned Relocation to Brooklyn; however, I strongly disagree with the idea that local notability is insufficient to make a subject worthy of an article in Wikipedia. One of the main arguments advanced in favor of deleting non-notable articles, as mentioned in Wikipedia:notability, is that non-notable articles don't attract people who would care to check its accuracy or NPOV. However, if something is truly locally notable, then I would expect there to be plenty of willing editors. 68.50.203.109 08:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to a parent article. Does not appear to be a nationally notable organization, see WP:ORG. If kept, move to correct capitalization. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn. While the original version of the article was spammy, it has been stubified. The organization seems notable. With 29,000+ google hits, there are sufficient third-party reliable sources such as the NY Times, Business Week, and local newspapers, such as the NY Daily News. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:17, 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. Mailer Diablo 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny guide[edit]

Delete as advertising. Gay Cdn 15:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Cmcl14 15:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to have cracked notability yet, and this is currently an advert to aid same.--DaveG12345 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 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 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who 2007 Series: Episode One[edit]

This seems to be a place holder for an epidose of Doctor Who which will eventually have an article under the episode name anyway. We're still about nine months away from the start of the next series of Doctor Who. See also the AfD for the series itself. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. — FireFox 15:19, 08 July '06

  • Delete as speculation. It can be recreated once there is definite detail. Nuttah68 15:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As we know nothing about the episode. Once we know something (like, say, the title) it can be recreated. Right now it seems to be just a page for rumours.
  • Speedy delete if possible. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "This episode (name unknown yet)..." - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --IslaySolomon 17:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Delete!; much of this article is guesswork: noone has confirmed that either Ice Warriors or Martha Jones will appear in this episode. Take that out and you are left with "This is the first episode of series 3 of Doctor Who. It has no name yet." smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there's really something to say about it. -- Mithent 21:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as jumping-the-gun crystal-balling. --DaveG12345 22:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal-ballism. Stifle (talk) 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. Mailer Diablo 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sicherglobal[edit]

With lots of "we" and "very reasonable prices" fails WP:SPAM. Besides official site and posts to forums couldn't find much else on Google. --Richhoncho 15:22, 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 per CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish gay websites[edit]

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links. Wikipedia is not a Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. May meet criteria for speedy deletion under {{db-empty}}.Andeh 15:35, 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 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venture the Void[edit]

MMORPG that's still in beta testing and not officially released per article; nonnotable yet and WP:NOT a crystal ball. NawlinWiki 15:56, 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 debate was Speedy delete, article makes no assertion of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirthless[edit]

I have read their webpage, with a reference to "their latest demo" and 2 members leaving the band in June 2006 it might not be a laughing matter, but it still fails WP:BAND --Richhoncho 15:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment appears to meet criteria for speedy, so tagged with Speedy delete.--Andeh 16:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Admirable work Andeh, I fully endorse this course of action. --Richhoncho 16:20, 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 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute gurlzz[edit]

WP:WEB - no Alexa data, advert, SPAM, shameless promotion Rklawton 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 23:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The site says "if your a cute girl, what could be funner than having a picture drawn of you?" Funner? --DaveG12345 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Cute Gurlzz is a free resource that makes no money and promotes no business. Its not spam, its not shameless promotion and its a fair reference to the term Cute Gurlzz which is unique. The site makes available free images for people to use as avatars and icons or in anyway they wish. The use of the word Funner is a fun derivation of the word fun, to have fun, having fun.

But hey, delete it if you want. I guess maybe your like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.206.145 (talk • contribs)

Its not my only contribution i'm mentioned elsewhere but you also seem to have deleted my other stuff as well even though people in exact same position are alloed to keep their stuff on Wikipedia.

All I can say is that maybe I could rewrite the entry more in the third party. Geez, you people are so low. Its a unique web site that has been running for over two years, Cute Gurlzz are unique, they are like Play Boy Bunnys, its like having a reference for My Space. My Space is a networking site etc. Cute Gurlzz is an established site for girls to get a free drawing. There are no Google Ads, no Adverts, no links, no requests for money, and moreover, Wikipedia is not going to generate any traffic for the site. I just thought as I had a bit of time i'd do a Wikepedia. All I can say is that maybe I could do with making the listing more objective.

I run a web directory myself thats free and I never behave like this with people, you know, if theres something lacking you should correct it, not judge, especially when you havn't looked at the site, I can see that only one of the top four 'judgees' actually looked at the site. And since then 1-2 more people have had a quick glance. Its only 1 page with a database of images.

  • Do you also vandalize user pages in this directory of yours? Rklawton 23:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you do with folks who use your sites and who refuse to follow the rules? At Wikipedia, we discuss the matter and (sometimes) delete their articles. If you've got a better way, don't hesitate to let us know. Rklawton 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability Author claims to have had his site up since 2004. The site asks visitors to send in photos, and the website posts drawings made from the photos. During this time, the website has generated 57 drawings. Wheee!!! I think we can safely speedy delete this website without worrying too much more about notability. Rklawton 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) (by User:Rawktonspal)

    • Comment: This user has been indefinitely blocked. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --mtz206 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 00:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, WP:VSCA. --Kinu t/c 03:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Only a small handful of submissions and frankly, looks rather scary. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 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 Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shab-sheep[edit]

Only entries for this word precisely is WP & mirrors, a search of the 2 words separately comes up with "Shab" which appears to be a sheep disease. I have never seen flocks of marauding sheep, but that doesn't mean there aren't such a thing! --Richhoncho 16:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, dicdef/neogolism. Possible speedy as nonsense. -- Steel 22:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Steel. Ornery sheep in battle - I'd like to see that cited. --DaveG12345 00:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-G1. Ridiculous. Funny, but ridiculous. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:00, 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 was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Snittker[edit]

Her name is actually "Lori Schnittker" per article and source. Member of Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but her importance not demonstrated by the article or the link to a PowerPoint presentation. Two Ghits (both for her apparently winning a Pampers sweepstakes). NawlinWiki 16:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's hardly anything there. Is it a possible A1? --DarkAudit 23:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, seems to assert some kind of notability, but I'm not convinced this achievement is notable enough for WP (the RCMP one, not the sweepstake win). --DaveG12345 04:27, 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 admin/CSD A7.--Andeh 19:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim sansom[edit]

Patently nonsense vanity page. Was speedied by tag was removed Nuttah68 16:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete vanity page, indeed. It should be {{db-bio}} joturner 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page. "Tim Sansom ... has popularity been credited with the invention of the bubble for the spirit level.". The spirit level article begs to differ. If Mr. Samson does believe he invented the spirit level then he was three hundred years too late. --IslaySolomon 16:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh, also probably best not to describe this article as "potent nonsense" or some petty admin may subject you to a humiliating dressing-down. --IslaySolomon 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Really? I was happy to use patent nonsense (CSD G1) as the contents are, less happy with vanity as I have no idea if Tim Sansom b1980 exists and even if he does whether he created the article :) Nuttah68 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable vanity unless reliable sources are provided to back up the article's claims. --Allen3 talk 16:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. And I'm not afraid to deem it so. YMMV. --DarkAudit 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megadelete and smash with a glass hammer --Macarion 17:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Speedy Deletion Falls under CSD A7. Yanksox 17:19, 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 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xange[edit]

Was prodded, tag removed by creator. nn neologism, article states the term was coined in July 2006. Delete. Oldelpaso 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per exactly what the nominator said. joturner 16:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, coined by Dwight? The user Dwitt77 created the article..--Andeh 16:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uberdelete "All he ever does is xanges that office of his." At least try to make sense with your own fake vocabulary. --Macarion 17:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above, heh. tmopkisn tlka 19:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. A lot of these vani-neos start off confidently then end up with a "just generally, um, something non-specific, y'know, something real lame..." definition. --DaveG12345 00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 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 18:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schizm[edit]

A local band, presently unsigned, which appears to fail WP:MUSIC by quite a margin. If this is deleted, a redirect to Schism should be left in its place. Middenface 16:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete They may fail WP:MUSIC norrowly. They have one record on amazon [29] and state that they are about to embark on a nation wide tour of Mexico (crystal balling obviously). However the entire article is copyvio from their official site [30]. --IslaySolomon 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you may be able to use {{db-band}} tag for speedy deletion if you believe they're not notable at all. I'm just sitting tight for now though.--Andeh 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One EP from a tiny indy record company doesn't make it for WP:MUSIC. The other release, "In the Sleep of Death", seems to only exist on wiki, mirrors, and myspace.[31] (Note: We may want to look at the articles for their releases, Where is Our Savior?? and In the Sleep of Death (album)). -- Fan-1967 20:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One EP on a label with onle 2 or 3 other bands. No tour info found. Despite the fact that they are on allmusic [32], I can find nothing that really meets WP:MUSIC. The laziness of just cutting and pasting the biography from their website really irks me, too. --Joelmills 02:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's a copyvio, if nothing else. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazin[edit]

Describes a common name. The one working link is to a person who does not appear to use that name.KarenAnn 17:00, 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 was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lowell[edit]

