Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

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 a1 as nonsense.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjerman Franklin acadamy[edit]

Appears to be made up out of whole cloth. FreplySpang 00:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as blatant copyright violation. - Mgm|(talk) 08:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeVotchKa Lyrics[edit]

Contains only discographical information and song lyrics. I almost think this could be speedied under A3, but bringing here instead. Bottom line, WP:NOT an indescriminate collection of information. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete empty but for lyrics, which is probable copyvio. Jammo (SM247) 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete artist is not notable and this article is not encylcopedic. doktorb | words 01:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing to the article but copyvio lyrics. Speedy if possible. Doc Tropics 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have removed the lyrics, which are definitely copyrighted, no doubt about it. The rest is, no surprise, completely redundant to DeVotchKa. Since this has no redirect value, it's most a emphatic D. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DeVotchKa is notable. This isn't. ~ trialsanderrors 01:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to DeVotchKa. --Coredesat 02:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons stated above. Superbeatles 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LotLE×talk 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no consensus. W.marsh 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative edge[edit]

An aspect of the Street Fighter II engine that is only of real interest to hardcore fans. I prod'ded it and it was removed, so I left it alone, but mention of negative edge was removed from the SF2 article by another editor. Therefore, I feel the article is no longer necessary. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep This is on the edge of a "How to guide". See WP:NOT 1.7.8. However I am not 100% sure that its not useful in wiki. It seems that this not only tells you how to perform a manouvere (which would warrant a delete) but also gives information on something that may interest sections of the community. The article is reasonably well written, something that should not be used as the only grounds for a keep, but which adds to the reason why I voted keep. Viridae 01:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like a how-to guide, which Wikipedia is not. --Coredesat 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or maybe like an instruction manual for the videogame; the game itself is notable, but not such minutiae of playing it. LotLE×talk 06:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is borderline how-to-guide, but I think it's fine. I also think that Street fighter is a common game and notable enough to have subpages. Tobyk777 07:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep explains a system of a well known game.--Andeh 08:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Howto guide / game guide on extremely ephemeral subject. Technique not notable, As LotLE. -- GWO
  • Delete - Borderline how-to. Original research maybe? Wickethewok 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no WP:V sourcing in the article. If it gets sourced I will reconsider on merits of article.--Isotope23 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It definitely needs sourcing and a rewrite, but I think it's notable (remember the Pokemon rule). It seems to be a real technique implemented by Capcom. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This technique is notable enough (if it gets verified). Sources must be added to this article. If no source is added (after the original author is notified) after a reasonable time have elapsed, then it maybe qualify for deletion. Though I don't think now is the time to delete this.--WinHunter (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Street Fighter II. Such a specific technical aspect to a game just doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. TomTheHand 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like a legit article documenting a gaming phenomenon. Aguerriero (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no sources and the writer has very little more than a clue as to the meaning of Etymology. The article doesn't make very much sense, this article must be rewritten and must cite sources and prove notability to remain on Wikipedia.--Cocopuffberman 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment tagged as unsourced as I could find nothing to back this article up outside of a few forum posts, which are not reliable sources. If kept (and it looks no consensus right now strictly on numbers) I will revisit 30 days after close if AfD and relist if no verification from reliable sources is added.--Isotope23 12:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs verification. especially as the definition is poorly written (and the diagram is strange) Bwithh 18:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has been verified by countless people...want proof? Just type "Negative edge"+capcom into google and look through some of the results, or gamefaqs, or anywhere else. Also, it applies to capcom games SINCE SF2, not just SF2, making it far more significant. 12.107.142.191 04:45, 25 June 2006
  • Comment it has to be verified by a reliable source. Googlinng "Negative edge"+capcom produces this: [1]. The results are message board postings, personal websites at geocities, etc. Nothing here would constitute a reliable source for purposes of verification.
  • BTW, Originator keeps blanking the article... I reverted, but perhaps he/she wants it removed?--Isotope23 12:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI know him. I think overall he's more irked that it's difficult to find proper citations for this after going through the hard work of actually fleshing out the article. Anyway, I came across two mentions in one of BradyGames' strategy guide about Negative Edge, and added the appropriate citations as well as direct quotes from the guides. I hope those suffice for the purposes here, as it is a reliable source at the least? 12.107.142.191 09:28, 26 June 2006
  • Keep Explains a technical aspect of arcade gaming and related programming. - CNichols 02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless serious rewrite occurs, with included wikification and references. That isn't likely to happen, however. Black-Velvet 09:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Gardell[edit]

This is totally a vanity page created by Billy Gardell's best friend, Tim O'Rourke, a.k.a the non-speaking extra bartender on the Drew Carey show.

Billy Gardell is a faceless, nameless, egomaniac and stand-up comic. He's been an extra in a lot of films & TV shows. I see him when I watch TV because I know him. But when I try to explain who he was to someone else who saw the same show or movie, they have no idea who I'm talking about.

If Billy were going to be famous, it would have happened already. He's like, 42. He's a funny stand-up to go see at your local neighborhood bar, but there tens of thousands of stand-ups in his category in this country.

This page is not note-worthy, and if Billy Gardell is on Wikipedia for being a camera-hound, then I should have a page for being a totally unfamous but published short story writer and essayist! At least my words are printed on paper in books that sit on shelves and don't require electricity to access!!! And another thing! I was an extra in that movie Hoosiers when I was in highschool! Still...you won't find me having someone add my vanity page to wikipedia!!!

Julziepel 08:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is a non-notable actor. I just removed a large chunk of PR type biography that makes me think this is a vanity page. I placed the text in the Discussion section for review. Anon Y. Mouse 22:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dont see anywhere in WP:BLP that would exclude him, and as Zoe pointed out, he is a regular on a nationally-shown tv show. Viridae 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep per "Heist". As to BLP, me neither. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 2 national shows is notable, but the article definitely needs help. Did I just hear Rbanzai (Anon Y. Mouse) volunteer? <Doc ducks & covers> Doc Tropics 01:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up per above. --Coredesat 02:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per most others. Regular actor on netword shows. LotLE×talk 06:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep appears to have been in a few shows/events.--Andeh 08:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hey, I remember that guy from Monk! Seems to have collected a fair number of acting credits on some major-network primetime shows. I'd suggest removing the paragraph about his high-school activities, which really makes this look like a bog-standard vanity article even though the subject is actually notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Viridae. He is notable, the information is neutral, and not WP:OR (IMDB link). Needs cleanup, though. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 17:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actor on a notable program. Article does need cleanup. Tachyon01 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We99 00:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 - will redirect to Sonic X afterwards. Proto///type 14:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazo[edit]

An article about this topic was deleted before, and a new one created later. As this one contains slightly more information, I would prefer not to delete this as a repost, but to first find out whether there is new information and whether this is just fan speculation or even a hoax. The following comments were added to the first nomination at two separate occasions and copied from there. Kusma (討論) 02:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following comments were added in May by four different IPs and are about this version:

Delete - Has nothing to do with the Nazo character and instead has to do with an unnotable fan comic. 71.245.135.10 19:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say we delete it until we know more about this mysterious hedgehog
Delete - The article does not provide the user with any helpful data on a non revealed character and instead explains the fan comic the power of nazo. If not deleted, rename the title to "The Power of Nazo"

This is the most recent nomination statement, added to the old AFD page today:

Information on character that likely doesn't exist, screenshot appears to be of Super Sonic. In addition, the info should be removed from the Sonic X article as well. TonicBH 01:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments since the refactoring below.

  • Comment though I don't know enough about the issue and at current must log off and have no opportunity to find out, I must say that this should not be approached as any AfD. If you're voting keep, please explain explicitly why the previous AfD results are to be disregarded. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If no new information about this topic is presented, this should be deleted as unsourced and unverified speculation. Kusma (討論) 02:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, unsourced, not about subject, fails WP:V, crystal-balling. --Coredesat 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep, I agree with Coredesat, but maybe it can just be marked with a 'future events' tag, and updated as more info comes in. It's a little too speculative, so I suppose I agree with Kusma. TrianaC 03:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This probably isn't notable enough to warrant a future events tag. --Coredesat 09:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think giving him his own seperate article is a bad idea, but I'd keep the small section in the main article, Sonic X, with some modifications. Way too many people look way too deeply into the "Nazo Issue", and it has been a source of frusteration for me that whenever the future of the TV series is brought up, somebody always has to mention this Nazo thing. That said, Nazo could possibly BE a different character - as he looks visibly different from Super Sonic, which was also seen in the same promo video that Nazo was. But there's obviously nowhere near the amount of mystery here that some people seem to think there is. At the very least, this is fancruft. BlazeHedgehog 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The amount of speculation on the subject alone stands as the reason it should be kept. As I see it, unless more info is revealed, this will ALWAYS be a point of speculation amongst the fan base and should be kept for all who may see the screen and simply wonder what it is. Also, it may be worth it to attempt to find out from Sega themselves why it was created. At least then you can have some reliable info Grandmastergalvatron 05:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not WP is not a crystal ball. LotLE×talk 06:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Musicpvm and LotLE, and also because it appears to be WP:OR. Paddles TC 09:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It mostly not true anyways. Nazo is his codename and has green eyes. If he was super sonic they would,ve showed him yellow from the start. it's based off the games. besides if you don't delete it at least put true inf. cuz i know and that ain't true.

Boltyhedgehog 9:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - looks like OR —Mets501 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sonic X. Accurizer 01:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sonic X. --Alexie 04:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article can be of valuabe information as long as it states that it as a speculative nature. Besides, there is good information about it, and with time the article is possible to grow, maybe even have something to mention about the up coming Sonic The Hedgehog game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.50.33 (talk • contribs)
  • Re-direct or Merge to Sonic X per nom.--real_decimic 03:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as while I don't really like this article, I have heard a lot of people discussing this, so really it has to have an article. Mrjeff 13:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fan-cruft + crystalball = hypecruft. Kill it or userfy it now and when we find out what it really is (if notable at all,) someone can make a lovely article section with many bullet points about its myriad of powers. --Kunzite 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Blue Spider 18:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Sonic X per arguments above. Universitytruth 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It gives information of a very debatable character, discussed by many people, and can give much information to talk about in said debates. SuperSonic
    • Who discusses this? Is there anything verifiable that can be said? Can you cite any source that says it is discussed by many people? Kusma (討論) 00:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. Inner Earth 11:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terramar Organics[edit]

Delete vanity posting by User:Terramar Organics - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. All the information about it that I found on google was promotional or price lists etc. No independant reviews or works. Viridae 01:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Viridae; I sampled over 2 dozen of the google hits with the same results. Doc Tropics 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Coredesat 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Advertisement posing as article? TrianaC 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an Scottish internet retailer that differentiates itself by its "Fair Trade" policies. It is better known in the U.K. than in the United States. As a trailblazer, it has an influence beyond its size, like the pioneering companies that promoted the use of recycled paper, thereby enabling investments in recycling technology. Besides, the article is better now. TruthbringerToronto 03:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of how trailblazing or ethically sound the company is, the criteria is notability, against which I'm afraid it fails. Of the top 20 or so Google hits, all seem to be based on advertising material produced by the company itself, apart from one local directory listing.--MichaelMaggs 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an internet retailer... ok: Alexa traffic rank: 1,814,839. It also fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. For an internet company you'd expect more independent coverage on the internet too. A lot of small companies seek to differentiate themselves with fair trade policies... it doesn't make them notable enough for their own article on Wikipedia. - Motor (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Motor, I've just userfied it.--Andeh 09:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Viridae, MichaelMaggs. Reeks of marketing. A fair bit of the content would more properly belong in generic articles about fair trade, organic clothing etc. rather than specifically under this company - and once you take that out, there's not much useful left. Paddles TC 09:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no proof of notability. Page creator has been singularly unwilling to debate and defend despite several invitations to do so. Happy to be proved wrong and change my opinion, but there's nothing stirring me to do so at the moment. --Dweller 09:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Inner Earth 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Newspaper articles only mention in passing or are advertisement. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's more about organic clothing than about the company, anyway. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We99 00:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anand 21:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear failure of WP:CORP. Pretty funny that the user name matches the company's name too. Pascal.Tesson 07:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable "trailblazer". Better known in the UK than the US, but still barely known in the UKBwithh 01:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 merge and redirect. Interesting to note that the original version of this article was speedy deleted over a year ago; it contained nothing but a wikilink to John Pilger and an external link. Anyways, it appears that the merge to BBC News has taken place, so I'll do the redirect and we're done here. Mackensen (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the BBC[edit]

Update[edit]

I have tried to consoldiate all criticism of BBC News from several articles in a (I hope, balanced) section of the BBC News entry. See BBC_News#Opinions_of_BBC_News

pit-yacker 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Delete Putting it politely, the article is a mess. It just duplicates information in other articles over and over (usually in the main articles such as BBC and BBC News. The article has no structure, again and again returning to the premise that the BBC is biased against America, but at the same time it isnt.

I note it was previously nominated in December. A number of people at this point suggested it should be kept and cleaned up. However, this has not happened. IMHO the article should be deleted and anything of any worth (if there is anything) moved to BBC News (which is what the article is about).

I have reservations about any merger as: 1. The article doesnt really have any substantial debate it appears to use the likes of personal opinions, newspaper leaders, and blogs (often from those with a vested interest in casting BBC News in a bad light) to cobble together the criticism. For example is there any strong evidence that the BBC is anti-american? If the BBC's coverage of Katrina is evidence of anti-americanism some of the US networks are far more anti-american than the BBC. IMHO a blog is not a source worthy of an encyclopedia. On the other side (without looking) I'm sure there are plenty of the above which show the BBC in a good light.