I consider for deletion the article, considering the number of biased, unreferenced statements contained within the article, rendering the content unverifiable. The person is also not notable enough to have a place on wikipedia. A "politically" associated person, who got a few votes in a general election in a country of 400,000 persons. Notability is disputed. Maltesedog 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Colonization of Mars" -- need I say more? └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. or better a complete rewrite. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 11:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Agree with a complete rewrite.
        • Comment I think it's well written except for the "Political Vision" section.Drew88 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I lean toward deletion, but I'd like a bit more outside evaluation (perhaps from European editors); Maltesedog obviously has a dog in this fight. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I agree jpgordon, that's why i posted it for afd. I want a discussion amongst people outside my country to ensure neutrality. There is also a dispute regarding reversal of edits in the article. Well, without them or with them, the article's content is still disputable. Maltesedog 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known fascist leader in Malta. Biased or unreferenced statements can be removed, but there should be enough verifiable information left. Margana 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which is the verifiable information left Maltesedog 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a barrani I hear about him a bit even outside of Wikipedia.. There have been mentions in various papers. I have personally made use of this article (knowing that it attracts random unverifiable edits) in helping get a basic understanding of a person I considered notable prior to WikiPedia editing. As to verifiability, let's look at it.. The first paragraph seems fairly verifiable, the accusations link to news articles. Political Vision I suppose could be compared with the official website. As to quotes and trivia, I don't know how those could be verified. I do realize this is a controversial person, however I think Wikipedia would be doing the world a disservice to simply delete an article about what is in my opinion a Notable person. Just my Lm 0.02.. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 21:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Refs in article establish notability. Being a complete lunatic does not disqualify a subject from having an article in Wikipedia. JChap 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious Keep Would not be a notable person in a larger country, but for Malta, this does seems to be a notable local right-wing nut politician. The article needs a lot of cleanup though for verification. Statements such as "He is the founder of Ch'uan Shu in Malta" need checking. Weird links such as the see also link to colonization of Mars need to be justified or deleted. Bwithh 00:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article meets WP:V. Article doesn't violate WP:NPOV. Article is decently (though imperfectly) formatted. Article is not a hoax or spam. Article stays. (By the way, just because you don't like the subject doesn't mean it should be deleted). Captainktainer * Talk 00:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, notability can be disputed. But still I believe, the content of the article is unverifiable. Not even his birth date is known with certainty. (Why invent it in the first instance?) Maltesedog 06:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Most of the article is fairly decently sourced, when including the external links at the bottom. There are a few citation-needed elements, but the solution is to rectify those problems, not throw out the otherwise well-referenced remainder of the article. The appropriate thing to do is to continue working on the article, not to bring it up for AfD. I can understand debating it on notability grounds, but he meets WP:BIO just fine. Captainktainer * Talk 06:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for obvious reasons Seriously, this guy is famous, he's always in the news, in the papers etc. For Christ's sake, you're doubting the notability? You must be kidding. There are wikipedia pages on ANR and their spokespersons, you wanna delete those also? There are also article on the Emmy Bezzina and Joe Zammit "party" for Christ's sake! (I didn't even know it existed!) The article on Norman Lowell is very well written and has loads of sources (yes, now I included one to verify his birth date also, happy? It was never invented in the first place). I also can't see exactly how the article is biased.Drew88 09:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Whooaaa... take a breather. Let's all be civil and assume good faith of one another; we're building an encyclopedia together, let's remember that. Anyway, a couple things: 1) If we were to assume that this was a bad article, the fact that there are other bad articles isn't a reason to keep it around. 2) I tried visiting the link you helpfully included after the guy's birthdate, but it seems to require that the user log in. Is there another source available? I'd like to confirm the date, but for various reasons I'd like to not sign up on the forum, if possible. 3) I don't see how the article is biased, either, and I think there's a good claim for notability, but there are some statements that haven't been verified yet. By the way, a heads-up: I think I'm going to delete the Alternet link, given that Alternet isn't really a reliable source; the other sources should more than carry the weight. Captainktainer * Talk 10:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Sorry about that. 1) I just wanted to point out that there are loads of Malta-related articles of very little interest, arguable notability etc, yet nobody seems to nominate them for deletion. Why? Oh yeah, because nobody cares that they're there. Yet, everybody cares about the Norman Lowell page. Why? Because most Maltese people give more importance to him than the President? 2) Yes, sorry about that, but it's the only source I know of. There shouldn't be a fuss surrounding this issue though, why would I make up his age? Who cares anyway? 3) Virtually everything in the article is verified I believe.Drew88 11:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment 1) I would agree that a lot of it has to do with his presence on the fringe. A lot of people don't like him - myself included - and sometimes we allow our biases to creep in. As for 2), I don't know why you would make up his age, but one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. It's one of the most important elements of Wikipedia, and while many people can argue over whether something is a reliable source or not (I'm embroiled in one such dispute elsewhere), there needs to be at least an attempt to edit according to that principle. Also, Wikipedia has received legal threats from people upset over inaccuracies in their birthdate and other vital stats, as well as media ridicule, so it's one of the things that people try to watch over like a hawk. As for 3), the trivia section isn't well-sourced, particularly the bit about Dionysian Action Painting, and the assertion that he was banned from television specifically following the racist remarks isn't sourced right. But these are problems to fix, not matters to delete an article over. Captainktainer * Talk 12:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Your reference on his age says You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. Perhaps it should be quoted in a footnote with a link that says 'accessed from [1] on such a date, (registration required)' ? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hey Captain, thanks for your understanding. Anyway, regarding the "Dionysian Action Painting" and "Ch'uan Shu", they are facts mentioned on the Imperium Europa website. Now, he might be lying...heh..Drew88 08:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now tend to agree with your reasoning captain. Its a healthy discussion going on. Maltesedog 14:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He obviously exists and he meets the criteria of WP:V. If you visit "Imperium Europa" you will actually find numerous newspaper articles mentioning him and his group. He is the subject of much ridicule in the Maltese press, since he seems like a classic Bond villain and also does not speak Maltese properly. His name "Norman Lowell" is also very unusual for someone who claims pride in his Maltese heritage. Darkskin 14:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How exactly isn't he notable?Drew88 22:32, 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 was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McCormick Ranch[edit]

Appears to be a straight promotion for selling house. Only link at bottom goes to advertising site. KarenAnn 17:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Actually sounds like an entire neighborhood located in the town of Scottsdale. It also recieves 190,000 Google hits. COuld use some more sources though, and a clean-up. tmopkisn tlka 19:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless cleaned up and NPOVed. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give it a chance to be cleaned up, per Tmopkisn. --Cornflake pirate 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a nn subdivision. Eluchil404 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Eluchil404 05:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McGowan[edit]

Appears to be vanity page for this last name, of no particular note. KarenAnn 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this page! Surnames are important, especially to young people trying to research their family history.

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watson Realty Corp.[edit]

Realty company in N. Fla. & S. Ga.; nonnotable/advertising NawlinWiki 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - does need to be cleaned up. --BrenDJ 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 47,000 Google hits can't be wrong! tmopkisn tlka 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They can be wrong (for Wikipedia) if they're all ads or real estate listings, as most of the hits seem to be. NawlinWiki 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Fine, they can be wrong, but it's still notable, and I'm still voting keep. tmopkisn tlka 23:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article was written by Matt Bell. Coincidentally, 2 of the agents in the firm are Ernie Bell and Doris Bell. I sense a vanity article here. --Brian G 20:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That may be true, but I can only find a single sentence (second from the last one) that sounds even vaguely biased. tmopkisn tlka 23:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Landolitan 12:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google hits are nice, but not if they're all real estate listings or other forms of advertising. In the end WP:CORP seems to apply, and it's still just a local real estate company (i.e., it's no RE/MAX). --Kinu t/c 03:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable private company that fails WP:CORP. --Satori Son 16:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. It is possible that the company may meet WP:CORP but nothing in the article asserts that it does. Vegaswikian 21:58, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memoire of Love[edit]

Describes obscure book with unknown author: Mr. X. Article falls apart at the end. KarenAnn 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Umm... I couldn't even understand it, looks like it was babelfished. tmopkisn tlka 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reading between the lines, it _sounds_ like fanfic of an equally-obscure (but probably genuine) book by Iwasato Yuuho. Neither the original nor this book appear to have been published anywhere in English. Maybe a candidate for the Japanese Wikipedia, but not for us. Tevildo 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the book does exist [33] but Iwasato Yuuho seems not to be notable as an author. She doesn't seem to have a ja.wiki article - maybe she shouldn't have an en.wiki one either? Dlyons493 Talk 19:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but let's ask to the original author of the article if he/she can expand it.--Doktor Who 06:15, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Fields[edit]

Strong delete - this is clearly a hoax. He claims to be a former president of Auburn University, which can be debunked here: 1 and a current board member at Tulane University, which can be debunked here: 2. Fabricationary 17:38, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Haywood Yaskell[edit]

Nonnotable science researcher/writer; seems like vanity article. NawlinWiki 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. May be somewhat notable, judging by the 71 hits on Google, but the article has no sources, and does seem somewhat like vanity. Congratulations on those sicence fair wins though... tmopkisn tlka 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Methyphobia[edit]

This is not a useful clinical term. Link at bottom of page goes to website selling a book on phobias that cures fear of flying and "and Over 1,300 Other Phobias" KarenAnn 17:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Now off to write "Wikipedia is not a self-help guide." tmopkisn tlka 18:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IslaySolomon. --DaveG12345 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vyomesh[edit]