2. Most of the stuff is covered elsewhere anyway.


pit-yacker 01:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any new information - that which is not found in other articles - with the appropriate articles on the BBC (BBC or BBC News for instance). Viridae 02:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Scented Guano 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. BBC#Criticism is woefully incomplete. Anything that can be salvaged from this article belongs there. --Alex S 05:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge. On the title alone, I was inclined toward delete. But it seems to present just enough suggestion of real encyclopedic content that I can imagine a real article with this title. Still, merging to BBC wouldn't be anything terrible either. LotLE×talk 06:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into BBC#Criticism. Add a mention that the interactive World Cup services don't work in my village. -- GWO 06:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "Criticism of" articles are rarely a good idea. Write an NPOV article on the BBC. Don't split off criticism into another article. Having a section labelled "Criticism" within an article is bad enough (unless criticism is a big part of the subject)... but specific criticism articles are even worse. They just end up as dumping grounds for whinges, gripes and bias. - Motor (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything that is salvagable into BBC#Criticism, then delete. Doesn't warrant a separate article, is badly POV, and needs a lot of cleanup. Paddles TC 09:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it needs a lot of tidying up. An organisation the size and influence of the BBC is bound to attract criticism which should be presented in a NPOV manner on Wikipedia. Markb 10:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not within the BBC article? Isn't that where it belongs? -- GWO
  • Merge & redirect, as its not too long to add to the main BBC article. Do not prejudice against recreation if it ever gets long enough to support its own subpage. JeffBurdges 13:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is salvagable per GWO.--Isotope23 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Motor above -- MrDolomite 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge The article can be a useful one as a main page for the criticism section on the BBC page, but it needs to be practically totally rewritten. I'm willing to help find sources for the rewriting, but barring that, salvaging what's good and incoporating it into the section at BBC. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge salvagable material into the main BBC article, dump the rest. Tachyon01 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - criticism would be better placed as a balance to what is being criticised. Ace of Risk 22:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Criticism articles are not NPOV. Calsicol 22:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Calsicol Bwithh 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any decent facts to the Criticism at the BBC article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve this article. The BBC has produced an abundance of editorials posing as fact regarding Israel. Most recently, the BBC reported that the IDF had killed children in Gaza, when it turned out to be a Hamas "work accident." Potterseesall 08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is not an argument to keep this article. It is an argument to change the BBC News one. - Motor (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not NPOV. Anything useful should be in Hutton Report (if not already there in more organised form), the rest reads like random jottings for an essay in progress that hasn't changed in six months. Consequently reads as virtual nonsense. Lines like

    More plausibly, it has been accused of supporting the US and UK governments more often than not. During the Falklands war, for example, it was attacked as traitorous for airing doubts about the war...

    are simply non-sequiturs. Despite the futile fake objectivity of this one line, all the rest of the article is typical non-NPOV Beeb-bashing. --DaveG12345 08:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per the other merge voters--Kalsermar 18:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason as last time. Valid topic. --JJay 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to the BBC News article. Yamaguchi先生 07:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of borderline fictional characters[edit]

This AfD is related to the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of real-life characters. In both cases, the articles are vague-defined and poorly-written, despite having been around for some time. I can't really decide where I think this information belongs, but I don't think it merits its own article -- and I certainly don't think it deserves this article, which is sparse, confusing, disjointed, and unmaintainable as written. Delete as unencyclopedic. Xoloz 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borderline Keep better laid out, more purposeful and more accurate than the real-life character page, but getting awfully close to a deletion opinion. Needs rewriting. Jammo (SM247) 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the useful information, but agree reorganization (or perhaps division into multiple pages) is needed. This is much better than List of real-life characters, which seems to me to be rather pointless. The problem is that it is really multiple lists and I would argue that a list of legendary characters believed to be based on real people is very different than a list of literary alter egos. Maybe they shouldn't even be on the same page. But this list is potentially useful and more informative than a category would be. So I say "keep." Crypticfirefly 01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - it's interesting enough, but I frankly can't see why anyone would want to look at it. Only 4 articles link to it, and the remainder are from other lists, and from AfD discussions and userpages. That may not be the fault of the article, but it still shows that it's not really, well, important. I wouldn't call it unencyclopedic, per nom, but it is sparse and needs some rewriting. TrianaC 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better than the other one, but "borderline fictional" defines indiscriminate. ~ trialsanderrors 04:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are glimpses of interesting encyclopedic content, but I don't believe anything under this title is salvageable. That might suggests "rename", but there isn't any single common title the tidbits would fit under. However, I can see a number of them fitting into a possibly encyclopedic List of fictional characters modeled on historical figures (if there isn't such a thing yet). LotLE×talk 06:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "borderline fictional" = indiscriminate. --Coredesat 07:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. What exactly is the point of this article? The subject is too vaguely defined, and the content drifts around all over the place. - Motor (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Motor. Paddles TC 09:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of information. Way too big, way too vague, way too subjective. Proto///type 11:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Motor, Proto; indiscriminate collection, &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per reasons above, though would be unopposed to giving such a list a better name/criteria. Wickethewok 13:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is little content of value in here or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of real-life characters. doktorb | words 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of information. -- MrDolomite 16:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination We99 23:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I see no problem here. This is a useful interesting page. I just learned some stuff by reading it. Tobyk777 00:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MrDolomite. Accurizer 01:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not useful information. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague and POV. --Musicpvm 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Robert Fishman[edit]

Dr. Fishman has no references in Google Scholar, and no mentions on the internet. I don't see how this is notable enough for a wikipedia page. Frekja 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Woefully insufficient content, and no good prospects for finding more. Kickaha Ota 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. We99 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could almost be speedied, as there does not seem to be even the assertion of notability. We don't even know what his field was. Fan1967 02:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no context or assertion of notability. Vanity, as it was made by Lenfishman. --Coredesat 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. TrianaC 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Scented Guano 04:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Unless someone can come up with something Dr. Fishman did, this looks close to a speedy candidate. I can't quite see any assertion of notability in what's there. LotLE×talk 06:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. Nothing showing up in Google either. Appears to be "vanity" style obit. Right on the edge of being a speedy candidate. Paddles TC 09:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- MrDolomite 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only online references are from Wikipedia or mirrors and doesn't seem notable. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 17:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total lack of information. Tachyon01 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tachyon. —Khoikhoi 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:IceKarma - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aukerman[edit]

The history of the Aukerman name is not notable, nor is there any possibility it will become notable. Should someone named Aukerman be(come) famous, a page devoted to that person should be created instead. Frekja 21:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is appropriate for a blog, MySpace or a site devoted to genealogy. NOt for Wikipedia due to lack of notability. Interlingua talk 21:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 02:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. And I'm sorry I don't have anything to add to that, but really, this article is short enough to go unnoticed. TrianaC 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Created by User:Auk, which pretty much screams "vanity." But still, it would make me sad to delete this page. It's so earnest and warm. My head tells me to vote delete, but my heart tells me to take this one article and with it begin a GeneologyWiki which will be filled with people's family origins and stories. So I guess I just won't vote one way or the other. --Alex S 06:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete suspected vanity, but more importantly no assertion of notability. No-one has speedied it yet so I will. Paddles TC 09:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. I'm sure they're all nice people, just nn at the moment. Tychocat 10:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like this article's been deleted. This discussion can be closed. --Coredesat 11:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gunn[edit]

This is clearly a Vanity Page Georgerabbit 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. He won an award at one of the most prestigious film fests in the world. Yes, it was for a short film, but I think that's enough for this short article. The vanity aspect of the article is kept to a minimum. Interlingua talk 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Interlingua, but I don't see this going beyond a stub. --Coredesat 02:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per Coredesat. TrianaC 02:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Solidly on the plus side of enough audience to be notable. LotLE×talk 06:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Interligua. His IMDb entry doesn't show an extensive body of work, but winning a Sundance prize should be enough for notability, and there is potential for more as his career progresses. Paddles TC 10:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paddles, Optimale Gu 13:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per Paddles and Interlingua. ~Chris Don't be evil. 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Interlingua and Paddles — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seemed at first like a vanity article to me, but a Sundance Award is a big thing. Tachyon01 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 --Cyde↔Weys 03:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEDM[edit]

Non-notable website cruft. --Chris (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Non-notable meme. —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat 02:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom.TrianaC 02:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Vary | Talk 22:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surf breaks in Israel[edit]

Delete Let's see... Unencyclopedic. Is it meant to be a directory of surf spots? That's not allowed either. A very strange aricle. BTW, and by way of disclosure, they tell me that "apparently there is a whole class of 'surf breaks' articles". Wow!... - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, please tell me you were joking there. - Motor (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic... doesn't WikiTravel deal with this sort of thing? - Motor (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: This article has the same kind of content and format of all other "Surf breaks by country", why only this one is being considered for deletion? By the way, the information contained on it has nothing to do with history or religion, it´s is just an article that says that it is possible to surf in Israel. That’s all. - Castilho 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the one I found in the process of patrolling Special:Newpages and I nominated it as I saw it. Once this AfD is completed, I will probably go through the rest of the articles in the category. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: It is possible to practice surf in Israel. This is a fact. Refer to Surf or Surfing; - Castilho 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. It's simply a list of unnotable surf spots with no info besides the list. If there's a Surfing in Israel article, then it could be incorporated into that, or, per Rianna, into Tourism in Israel. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion I invite you to visit the section "Famous surf breaks" on the article Surfing and to add an AfD on each one of the articles listed there. Or more simply, perhaps we can classify the whole information about Surfing as unencyclopedic and delete this useless article too. And so on until there is nothing left. The other option is to try to improve the existing articles instead of deleting them (isn’t what wikipedia is about?)- Castilho , 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Hmmm, I didn't know that there were other similar articles. Some of them seem encyclopedic, like the Surf Breaks in the U.S. article (with information more than just a list), but many are in worse shape than this one. If this article can be expanded upon like the U.S. article (but with sources, which the U.S. one lacks), then it should be kept. Until then, though, it's probably better to merge into Tourism in Israel until there's enough information to split off. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Riana, at least in the interim. Seems to be valuable, verifiable information that should be kept somewhere. If there are a whole sluagh of "Surf breaks in. . ." articles, I'd also suggest moving the lot of them to something less jargony, like "Surfing beaches in. . ." or "Surfing sites . . ." Here in Indiana we don't know "surf breaks". Smerdis of Tlön 18:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination We99 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this article is correctly labled as a stub and seems to hold some valuable information. I don't think that the information can be expanded upon very much, but it should be added to a larger directory.--Cocopuffberman 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --Cocopuffberman 23:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, so which is it: merge or delete? You've posted two comments above with contradictory choices. - Motor (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --WinHunter (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The link have been removed from the article surfing. There are no surfing spots in Israel anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcastilho (talk • contribs)
    • Comment, this is the user who created the article and commented earlier with the signature "Castilho". Note: I don't believe that anyone thinks the information is useless... just that it does not justify its own article and would be better placed either within the surfing article, or (in my opinion) possibly on something like Wikitravel. - Motor (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ROFL are you kidding me? This AfD should be moved to BJAODN! Teppupkcos 22:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teppupkcos indef-blocked (name is "sockpuppet" backwards). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualworks[edit]

Does not meet requirements of WP:CORP. Reads like an {{advert}}. Agent 86 02:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 --Cyde↔Weys 03:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe on head[edit]

  • Must Keep. This fad has mobilized more YTMNDers than any other, it has taken on a life of its own and is no longer relegated to the confines of YTMND. Not just a simple YTMND meme, it is almost a way of life. The naysayers are being more vocal because the people who understand it are too busy participating.

Non-notable meme. --Chris (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We need a CSD for this kind of ridiculous stuff. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - it should just be speedied. Fabricationary 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunate that there are people who actually think this was worth creating. Fan1967 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Alex S 02:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aren't most notable fads generally more than 24 hours old? (A heads-up: The AfD and speedy deletion templates have been removed repeatedly.) emk 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aren't most notable fads notable? RockinRobTalk 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Ridiculous. TrianaC 02:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not for things made up on the Internet in one day. NawlinWiki 02:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly Jimbo Wales created the internet in six days, therefore that is the minimum threshold for notability--64.12.117.11 02:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sarcasm is not a pretty thing. :p TrianaC 02:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must Keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.81.102 (talk • contribs)
  • Must Keep. This YTMND fad brought all YTMND'ers together. It really gave people a sense of comradery. Please do not delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by N1CK70 (talk • contribs)
  • Must Keep. This YTMND fad brought all YTMND'ers together. It really gave people a sense of comradery. Please do not delete.I would just like to quote .. "naysayers are being more vocal because the people who understand it are too busy participating." so true. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE: people who are suggesting deletion also suggest deletion of OTHER YTMND.com wiki's. Just because it happened on the internet doesnt mean it isnt history, okay? And a reply to "Aren't most notable fads more than 24 hours old?" No. This one became so instantly popular it was notable within just a few hours of it's creation. N1CK70
  • Delete. I understand that this is a very emotional issue for YTMND'ers everywhere, but I have to vote with my brain instead of my heart, and my brain is a deletionist. Superbeatles 03:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Kungfuadam. Yanksox (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe on head[edit]

Previously speedy deleted page recreated (as above). Deserves a reference in the main YTMND article at the very most. Matticus78 23:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Strong Delete. Doesn't qualify for G4, unfortunately, but I think this sort of thing ought to. Tevildo 23:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protect from recreation. The article's been deleted again. --Coredesat 00:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscover[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. W.marsh 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Democracy[edit]

The AfD tag was put on this page by User:Thecrisis5 but this user did not complete the AfD process. This article seems notable enough to me, but for now I'll abstain from voting. --Danielrocks123 02:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep, someone obviously spent some time on this. Perhaps merge into Marxism or similar. It's not bad as an article, but the movement is not historically significant (and I found no articles which link to it). TrianaC 02:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: just read Fan1967's comment. Rename as before, then, I guess. Is this a sneaky move on the part of the AfD nominator for Wikirecognition? :p TrianaC 02:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the name "Revolutionary Socialism" and tag boldly for clean up. As written, seems to be a lot of unreference crystal ball work and original research, but Britannica calls it a type of socialism, and Google shows a lot of people talking about it, so I think there has to be a pony in here somewhere. --William Pietri 04:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. If the author wants it deleted for a fresh start, who am I to argue? --William Pietri 07:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Homey 04:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Given that (a) all the names mentioned are well-known figures of other branches of socialism, (b) the flag in the article is the Red Army flag, and (c) all external links and references are to well-known organisations and works within the socialist circle, I suspect it's a hoax. Moreover, only 11 google hits on "Revolutionary Socialist Democracy" most of which have simply the wrong context, it's absolutely non-notable. -- Koffieyahoo 05:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides, Revolutionary socialism usually refers the branch of socialism that wants to overthow the govenment replacing it by a socialist one. This is a much older phenomenon than what the acticle is supposed to be talking about with as its prime example the Russian Revolution. To link to the competition. -- Koffieyahoo 05:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heads up Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21_Revolutionary_Socialism -- Koffieyahoo 05:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hey guys, sorry about the mishap involving the two names being switched. Youll have to forgive me, im relativly new to wikipedia. I want this article deleted, i am the author. And as i did put a lot of time into it, i want to restart and heed some of the concerns you and others have voiced. It has no historical significance if your concered about that, its a new idea, hence no history. But im ok with you guys deleting it, i need to tweak it, and ill remake the article under a new title soon. --Zhukov 05:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not think that'll solve the notability problem. Notability comes with relevant, non-generic references, and those haven't been provided up until now, as can be witnessed on the Talk:Revolutionary_Socialism page. -- Koffieyahoo 05:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment - if it is deleted, it will stay deleted (or be speedy deleted) unless a very good reason why the claims of notability is invalid is made. Ian¹³/t 09:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was misusing the name "Revolutionary Socialism". But i can make a historical anylysis of revolutionary socialism, youll just have to give me time, or anyone else can do it for that matter. It should be mentioned on wikipedia somewhere though. The only existing article is a fairly well written one on the Socialist-Revolutionary Party of pre soviet russia. I have a few notible refrences on that party in paticular, so ill help anyone who wants to re write the article. --Zhukov 06:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy, maximal delete with exteme prejudice. This is just a bunch of original research that looks like a college paper. There's no claim that any particular party, organization, or facton is particularly associated with this concept, or that any particular major thinker has used it. The word itself initially makes me think of Rosa Luxemburg, whom I really quite admire theoretically... but the description of what it means is a vague grocery list of Marxists or near-Marxists, who have many subtantial political and theorectical disagreements among them. Just saying, "well, if you take the best of all these thinkers, you'd get something really good" isn't an article. LotLE×talk 06:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 07:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep A notable, well written, profesional looking, refrenced article about a worthy topic. Tobyk777 08:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't be serious. Have you read it at all? Where are the references then? Qwertyus 08:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Qwertyus 08:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Koffieyahoo. Ian¹³/t 09:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Koffieyahoo. Looks pretty dubious, although I wouldn't sow the ground with salt like Lulu otLE :) Paddles TC 10:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think an article on Revolutionary socialism is needed - though it's something of a cluster concept rather than the particular ideology which this article seems to think it is. "Revolutionary socialists" aren't necessarily Communists so a separate article would make sense, one that refers both to historical revolutionary socialism (out of which developed Marxism and Marxist-Leninism) and modern use of the phrase "revolutionary socialism" which is generally used to differentiate oneself from parliamentary socialists/social democrats, is a phrase also used by Trotskyists, Stalinists and other variety of Communists as well as those who reject Leninism or Marxism and isn't a set ideology. However, this article is called "Revolutionary Socialist Democracy" so I don't see the point of keeping and rewriting.Homey 13:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with homey, its needed, but as i am working on the soviet project i dont have time do rewrite it or make another. So if anyone else is up to reasearching and re writing the article in question then go for it. Zhukov 15:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but we do really need an article on Revolutionary Socialism (e.g. here) as an important strand of socialist thought to contrast with Democratic Socialism. --Coroebus 16:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created a very stubby article at revolutionary socialism. Homey 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thats a good start ill add some history when i have the time. Zhukov 19:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no consensus to delete, taking into account the two keep comments from people with no edits this afd/the article. W.marsh 02:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyamandir classes[edit]