Dicdef of a sanskrit word/name as an excuse to add bios for non-notable people. As there are no articles on people named Vyomesh, no point in this as a disambiguation page Xyzzyplugh 18:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Obvious vanity, one of them may have a profile in Yahoo 360, but that still doesn't make him notable. tmopkisn tlka 18:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Processor[edit]

Probable hoax. Google turns up nothing and the article text is generic, vague, and unbelievable (for example, a passively cooled synchronous 6.5 GHz VLSI microprocessor is practically impossible with modern MOS technology). uberpenguin @ 2006-07-08 18:12Z

  • Delete. Also important to note that article has no sources, and the so-called "Delvet Corporation" which supposedly unveiled this processor doesn't seem to exist. tmopkisn tlka 18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Possibly redirect to Sinclair Research Ltd? That's what I'd be looking for if I used this search term. Tevildo 19:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverified. 13.5Ghz processors indeed? -- Mithent 21:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:HOAX per nom. Author has only worked on this page and Microprocessor, where their edit was swiftly reverted as a hoax. --DaveG12345 22:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - is this somethuing to do with the Z80? Artw 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as complete bollocks. If something like this existed, it'd have been all over the tech blogs. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:15, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DanV[edit]

Originally speedied, but I decided to bring this to AFD. No vote on my part. Note that some who have voted at the related Le Saut De L'Ange and Hey! (2005) voted to delete saying they were a hoax. Roy A.A. 18:24, 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 was Keep Eluchil404 05:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Bank[edit]

This page is a collection of opinions (not facts) on community-based voting patterns in India, and has very little connection to the broader context of votebank politics. Gamesmasterg9 18:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every sentence is based on references listed,Plz take pain to read them.Holywarrior 14:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clean up, but don't delete. Many pages link here. utcursch | talk 05:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that many pages link here because it was linked to Vote bank's older version, which was redirected to this new article. Kevin_b_er 08:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has redirect from Vote bank which has last version as [34],one may easily coclude which page should have been redirected to which place,I just followed Chandal,Chandala redirect story.Anyway one had to be redirected to other.--Holywarrior 08:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still keep, only clean it up. Currently, it's a little messy. utcursch | talk 17:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page deals with very important socio-political concept and is important in describing Indian Politics.--Holywarrior 08:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Holywarrior. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word VOTE BANK is self-explanatory. IF you have to keep it then move to wiktionary. Such stupid articles should not be on the English Wikipedia. -Political Commentator
  • Keep. Notable concept. deeptrivia (talk) 00:13, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Light[edit]

WP:BAND Non-notable band. Zero hits in GraceNote. One self-published CD in Amazon.com (Sales rank: None) John Nagle 18:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. --John Nagle 18:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kalani [talk] 18:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete WP:BAND Band has notable member Kiki Carter. Band has been featured three times on NPR affiliate. Band has had feature articles written about them in reputable newspapers.

i.e. http://dancinglightmusic.com/EPK/heraldreview07132003.pdf http://dancinglightmusic.com/pdf/northlandpressgulfgala3.pdf Author of article: matotanka 12 July 2006

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Vescuso[edit]

Nonnotable athlete with an unimpressive 22 Google hits. Prod tag was removed without explanation. Maxamegalon2000 18:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well known athlete amongst the tennis community as well as the Marquette Alumni, Brophy Alumni, Bay Area community as well as the USTA. He has multiple Google hits and had many more until Marquette University archived the majority of the statistical and journalistic information regarding the tennis program.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.67.230 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. "renowned pro at the highly-touted Courtside Club" If the club doesn't have an article, then its renowned pro shouldn't either. tmopkisn tlka 19:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The club does have an article, and so should it's renowned pro. Eric Vescuso is a well-known player in huge metropolitan area that has accomplished what few or no previous Northern California coaches and teams have ever done before, and that is win the California State Title in multiple divisions against the top tennis region in the country (Southern California). As well he had a solid career in NCAA division 1 top 50 program and has been ranked nationally mulitple times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Charldav (talk • contribs)

It should be noted that the Courtside Club article was created by User:Charldav after its mentioning at this page. --Maxamegalon2000 23:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Courtside Club has since been deleted for copyright violations. In the interest of full disclosure, I was the one who tagged the article for speedy deletion. --Maxamegalon2000 03:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I it is commendable that you deem yourself the bastion of truth and judger of worthiness for content, however, when an athlete is ranked nationally in an individual sport, and accomplishes things none or few have, it is noteworthy. I'm sure your talents could be put to better use than harassing a viable article. In addition, there are more than 22 google hits and that is saying more than the majority of the "notable" athletes contained in this index.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.67.230 (talk • contribs)

I merely nominated this article for deletion. It is for the Wikipedia community to determine its worthiness. There are now 26 Google hits for "Eric Vescuso", the four new hits being from Wikipedia. I must say, attacking Wikipedia editors and vandalizing their user pages does not add to the credibility of your arguments. --Maxamegalon2000 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eric Vescuso is a notable tennis pro and coach, and has worked with a host of very notable pros to improve their games. This is beyond having one of the highest winning percentages in Marquette history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.6 (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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Pop Music Collectibles[edit]

This is basically the same page that CD VINYL COLLECTIBLES was when I nominated it for deletion. It is an advertisement for a company with no assertions to notability that would fulfill WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Chaser T 18:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article's creator also left the following comment on the article's talk page, contesting its speedy deletion. I guess this is a keep vote: I believe this site should remain because it is one of very few venues available on the internet for Latin Pop music collectibles from the 80's, 90's, and present. The owner visits foreign countries in search of music to meet the demands of music collectors and sells a large array of promo's and out of print titles. Mario 11:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an exact phrase google search gets 1 hit [35][36] and the site itself is on geocities. Fails WP:WEB and is blatent spam. --IslaySolomon 19:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 19:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatand advert. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 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 debate was Speedy Delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor, Mark[edit]

Dead friends or relatives are non-encyclopedic. –Gunslinger47 19:01, 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 was history merge with Current events in Hong Kong. Several things to take note of here. First, it is true that we now have two duplicate articles. Second, the page was moved by "copy-paste", which is the wrong way to move things because it fragments the article history. Note that calling for deletion because we already have an article and "there is no need to keep the history" is calling for a violation of the Gnu Free Documentation License which is absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia, and trumps consensus. Simple deletion of this article without deleting Current events in Hong Kong is therefore out of the question.

The reason for the nomination is that the article so far only contains current events from Hong Kong, and nothing from Macau. Against this, it has been argued that the article previously contained current events from Macau. It has then been pointed out that there are enough current events to justify a separate Current events in Macau article (although it should be noted that such an article does not yet exist, if anyone wants to create one, by all means do so.)

I am calling this a history merge primarily because a cop-paste move was executed, which needs to be fixed. It may happen that the article ought to cover both Hong Kong and Macau (which would mean moving the article back), but I will leave that discussion for the article's talkpage or Wikipedia:Requested moves. For now though, I'll consolidate the page histories. Since the article's current title suggests that the article is about Hong Kong only, I will delete the subsequent redirect (which will be without any history, so GFDL is upheld) as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current events in Hong Kong and Macau[edit]

Delete and move to Current events in Hong Kong. Article does not include news from Macau, and not updated by anybody who is interested in adding Macau news. Hong Qi Gong 19:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per reason I posted above. Hong Qi Gong 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please take a look at its edit history. Edit history of this page is preserved under this title. The original page should never be deleted after a cut-and-paste move. — Instantnood 19:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise for the cut-and-paste move. I've changed the reason for deletion. Hong Qi Gong 19:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Edit history must be preserved. No original entry should be deleted as a cut-and-paste move. — Instantnood 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also wanted to point out that there's enough content for both a Current events in Hong Kong and a Current events in Macau. There's no reason the two of them should be one article. Hong Qi Gong 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was abandoned until Hong Qi Gong started maintaining it. --Ideogram 20:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate content from Current events in Hong Kong, then move to Current events in Hong Kong. See my proposal here. --Pkchan 05:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't necessary to keep a page history if the information isn't used anymore. SchmuckyTheCat 23:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please justify why edit history is useless. Cut-and-paste move is already contravening Wikipedia policy. Edit history of the original article should never be deleted after the content is cut-and-paste move elsewhere. What should be done is to revert the cut-and-paste move. — Instantnood 23:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have to justify anything to you. A CnP move isn't the greatest thing in the world, but it doesn't "contravene wikipedia policy". We keep article histories when the information is relevant. As this article is always changing, the history is irrelevant. The GFDL doesn't require attribution to deleted information. What should be done is you MYOB. SchmuckyTheCat 00:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Edit history are normally kept and archived unless the subject matter is not notable to be included on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 20:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In that case all current events related materials on Wikipedia, including "In the news" on the right-hand side of the main page, have to be deleted. This is not the place to decide such policy. — Instantnood 20:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge edit history to Current events in Hong Kong and delete. There is no need for this action to be fulfilled by first voting keep and then voting yet again for a page merger when the final intention is obvious and has greater concensus above.--Huaiwei 11:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also worthy of consideration for deletion concurrently is Current events in Hong Kong and Macao, if this article is to be deleted.--Huaiwei 12:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duplicate, redirect to Current events in Hong Kong. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 12:27, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique McKinley[edit]

Non-notable singer -- one single released in Europe, no indication that it charted anywhere. ArglebargleIV 19:07, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Schools' Rugby Website[edit]

Fails Alexa test at rank of 547,000; also reads like an ad; was originally prodded by prod removed by sole author. Hbdragon88 19:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article states that the site exists but not that anyone uses it, so not assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB. Also, and this may just be a DNS problem at my end, but neither external links posted seem to work. --IslaySolomon 19:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just be glad they didn't list all of the schools and their rosters. tmopkisn tlka 19:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if I'm on the right track here...new user and all that...the website has received 10 million visits over last 12 months...so folks are using it. Not sure I understand fully what 'Tmopkisn' means by "glad we didn't post schools and their rosters!! I think this is a bit of an arrogant statment, neither warranted nor helpful! I'll keep tweaking the description if that's ok until you censorship/editing folks are accepting that we do exist and have since 1997; just like MacDonalds, Rugby School and others who appear in your pages. PhilKN 12:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody's denying that you guys exist. We are only debating whether this site meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines according to WP:WEB. One of those guidelines is the Alexa rank - and at 547,000, it doesn't meet the 100,000 guideline. A Google saerch yields nothing on any media mention of the website. Therefore, it's not notable according to WP's guidelines, and thus should be deleted. Hbdragon88 20:39, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Servo Venia[edit]

Fails WP:BAND notability test. Not listed on Allmusic.com or Amazon. 962 Google hits. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "They are planning on recording an album in May-June 2006.", "Shortly after they had formed, they decided they needed a name." - yup. Probably could be {{db-band}}'d. --IslaySolomon 19:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Re-post when they actually do something. tmopkisn tlka 19:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 19:44, 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 was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freebord[edit]

This article was prodded and deleted but there was an objection to the prod at the talk page and later at deletion review. Procedural nomination, no recommendation from me. Haukur 19:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, Freebord patent espacenet.com --Nate abrego 04:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, the product has been featured in many, many US and international media magazines, with PDFs of the articles available at their website. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks notable to me. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also has articles in French and German, obviously notable. tmopkisn tlka 19:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, notable. -- Ravn 21:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google hits all over the place. JDoorjam Talk 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article: All freebords are currently being manufactured by a single company, Freebord manufacturing Inc.
    This is a de facto advertisement for that company, eh? I see zero hits on google news, and in fact very few google hits full stop, less than 500 unique. The pdfs linked from the home page (the ones I looked I, I admin I couldn't be arsed to check them all, they are huge downloads) were advertorials. This should be moved to Freebord manufacturing Inc and then deleted as failing to satisfy the guideline for inclusion of businesses. That guideline is quite clear on the requirement for "multiple non-trivial published works" and further states that "stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service [...] may be treated as press releases." The article totally lacks third party sources and based upon my google-trawling they may be difficult to find if we exclude "press releases" per the guideline. Does there in fact exist multiple independant sources that heartily endorse this product and/or service? - brenneman {L} 06:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the sources problem - I think it can be fixed, even though this kind of sports events are not commonly mentioned in mainstream media - hence the number of advertorialoid reviews in trend sport magazines. The article is however not about the company, but the sport, and should be treated as such. Snakeboards have a similar history - a single company holding a patent. I therefore do not understand the aforementioned sentence or the article as an advertisement for the company. -- Ravn 10:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... The way I thought it worked is that Google takes the 500 top hits and displays the unique ones among those (430 or something, in this case). So you never see more than 500 Google hits no matter what you do. Haukur 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but re-write so as to reduce the advertising in it. Ral315 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obvious growing trend. Many news hits from major publications. --JJay 01:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I have a hard time believing that you are sincerely asking for links or references. Didn't you sum it all up above when you said there were almost no google hits, or "zero" news items? Before quoting, once again, from the guideline that we all know. I really wonder what kind of "google trawling" you do. In any case, let me be quite clear. I'll be happy to start posting links and other excerpts from a broad range of publications, all written by real live reporters, into this discussion, if you promise to then add them as references to the article. Because I'm sure you'll agree - given your interest in google - that Freebord and its 125,000 google hits is just as important as frog cake and its 836 google hits. --JJay 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why you're searching in french, or why you've chosen to personalise this by bringing up a minor article that I've edited, but if you'll notice that when I did edit it I added sources from The national heritage trust of South Australia, The Australian National University, and Australian Radio National - all found via my "interest in google." If you can please provide some actual sources, as opposed to odd character attacks, this would be a non-issue. - Aaron Brenneman 00:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I'm not personalizing anything, but I do have an aversion to people who dump misinformation into these debates - such as your remarks on few google hits, or no news hits- particularly when they can't be "arsed" to look, but do have the time to quote ad nauseum from guideline pages. I'll take your comment to mean that you plan on redacting your initial comment and will add references and links to the article. Here is a small sample. Note that there are many, many more article sources, including all the coverage in specialized publications and certain mass market publications, that can not be linked (Playboy, Spin, Japan Times etc.)--JJay 02:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Barron, Kelley. "Wheeler-Dealer". Forbes. 05.01.00 Online copy
  2. Gromer, John. "Chairman Of The Bord: Introducing Freebord, the world's first snowboard for the street." Popular Mechanics. April 3, 2002 Online copy
  3. Della Cava, Marco. "Snowboard's new terrain: Asphalt Pivoting 'oddity' gains momentum". USA Today, March 10, 2004: pg. D10. Online abstract
  4. Hamilton, Anita. "Who Needs Snow". Time Magazine. March 4, 2002. Article excerpt
  5. Hua, Vanessa. "S.F. entrepreneur has created a skateboard that works like a snowboard". San Francisco Examiner. October 13, 1999. Online copy
  6. McHugh, Paul. "A new deal for wheels: Breakthroughs are a long way from roller skates". San Francisco Chronicle. August 12, 2004. Online copy
  7. Cribb, Robert. "Of jabberwocky and snowboard joy in June". Toronto Star. June 13, 2005: pg. D.05 Article excerpt
  8. Ehringer, Gavin. "Innovative skateboards offer summer snow-free surrogate". Rocky Mountain News.March 23, 2005. Article excerpt
  9. Regenold, Stephen. "Gear Junkie: 'Snowboard' on pavement with ease". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. August 5, 2004. Online copy
  10. Copeland, Michael V. "The New Instant Companies". Business 2.0. June 1, 2005. Online copy
  11. Piacentini, Louie. "Endless winter' for snowboarders; Pair introduces Freebord to Canada". North York Mirror. April 3, 2005 Online excerpt
  12. University newspaper coverage: University of Toronto, Yale, University of Western Ontario
  • Great, brilliant in fact. So next time, when someone asks for sources can you just provide them, without the drama? I'm bloody unapologetic about not being "arsed" to download a 3Meg file to see an advertisement, or thinking that the burden is upon the person making claims to back them up. - brenneman {L} 06:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. -- Ravn 09:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to skateboard unless reliable sources are added, not just talked about. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Freebord Manufacturing, since the sources are about this fledgeling company (most say "new", "emerging", "fledgling" - all hallmarks of the not-yet-significant in fact). Or delete if the article still lacks sources by the end of this debate, since I for one don't care enough to put them in myself (since JJay is such a passionate defender perhaps he'd like to do the needful rather than leave an uncited and therefore delete-worthy article?). Just zis Guy you know? 13:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely no passion on my part. If I felt passion, I might have written more initially than: Obvious growing trend. Many news hits from major publications...But why write more when my initial comment exactly summed up the situation? --JJay 21:13, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Michael Craddock[edit]

Non-important person biography --Zachblume 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable enough. DarthVader 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fails WP:BIO -- Steel 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a good faith article put forth by a former or current student. Unfortunately the individual in question needs to be notable outside of one particular school community. DrunkenSmurf 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn WP 10:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per everyone else. tmopkisn tlka 19:46, 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 was merged to Brian Eno. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snake guitar[edit]

Delete as it is basically a dictionary entry. Gay Cdn 19:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Brian Eno, pretty interesting in terms of Eno's approach to both credits and instruments. That said, according to The Guardian, Mark E. Smith once told Simon Rogers to "play like a fookin' snake". Might be expandable (nb - only joking)Ac@osr 22:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Brian Eno, per previous editor. Not significant enough for its own entry, but useful in explaining bits of Eno's work and liner notes. Barno 02:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Brian Eno. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 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 was Keep Eluchil404 05:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Arts Network[edit]