advertising The article is clearly an add for an exam-prep school in New Delhi. Interlingua talk 02:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, This is not an advertisement. Although I have studied myself at Vidyamandir Classes, I don't consider it to be a very great place. If you read the article carefully, you'll notice that I have kept a fairly factual tone, thrown in both the plus points and the criticisms (some of which were initiated by me), and maintained a reasonably objective point of view. My purpose in putting up this page is that people should be aware of the details about coaching institutes so that they can take a more informed decision. most students after Class Xth have only unreliable rumours on which to base their decision to join coaching institutes and I want to reduce this factor. If you think this contradicts the objective and neutral policies of Wikipedia, please let me know in what way. Vipul 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, the statement "My purpose in putting up this page is that people should be aware of the details about coaching institutes so that they can take a more informed decision..." clearly vindicates the charge that the page is an advertisement. ImpuMozhi 02:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For-profit educational institutions generally draw controversy because it is tempting to apply business standard, but given that this school had 10,000 people apply last year [2], this article has more notability than say Allen East High School. No doubt though that this article needs to be cleaned and purged of extraneous info. AdamBiswanger1 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I understand what you're doing, Vipul, but fix the article so that more pages link to it. No-one will find this article unless they're specifically looking for it. TrianaC 02:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel that Vidyamandir is more like a school/college where you learn with your friends. We still are in contact with the institute and the alumini remains united and in contact. The alumini still try to meet, and creates a family. VMC (Vidyamandir Classes) remain one of the things we recognize ourselves with. I hope, that you understand that we do not need to advertise it - it is by far very famous, and the intended audience do not access internet as well. PS: Browsing, I found that our school might just well be compared to Sylvan_Learning_Center Abhask 03:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteadvertising, no context, no notability. Tychocat 10:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tychocat. If there were some better references and more indication of notability I might reconsider. At the moment it still smells like an advert. Inner Earth 16:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisement. Tachyon01 20:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisement. ImpuMozhi 02:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad. —Khoikhoi 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the page doesn't have a good context as yet, which is largely because of the absence of related material on Wikipedia as of now (e.g. information about other coaching institutes, information about examination syllabi etc.) Once all that is around I'm sure I can make this paeg link up better.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vipul (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep not an ad. very factual. Vidyamandir Classes is definitely well known. Siddharth Sharma —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sid4wisdom (talk • contribs) .

Considering that Vidyamandir Classes is a well known coaching institute in Delhi where over 10,000 students apply, I think that there should be some information on it in WP. Vipul 02:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep a very apt description of a place called Vidyamandir not at all an ad. if this is an ad then all the descriptions of IIT, Microsoft etc. should be declared as publicity articles. The article is wholly factual and deleting it would be a loss only of Wikipedia as it will loose a good resource to offer its viewers.

Ashish Shubham—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.186.251 (talk • contribs) .

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry locker[edit]

Advert The page is clearly an ad for a San Francisco business. Interlingua talk 02:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediabids[edit]

Advert This is clearly an ad. Interlingua talk 02:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per non-notability —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adambiswanger1 (talk • contribs) 12:06, Jun 22, 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete - non-notable, read WP:WEB. TrianaC 02:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it sounds like a cool idea, but I can't tell how widely used it is. The company claims: "To date over 8,000 business consumers (advertisers) have registered on Mediabids.com to purchase advertising space to market their business and over 3,000 newspapers and magazines have registered their print publications to sell ad space." If a significant number of those who have registered actually do business on the site as a result, then Mediabids would be notable. TruthbringerToronto 03:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Decoding from PR-speak, that sounds to me like "We sold classified ads to 8,000 customers." I think the New York Times probably manages that in a week. Fan1967 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom . corporate marketing is all about "cool ideas". Bwithh 01:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable both as company and website. "References" are to PR releases dressed up as news. Author User:Lisamedia is invited to read WP:VANITY for an explanation of why this isn't appropriate here and won't help your company anyhow. --William Pietri 04:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Scented Guano 04:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat 07:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, WP:WEB. Alex traffic rank: 79,774. The coverage of this available via google appears to be press releases. Both the links supplied have their source as PRWeb. It's an advert, and most of it is copy and pasted from: here. Make of this what you will, but... the article's creator is User:Lisamedia. A bit of googling turns up this, containing this tasty morsel: Press Release Author = Mediabids.com, Lisa Cadan. It's a PR released posted on Wikipedia. - Motor (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete clearly fails WP:WEB --Strothra 01:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. —Khoikhoi 03:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - this is an auction site that could shake up the newspaper industry— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.52.204 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment, fair enough. When it does shake up the newspaper industry, let us know and we'll be sure to write an informative article about such a notable achievement. - Motor (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it's a cool concept - and from the looks of things - they're having success in an arena that google didn't— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.52.204 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:59Z

Virgin Tea (B-Side)[edit]

This probably qualifies for Speedy Deletion, but it doesn't quite fit A7. Enough context to know this is an article about a song, but beyond that there's nothing to satisfy the suggested guidelines of WP:MUSIC/SONG. Agent 86 02:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 merge into Web directory. Proto///type 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human-edited directories[edit]

Non-notable term, spamtrap. Haakon 07:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Tychocat 10:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no consensus to delete the version on the 1921 series. Seems to be a consensus to delete the other version, so I will take the relatively unusual step of deleting just that from the history, as no content from it was used in the rewrite. W.marsh 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of America[edit]

Non-notable book by nn author. Not tracable on google or Amazon. A similar page (Chronicles Of America) was proded by me, csd'ed by someone else, and speedily deleted as nn. A csd request for this page was turned down. I also proded a page, Oliver Knox about a charcter in the book, and the original editor removed the prod without explanation; that article is currectly a redirect to this (C of A). Mr Stephen 13:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Bwithh 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. This is actually the title of a 50 volume series that's been reprinted by Kessinger Publishing, who are dedicated to reprinting and preserving rare books. The series is from the 1910s and 1920s by Yale University Press, and should absolutely be included here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have rewritten to reflect the actual book series, I've got to do a lot more research on them, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 02:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; ditto for Oliver Knox. Article is back to being a crystal ball entry about a future book. Glad to change my vote if Jeff whips this into shape, but otherwise I'd rather lose this and let him create the article for the notable Chronicles of America when he's good and ready. Sorry, author, but you should wait until somebody else notices the book and creates an article; see WP:VANITY for more info. --William Pietri 04:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hoped to have this done by now, but other wiki projects have gotten in the way. There are 50 books in the series, so this will certainly be a worthwhile article once I get to it, if others can't help first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Scented Guano 04:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat 07:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal-ballism. Also looks like advertising. Tychocat 10:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I've reverted to badlydrawnjeff's last version. google search shows that this current version is notable and verifyable. Previous version was clearly deletable but this is now a good stub of a notable subject. Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peripitus. -- Irixman (t) (m) 14:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, what a mess. To my mind, changing the subject of an article in the middle of the AfD process is less than helpful. Mr Stephen 10:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely the best outcome of an AfD is a better article, which is what we've got - Peripitus (Talk) 11:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But, unless the closing admin is meticulous, we will not have the answer to the question for which this AfD was created, namely "Is the fantasy Chronicles of America by Stephen Ward a suitable subject for an article?". So, when S.W. McCann creates yet another article on this theme, someone will have to re-list it, and we will have to discuss the matter again. Mr Stephen 13:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Value-Centered Management[edit]

nn neologism and appears to be {{advert}}. Possible WP:COPYVIO issues (compare first paragraph to website) and probably does not meet WP:CORP. "Value-Centered Management" gets 658 ghits. Agent 86 03:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Most Google hits seem to be about a different thing called "Value Centered Management", a higher-education cousin of TQM. I can find no news articles about this version of Value-Centered Management, and searches including "Value-Centered Management" with "Parker" or "Stellar" (the creator and his company) yield no relevant hits except self-published ones. --William Pietri 03:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Scented Guano 04:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NEO and WP:CORP, advertisement. Borderline copyvio, as the article is pretty much bits and pieces from the website, rearranged. --Coredesat 07:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per William Pietri. Paddles TC 13:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehement delete. Valueless, and there's too much of this kind of crap going around:
Value-Centered Management is based on the belief that your must first identify and understand what your customers define as value and provide that value to them at all times.
The great thing about this "business philosophy" is that you probably could have thought it up yourself in, maybe, thirty seconds?
Your entire organization should only do things that bring value to your customers.
As opposed to thinking up rubbish like this? Smerdis of Tlön 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fox[edit]

Producer of a single radio show; no other notability asserted (and radio producers aren't notable to begin with) NawlinWiki 03:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Tilden[edit]

Not notable. Major claim to fame seems to involve a local TV show, most likely on cable access. cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trexy[edit]

non notable new software, still in Beta (see history of article: now removed from text) Fram 14:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Shizane 15:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oui, le raison c'est...correct. And, it sorta reads like an advert. Totally WP:NOT I would think? Lsjzl 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Relisting this article because this article was rewritten after the two above delete votes. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not yet notable. Alexa rank of 134,590 and no Google News hits yet. Good luck to you, Megan, but Wikipedia's where notable things end up, not where they start. Also see WP:VANITY on why using Wikipedia for promotion doesn't really work. --William Pietri 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (software) is produced. Thanks, though, to Deathphoenix for relisting the discussion to ensure that a correct decision is made. BigDT 04:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe notable someday, but WP ain't a crystal ball. LotLE×talk 07:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Coredesat 07:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. Traffic Rank for trexy.com: 134,590. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:56Z
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Mitchells[edit]

This appears to be well-written article about a professional wrestler, but the person is definantly non-notable per google search that pulls up 1 exact hit, and the hit it does recieve is the Wikipedia article. Wade Mitchells appears to be the author of the article because it is written in a POV only aquirred by an auto-biography. This person also created several other articles about the wrestling promotions he was wrestling for, but they too pull up no exact hits except thier Wikipedia articles and a self-made homepage for the promotion. Delete.

Relevant AFD's:

— The King of Kings 03:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A number of the facts purported are obviously fictionalized character descriptions (which I guess wrestling does for publicity). Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to call this a hoax, or at least having hoax elements. LotLE×talk 07:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom with others. Normy132 07:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 07:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We99 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IWO World Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Appears to be a well written article about a Championship belt, but it is non-notable. Author of article is either a wrestler for the promotion or a spokesperson for it. I believe the Author is Wade Mitchells who also has an afd. Non-notable promotion with no other outside sources than thier offical website and thier Wikipedia article.

Relevant AFD's:

— The King of Kings 03:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as others in this family of articles. LotLE×talk 07:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom with others. Normy132 07:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per my comment in Wade Mitchells. --Coredesat 07:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Consider this vote to apply to the other two related nominations, too; this should have just been one grouped nomination. Proto///type 09:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Voice of Treason 11:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Wrestling Organization[edit]

Appears to be a well written article about a wrestling promotion in Australia, but it also appears to be a E-Fed. Non-notable, no exact match on google results except an official website and thier Wikipedia article.