Delete as this is advertisement. Gay Cdn 19:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but remove final section (headed Network) as this is the advert and the rest of the article justifies itself without it. Karlheinz Stockhausen is the patron. Doesn't appear to be copyvio. If BBC Radio is spending several hours per year broadcasting your events to the nation, I would say you make it. Ac@osr 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this a problem? I just attended the Manchester Expo, had a piece performed, and delivered a paper. There was nothing remotely commercial about the event, which was participated in by dozens of artists, and had many venues, well-attended. Is there something objectionable I'm not getting? --Josephbyrd 02:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but the article (as it was), did read as if it was directly from the Sonic Arts Network's website (even though it may not have been). Wikipedia aims to write quality, referenced, and neutral articles about all its subjects - even if not everything on Wikipedia is currently so. Cormaggio @ 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Giving details of how to obtain membership and the benefits thereof constitutes an advertisement. Apart from that section at the end, the article is fine. Ac@osr 09:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - simply needs cleaning up, which I'm about to do now :-) Cormaggio @ 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed most of what could be seen as cruft/advertisment - now it just needs to be referenced and possibly slightly re-written in parts. Cormaggio @ 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep still needs cleanup but what doesn't ? Doesn't appear to be vanispamcruftisement, just poorly phrased. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:31, 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 was no consensus for deletion, but merging would probably be a good idea - though the University of Reading article doesn't even mention it currently. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spark (University of Reading newspaper)[edit]

Delete as it a student newspaper with no notability documented outside the univeristy. Based on the history, there has been a lot of work done, but I can not see how it would ever become notable enough for inclusion. Gay Cdn 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the University of Reading. It apparently "opted instead to pursue a path of bias" - sounds like it upset someone... --DaveG12345 04:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it has served as a useful tool for those of us that used to work for Spark - I've taken out the "path of bias" line, I can guess why it is there, but it shouldn't be. --Oberon2001 21:40, 10 July 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lumberjack (Humboldt State University) and all the articles in List_of_college_newspapers. Perhaps there should be a policy about the notability of college newspapers. Until there is one, I see them as notable because they are independant printed news sources in a unique environment of learning. Every one of them has the capacity to break a national or international news story even if only a few of them do. Just as university broadcasting is treated as an exception to general rules of notability in the introduction to Wikipedia:Notability (U.S. broadcasters), I think university newspapers should also be handled here by inclusion. Flying Jazz 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merges are counted as a keep so that vote is not really correct. I do agree that the material should be merged into the school article before deletion. Vegaswikian 22:00, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Newton[edit]

Delete per WP:AUTO --Brian G 19:53, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RHS Cougar Battalion[edit]

NN high school JROTC thing --Macarion 19:58, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mordet i Grottan[edit]

Nonnotable Swedish rock song, released only on Internet NawlinWiki 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice attempt from the author, too bad it isn't a notable song. Nich 20:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Silvernich[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, and neither is the band. tmopkisn tlka 20:51, 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. Titoxd(?!?) 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Luke Cornforth[edit]

Nominated for speedy, but asserts notability in the form of published books. Transferring here for comment. No vote from me. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the original request for speedy, reason: "Non-notability (CSD A7), sounds like spam or copyvio, all one author's work..." As for publishing, it looks to me like one of those mail order publishing houses, still nn. (Also need to get Richard Cornforth which is just a redir) -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 12:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn author --AlexDW 17:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unale to find publication details for a single one of these books. I can't even find them on the usual self-publishers' sites. Amazon knoweth them not, nor speaketh Bookbutler their name. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 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 was delete. Proto::type 10:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pussing[edit]

Delete Non-notable neologism made up by the author. Prod removed without comment Gwernol

KeepKevin says - please do not delete this. It is a perfectly legitimate activity and I included the origin of the word to help explain its background. I have removed the specific link to an external website but this was to a non-profit making site anyway, not a commercial enterprise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbeds (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. 111,000 hits on Google, an Urban Dictionary entry, and a few website... that I won't link to. tmopkisn tlka 20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. If the article is kept, any references to Kevin Sims need to be verified or removed. There are thousands of references to this word on the web; none mention him. Fan-1967 20:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as neologism. Well over half the Google hits are not in English anyway, and most of those which are are not using the word in this context (e.g. as a made-up verb meaning 'emitting pus', or 'refusing to participate because of fear'). It is in some marginal use in this context, but.. -- Mithent 21:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef of a WP:NEO, per nom. Nothing said here isn't said in Urolagnia, except for the suspiciously repetitive namechecking of some unknown and uncited "inventor" of the term. --DaveG12345 22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mithent and DaveG. -- Kicking222 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the google hits seem to have nothing to do with this sense of the word. And the adult website and the urban dictionary definition define the term identically to this article, leading me to believe that the same person wrote all three. Kevin: This isn't about questioning the legitmacy of the activity, but of the article you created. Dina 23:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete boredteencruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepReferences to the inventor have now been removed. Whilst other references on Wikipedia refer to the general act of urophilia, here are no references to the specific act of pussing, which involves strategy and tactics to make it successful. It is more about the undetection and how this is accomplished rather than the voyeurism aspect. I have now added a section clarifying these matters in greater detail. The latest webstats are herewith to clarify the number of specific hits being generated: Figures in parentheses refer to the 7-day period ending 09-Jul-2006 05:09.
Successful requests: 6,675,641 (191,285)
Average successful requests per day: 9,512 (27,326)
Successful requests for pages: 489,349 (11,561)
Average successful requests for pages per day: 697 (1,651)Kevinbeds 10:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note this ithe the user's second "vote" - each user only gets to express their opinion once. Gwernol 11:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For all I know, you're making this up. This doesn't help your case in the slightest. Danny Lilithborne 07:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI am angered by this latter comment. The only reason I included the website statistics was because the question was raised earlier about the number of hits appearing on google. I am most certainly NOT making this up and would be pleased to e-mail you copies of the detailed statistics if you wish. Also I have no idea what boredteencruft is meant to meanKevinbeds 10:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It means stuff made up by bored teens, which certainly applies here. And if you want to not be accused of making stuff up, provide a link to your Google searches. Danny Lilithborne 11:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWell you couldn't be more wrong as I haven't been a teenager for 30 years. Here is the link you wanted to see

[37]

    • pussing.co.uk .... yeah, that will be objective. My previous comment still stands - for all I know, you're making this up, and I don't believe you were 40 years old when you made this up. Feel free to get angry if you wish. Danny Lilithborne 01:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentCome on guys, please help me here. I seem to be having a personal battle with somebody who is calling me a liar and doubting my bona fides. Surely this is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Why am I even having to have this battle with one individual who it appears is a total idiot? EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID IS 100% TRUE and it seems that no amount of changing the text or giving demonstrable proofs will ever please this tosser. For the record I am 46, 47 next month but why I need to go into such personal information beats me. Please, somebody, help move this debate on and get this apparent wanker out of my hair. Thank you.Kevinbeds 06:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kevin - I don't know this Danny Littleborne but he is obviously being a right pain. I always thought well of Wikipedia up to now but am beginning to wonder if this is indicative of the mentality of the people who contribute. For me, you seem to have taken on board people's comments and made appropriate revisions to the text. Don't get downhearted; the project is much bigger than one individual who seems just to want to cause trouble and bring everybody else except himself into disreputeRogerUK 07:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note First edit from brand new user. Fan-1967 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with RogerUK. The article is well written - refreshingly! - and having actually investigated the sources on the web it is clear that Wikipedia would be the poorer for not including this practice which seems to be gaining groundDierdreCoDown 07:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note First edit from brand new user. Fan-1967 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First off, there's a policy against personal attacks that should be read, and questioning the validity of your evidence does not constitute a PA while I'm pretty sure calling me a "wanker" does. Secondly, it should be pointed out that the above two "Keep" votes are by new members who have no other edits, which makes me doubt the honesty of Kevinbeds even more. Danny Lilithborne 09:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Danny - so now you are calling into question others who seem sufficiently incensed by your attitude to want to add to the debate. Just what the hell is the matter with you? What do I have to do to prove everything I have said is true and why should I bother anyway given the comments of RogerUK what the whole thing is much bigger than one person. PLEASE PLEASE can somebody higher up in Wikipedia put an end to this mindless questioning from this person? Thank youKevinbeds 10:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment *As Judge Judy would put it, don't piss on our legs and tell us it's raining. Give us objective criteria to base the notability of the term on. You can't use the statistics of a website called "pussing". We have no way of knowing if the statistics are real or not. Again, please use objective criteria next time you want to assert the notability of your article. Danny Lilithborne 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I repeat - I ONLY PROVIDED WEB STATISTICS BECAUSE THE COMMENT MADE BY SOMEBODY ELSE CALLED THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATS INTO QUESTION. It was probably you. I had no intention whatsoever to provide website statistics, especially as the original comment about my entry was that the source was an external website, which is why I deleted all reference to it. If you can tell me what objective criteria you are looking for I WILL GLADLY PROVIDE THESE if I know how to. If you know how to, why don't you do it?Kevinbeds 10:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mr Lilithborne, it seems that because I have chosen to add my comments to this debate and these happen to disagree with your own, you are now questioning my motives and who am am. This is surely not the way to proceed. If I choose to join Wikipedia to have the opportunity to add my voice to the content that is entirely my choice and I do not need to justify it to you. May I respectfully suggest you direct your vitriol towards those clearly self-promoting and self-advertising authors who have written so called articles which are nothing more than self-aggrandisement or seek to achieve a business marketing profile.DierdreCoDown 11:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could I ask everyone involved in this debate to please try to remain calm and WP:CIVIL:civil? There have been inappropriate remarks thrown around by both "sides", and this debate is sinking into name calling and bitterness which helps no-one.
Kevin, the reason Google hits were brought up is that it is one way to measure the notability of a site. Because of the way Google's PageRank algorithm works it is a rough guide to the number of other sites that think your site is worthwhile. What is being (crudely) measured is how many other sites have written about your site. That's different from the number of people who visit your site, which is what the webstats show. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it reports on things that have found widespread use beyond their own narrow subject area. So, for example, if The Times had decided that Pussing was notable enough to write an article about it, then Wikipedia would cover this term with an article, using The Times article as it source.
Unfortunately I don't think "Pussing" has reached that level of notability yet. If you read Wikipedia's guideline on neologisms and especially verifiability you'll see more about this. Many thanks, Gwernol 12:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks for your latest comment Gwernol. I understand what you say about google but when the google stats were pointed out above by Tmopkisn, these were discredited by another user. Also, the problem about pussing is that it is a secret sexual practice breaking one of the last remaining taboos (non-private urination) so it is highly unlikely that the Times would offend their readers by covering it! What I can say is that if you do a search on google for the term pussing you will see that it has reached widespread coverage as the term is included on many other sites (inevitably adult ones), particularly if the search entry is combined with another sexual term (like peeing) in order to differentiate it from the sort of definitions mentioned above by Mithent.

Comment I suggest merging the content of this article with Urolagnia. That article could use some work anyway, and this editor might be the perfect person to do it. Dina 14:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your comment Dina. One of the problems I apparently seem to be having is explaining that Pussing is not just about Urolgnia or Urophilia, it is about employing strategy and tactics to bring two people together in a semi-public place to perform the actual act of doing and watching. There are more than enough words already for the act of urination and this is not just another one! Pussing means sitting in a bar, working out where things are, working out what can be seen where and by whom, determining who is around, making the physical move of getting a member of the wrong sex into a cubicle with a FULLY CONSENTING member of the right sex totally unobserved, staying unheard and undetected whilst in there and remaining totally unobserved on exit. This is not what Urolgnia or Urophilia is!!Kevinbeds 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Urolagnia is defined as : (also known as urophilia) a sexual fetish with a focus on urine and urination. While there are variants to any fetish, Pussing seems to fall well within the scope of that article on the subject. Look, it's very likely that your article is going to be deleted. If it's important to you that this subject be represented on Wikipedia, why not incorporate some of the content in your article into that existing one? If you feel the Urolagnia isn't well written, you can edit its content as well. That way, everyone can be satisfied. Dina 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK Dina I have done that. I just hope it doesn't start off another torrent of abuseKevinbeds 16:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWell, you'll probably get edited, but hopefully not abused. Thanks for helping sort this out peacefully. Dina 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This seems to be unverified original research. (WP:OR, WP:V) It also contains a lot of how-to advice, which is also not in wikipedia's scope (WP:NOT) - Wickning1 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI tried expressly to steer clear of how to advice, instead keeping it to the facts of what actually happens. But because this involves strategy and tactics it is necessary to explain what those are!Kevinbeds 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I keep trying to cite sources but these all seem to be poo-pooed on here! You must understand that the term relates to a secret sexual activity involving a taboo so all the sources are adult website related!! One is hardly likely to read about this activity in the pages of The Times!!Kevinbeds

Comment This word should be kept as it describes the activity without being to vulgar. I mean come on, it isn't a swear word so why should it be deleated? Wake up people, it is only a word after all, one of countless number of words that are floating around on the net and in books and dictionarys. [User:reedgj6052|--Reedgj6052 09:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)reedgj6052]][reply]

    • Note First edit from brand new user.Fan-1967 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe Wikipedia should record the ISP Addresses from which the entries originate so it can be confident these are not from the same person, which is the inference here. I do NOT know who Reedgj6052 is and was delighted that his (or her) comment appeared in my favour out of the blue. There does seem to be a certain degree of paranoia here!!!Kevinbeds 14:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is normal practice in these discussions to make note of new users. It's not an accusation, but it is something to be aware of. IP addresses really wouldn't help, as it is not uncommon for users to ask a friend to post on their behalf. Fan-1967 15:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting! It may also, of course, be the case that somebody viewing the pages feels sufficiently strongly to want to join for the first time in order to add their view to the debate! Such participation is hopefully considered healthy!86.129.234.176 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC). Sorry - forgot I wasn't logged in - this one is from me!!!Kevinbeds[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I fail to see how you can say it is unverifiable when it is included as a term in so many different websites, all independent of each other. Further, it is not non-notable as people are actually doing this, otherwise nobody would bother to include it as a search term in their websites!!Kevinbeds 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Can you link me to any three such websites independent of pussing.co.uk? Ideally some that weren't set up in the last month or two. Some reliable sources would be handy too. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Non-notable neologism, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.--John Lake 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I take personal offence at the last comment. (1) THIS IS NOT MADE UP - people actively do this (2) The prime Pussing website has been in existence SINCE EARLY 2004 (3) This is an ADULT activity performed by ADULTS - any reference to school is both insulting and bordering on the dangerous. WIKIPEDIA MEDIATION CABAL PLEASE NOTEKevinbeds 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this protologism as it represents several sorts of WP:NOT (a how-to, for made up stuff, a dictionary). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just how many times do I have to say it - THIS IS NOT MADE UP. It is a recognised practice which actually happens! Also, it is NOT a how-to, in explaining pussing it is necessary to describe the strategy and tactics involved: that is what it is all about. Thirdly it is NOT an attempt at a dictionary definition - this has been dealt with in WiktionaryKevinbeds 06:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Can you please provide some reliable sources to show that this is not made up? Shouting about it is not going to help your case. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I am NOT shouting about it but I am getting extremely frustrated that you chaps are being so obstreperous and doubting. You must understand that this is a sexual practice carried out in secret between consenting couples. It is NOT the sort of thing that you are going to find articles about or references to in The Times or the Hare and Hounds etc etc and it is NOT the sort of thing that people themselves are going to shout abroad that they indulge in, any more than the people who have commented on here would tell me what they get up to in their private sex lives (if they have any, which I am seriously beginning to doubt!). This is why you will find the term primarily amongst the adult community. Adult websites, for example, would not be including the word pussing in their search terms if pussing did not exist. The fact that it is related to the adult community does not in any way mean it is not widespread but this wonderfully polite society of ours means it is just not the sort of activity which people openly talk about. They are even less likely to write the term down. I had expected Wikipedia to want to embrace exciting new developments in our language, society and culture and want to be a leader in information but all I have encountered here has been hidebound and reactionary: a great disappointment.Kevinbeds 12:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regardless of whether this is made up, this is a definition/how-to article. If the definition has already been added to Wiktionary then this article contains no relevant information. --Cornflake pirate 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The definition added to Wiktionary, which even there has been questioned, is 1. a one liner about what it is 2. the etymology and 3. how it is pronounced. It does not explain, as this brief article tries to do, its origin and link with other activity and the practical aspects of what is involved. It is one thing for a dictionary to say A means B, but very often B needs explaining and this is what the article here tries to doKevinbeds 07:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide some reliable sources to show that this is not made up? Shouting louder and louder that it exists is not convincing anyone. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, you are stepping out of line. Comments like "if they have any, which I am seriously beginning to doubt" are offensive personal attacks and if you continue to make them you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I ask you again to remain calm and civil.

It is very important that you understand that verifiability is an absolute, inviolable cornerstone of Wikipedia. Quoting from that policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

You have not provided any reliable sources for the activity of Pussing. Until you do, the article will likely be deleted. Please read the verifiability policy carefully. Note in particular the simple idea that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." Until your article reaches this threshold none of the other arguments matter.

You may find this unfair, but it is the definition of what an encyclopedia is. There are thousands of free and low costs web hosting companies where you can write an article on Pussing if you want to. Thanks, Gwernol 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. You have overlooked the exclamation mark at the end of my parenthesis about other people's sexual activity. Have you never heard of humour? 2. It cannot be expected that reputable sources, as you call them, are likely to publish articles about a secret sexual activity breaking a taboo. If they did, their reputation would be called into question. 3. I did add what I considered to be a reputable internet source to the original article but the very first complaint was that this was an adult website, which is why I removed it, even though the website is non-commercial and non-profit making. 3. I have never asked anybody commenting to supply a source so I don't see the relevance of your point 3. 4. I do not want to write an article on pussing; what I was expecting is that Wikipedia would embrace developments in language, society and culture and be a pre-eminent reference source for such developments. I was clearly in error and, to be frank, now have an extremely poor opinion of Wikipedia. 5. I am not shouting louder and louder; I am simply trying to respond accurately to each point which is made. If you want proof that it exists, just search for it on the internet. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be on so many independent webhsites. Or, to put it another way, why would websites seeking traffic in a highly competitive environment include pussing as a search term if nobody knew or did this? You talk about verifiability, not truth, but you yourself seem to be doubting the truthKevinbeds 07:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera Remixography[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. See also the previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Remixes of Beyonce Songs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kelly Clarkson Remixes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mariah Carey remixes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakira remixography. Extraordinary Machine 20:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. JoshuaZ 20:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same. tmopkisn tlka 20:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and suggest Wikinfo. Just zis Guy you know? 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Any info not already there should be in the individual song articles or discography article, as appropriate. Assuming it isn't complete cruft here. --DaveG12345 22:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, crufty but valid information. —Pengo 12:33, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spectragon[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Roy A.A. 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gao[edit]