Relevant AFD's:

— The King of Kings 03:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between film versions of The Omen[edit]

Original research, and not even written well - very unencyclopedic. Ultimately non-notable and much more usefully merged into the main The Omen article. -- Alfakim --  talk  03:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR - BigDT 03:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Great material for a personal site, though. I appreciate the good intent and the effort Ecco1983 put into this, and encourage her to keep contributing. --William Pietri 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Scented Guano 04:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge & merge per nom. There are some things that can be merged to the main article. I also, per William Pietri, want to encourage the author to keep contributing and to find a place on the Internet to post this original research. A lot of fans will be interested in reading it, but it's not an encyclopedia entry. Interlingua talk 06:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jammo (SM247) 06:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. LotLE×talk 07:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 07:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Paddles TC 13:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all above, and a note: this was part of the main The Omen article, when I last checked the page (about a week ago). No need for a separate article. TrianaC 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most likely original research. —Khoikhoi 03:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD A6 (attack page) -- Samir धर्म 07:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miten Khatri[edit]

Article on a nn, young cricketeer. Fails WP:BIO AdamBiswanger1 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The final lines make me think this is an attack article and therefore eligible for speedy delete. Is that correct? Interlingua talk 06:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added {{db-bio}}. If that fails, Delete per nom. Viridae 06:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. DS 04:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AS Cutlery Industries[edit]

Was originally prod'd, can't find any information on existance[4][5]. Fails WP:CORP as I can tell. No reason to keep, Delete Yanksox (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben_Burch[edit]

Previous AFDs can be found at Ben_Burch and Ben_Burch 2. ---J.S (t|c) 15:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a notable person. Period. I apologize to Wikipedia administrators for having to do it this way, but when I listed this article for PROD, the spoiled children over at CU decided that they hadn't had enough fun yet. BenBurch 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Per nom. BenBurch 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this as a gross violation of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:BIO. This could be deleted under speedy since no claim to fame is made in the article. I actually intended to nominate this article myself. "Ben Burch" as an article has no verifiable secondary claims and, in-fact, none where "Ben Burch" is the subject likely exist. His website might be slightly notable, but not Ben. In addition this article has been flame-bait since the moment of it's conception. Before you voice your opinion here, please take a look at the above policies and make your judgement with it in mind. ---J.S (t|c) 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge (or delete)The article on Mike Malloy might be expanded to include information about some of that program's regulars and guests. Malloy credits a number of persons at the conclusion of each show, certainly all do not warrent a page in wikipedia. I don't see that an article is needed, or appropriate, but there is some useful information here that would fit in the Malloy article. Obviously, more editing and fact-checking is needed as well, etc. Calicocat 06:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge... that would be a great idea. Maybe merge all of this to the article The White Rose Society (website) and put a link from Malloy's page there? ---J.S (t|c) 07:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but close quickly. The person is non-notable and the article was created as an attack page (see earlier versions). Someone has to be slightly more non-notable than this for me to be comfortable with a speedy delete. -- Kjkolb 07:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Also, the page should be protected so that it cannot be recreated. Normally I would not support preemptive protection, but the vandals and sock puppets involved in the article and this nomination makes me think that it is necessary. -- Kjkolb 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It is a funny case; I tend to believe that the BenBurch who nominated it really is the same person as the article subject. And I also think that it's been used for trite attacks on the person. However, I read Mr. Burch's writing activities as minimally meeting notability criteria, especially under the "author test". Obviously, per below comments, Mr. Burch's opinion has no special weight in regard to his own notability. LotLE×talk 07:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and protect against re-creation, fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BIO. Very heavily vandalized. --Coredesat 07:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Non - notable, or certainly I've never heard of the person concerned (apologies if I'm treading on anyone's toes). Moreschi 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and protect from recreation - I was in two minds whether to close this myself and just speedy the article, but as someone has expressed the opinion that the article should be kept, I think that would not be the right thing to do. The facts that an attack page was refactored into an article, and that it's a troll-magnet, and Mr. Burch's own request (it's not policy, but it is polite to take heed), and that he doesn't actually meet notability criteria to any great extent, all make me think we'd be better off without this page. Proto///type 09:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Ben is quite notable. He is listed as a Notable Member on the wiki article Democratic Underground, he is a noted sexworker's rights advocate, he is a contributor to Adult Video News magazine, and is credited as a correspondant on the Mike Malloy show. He is also well known among both liberal and conservative bloggers. Crockspot 11:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Crockspot has less 50 contributions to wikipedia. ---J.S (t|c) 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • notability is irrelevant... WP:BIO guidelines are what applies here.--Isotope23 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7. The article does not "assert the importance or significance of its subject". If his only notability comes from The White Rose Society (website), mention him there. (Quite honestly, I don't see how the website justifies an article either - looking at its AFD, it survived on the strength of meat puppetry and because the nomination was in bad faith. But that's a discussion for another time.) At any rate, BenBurch is correct. Posting on a message board and running a questionably notable website is not a meaningful assertion of importance. The fact that it's a self-request changes nothing. Speedy delete A7. BigDT 12:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BoojiBoy 13:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO criteria with no precedent towards allowing subject nominated AfD to go forward. This is just one case where the subject happens to be correct; he doesn't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7, failing that delete per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under A7, or just plain delete. Webmaster of a site with Alexa rank of 177,352. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If that doesn't gain consensus, then merge into The White Rose Society (website). Personally, the subject of this article doesn't seem notable. That said, I also can't believe the passion and screaming that takes place over this guy. And here I thought the Bogdanov Affair couldn't be topped around Wikipedia for fun and games.--Alabamaboy 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, and attack page. --Aguerriero (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect this has gone on far enough. —Khoikhoi 04:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, again. An AfD listing for an article that's previously survived AfD should link to the prior discussion(s); in this case, they can be found here and here. As to the substance, I disagree with Ben about his notability (and I agree with the comments that the views of the article's subject are entitled to the same weight as anyone else's, no more and no less). My starting point is service to the readers. A significant number of people may encounter Ben's name through Adult Video News or through AAR. They may want to know more about this person; some may encounter both sources and wonder whether it's the same "Ben Burch". JamesMLane t c 05:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your argument? He's notable because his article would be useful? Outside of a very small community he is completely unknown. Most of his work for AVN us uncredited and unverifiable. Besides, there hasn't been a single article anywhere -about- Ben, so the article has no way to be independently verified from a -secondary- source. That's like a big deal from the standpoint of WP:V. ---J.S (t|c) 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can determine, the only newspaper articles about me, other than Letters to The Editor I have written and had published, are from the 1970s and involve me winning an engineering competition. I've been interviewed on talk radio a few times, but there are no written transcripts. My contributions to AVN are all editorial and advisory, and do not entail a byline, just a mention in the colophon. If I am notable at all, it is the most minor sort of notability, much like the "Key Grip" from a movie; He gets a credit, but nobody knows who the heck he is. BenBurch 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. Ral315 (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Writing for a pornography industry magazine doesn't cut it. We'll be having articles on student journalists next. I barely see how The White Rose society is notable either. - Hahnchen 01:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your reference to "a pornography industry magazine". Do you mean that notability based on a publication would depend in part on whether Wikipedians approve of the publication? I assume that, with pornography as with many other subjects, some magazines are important and widely known, while others are obscure. Setting aside for a moment the specific question of Ben Burch's notability, are you arguing that public attention received because of some activities should be discounted because the activities are disliked by some people? JamesMLane t c 15:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was a reference to Crockspot's keep vote. Notability is based on the publication, a writer for the Daily Telegraph yes, a writer for a student newspaper, no. - Hahnchen 23:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The White Rose Society (website), this person is somewhat notable, very close to the line I would say. There is so little information in this article I think it can all be merged into the article that his main notability is from. Failing that I would say keep(better to make the mistake of no action than the mistake of action). HighInBC 19:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while we need more people campaigning for the rights of sex workers, I don't think they all need to have encyclopaedia articles :) - FrancisTyers · 23:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Moving comments here to keep discussion flowing. Please add "votes" above here and any comments not directly related to the deletion below here. ---J.S (t|c) 06:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is, it seems to me, a very strange case. This article has been around for a while, and has been the subject of an extraordinary number of edits---mostly, by the looks of it, vandalism, and the reverting of same. Now, here we have the ostensible subject of the article, asking that the article be deleted because he does not feel that he is notable enough to deserve said article. How, one wonders, are we to even know that this BenBurch is, in fact, the real Ben Burch? Reading the article, which is rather short, the individual in question seems somewhat notable in the field of political blogging and talk radio. This is all very puzzling to me. Can the subject of an article ask that said article be deleted on the grounds that he or she does not feel he or she is notable enough? I feel that I cannot vote on this AfD until some facts are sorted out. ---Charles 05:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHi, Charles! The article was created in the first instance as a vehicle for personal attack by the trolls who reside at Conservative Underground. These people are well know to vandalize liberal and progressive message boards, and they decided to expand. I listed the article for deletion because it became clear to me that they would never grow up and stop vandalizing it, and people here on Wiki have enough to do trying to get actual work done without having to revert this page endlessly. And I am no more notable than a lot of people who don't have Wikipedia articles. Lets save those for folks you can at least find a newspaper article about, OK? BenBurch 05:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ben, your slander of CU notwithstanding, in your nomination you say that we children have not had enough fun. Might I remind you of your comments yesterday on the DU Talk page regarding the External Links discussion: "My dear, I've had a lot of serious fun lately. This is quick becoming my new hobby and my model railroad and the live steam locomotive building up in my workshop are gathering dust. I have to monitor the computers here in the studio at all hours from 11 AM through midnight, and so this fills in the time when things are working properly quite nicely." It would seem that you enjoy this activity immensely. Crockspot 12:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Admins here have been made fully aware of your comments there, my dear. Have a nice day, and please, show some maturity and good sense? BenBurch 14:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, sweetiepie, I am not certain which of MY comments you refer to, since I have attempted to conduct myself with the civility that is expected of Wiki editors, which is a bit more than you can say for yourself. Have a nice day, Honeycheeks. Crockspot 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - Pretending not to know is so mature, my Dear.BenBurch 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again with the innuendo, my little box of Nuts n' Honey. I challenge you to point to a single Wiki comment of mine that is out of line. If you are referring to my posts on CU, they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is your notability. Adolf Hitler was a disgusting human being, but I would never argue that he was not notable. While I find you personally abhorrant, I am able to separate my personal feelings from my objectivity about your notability. This is something you should learn. I could refer to volumes of your posts on DU which are disgusting examples of hate speech, but they would be irrelevant to this discussion. While blog mentions are not considered here, if you were to count all the mentions of BenBurch, Fister, and Fat Che on CU, FR, and the Dummy Funnies, one could draw the conclusion that you were more notable than the President. You really aren't very good at this Ben. You should spend more time fundraising for your website, and less time causing trouble on Wikipedia. Crockspot 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Charles, of course, is correct. Absent legal concerns, the opinion of the subject of an article merits no more consideration than that of any other editor (in the case that the subject should be a Wikipedian), and the desire of a subject that an article apropos of him/her be deleted in no way militates for (or against, I suppose) deletion (toward which proposition see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (3rd nomination) and its sundry affirmances); neither does his/her opinion with respect to his/her notability carry any special weight (even where he/she adjudges himself to be non-notable, which determination would tend to be against one's interest, although surely not in situations such as these). Of course, I'm likely to support deletion, believing the subject to be non-notable, but his desire that the article be deleted will not affect my reasoning (and neither will the fact of the frequent vandalism of the article, even as I'm no fan of the CU). In any case, speedy deletion, for which Ben advocates, is surely not an appropriate disposition here. Joe 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Joe, of course I don't want to twist anybody's arms, and if people decide I'm really notable, fine, but I think some articles are just not worth the time they waste in terms of people having to keep fixing them. I'm happy for it to stay or go, but I warrant that it will continue to be a lightning rod if it does stay. BenBurch 06:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to first post Techicly speeking the subject of an article has no more say of what goes in it then any other edior on wikipedia (WP:OWN is the policy here). However, Ben as an editor can make the argument that he's not notable under guidelines like WP:BIO with as much weight as anyone else can. ---J.S (t|c) 06:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if this AfD will reduce the amount of pointless chatter and edits that happen on Wikipedia surrounding Burch/DU/CU related topics, that would be the cherry on the sundae. Take it back to your forums kids!--Isotope23 14:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That was my goal, Isotope23. I hope it works. BenBurch 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment = Alabamaboy, I don't get it either! BenBurch 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Severa[edit]

Unreferenced non-notable producer. Internet searches give practically no links even in Czech. Olessi 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Month in Hell[edit]

This article is currently unverified. A search on google gives no relevant hits. Even if it were verifiable, I'm not sure it's notable enough to merit an entry. Add to that the film has not been actually made yet, according to the article. Delete Mak (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched (google finds no hits about the movies, but Yahoo does - one of those net quirks I guess) and found several interviews, although most are on fansites re-posted from elsewhere. I could only find one link to an original article: http://www.expressgaynews.com/print.cfm?content_id=2480 This is from a gay lifestyle newspaper published in Florida. Jai Rodriguez also has an official website where the movie is mentioned. It has also been mentioned in other media articles, that seem to not be online. The production company making the movie also mention it on their website: http://www.larkinangels.com/

This is a major movie, has a script, has announced the casting of name stars, and has already begun pre-production. The lead role is played by a famous TV star and Broadway actor in his first real (non-cameo) movie role. Queer Eye is not as 'hot' as it was when it first started (i.e the cast are no longer on every magazine cover and talk show), but they were, and with the show ending it is reasonable to assume there will be a level of interest in what the cast do next. The movie has already garnered some media attention, mostly in the gay press, and sparked a great deal of interest among Queer Eye's huge fanbase, on fansites and forums. There are also discussions going about the movie in Broadway forums, especially among 'Rentheads' because Jai starred in the Broadway production of Rent for years.

There are many upcoming movies listed on Wiki with less information and less public&media interest and I can think of no reason for it to be deleted. If deleted it would just be re-added in a few months when it's no longer an 'upcoming' movie anyway.

I should mention that I was in the middle of adding more info, including citing sources, when I was unable to edit the page for some reason. That is why the page is short on info and sources. 172.212.37.115 05:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - crystal ballism. Even if the filming begins there is no guarantee that a movie will be released or even then be notable - Peripitus (Talk) 11:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Peripitus. Paddles TC 12:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Peripitus... it hasn't even got an IMDb entry. Pah. TrianaC 13:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course it must be kept. I've been reading loads about it on the QE blog. It's a big movie being made by a major studio with big-name actors. It already has started filming and has a release date set for next year. Why wouldn't it be notable? Starhunterfan 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I run a Jai fansite and I've received over 200 emails about this movie. Even if it the current theatrical release date is changed or cancelled (and there is no reason to suspect it will be) the movie is notable enough because of its high profile cast and writer and the level of interest in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.74 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment I find nothing to indicate that the company making this film is notable either. A search for "Larkin Street Angels" on google gives nothing either, and the website consists of one page announcing this film, with the barest minimum of information. To the above (195) I have seen no information on the writer, and the "high profile cast" consists only of Jai Rodriguez, with no information on anyone else who might be in this film. If there's so much interest in this film there should be more information on it in the media. Once there is that interest in the media, and the film has been released and shown itself to be of interest, then write the article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mak (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lennon and Martin Blair[edit]

This "comedy duo" are simply nonnotable. I placed a db-bio tag on the article, and the author replaced it with a hold-on tag, but the argument he made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tom_Lennon_and_Martin_Blair) on behalf of the article is not convincing. So, I am here, asking for your opinion(s) on the matter. Oh, and to make matters worse, this same author keeps inserting information about these two men into other articles only vaguely connected to these two gentlemen. This indicates to me that he is trying to manufacture the facade of notability---in his defense of the duo, on the article talk page, he refers to himself as a "fan and well-wisher". Charles 05:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Closing admin please note that users contributions to this discussion were modified by anon users here and here and I replaced the comments with the original versions here and here. --GraemeL (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did a google search on these two: "Tom Lennon Martin Blair" because as a comedy duo you would have expected to find their names together. Turned up nothing at all. Viridae 05:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm shocked! ---Charles 06:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Yeah as was I. :P Viridae 06:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Interlingua talk 06:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BAD WP:HOAX ~ trialsanderrors 07:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either NN or hoax. LotLE×talk 07:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 07:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:53Z
  • Delete per nom and Viridae. Paddles TC 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even though the immature side of me found the bit about the iron deficiency amusing. It's a hoax. TrianaC 13:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duh. --Danielrocks123 talk contribs 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Daniel. —Khoikhoi 04:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Has anyone noticed that an anonymous user (I have figured out which one it is, but I will) has been editing this AfD page, changing people's comments, and completely rewriting my argument for AfD? As you can imagine, the drivel at the top of this page is not what I originally said. ---Charles 16:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, it was user 81.174.142.153, which I suspect is a sockpuppet for the article's original author, due to edits I have found on this article and a couple other articles vaguely related to Tom Lennon and Martin Blair. I will report this abusive behavior to an administrator. ---Charles 16:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this debate was delete by Marudubshinki, deletion log states fanon is deleted on sight. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darth destro[edit]