Delete as a non-notable individual. Previous speedy deletion tag (hoax with no google hits) was removed by author. Gay Cdn 20:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax, and besides I think Dwyane Wade is the one that's supposed to be following in MJ's footsteps, sorry. tmopkisn tlka 20:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I readded the tag - the author of the article isn't supposed to remove the tag him or herself, someone else has to do it. Hbdragon88 20:47, 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 was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streamwired[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Plus, linking to a site that (may) display copyright infringed video is frowned upon (as I learned in my own first edit) Gay Cdn 20:21, 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 was no consensus, though given that the neutral opinions appear to me to be leaning towards delete, there should be no prejudice if the article is relisted fairly soon. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonpowered superheroes[edit]

I dunno. Is this a list people think is worth keeping? -- I don't. It's just a list in not particularly readable or useful format. KarenAnn 20:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Nominator, please list specific issues under Wikipedia:Deletion policy which you believe qualify this article for deletion. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 21:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This list seems somewhat crufty, but I've seen much worse. However, it should be moved to a name that reflects its listhood - for example, List of superheroes without superpowers. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, move as proposed by Zetawoof. This is of interest to comic fans and to people studying superhero/superpower ideas, but probably falls under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia." Barno 02:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename, not a bad list. —Pengo 12:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC, no context or explanation why this list should be included in an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I somewhat appreciate such a list and find it interesting, thought-provoking, and perhaps even "nifty"... but I'm not sure Wikipedia's the place for it. I'd say the only way to keep it would be to completely wikify it, which requires a -lot- of wikisearching and disambiguating. Has the author (Beerio) been notified? Perhaps s/he may be interesting in putting the work into it. Otherwise, it's kinda useless as it is... short of a conversation piece. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:40, 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 was redirected. Following merges, redundant articles should just be redirected (to preserve attribution as is necessary under the GFDL) - there's no need to take them to AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barataria (Gondoliers)[edit]

A merger proposal on the article's talk page was agreed by all who commented, and the relevant material has been incorporated in the article on The Gondoliers. Marc Shepherd 20:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural note: If it's been merged, then the old article should be redirected or speedy deleted. No need for an AfD. Georgewilliamherbert 21:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: the information in this article is redundant to that on The Gondoliers and it's highly unlikely anyone would search for 'Barataria' without an awareness of the opera; a redirect would be pointless. --die Baumfabrik 06:43, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street Low 1:64 Releases[edit]

Delete as it is just a list which fails WP:NOT. The producers of the cars was determined to be notable enough in the last AfD done on it, but this list is not. Gay Cdn 20:27, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Institute of Software Technology, Kanpur[edit]

Delete as advertisement and also vanity as it was created by a user with the same name as the head of the organization. Gay Cdn 20:33, 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 was Delete. - Bobet 10:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabid Chipmunk[edit]

Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC. Gay Cdn 20:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article itself states that their sole album sold "more than 100 copies." Uh, yeah, speedy delete this one. -- Kicking222 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 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 was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hollowell[edit]

Delete - MLB umpire only for relatively brief period; worked no postseason or All-Star games, no significant regular season games. Hard to imagine the article ever being anything but a stub. (Also note that the article is an orphan.) (Article was previously marked for deletion by Seidenstud, tag was removed by another user.) MisfitToys 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the page - Five seasons seems significant to me. Players who have played few games/years are on this website. I'm not sure why the bias against umpires exists on this site. They work hard and make a contribution to baseball just like players and coaches. Ags412 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Ags412[reply]

Well, what about substitute umpires who are never on the regular staff but merely fill in during vacations or strikes? This is a really slippery slope. I'll note that all of the other post-1890 umpires with articles worked postseason (and usually All-Star) games. MisfitToys 20:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - worked at the highest level = notable. BoojiBoy 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another point: There are fewer than 75 umpires that work MLB games in a year, but over 800 players, almost all of whom have pages on this site. In fact, being a major league umpire is a tougher accomplishment than being a major league player. Obviously players are more in the spotlight while umpires often go unnoticed, but this should not prevent them from having a page on this site. But it seems to me that if such a select group of people can accomplish something as difficult as becoming a major league umpire, if even for a short period of time, then that person deserves to be recognized on this website. Ags412 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the numerical comparison is entirely useful. Anywhere between 18 and 50 players appear in each game (sometimes even more in September), but only 4 umpires; there are fewer positions. Besides, shouldn't the article describe something the person did rather than just note their job title? Since you began the article, adding something in that respect would be useful. Players' accomplishments are easily quantifiable and varied and can be compared; umpires' work tends to be more uniform. The Wikipedia bio guidelines should be kept in mind; for sports officials, I'd suggest something similar to the criteria for professors (Ivy League profs could be regarded as working at the highest level, yet they don't automatically qualify for articles). MisfitToys 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The numerical comparison is relevent because it shows how much more difficult a position being an MLB umpire is to obtain as compared to being an MLB player. My point with that is that MLB players who appear in very few seasons and have "stubs" are not shut out from this site, so why should an MLB umpire be? Additionally, if you want more than his job, give it some time. This page has been up for less than 24 hours. Part of the reason it was put up is so anyone who knows something can contribute. Give them time to find it. Ags412 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, veteran umpires have union job protection, so talent isn't the only criteria for work; a pitcher who's no longer competent loses his job, but it's harder to get rid of a bad umpire who's been around for ten years. Besides, the uniformity of their work is a primary goal for umpires; uniformity is completely irrelevant (and essentially impossible) for players. MisfitToys 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which means it is even tougher to get a job in the major leagues because there are less openings. Therefore, breaking into the major leagues as an umpire for any amount of time is an extremely difficult feat in any respects and thus a "notable" accomlpishment.Ags412 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would personally draw a comparison here with UK Premiership football referees, and they tend to have WP articles - here's a stubby example of one. --DaveG12345 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. With few execptions (e.g. John Hirschbeck), American sports officials are quite intentionally fairly anonymous. I can't imagine what could be added to the article to make it more than a stub. I can't speak for soccer people, but soccer refs might be different because the relative subjectivity of that sport makes officials more important and better known. -- Mwalcoff 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm not one to use a quasi-Pokémon test defense, but I see no reason why there are articles on players that barely made the bigs, but an ump that spent four years in the pros would fail notability guidelines. I don't buy either argument that it's easier/harder for players or umps to make the show--apples and oranges, people. Mwalcoff is right that relative anonymity makes it difficult to expand this article, and due to the nature of the pasttime most sources deal only with publicized mistakes, ejections and whathaveyou. I've added a bit of new info, too. -- Scientizzle 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As MisfitToys suggested, the umpire situation should be approached similar to that of college professors - working on the highest level is not enough, on its own, to constitute notability. As it stands now, the career highlights listed on Hollowell's article do not make him notable, as he was not really a part of them; he was really more of a bystander. The batboy and the equipment managers scheduled to work those games were as much a part of Darren Kile's death and the crazed fan incident, as Hollowell was. The fact that Hollowell was a part of these games is trivia, by definition, unimportant. Also, I should point out that the numerical comparisons between umpires and players are moot by the simple reason that there is far, far less competition for umpire jobs. That is not to say very little competition, but the fact remains that countless children, young adults, and college-age kids, throughout the Americas work extremely hard to try to fulfill their dreams of playing in the major leagues. Despite any arguments made to the importance and skill of the umpire, this is simply not the case for aspiring umpires. Besides, most of the arguments equating MLB umpire status with notability (competition, job openings, etc) can really be made for MLB batboys and MLB bullpen catchers. This is a slippery slope being mounted here. Without real notable, consequential facts about a particular umpire's career, there is no article. -Seidenstud 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 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 was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The southwest effect[edit]

That markets become more competitive whenever a new competitor comes in is not really new with Southwest Airlines. You could just as well call it the "Fox effect" or the "Japanese car effect". The only reference is an autobiography by the founder of the airline.Delete. Gazpacho 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: No reason given under Wikipedia:Deletion policy for this deletion. Nominator: please list specific reasons why this is eligible for deletion. Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason was "apparent neologism" but I've changed my mind now. Gazpacho 04:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more and credible references. This effect is an economic principle specific to the airline industry and to the culture.

:*AFD is not a vote. Can you offer a reason why it should be kept? Fan-1967 21:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Never mind. I see from the history that the comment above was from the same editor. Fan-1967 22:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many credible references. True, the subject is an economic principle specific to the airline industry and to the culture, but it is studied by government, the press, economists, and private industry. It is in common usage and refers to a tendency that can be attributed generally to any airline that causes that effect. A Department of Transportation publication (as cited by Justin Ritter) defined it as "the characteristics of a low-cost carrier’s market entry and the side-effects that come with it. (DOT, 1993)" Searching for "Southwest Effect" in Google Print yields over 50 book citations. A Google Web search for "Southwest Effect" delivers links to well over 700 Internet sites using the phrase. Deleting the entry is not warranted. Wipfeln 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to Southwest Airlines. This phrase is too specific to SW Airlines and is also not in widespread use - so it doesn't deserve its own article, but would be fine as a section in the SW Airlines article Bwithh 00:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, I should have done my due diligence. Gazpacho 04:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as use is supported by sources in article. JChap 05:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, properly sourced. If kept, move to The Southwest effect. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:34, 14 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fraser Valley Gilbert and Sullivan Society[edit]

This is an article about a community theatre group. It cites no sources and is not notable. It has been tagged for almost three weeks as "unencyclopedic," and there have been no further edits. It is essentially a vanity article for that organisation. Marc Shepherd 20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ssilvers 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, most minor community organizations are non-notable and don't exactly cut the mustard per WP:ORG. --Kinu t/c 04:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 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 nomination was Speedy delete as {{nn-group}}. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Comic Preservation[edit]

Vanity page for a comics scanning bit-torrent group. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:52, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adult DVD rental[edit]

This article contains nothing whihc is not obvious from the title, and is historically a spam magnet. And those are its good parts. Just zis Guy you know? 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. 482,000 Google hits, obviously highly notable, and I see nothing in the article that a little clean-up couldn't fix. tmopkisn tlka 21:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL! The fact that there are adult DVD rentals is not in disupte; the fact that the meaning of the term "adult DVD rental" is blindingly obvious is the problme here! Just zis Guy you know? 21:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What potential does this article have that isn't already quite adequately covered by Online DVD rental and our extensive series on pornography? I see none. Spam magnets are bad enough, useless spam magnets are worse. — Haeleth Talk 21:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Haeleth. There's no doubt the concept exists, but the debate here is not notability. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Haeleth. Just a series of ordinary words forming a phrase of no standalone importance. --DaveG12345 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Changing vote per Haeleth, he's right, pretty much the same content, except the latter is much better. tmopkisn tlka 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "You can rent adult DVDs online. It works just like normal online DVD rental." That's more or less what this article boils down to. As such, I really don't see why this merits a separate article. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. But darn, I won't be able to watch the appearance and removal of spam links on my watch list anymore. Tsk. Tony Fox (speak) 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not 100% sure how to add my comments here. If this article is going to stick around then it needs to be corrected. I work for XRentDVD, and we opened in July 1999 (verified by the wayback machine). There was one other site that went live around then, I think it was blueDVD.com. I'm not looking to be viewed as a spammer, which is why I didn't edit the page. If it is going to stay up at least have someone research and put in the facts MarcP 15:53, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z-cult Fm[edit]

Self-promotion for another comics bittorrent site. Has an Alexa traffic rank of 38,013. Google hits for "z-cult fm": 943. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:57, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 05:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18 Speed Tranny[edit]

Prod was removed by sole author, so I'll list it here. No real opinion, although the article sounds like it was written by a member of the band (especially the "influences" section), the band does seem to be somewhat notable. tmopkisn tlka 21:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the page author - The influence part has been modified, and if you do a google or yahoo search you will see that the band is notable.

Procedural note: Nominator, please list specific reasons under Wikipedia:Deletion policy under which this is eligible for deletion. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a Google search (which, FYI, brings up 26,000+ hits, but only 262 unique hits), they might or might not be somewhat (i.e. only slightly, but sufficiently for WP) notable. However, as it stands, the article asserts absolutely no notability at all. Thus, unless an article expansion occurs that shows me if/why these guys are actually significant, I have no choice but to vote speedy delete. -- Kicking222 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've just spent a while trawling through some of the Ghits. Most are related to either Chicago sites, or free music sites. I even searched at ASCAP [38] and BMI [39] where they weren't listed. Besides gigs in Illinois, they played a festival in Wisconsin this week! They've even got a listing as an "Irish" band on an Irish site. They do appear on a complilation album. They do deserve full marks for getting the promo out. --Richhoncho 22:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:BAND doesn't mention Google hits as a criterion for notability. Or at all. --DaveG12345 03:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the pages author - If it's the agenda of this website to present only things that everyone is already familiar with than what's the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stymets (talk • contribs)
    • I think you'd be able to make a better case if you hadn't gone around calling people dorks, and changing their comments. tmopkisn tlka 01:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the pages author - A case is a case regardless of my immaturity, besides I think Macaroni is a dork, just like he thinks the bands name is "crap" I'm entitled to my opinion. STYMETS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stymets (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Websters defines the word encyclopedia as a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. It does not say anything about being elitist or relevance of subject matter, and I would imagine that it would state that the complete opposite should be the case for an encylopedia that is supposed to be freely available and created by the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stymets (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Close to a speedy, but I think it just about asserts notability. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nijmegen Centre for Border Research[edit]

Nominating this article was proposed in the related AfD discussion of Henk van Houtum. This article appears to be mostly vanity (possible non-notability as well) as indicated by the over-use of external links, and the only page linking in is Henk van Houtum. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:31, 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 nomination was Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Ability[edit]

Fails WP:BAND notability test. Article admits that the band is "yet to release any songs or E.P's to the public and it now seems increasingly more unlikely due to the fact that the band member's are always on a temporary hiatus". --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since they have, by their own admission, no ability. Just zis Guy you know? 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I don't think there's any assertion of notability contained in the article whatsoever. -- Kicking222 22:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Steel 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Spectacular notability assertion failure, despite a lot of detailed trivia. 'The more recent smash "Thursday Night"' - a "smash" on MSN, whatever that entails - isn't quite what WP:MUSIC is asking for. --DaveG12345 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per criterion A7 -- no notability asserted. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 23:21, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast-Host[edit]

Spam for a nn webhosting service. Fan-1967 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. -- Steel 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 cannot be used for a company. Someone already tried that. Fan-1967 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, just regular delete then. -- Steel 22:31, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALSAP[edit]

Self promotional article for the Alaska Lost Ski Areas Project website. No Alexa traffic rank listed. Fails WP:WEB. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:55, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Educational Ministries[edit]

Self promotional article for a non-notable organisation. Google hits for "Christian Educational Ministries" = 635. No mentions in notable 3rd party publications. Fails WP:ORG. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure. Do they really have a 'radio show'? If it is actually syndicated, I might say to keep. 600 hits within their own little range of web pages is a bit non-notable for a modern organization. Probably delete per Netsnipe.
  • Delete per nom. Also the text uses "We" repeatedly and looks like it was lifted from another source. Artw 01:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Clay (author)[edit]

NN, 52 ghits for ""James Clay" author whist" --Macarion 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and correct The article does fail to establish notability. ""James Clay" whist" gives me 91 articles, some of which claim he was a member of parliament; if this is correct, the article should be revised to indicate this (and doubtless not deleted). boisestate.edu article. It says James Clay, M.P. ... I don't have the know-how to verify the claim or add more information; maybe I will have PedanticallySpeaking try to find him. --Matthew 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep per above; historical figure according to present content. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence is provided that he meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. It would be better if people didn't add substubs like this, but having an article in the ODNB pushes him well over the threshold of notability for the Encyclopedia of Pokemon and Obscure Baseball Players. Another point (for the nominator): please don't use a low number of Google hits as proof of non-notability for historical persons like this. Try other sources first. up+land 13:43, 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 nomination was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Commons[edit]

Advertising for non-notable website. BoojiBoy 23:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Only relevant Google hits are the website itself and its page on various Wikis. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- NN. According to the article, the site has a whopping 147 users worldwide. Maybe after they have a few thousand and stop meeting in living rooms they would have a bit more of a place in an encyclopedia. --Matthew 23:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 00:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 01:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I made quite a few edits to try to bring it into line with wiki guide lines... but I have to be honest, I can't defend it's place on

wikipedia. It's non-noteable and advertimenty. (a-toad-a-so) Mike McGregor (Can) 05:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request could closing admin drop a line on my talk with a link to where ever this discussion gets archived to? Thanks. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:57, 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 nomination was merge already performed - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Every Woman (Whitney Houston single)[edit]

It is suggested that this be merged to the I'm Every Woman page; I agree. Perhaps a redirect would be best. I considered doing it myself, but decided that a bit of community consideration would be better. There are probably a lot of songs out there like this (with articles for every cover ever done). Matthew 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. This is the problem with having a chronology in singles infoboxes IMO. But I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs nevertheless *currently* asks for covers to be under one article (could be wrong, the project has not got its policies sorted out yet). Examples to emulate if merging might include Twist and Shout and War (song). --DaveG12345 03:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with I'm Every Woman. Capitalistroadster 05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into I'm Every Woman. Both articles are rather short (the article on the Houston version was deceptively long because of generous use of section headers and excess detail) and they are the same song, so it's more useful to have the info in one place. On a related note, I think there should be more discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Songs. That way we can establish a consensus about whether separate articles for different versions of a song are necessary. Extraordinary Machine 13:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this at AfD? Just merge the articles as a sensible editorial decision. There's no need to delete anything. Jkelly 00:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with I'm Every Woman. There's stuff like this happening all over Wikipedia. --Kristbg 14:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Now that we have one song category per artist, let's get one article per song.--Mike Selinker 15:58, 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 CSD A7 - CrazyRougeian talk/email 07:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marlena Hall (Troncoso)[edit]

Colorist on a few independent comics; not notable in my opinion. NawlinWiki 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom, though she has woked on some well known titles. Are there guidelines for notability when it comes to indie comics folks that would help clarify this? Artw 00:53, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_8&oldid=1116775210"