Hoax. POV bias gives it away. No relevant google hits. I'm no Star Wars expert, but I'm be pretty sure this guy doesn't exist. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. joshbuddy, talk 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Google hits I get to Darth Destro seem to indicate that it's a username on some webforum. I suspect this is a fan-creation. At any rate it's non-canon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, about half of the first 10 results come from greek forums. I have no idea what they are about, but I seriously doubt their significance. Viridae 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious hoax. BryanG(talk) 06:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Interlingua talk 06:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete presumably we will have Darth Cobra Commander and Darth bin-Laden next. Jammo (SM247) 06:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. --Coredesat 07:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that this should be deleted, it is not patent nonsense. The article defines its subject and anyone reading it will understand what it is about. Patent nonsense refers to things with no meaning, true or false, such as random strings of characters or incoherent ramblings where nobody can understand what the article is trying to say. A hoax, untrue information, or things which one might call "silly" are not examples of patent nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well I am a Star Wars expert and Fan and have never heard of this. Tobyk777 08:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:50Z
  • Strong Delete ricockulous. Danny Lilithborne 10:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Sjakkalle. Paddles TC 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tobyk777. — QuantumEleven 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even "obscure characters" in the Star Wars Universe would garner Google hits. And with the number of SW fans on Wikipedia, if this were real, there would be an outcry to keep. So, unless a source is provided that refers to this character--not fan fiction, but real published work--then this should be deleted as unverifiable. -- Scientizzle 17:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So obscure that there is no mention of him in any Star Wars literature, movies, or games either cannonical or expanded universe? So unknown that the only references I could find to "Darth Destro" were forum usernames and one person who apparently named their KOTOR character "Darth Destro" [6]? There is no WP:V sourcing for this and I challenge anyone to post proof this character actaully exists as a Lucasfilms sanctioned (i.e. non-fanmade) character.--Isotope23 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely made-up character not in any official Lucas-related property. Better make that Tactical Nuclear Ewok Delete. TheRealFennShysa 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't want this to sound like bad-faith, but my guess is that 68.13.60.42 and Starwarsfreak69 are the same person. --Danielrocks123 talk contribs 00:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Who hasn't heard of Darth Destro"? I sure haven't, and neither have most of the people who voted delete as well! —Khoikhoi 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason you haven't heard of him is because he doesn't exist. Tobyk777 04:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions of anonymous and new users[edit]

  • Keep It. Darth Destro is an obscure character in the Star Wars Universe, but anyone who is a hard core fan has heard of him. The fact that he didn't appear in the movies doesn't make him a hoax.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.60.42 (talk • contribs)
    • I am a major Star Wars fan. I own every movie, read fan sites and books and all that stuff. I can't find anything on this. This is a hoax. Tobyk777 04:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It. Who hasn't heard of Darth Destro? I mean seriously, did you people just watch the movies? This is unreal. Where are the serious Star Wars fans?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwarsfreak69 (talk • contribs)
    • I am a major Star Wars fan. I own every movie, read fan sites and books and all that stuff. I can't find anything on this. This is a hoax. Tobyk777 04:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It. There are 861 google hits on "Darth Destro." Once he locates the plans for and rebuilds the Star Forge, he will obviously be more famous in the Expanded Universe. The goal was always to keep him obscure, and after Palpatine and Vader were killed, there was no one left with complete knowledge of his existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwarsfreak69 (talk • contribs)
    • 861 is nothing. And even as a hardcore Star Wars fan, I'm having trouble pieceing toghther what you are trying to say here. Tobyk777 04:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't "vote" twice Starwarsfreak69. None of these so-called "861 google hits" (I counted 858) even refer to "Darth Destro" as a Star Wars character. They are all for forum posts and username pages. Try again.--Isotope23 19:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It. I've heard of Darth Destro. He's a character from the expanded universe, and just isn't in the movies or a lot of the books. He's just obscure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalker321 (talk • contribs)
    • Yet another sockpuppet. The only contribution User:Skywalker321 has made is the one above. --Danielrocks123 talk contribs 06:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes this is getting funny. Ive seen sockpupets used for vandalism before, but ive never seen someone vote 4 times using sockpupets. Nevertheless it should probably be reported. Tobyk777 07:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, sock/meatpuppet ballot-stuffing happens occasionally on AfD's when there is no case to be made based on Wikipedia guidelines and the creator gets desparate. I've seen far more than 4 socks in one AfD before.--Isotope23 12:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sin City: A Killer Reborn[edit]

Hoax. No relevant google hits. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kalani [talk] 05:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---Charles 05:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Interlingua talk 06:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Death to all hoaxes. Jammo (SM247) 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 07:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:49Z
  • Delete, hoax. Voice of Treason 11:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paddles TC 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't look like an out and out hoax, to me - it looks like a piece of fan fiction, but the original editor hasn't seen fit to mention that little fact. Either way, either as a hoax or as NN fanfic, it's deleteable. Seb Patrick 15:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete hard. Hoax, fanfic... either way, it's got no place in an encyclopedia, and besides that, I'm sorry, but that's just an awful, awful article. -- Captain Disdain 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is it fanfic, or is it an issue of the comic? I'm not familiar enough with the comic to know. Someone who has the comic collection: is there such an issue? - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, uh, if it was an issue of the comic, do you think people would be so eager to call it a hoax? But to answer the question, no, nothing under this name (or approximating the storyline) has been published in the Sin City series. In fact, if you do a Google search for "Sin City" and "A Killer Reborn", you get exactly zero hits. Is it fanfic? I don't know. The article reads like a description of fanfic, but then again, it could also be a hoax. But, honestly, who cares? The bottom line is, we know it's not a part of the Sin City series and we can't even verify it exists. It's just something some guy on the internet made up. -- Captain Disdain 00:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was only asking for verification -- being as I wasn't familiar enough with the comic to know, I found it entirely possible that the other people here might not be as well. Hell, I know people who saw the movie and had no idea that it was based on a comic book. So, if we know it's not part of the series, then deletify. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. —Khoikhoi 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanglish[edit]

A neologism coined on June 15, 2006, a mere 7 days ago, probably hasn't even caught on in the coiner's inner circle. WP:NOT the place to popularise slang. Earlier prod was removed with no explanation in talk. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light Alliance[edit]

Totally not notable whatsoever --Gnewf 06:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity, not notable. Unverifiable. --Coredesat 07:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have articles for books. A book siries certainly is notable enough for inclusion. Tobyk777 08:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not when it fails the Google test (no relevant hits) - that makes this unverifiable. Also, note the writer of said series. At best, this appears to be a fanfiction, which still doesn't belong here. --Coredesat 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Charmed Magical Spells[edit]

Not notable. An indiscriminant list. --Gnewf 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, blatantly fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat 07:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of spells and what they do could be useful, but the exact text of the spell is unencyclopedic and more like source material. I doubt wiki source would want it, though and it could be copyrighted. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:46Z
  • Delete Maybe if they actually used the same set of words in more than one episode, but this is Charmed, they're just making it up. Danny Lilithborne 10:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Paddles TC 12:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments made by Coredesat, Mgm, and Danny L. A short description of the series' spells in general would be an appropriate addition to the Charmed article, but these transcriptions should not be merged there, per WP:FICT. Barno 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Proto///type 14:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States[edit]

PROD tag removed. Appears to be part of a series of articles about a so-called "Eyre/Heller Dynasty", for which there are no references and zero Google hits. The other articles are under PROD as of this nomination; from a reading of them this seems to be some sort of genealogical project regarding a number of non-notable persons. Unclear if it's a hoax, but it's certainly unverifiable and original research and speculation at best. Delete. MCB 07:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: related articles are covered by a separate AfD discussion under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Eyre. Paddles TC 12:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least fails WP:NOR and WP:V. --Coredesat 07:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, and also delete the related articles. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 07:51Z
  • Delete all.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find anything on these people, or the dynasty, even before this AfD was submitted. See my other AfD for all the reasoning I give for this deletion. Kevin_b_er 09:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After going insane wondering why {{subst:Afd1|otherpage}} didn't work, I finally got the nominations for the people on the list as well. Kevin_b_er 09:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 10:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. Paddles TC 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All I would just like to add that most of the people in this grouping, with the exception of Jehu Eyre, Jr. and Anne Eyre Heller, already had longstanding articles about them before they had Infoboxes tagged on. The Infobox alone should not qualify them for deletion. Rather, the Infoboxes ought to be removed. I mean, for goodness' sakes, the Jehu Eyre article is extremely well-sourced. There is no debate whatsoever in the historical community that he was a crucial figure in the Revolution. A quick look at the references shows this. I would urge the author of these articles to please enter this discussion.

I am not partial to any one editor, but am a former history teacher and would consider it a terrible shame if notable articles were to be deleted because someone felt the need to include the word "dynasty" where perhaps it wasn't viable (which point I confute anyway). Please read all of these articles IN THEIR ENTIRETY, as I have, before deciding on deletion.

I know that Jehu Eyre, at the very least, is quite notable, and would include the rest of his family as well, if simply for the fact that they carried on his money and his traditions.

Not only that, but each individual article ought to have its own deletion page. Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States is on a quite different level than Jehu Eyre. The latter is highly notable, while the former is somewhat questionable.

Joan53 16:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Joan53[reply]

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

Hold on, let me look for more.

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

Okay, this:

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

comes from here: [18]

This:

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

comes from here: [19]

This:

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

comes from here: [20]

This:

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

comes from here: [21]

This:

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

comes from here: [22]

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

comes from here: [23]

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

comes from here: [24]

Other sources:

If their wealth is in dispute, this: [27] should clear that up.

I'll find more and post them soon, I promise!! (Thanks for the heads-up, Joan!)

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

  • Comment: This is not a collective AfD for all articles about people referred to in the article nominated. Perhaps one or two of them might warrant an article, but the idea that there was something called the "Eyre/Heller Dynasty" fails any sort of sourcing or verification test. It appears to have been something made up by one or more Wikipedia editors. Please do not confuse this Afd by posting a large quantity of collateral material about individual persons whose articles are not in question here. If you have a reliable source showing the existence of the "Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States", please note it here. Otherwise it would be helpful if you removed the extraneous material, or moved it to this AfD's Talk page. Thanks, --MCB 21:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A HOAX!??!?! This family lent the early American Government the money it needed to fight the Revolutionary War, that is a historical FACT and no amount of spin can change that. Wikipedia is really slipping under, no wonder so many good people are leaving or have left already. TruthCrusader 19:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "hoax" idea is not that these people did not exist, but that there ever was something like a so-called "Eyre/Heller Dynasty", which no reliable source -- indeed, no source other than Wikipedia -- has ever heard of. --MCB 21:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This family lent the early American Government the money it needed to fight the Revolutionary War Including Anne Eyre Heller (1838 – 1876)? Man, the American Revolutionary War went on longer than I thought. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on this one, but I think the individual articles could stand up with proper sourcing - depending on WP:BIO after cleanup. Facts like the one mentioned above should be incorporated into the article of the person who orchestrated the loan. Tony Fox (speak) 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the nominated article. No "dynasty" and no "leader of the dynasty" can be shown to have existed. Yes, it was an important family; so the individual articles should be sourced with citations, and the most significant <sm>any verifiably significant</sm> ones should be kept; but this article's title and content don't present an encyclopedic topic. No rename nor merge nor redirect. Barno 23:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, that is what I wanted to know. Because all of the other Eyre articles' deletion discussions link to this one, I assumed that a decision for deletion of this article would mean a deletion for all of the articles. The simple deletion of this section would be something that, while I would not like, I could certainly accept.

Before you come to that, though, I ask of you to please consider my sources. Just because a family was not proclaimed a "dynasty" in its time does not mean that it didn't display dynastic traits in practice. The loaning of significant sums to the federal government, the association with Washington and the family's deep involvement in the Revolution, and the family's continued wealth after the war (i.e., Manuel Eyre, Jr., Jehu Eyre, Jr., Anne Eyre Heller, etc) all the way down to the Crash of 1929 certainly qualify it as a very influential and important component of American history.

And I dispute that Anne Eyre was not important; in marrying Amos Heller, she united two of the richest clans in the nation. You see, I have yet to post my sources on the Hellers, who were a significant force by themselves. I'll ask you to give me some time. Thank you all for your consideration and I ask of you to please face this with an open mind.

At the very least, should any of the individual articles be removed (which I assure you that, as a history major, I will fight quite bitterly), I would ask that I be allowed to create a single article about the significance of the family as a whole. I repeat, though, that it should not come to that. I will be providing more sources soon.

History21 03:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Just because a family was not proclaimed a "dynasty" in its time does not mean that it didn't display dynastic traits in practice. In other words, this is a conclusion you yourself made. Around here, we call that "original research", and it's explicitly not allowed., because this is neither a primary scholarly resource nor a personal genealogical database. If you want to document the family tree, there are software packages especially designed for that as well as personal wikis, but those things don't belong here. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research; idiosyncratic and made-up terms; inflating of importance (note that the individual articles use the "President" infobox), etc. And burying us in citations doesn't menea diddly unless those citations are specific support for your contention that the this "dynasty" is all that important to begin with. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They bankrolled the Revolution (both Jehu and Manuel), provided a significant chunck of the Continental Navy, saw their properties devastated in the British invasion of Philadelphia (where, it should be mentioned, Eyre Street is named in their honor (and I will source that)), founded at least one city (through Manuel Eyre, Jr. (which is already in the sources)), maintained a global shipping company (through Jehu Eyre, Jr., Manuel Eyre, Jr., and their descendants), united two of the wealthiest groups in the United States (through the Anne Eyre-Amos Heller marriage), are directly tied to many historical monuments throughout the United States (Laurel Hill Cemetery, Grange Estate, the Eyre Mansion) and around the world (Eyrecourt Castle), are relations of the Wikipedia-recognized Vanderslice family of lawyers (through the Franklin Pierce Heller-Gertrude Vanderslice marriage), played a role in the U.S. Civil War (if less pronounced than their influence on the Revolution), were directly associated with George Washington, and remained in the upper strata of American society until the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the greatest economic disaster in American history, ended their nine-century ride (two centuries in the United States, seven in Great Britain and Ireland). You don't think these people are notable?

History21 05:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Try actually reading what I wrote instead of exercising your touch-typing skills. Oh, and asking strawman rhetorical questions? ALWAYS convincing. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's touch-typing? Did I make a typo? And I have read what you said, I just disagree with you. Please try to remain professional about this.

History21 05:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

  • Oh, never mind, I get it: you're saying that I just sat down and started spouting off my opinions without paying attention to you. No, that's not true. I understand where you're coming from, but I still think that you're wrong.

History21 05:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

P.S.

You may be surprised to know that I actually type with my two middle fingers (no, this is not an indirect statement of hostility--I'm completely serious). I never learned the correct way to type, but am simply very fast. I thought that was worth mentioning.

  • History21, Wikipedia is not a place to practice your own historical research and scholarship; it's an encyclopedia that relies on the concept of reliable sources, which we summarize and collect into what we hope are authoritative and comprehensive articles. This does not mean synthesizing your own academic theories about the importance of various individuals by putting together pieces of somewhat obscure historical primary sources. That's what Calton and others mean by original research. That type of material is best suited to journal articles, monographs, and books; if your theories become widely accepted among historians, then they will be welcome in Wikipedia. --MCB 05:47, 23 June

2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is the first thing on the Hellers: [28]. I am going to get more, I just need some time!

History21 01:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Resources on the Hellers:

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

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

  • Delete the lot. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyre Empire, it's all a hoax. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, my. I didn't realize we had been through all this before. Yikes. Apparently, this is somebody's cryptohistorical hobbyhorse. This is getting ridiculous. And History21, again, please read Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. Amateur genealogy from unreviewed personal web pages like those cited above from Angelfire, Rootsweb, and Geocities are not reliable sources, and if you have to resort to them to "prove" the existence and notability of this "dynasty" of Eyres and Hellers and Vanderwhoositses, you have basically admitted lack of verifiabity for Wikipedia purposes. Again: Wikipedia is not a place to research and present your personal theories on American history by digging through obscure personal web sites. When you have convinced the community of mainstream historians of the existence of this "dynasty", and we can verify the identities and facts about the lives of its members from reliable sources, that is the point when it should be included in Wikpedia. --MCB 05:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States as Original reasearch and I mentioned the name of the article because I have not looked through the individual personages yet to determine individual notability, so I don't want this construed as a blanket delete.--Isotope23 13:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 kept No consensus Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BoxTorrents.com[edit]

Preivously prodded by Nagle (talk · contribs · count) who cited WP:WEB concerns and advertising. Looks like blatant advertising to me as well. Traffic ranking (12,000) does not meet the 10,000 requirement and I couldn't find any mention of it by a media organization. Hbdragon88 07:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom 213.42.21.76 08:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep iff cleaned up. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:47Z
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 08:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and advertising. The fact that the bulk of the article is defining standard BitTorrent concepts (not BoxTorrent-specific) doesn't help either. Paddles TC 12:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Water-thin keep if cleaned up and npov'd, but that probably won't happen. --Mincetro 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Alexa cut-off point is actually 100,000 [34] + cleanup tag to be added. Tyrenius 17:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, when I asked about it [35] on another AFD, I was told that it was 10,000 or better. Hbdragon88 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is clearly an Ad to me, even with a thank you note added by the original author. Besides, introducing and linking to sites which is likely to host copyvio materials may get Wikipedia in trouble. I don't want Wikipedia being accused an accomplice of DMCA violation. --WinHunter (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep, notable only as a file-leech site. Voice of Treason 19:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Passes WP:WEB but reads like an ad. --Danielrocks123 talk contribs 00:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, advertising. --Musicpvm 05:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macarra[edit]

Nominated for anon through WP:AFC. See Talk:Macarra. - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of sources, information appears to be incorrect

172.151.198.166 07:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as probable hoax. If noone can agree on the talk page if it's real then it doesn't belong here. Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Find a number of Google pages that use the term and had association with punk etc., but not enough to be conclusive (at least, not with machine translation from Spanish to English). Given the lack of sources, the fact that Spanish editors in Wikipedia-EN question the authenticity, and there is no entry for macarra in Wikipedia-ES, we should delete it; can be recreated if someone finds sources. Paddles TC 12:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Coredesat 23:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following passage is from Talk:Macarra:

I am also from Spain and sufficiently cultured to know that "macarra" has nothing to do with what is described in the page. [ ¿how does one correct it? I'll find out because ] not only it is offensive to find a wrong image of our youth published across the planet but also because it is a definition absolutely localised to a _very few_ years and to only a part of two big cities. Evidently it has been written by someone with good intentions but who has not asked enough or simply very little.

"Macarra" does not appear in my hard copy of the D.R.A.E. It is a term originating in Argentina, as far as I know and it means originally "proxeneta" ... wrong, it has a French origin. I have lived in Madrid and various other cities in Spain since the day I was born. My parents, both teachers, explained this term to me when I asked as a child and most educated adults will understand that when someone is termed "macarra", we refer to the person as being: vulgar, with no taste or a bad one, ordinary, uncultured, ... I can't find the right English adjectives just now. In Spanish we define "macarra" as "vulgar, ordinario, chabacano, de mal gusto" not only in dressing but also in manners and speech. It refers more to that latter than to the former.

It has __no connotation whatsoever__ with the terms used in the article: punk, kind of music, political stands or beliefs, squatters, communities, social groups, alcohol nor any other type of drugs, "botellón", delinquency, hairdo or hairstyle, dressing or any other reference semi-implied in the article. In fact there are public figures who are quite wealthy and even well dressed who frequently appear in the media who we would term as "macarras". Though they always wear suit and tie and live in wealthy in mansions in so-called respectable neighborhoods.

Personally I consider the example of mentioning the characters depicted in Pedro A. films as very unfortunate since I view that author precisely as a "macarra". I would even go as far as saying the same of the present inhabitant of the white house ... Just to show that the concept described is absolutely wrong from a Spaniard's point of view.

FelipeTD 20:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More data:

Diccionario de la lengua española © 2005 Espasa-Calpe S.A., Madrid: macarra 

  1. adj. y com. col. y desp. Hortera, [persona] vulgar y de mal gusto:
     es un macarra vistiendo.
  2. col. desp. Chulo, [hombre] que vive de las prostitutas.
  3. col. desp. [Persona] que se comporta de manera agresiva, insolente y chula:
     unos macarras nos insultaron en la feria.

macarra I mf argot su hermana es una macarra, his sister is a big-head 

    ¡no seas macarra!, stop behaving like a lout

II adjetivo tacky: llevaba un camiseta muy macarra, he was wearing a really tacky T-shirt III m (de prostituta) pimp - Diccionario Espasa Concise: Español-Inglés English-Spanish © Espasa-Calpe, S.A., Madrid 2000

macarra. (Del cat. macarró, y este del fr. maquereau). 1. adj. Dicho de una persona: Agresiva, achulada. U. t. c. s. 2. adj. Vulgar, de mal gusto. Apl. a pers., u. t. c. s. 3. m. rufián (ǁ hombre que trafica con mujeres públicas). Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados

So, the English adjectives I was not able to find before are: ordinary, cheap, flashy, tacky, pimp, lout, aggresive, brutal, cruel

And in Spanish: vulgar, ordinario, hortera, de mal gusto, chulo, proxeneta.


The author/s might have wanted to refer only to a counter-sub-culture very localised and quite epochal (?) that uses the term just to provoke society, but have not read a single dictionary or asked anyone older than him/herself ...

FelipeTD 21:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I´m from Spain and I have never heard of the tem "macarra" being used to refer to a subculture based on punk and that listens to "new wave and reggae".


---


In fact "macarra" is the term for the man whose business is the woman trade ( proxeneta ).

Maybe the "macarra" subculture term wants to point "cheli" that is a modern urban spanish dialect centered in Madrid circa 1970-1980 in declive nowadays.

How do we ask for this one to be deleted? It should just be taken off... then if anyone who knows about it wants to write something they can. Otherwise this looks completely wrong. I will place a request.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no consensus. W.marsh 01:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akala (rapper)[edit]

Non-notable rapper at this time CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote. Please take the time to actually explain why you find this rapper to be non-notable. Proto///type 09:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what about WP:MUSIC? One might even say {{db-bio}}. --LambiamTalk 09:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't put that in but he does not appear to meet the guidelines as laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (music). On the other hand if he does well thats fine. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I think this article should be kept

  • keep per hateless Jdcooper 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: he's had a song playlisted on radio1 (on the 1-upfront list), this suffices. Morwen - Talk 14:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realogy[edit]

Original Research abakharev 09:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 all. The nomination is persuasive, and the merges/keeps do not explain how the articles meet WP:NOT. Ultimately the content of the articles is unencyclopedic and meets the definition of cruft - not of general interest, excessive detail, targeted to a small minority. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infantry units of the USA (C&CG)[edit]

This and the following pages comprise a guide on how to play Command and Conquer. Around 10 of these pages have already been deleted (see here, here, here, here, and here - a previous group nom that I thought had cleared them all up, but then I found some more). So this is a mass-nomination of the few that remain. Wikipedia is most emphatically NOT a how-to guide - this is stated specifically in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - and as per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General's Challenge (C&CG), this should be deleted forthwith. This is basically an abuse of Wikipedia's free hosting to allow someone to have images on their GameFAQs guide. Closing admin, please also note the vast array of dubious 'fair use' screenshots that are attached to these pages - these will need to be deleted should the articles be deleted. Proto///type 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is all.

Outside addendum: But wait! There's more!

Call this batch the Group II nomination. --Calton | Talk 11:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong delete as nominator. Proto///type 09:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - for the sake of clarity, I absolutely agree that the three further 'how-to' articles Calton identified should also be deleted. Proto///type 11:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete China will grow larger, but Wikipedia is a bit more discriminating in article quality than this to curb size and keep it encyclopaedic. Jammo (SM247) 09:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per Wikipedia is not a computer game guide Wolfsbane Kane 09:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as well as (for the same reason) the ones I just added, . --Calton | Talk 11:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a game guide. -- GWO
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. --Coredesat 11:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. Also delete images not used in other articles. feydey 14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We99 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We fight for peace... It's the right thing to do Bwithh 23:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "I'll shoot at anything"- the official Generals site has enough info on these aspects of the gameplay to suffice.
  • Delete. NN.Voice-of-All 02:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Why not just limit everything into three articles describing the three factions of C&C Generals? Why not just make this article as encyclopedic as those articles in Warcraft? If these articles should be deleted, it would be unfair to not include all articles that are related to the Warcraft universe since they are both games. --Darth Narutorious 13:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing at a time ... first C&Cruft, then Warcruft. Proto///type 12:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Sure, other websites have stuff on this subject, but their information is not as extensive, may be biased, and probably does not have as those cool little links that help the more dull-minded of us. Also, I see no elements of "strategy guide" in any of these article. There is merely information on the game. Russian F 17:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Just amalgamate this information so it takes up fewer pages. Wikipedia needs this kind of information if it hopes to be truly encylopaedic
  • Merge Same reason as written by Darth Narutorious (talk • contribs). Wikipedia is definitely not a strategy guide, and I did not see any traces of having a strategy guide in those articles. They are just descriptions or explanations of the aspects of the game. --Kapuso 15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a gaming guide. GassyGuy 21:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --203.87.151.54 06:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Not delete, but this article should either be reduced to a stub or merged to Anthropic principle. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biocosm[edit]

This article is the original research of a law school graduate that has no notability in the fields it is attempting to syncretize. --ScienceApologist 09:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is more accurate to say that the article reports on a non-notable theory. The reporter John D. Croft (no specific background in law) is apparently not the law school graduate James N. Gardner, a non-notable theorist with a non-notable theory. Personally I'd like to add my equally unfalsifiable theory that Wikipedia does not arise as the result of a combination of accidental edits, but that its emergence is hard-wired into the laws of biocosmics. There is also a little problem with verifiability. --LambiamTalk 10:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2. The article appears to give a rather wrong impression of the theory. Gardner has written a book on this: [36]. Quoting from the editorial reviews:
    • Amazon.com: Gardner is meticulous in outlining his ideas, explaining their falsifiability and scientific rigor, and offering deep chaos theory to support them. Did our universe create intelligent life in order to ensure its own reproduction? Gardner thinks so, though he knows his position will irk many cosmologists exhausted from battling pseudoscientists and creationists. His impressive list of scientific supporters includes Sir Martin Rees (Britain's Astronomer Royal), Michael Shermer (publisher of Skeptic magazine), and John Casti (Santa Fe Institute honcho). Biocosm synthesizes many disciplines and theories in its conclusions, offering much food for cosmological thought.
    • Publishers Weekly: Science writer and amateur cosmologist Gardner proposes a startling theory: that a pre-existing superintelligent race that inhabited a "mother universe" created this one and tweaked the physical laws in its baby universe to ensure the continuity of intelligent life and of the cosmos itself; this universe.
      This suggests at least that notability can be established. There is also a website http://www.biocosm.org/ . --LambiamTalk 10:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: However, the book is published by a vanity press and there are no valid citations of it according to Google Scholar[37], Citeseer, etc. Highly doubt it meets WP:N (books). — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, amazon.com reviews can be written by anyone, including a shill for an unscrupulous author or a ignoramus. I would never cite an amazon review as evidence for anything, unless perhaps I also had independent evidence that the author of review knows his/her stuff.---CH 09:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research of a single source that does not have reliable sources. Cannot have articles on one persons theory without some signifant commentry from third parties. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced and fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 11:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but reduce to a stub). Biocosm was selected as one of the ten best science books of 2003 by the editors of Amazon.com. Here is a published review by a scientist: [38]. I bet there's more, but I've gotta run. --LambiamTalk 12:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more results of using Google Scholar and Google plain:
    • Kosmoi lists Biocosm at the top of their list of The Very Best Science Books.[39]
    • Gardner was a keynote speaker at the ACC2003 conference, held at Stanford University.[40]
    • Not a review, but discussing Gardner's hypothesis critically: [41].
    • Gardner has several publications in scientific conferences and journals (one of which is referenced in our article Anthropic principle):
      1. James N. Gardner. Genes beget memes and memes beget genes: Modeling a new catalytic closure. Complexity, Volume 4, Issue 5, 1999. Pages 22-28
      2. James N. Gardner. The selfish biocosm. Complexity, Volume 5, Issue 3, 2000. Pages 34-45
      3. James N. Gardner. Assessing the robustness of the emergence of intelligence: testing the selfish biocosm hypothesis. Acta Astronautica 48:5-12, 2001, pp 951-955
      4. James N. Gardner. Artificial Exo-Society Modeling: a New Tool for SETI Research. IAF abstracts, 34th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, The Second World Space Congress, held 10-19 October, 2002 in Houston, TX, USA
      5. James N. Gardner. The physical constants as biosignature: an anthropic retrodiction of the Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis. International Journal of Astrobiology (2004), 3: 229-236 Cambridge University Press
      6. James N. Gardner. Coevolution of the cosmic past and future: The selfish biocosm as a closed timelike curve: A recipe for cosmic ontogeny and a blueprint for cosmic reproduction: Essays & Commentaries. Complexity, Volume 10, Issue 5 (May 2005), Pages: 14-21.
    • There used to be a reference to Gardner in our article Fecund universes, as well as a reference to Biocosm in Eschatology, but both have been deleted by nominator.[42][43]A  --LambiamTalk 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Anthropic principle, perhaps as a new section with appropriate references per Lambian above. Tevildo 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be fooled by the man behind the curtain. Those references are amateurish as seen from the fact that they are basically uncited in the literature. There doesn't seem to be anyone in the field that actually uses the anthropic principle who refers to Gardner, so why do we in this fashion? --ScienceApologist 00:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we have an article on this theory, it doesn't mean we endorse it. The theory is not today's standard cosmological model; neither is the anthropic principle, but that should not stop us from reporting on it. I'm not sure what you mean by someone "actually using" the anthropic principle, or why we should put any trust in such a person. It's an interesting and thought-provoking idea, and with 12,000 Google hits for "biocosm gardner", and the selection as best science book by several sources, it should be notable enough for inclusion. --LambiamTalk 07:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might want to just have an article on the book rather than on a separate idea then since the book is seemingly the notable thing and not the subject, per se. --ScienceApologist 08:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me if you agree that such an article should still describe the idea (in a better way than the present article). An article on the idea itself (against which I myself don't see a serious objection) should be named "Selfish Biocosm hypothesis" anyway. --LambiamTalk 11:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I choose one paragraph at random and unfortunately it has a very serious error. The paragraph lists alleged criteria of John von Neumann for evolution, but in fact von Neumann was talking about self assembling/reproducing machines (in work which lead to the still rather inchoate theory of cellular automata). So if you don't delete, someone knowledgeable needs to do some careful fact checking and neutralization. ---CH 09:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, as I recommended, we reduce the article to a stub. --LambiamTalk 10:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Redirecting to Andromeda (TV series), no conensus for an article on this topic itself, but the content can be merged if anyone is interested. W.marsh 01:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hephaistos[edit]

Non-notable: SciFi series episode or event:
This article, which doesn't give much context, seems to describe an event in the Andromeda TV series. I can't find it listed as such in the list of episodes, and I don't see why it should rate its own WP article. Slashme 09:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 11:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another endless recap of fictional details - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT seems to be the starting point for the entire series, as such notable in the context of the series. 132.205.45.148 20:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE and REDIRECT (and create) to Battles of Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda 132.205.45.148 20:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a couple of sentences the name of this battle into Andromeda (TV series), which already contains a sufficient synopsis of the series' backstory. Not notable on its own, even among fans; Google search shows hardly any fansite hits and no mentions by reliable sources. Per WP:FICT, this isn't enough to justify a separate article. I don't believe we even need the list proposed by the above anon user. Barno 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 kept unanimity to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Letters Organize[edit]

Article fails WP:MUSIC criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Flup (talk • contribs)

  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC with national and international touring. [44] --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Suport for a major band, 2 releases on a significant label, almost 38k google hits - very notable and meets WP:MUSIC - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs more info included. Expand, don't delete! Parsssseltongue 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, also, check out the reviews from various written and online sources. [45] --Joelmills 00:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rustology[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Article has been db-bio'd and prodded, but the delete tags were summarily removed in both cases (with no explanation). — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - even the hat offer has expired - Peripitus (Talk) 12:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB Optimale Gu 12:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Horribly formatted, seems to be a fraudulant entry, if not, unencyclopedic and non-notable.--Mincetro 12:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just not encyclopedic. feydey 13:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Face Defeat[edit]

Non-notable band. There seems to be a German band called "Never face Defeat", but no Google hits on this particluar band. Please plunge forward and correct me if they do happen to be notable Travelbird 12:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, there is a myspace page [46] but the About part indicates that the band has split up, besides being nn anyway Optimale Gu 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.--Andeh 13:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of elementary schools in the United States[edit]

I have the feeling that would be an extremly long list, too long to be useful Optimale Gu 12:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, Not very useful or encyclopedic.--Mincetro 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. Anyone would be far better served by a Yellow Pages website or http://www.greatschools.net . Dpbsmith (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. feydey 14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... totally unmaintainable. There are already categories for schools by state and even a list or 2 if I'm not mistaken. As much as I hate the idea, a list of school lists by state would be much more maintainable and better present this information.--Isotope23 15:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this should be a category. Anonymous__Anonymous 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absurdly non-maintable, must almost be in the hundreds of thousands! Jammo (SM247) 06:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely unmaintainable. Categories by state is much better, if they are needed at all. Eluchil404 03:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raiderlinks[edit]

Not notable and shamelessly self-promoting, prod was removed Flup 12:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As big time spam. School programs are not inherently notable, nor does this one make any additional claims of interest. Wickethewok 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We99 00:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Belong to Each Other[edit]

Self-published (PublishAmerica), non-notable.--Esprit15d 12:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "self-published"? From the website of PublishAmerica: "We never charge any author fees, ever."[47]  --LambiamTalk 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the site, "we pride ourselves in maintaining lower acceptance barriers than any other traditional publisher". They basically spell-check it, vet it, then ship it out. This tiny company published 2500 books a year. This is basically a no-fee self-publisher.--Esprit15d 19:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity publication. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't understand why this wasn't a speedy delete. NN. TrianaC 14:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete which CSD criterion would you apply to this? It's not {{empty}}. What other? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, fails CSD:A3. Just about fails CSD:A1, since it's just an ISBN tag and a link. --Coredesat 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care Vest[edit]

Non notable (may have been deleted before, seems to be in an older Google cache as well Fram 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no consensus. W.marsh 01:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Tosh[edit]

Non-notable. Less than 400 links on google and many are a links to purchase a book her wrote. --Esprit15d 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a few minutes on the web has found the book ( out of print ). at least 2 radio programs with him as the subject. program director for the BBC. Enough non-trivial mentions that he seems at least as notable as Blair Scoullar - Peripitus (Talk) 13:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. I agree he edited a "Thought for the day" book and works for the BBC, but even that plus his BBC bio doesn't seem to suggest that he's particularly notable. --William Pietri 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think his 300+ hits on google are `lots'. snug 00:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google indexes 25 billion pages. 300 google hits are paltry: I get as many hits as that!! Happy-melon 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 within a week. I restored this article temporarily, (it has been deleted before) and I will remove it afterwards. I only need it for a week or so (not even the actually, I only need a previous hostory revision to be accesible). Therefore this AFD is moot. I will remove the article again when I'm done -- Drini 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling Cat[edit]

No assertion of how notable this meme is; the image itself is being used to vandalize dozens of WP pages NawlinWiki 13:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Alexa rank 183,901. A meme would have to be something really special to get an article, this certainly isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as thankfully it is not notable. It's wearysome seeing the image everywhere here - Peripitus (Talk) 13:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. The dirt in the floorboard of my car is more notable. --Thunder 14:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Silly, really silly. --TrianaC 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I've seen this around on enough meme-spreading websites (Boing Boing, Metafilter, Fark, YTMND, etc.) that I'm pretty sure it's going to develop into a full-fledged Internet meme, if it's not already there. But perhaps it's not quite there yet. — Mike • 14:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing, maybe close this AfD. It's a repost, but apparently Drini needs it for some reason [48]. --Rory096 14:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy an attempt to "create" a meme at wikipedia's expense. the ceiling cat image has been used in countless vandalisms over the last couple of days. frymaster 15:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another fark meme. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Rubeo[edit]

Hoax/joke article, the person doesn't exist. 22 google hits for "Stephen Rubeo", none about a football (soccer) player, which wouldn't be very good for a former Serie A player. - Bobet 14:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a joke article at all. He was only a Serie A player for 6 games. If you google AC Perugia in 2002/2003, you won't find much information to begin with. He is a real player, he wasn't one of the greats, but he was a player.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donrocco3 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. There are plenty of comprehensive sites for footballers. If he had played one minute of one game he'd show up. The photoshopped ("Image Alchemy" actually) newspaper doesn't help. Fan1967 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The newspaper front page is modified from La Gazetta Dello Sport edition of 19 June 2006, three years after Rubeo's alleged career. All the headlines except the Rubeo one are from this week. Fan1967 16:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nang[edit]

Delete UE, dicdef, neologism of some sort - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificentwords.com[edit]

De-prodded by article's creator. Site itself is not yet listed on Google, two google hits - one anonymous comment on a blog calling it a 'new poll site,' which seems to have since been removed, and one forum post calling it 'the world's leading poll site' [49] - poster has only three posts on the forum in question, all of which relate to Magnificentwords.com. -- Vary | Talk 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the same discussion which occurred when alex tew created the million dollar home page. I would not agree in saying the site is prodded by the creator or else they would not make hundreds of thousands in advertising revenues. To verify this contact the pan european properties secretary (www.p-ep.com) who are the primary advertisers of the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Websiteinnovations (talk • contribs)

I didn't say that the site was 'prodded' by the creator, I said it was de-proded by the creator. That means that the person who started the article (you) removed the prod (or proposed deletion) tag. It's wikijargon, and I'm sorry if the term confused you. -- Vary | Talk 19:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious spam and clearly untrue claims. Wikipedia does not provide free advertising for brand new sites (Domain registered 2 weeks ago). Fan1967 18:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse wikipedia does not offer advertising for brand new free sites - but my intention is draw on new web innovations hence my user name. Please search recent archives of the herald tribune to find a complete article on this site - and once again these are the identical commetns found when alex tew created the million dollar homepage - and I would not gain anything out of promoting the site, i do not own it or else I would not be spending my time writing about I would be relaxing of the $100's of thousands. And once again please verify my claim of their income by contacting their primary andvertisers - pan european properties - www.p-ep.com (.co.uk). Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Websiteinnovations (talk • contribs) 22:11, June 22, 2006

There are many publications that go by variations on the name 'herald tribune'. If you have media coverage or any other evidence of notability that you think would allow the site to pass WP:WEB, please provide a link. Thanks.
Please don't feel that anyone is accusing you of being the creator of the site, and even if you were, that wouldn't necessarily affect this discussion - we're trying to determine the notability of the site, per WP:WEB, not your motivations in creating the article. -- Vary | Talk 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-worded my nom slightly, since it seems my original wording implied that the creator of the article was the owner of the site. Sorry! -- Vary | Talk 23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The miami herald does not publish the articles on the internet until a couple of weeks, additionally on the who is database owner info is given a mr. paul findlay, i suggest he should be contacted along side pan european properties and also in regard to alexa - not even alexa.com is mentioned in the alexa.com search! Kindest Regards and still the notability is significant despite it;s young age. Please search via msn, some more comments appear I found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Websiteinnovations (talk • contribs) 23:41, 22 June 2006.

  • Delete as failing WP:WEB. Best of luck to the site owner in making the site a notable one, but it's not there yet. Good luck also to the article author in becoming familiar with Wikipedia's customs. --William Pietri 00:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the site is used by millions and gloally known, it might be simplisitc but utterly succesfull and I followed websiteinnovations advice by contactin magnificentwords lead advertiser and he/she is correct - they earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising. - thanks jane aldeshot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.210.236 (talk • contribs) 14:35, June 25, 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 of the debate was speedy close and list on TfD. TheProject 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Álvaro Santos infobox[edit]

This template, has been mergered into the article Álvaro Santos kalaha 14:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Proto///type 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to Star Trek in Futurama[edit]

Delete, as per References in South Park and References in The Simpsons. Merge with References to Star Trek instead. Niffux 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Is it just me or are there a lot more people saying "as per" today? Just "per" works fine you know. Recury 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -- GWO
  • Why merge with Star Trek, shouldn't it also be merged with Futurama?--84.184.112.108 20:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete the listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - was going to say merge with the overall References to Star Trek but it's a big list (notable for the sheer depth). Ace of Risk 22:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Obviously there has been a lot of work done on this page, and it should not be lost ... it's just misplaced. --Dennette 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like a good page, and is entertaining. hopefully it will be kept somewhere.

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

The result of the debate was speedy close and list on TfD. TheProject 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marcus Allbäck infobox[edit]

This template, has been mergered into the article Marcus Allbäck kalaha 14:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, this is not TfD. --Coredesat 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy close and list on TfD. TheProject 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michael Gravgaard infobox[edit]

This template, has been mergered into the article Michael Gravgaard kalaha 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, this is not TfD. --Coredesat 23:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Proto///type 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midgårds Söner[edit]

I fail to see how this band meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. Their first two releases sold 3000 and 7000 copies respectively, and apparently they were not signed to any label. Claims touring - but nothing backs this up, really, and the assertion is vague. Nothing about this band on All Music Guide, and 459 Google hits when excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors. The Swedish Wikipedia version is a substub (which would have gone under CSD A7 over here). Punkmorten 08:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 08:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Shizane 13:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's awkward to admit, and I don't know enough to say "keep", but I have actually heard of this band. I think they are or were somewhat notable in Swedish nazi/white power music (or whatever the correct term is), and the band member with the nickname "Nitton" (Patrik "Nitton" Asplund) was one of the more notorious young neo-nazis in the 1990s and figured a lot in Swedish media when he publicly left the nazi circles a few years ago and published a book about it. (The size of the Swedish article is not really relevant; the Swedish Wikipedia is full of substubs, even on significant topics.) up+land 15:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The nazism might serve as notability, and the small amount of Google hits might validate a stubby article. AdamBiswanger1 21:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move? to Patrik Asplund if the book is notable maybe. Clearly below WP:MUSIC. ~ trialsanderrors 01:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — This article was created over nine months ago. If no WP:MUSIC criteria or other external verification of notability has been added yet, then it probably won't be. --Satori Son 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, same as Uppland. I too have heard of this band, and as Uppland says, they are one of the more famous White Power bands in Sweden. It seems they have releasted some of their albums on "one of the more important indie labels" (the Ultima Thule Records, which is, I think, the largest Vikingarock label in Sweden, it has released albums with at least two of the best known Swedish Vikingarock bands) which would satisfy one of the WP:MUSIC criteria. It also seems they have toured abroad, in Germany. – Elisson • Talk 17:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 I don't believe relisting would really change things... article shows no evidence of meaningful, published use of the term. W.marsh 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smailey[edit]

Non notable neologism (cute though) Fram 14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God in the Pits and Mark Andrew Ritchie[edit]

non-notable, biased and borderline non-sensical frymaster 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity press book per prod [50]. Writer Mark Andrew Ritchie is currently up for prod as well, and if deprodded, should be added to this AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not entirely sure of what to think, according to the God in the Pits Website, there are some pretty notable reviews[51]. But, naturally, there is no sourcing. The God in the Pits article is also a complete mess, and unless there is someone whom can supply some info, it probably should go down into the pits. I know Amazon doesn't really count, but it appears somewhat notable there. Personally, I believe this article should be extinguished if nothing else is brought up to prove notability. Yanksox (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity press advert blurb. WP:NOT. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete God in the Pits, for reasons cited above. Neutral on Mark Andrew Ritchie (his book Spirit of the Yanomamo received a smidgen of scholarly attention back in 2000 or 2001, but I'm not at all certain that means that he's article worthy. Will let wiser heads than mine decide.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Birdmessenger (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am neutral as to whether it stays or goes, but I have replaced the tangential material about banned books that was at God in the Pits with an actual stub. (Thank you, Amazon, for providing pictures of the back covers! :-) ) The book did, apparently, get noticed by Forbes, Barrons and the Economist, if anyone wants to go grovelling through archives for the reviews. FreplySpang 20:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. --Coredesat 23:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looked on Forbes.com, Barrons.com, and Economist.com. Couldn't find anything in the first two. The Economist gives it a two-sentence mention in a longer article about books on Enron, calling it the "most curious" of the hundreds of books on the topic. At first glance I'm leaning toward deletion, but if the Forbes and Barrons references turn up and are, unlike The Economist, proper book reviews, I think it would squeak in. --William Pietri 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Ed Philippines[edit]

Page was userfied, but author re-established it, so an AfD for this non-notable user page Fram 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete i just can't decide on whether it's vanity or nonsense. frymaster 15:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As vanity page and entirely original research. Molerat 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is information about the official country representative of GCAP, a worldwide alliance committed to making world leaders live up to their promises, and to making a breakthrough on poverty. Over 60 countries are actively campaigning under the GCAP banner and some are in wikipedia. (One Campaign-US, Make Poverty History-UK) --Rockedphilippines 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 merge into Bivouac shelter. Proto///type 09:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm poles[edit]

Looks like at best a dicdef to me (WP:WINAD). However, it's been prodded before, with editors referring to merging it somewhere, but it's not clear where it should be merged to. Whitejay251 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 userfied. DS 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia awards[edit]

Delete self-referential. Doesn't belong in wp-space either - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Rossetti[edit]

Hockey star who doesn't seem to exist. From the same author as Stephen Rubeo (Afd here), a soccer star who doesn't seem to exist. Fan1967 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 01:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abd-Allah ibn Abbas[edit]

I originally nominated this as a copyright violation, however, by the time an admin looked at it the offending text had been removed and a short stub replaced. Immediately afterwards, the text was replaced with the current. Although I have not looked at it in detail, it still seems to have been copied largely from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/biographies/sahaabah/bio.ABDULLAH_IBN_ABBAS.html and the talkpage also suggests http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/mohamed/1424/companions/article07.shtml. This article is an unreferenced, possibly copyright violating, biased hagiography. It should not be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Dev920 16:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep. The subject of the article is clearly notable and encyclopedic. AFD is not the right place to deal with content disputes. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject is clearly notable, the entry itself needs much work. Em-jay-es 16:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject. Copyvio material needs to be deleted, or rewritten obviously. I suggest withdrawing nom, as it's copyvio, not AfD. Tyrenius 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The people who keep putting the information back refuse to recognise that it is a copy vio. This is why I have listed it for deletion because they fundamentally fail to understand what the article needs. Why don't you bring it up with them? The best outcome of an AfD is an improved article, so someone improve it or vote to delete it; don't just assume other people will (and I think i have put enough effort into this article myself) Dev920 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you start by explaining what portion is a copyvio, instead of just giving sweeping accusations. And while you are at it, if you are sincerly interested in building a encyclopedia, you could just paraphrase the alledged copy vio or ask somebody to paraphrase it for you, instead of wasting peoples time here. --Striver 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and mostly encyclopedic. I made some edits (as per Manual of Style on Islamic Honorifics to make it more NPOV: "the Prophet Muhammad" to "Muhammad". As for the copyvio that apparently keeps coming back, that is an issue but I don't think the way to resolve it is by deleting the article. Copyvio material needs to be removed. If it's not a good faith addition of info WP:AGF, then the posters need to be contacted and, if they persist, a block on them needs to be taken up. I think this is proper Wiki procedure. Those with more experience can comment. Interlingua talk 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a content dispute... no reason to delete. I've tagged it for cleanup though becuase it could stand a major rewrite. Some sections are unecessary and the whole thing reads way to close to it's source material even if it isn't a direct copyright violation. Regardless, this is a case for cleanup... not deletion.--Isotope23 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above editors Dlyons493 Talk 20:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider further action against Salman01, who keeps inserting copyvio into this and other articles. Pecher Talk 21:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And against Striver too, who is supporting Salman01 on this page. Pecher Talk 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What copyvio? I keep hearing that, but WHERE?! Give me a quote, pretend im blind and stupid, show it! --Striver 21:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you go back to the history of the article [52] there appears to be clear copyvio from [53]. Just for example, the paragraph "During the lifetime of the Prophet, Abdullah would not miss any of his assemblies and he would commit to memory whatever he said. After the Prophet passed away, he would take care to go to as many companions as possible especially those who knew the Prophet longer and learn from them what the Prophet had taught them. Whenever he heard that someone knew a hadith of the Prophet which he did not know he would go quickly to him and record it. He would subject whatever he heard to close scrutiny and check it against other reports. He would go to as many as thirty companions to verify a single matter." Dlyons493 Talk 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: People who have been suggesting that this matter is copy vio rather than AfD are missing the reason I nominated it; I DID nominate for copy vio, whereupon the material was removed, and as soon as the admin checking copy vio said there wasn't a violation (because he didn't see what had been deleted), the copyright violation was immediately put back on, and added to from the same source, as it stands today. The article is unreferenced, it is biased, and it is a copyright violation. This surely breaks as many WP:Policies as is needed. I am tired of having to push this point, simply because I am outnumbered by the people who want the copy vio to remain on the article (though Mr. Striver is unaware of what constitutes copyright violation, he still has no right to continually replace what various admins agree IS). I want this article, like all articles, to be a GOOD article, and it seems to me that as it stands it is a disgrace to everyone. So, please, I beg you, either vote to delete, or take on this article's improvement instead of simply calling for someone else to do it. I have tried every avenue now and I don't have the will anymore for a protracted edit war. "The best outcome of an AfD is an improved article" Dev920 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i have been informed of exactly where the copyvio is, i no longer support a revert to previous version without first addresing the problem. that was all i needed to know, exactly where the problem was, and now i know. --Striver 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit of 18 June you stated This is not a copyvio.. That edit reverted the copyvio material to the article and the URL with the copyvio was clearly visible - even minimal checking would have shown you that the article was copyvio! Dlyons493 Talk
Well, i guess i didn't try hard enough. My bad. --Striver 11:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm struggling to keep the non-copyvio stub, but that's not easy against the joint efforts of Salman01 and Striver. Pecher Talk 22:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as hoax by User:Fang Aili. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 18:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yodicasenat II[edit]

Hoax/original research --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this nomination also includes Yodicasenat III. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An obvious hoax (Wookiepedia has nothing under this name). I would also like to preemptively nominate for deletion: Yodiscasenat's I and IV - if they ever come up. Em-jay-es 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 REDIRECT. No need to go to AFD for dupe content; a redirect can handle that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi rankings[edit]

WP:FICT Duplicates content from Jedi John Nagle 16:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the Star Wars Jedi ranks are already covered at Jedi. --John Nagle 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Duplicruft. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Walden[edit]

Barely a stub with not even the slightest attempt to illustrate notability for the subject. The creator of the article, Wizero, has only edited this article [54] which leads me to believe this is vanity. IrishGuy talk 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Wi-Fi[edit]

Prod removed by author. Company fails WP:CORP, and the article falls under Wikipedia is not a free advertiser. Teke 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, ad, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Anand 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete this article is quite critical, company may be notable in Philippines
  • Weak Delete The article is based more on the uniqueness of the actual service. Although very similar to usual services. Lack of information might have led to what looks to be an WP:CORP failure.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Halford[edit]

A club secretary that seems to have done nothing special (very few Google hits that relate to him in any other way than in address or contact lists). Not notable. – Elisson • Talk 16:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I know enough about him and have the sources to do a significant expansion, but his notability is limited. He's been at the club for an incredibly long time, and oversaw the move to the City of Manchester Stadium, but most of the other things he's done are only of note to fans of the club. Oldelpaso 17:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- Alias Flood 03:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Angelo 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of England FIFA World Rankings[edit]

Wikipedia is not a mere collection of public domain or other source material. – Elisson • Talk 16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Per nom. This list is almost comparable to a monthly list of league standings for a particular team. I'm not convinced this is list is more than just trivia, and I'm somewhat dubious about the value of FIFA World Rankings anyway. :-) — RJH (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps slight merge to England national football team. When I say slight merge I mean the all-time low and high positions - this should be mentioned in the article. Actually it's already there in a compressed version, with standings for January each year (I'm not sure if that's a good idea). Punkmorten 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if some version of this is already in another article, then it's redundant. It also fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat 23:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the rankings are notably encyclopaedic, they should be merged within the national team article. If we have a list for England, we will encourage lists for other nations. Most people interested in the sport recognise that these rankings mean very little in real terms. -- Alias Flood 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Conscious 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Angelo 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Forbsey 23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wep 21:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yonatanh 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William mcwhinney jr[edit]

Does not seem notable. The links given are either 404s or do not even mention him in the first place. Google does not bring much useful information. Crystallina 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Also (as a comment) original editor also created his father's webpage (the article's subjects father) who does exist or at least has Amazon listing his books. Lsjzl 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, recreation of previously deleted material. -Will Beback 23:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 13:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears about as notable as Daniel Brandt, which is to say not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. KleenupKrew 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conthalian[edit]

I'm nominating the article about the "wise and brave" people of the Conthalian clan for deletion as there is no claim of notability, and the article states that "there is no reliable source". Zoz (t) 17:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ...also 0 Google hits, and nothing links here either. Lsjzl 17:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are indeed many clans in the area around Simla, but none with a name that resemble this one that I can see. Whether a hoax or not, it fails WP:V and makes no claim of claim of notability; delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article was already PROD-tagged, and would have been automatically deleted in a coupla days, so why was this proposal necessary? There is not even one google-hit for the name. ImpuMozhi 01:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: User:Conthalian contested my prod. --Zoz (t) 10:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- could be a hoax or revisionist history. --Gurubrahma 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 copyvio/delete. W.marsh 01:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Terna[edit]

Copyright violation of [55] (non-commercial). Created by subject's son, so possible vanity page. Forthcoming references, updates and changes promised 8-May-2006 have not appeared. GRBerry 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted and salted by Fang Aili.  RasputinAXP  c 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ===[[[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny dietz[edit]

Although we extend every sympathy to Mr Dietz' family, it seems that the subjects only claim to notability is that he was killed in action. In the past this has not been enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article, but I thought we'd give the community it's chance to have an opinion. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You obviously have no appreciation for US Special Forces and the contributions they make for you to have the ability to type on your computer freely everyday. Other areas of importance are the one year anniversary of his death next week, Operation Red Wing being the biggest loss of Navy Seals since their incarnation by President JFK in 1954, or how this man embodies what an American hero is. All the information is facts, cited with sources. How exactly isn't that grounds to take part in an encyclopedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog44 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Hog44's comments notwithstanding, as DJ Clayworth says above, dying in combat is not enough to justify a Wikipedia article. ---Charles 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who are you to say one person's death is more important than another??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog44 (talk • contribs)
      • I made no such claim, sir. Please do not make such accusations in the absence of evidence, it is really terribly rude. ---Charles 01:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unless we want an article on every soldier who was killed in WW1, as well. Tevildo 19:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with all respect to a fallen serviceman. Wikipedia isn't a good place to host a memorial page. It's not that he's not "worthy", it that we have standards that must be upheld. ---J.S (t|c) 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with the same respect, but WP:NOT a memorial. Also, the only real source is [56] (the other mentions Dietz's death and age, but nothing else about him)... and the article as it stands is a copy of the sealteam8 source. (I'm marking it with Copyvio in a minute; it's an exact copy, except with the references.) Mangojuicetalk 19:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is neither a memorial site nor an obituary. --Slgrandson 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and WP:BIO, without prejudice... it simply does not meet the guidelines. Originator has blanked the article. Could almost be construed as a speedy via author's request.--Isotope23 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:G7 (article blanked by original editor) and CSD:A3. --Coredesat 23:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DJ Clayworth and Mangojuice. Allow recreation if sufficiently sourced non-copyvio new article is written, but it would need to show much more notability than the average heroic-soldier-dies-in-combat story to be kept. WP:NOT, WP:BIO. Barno 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Coredesat. Jammo (SM247) 06:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Voice-of-All 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crkd[edit]

Downgraded from a speedy; notability is asserted. Neutral vote from me. —BorgHunter (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy userfy to user:Crkd-pepsi. Gross vanity and almost certainly non-notable. -- RHaworth 18:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete since this shouldn't even be in the user-space. Claim to fame is "We are so money"? Highly POV, OR, etc. ---J.S (t|c) 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not quite worth a speedy, but absolutely no notabilty outside the Halo community, and debatable notability even there. Tevildo 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy strong Delete - Seems to be jibberish - not notable. Benjaminstewart05 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I originally listed this article for a speedy delete. See no reason to change my mind. Not notable at all. Dipics 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Please do not userfy this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete pure vanity. Danny Lilithborne 21:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, do not userfy per above. The overwhelming majority of Halo PC clans are not notable. --Coredesat 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. vanity. We99 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adidam Glossary of terms and concepts[edit]

Wikipedia is not (or at least shouldn't be) a glossary of new age terms. Recury 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. This chap presumably has some disciples, or other indicata of being a successful Messiah; if his movement is notable, then its language is. Tevildo 19:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both the cited parts of WP:NOT. Not appropriate for merging into Adidam. I read a dozen or so definitions, giving me the impression that Adidam seems to be content-free. Barno 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Rock Club[edit]

nn highschool club. Speedy tag removed. First line says it all: "The Classic Rock Club is a club at Cerritos High School. It is a club for anyone at CHS who likes to play music up to the year 1996." Jamoche 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy A7. No assertion of notability outside that particular school. Tevildo 19:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Save it for your MySpace, kids. (And since when is '96 classic rock? Sheesh!) RedRollerskate 19:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete no evidence of notabilty cited or can be found. DrunkenSmurf 20:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete' this too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, fails CSD:A7. --Coredesat 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Only articles like this can make a 24-year-old feel like an old man. BoojiBoy 23:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Jimbo! that's a lot of speedy delete votes! Delete if not speedy delete. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 17:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Close, but being unsourced was the final straw. Proto///type 09:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mon (monster)[edit]

Irrelevant suffix, not a meme; article attempts to create some sort of phenomenon where none exists Kuronue 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Digimon, digital mosnters, digimon are teh...uh...Delete per nom. Hbdragon88 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 20:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Though, I've seen the term used interchangeably with mob on MUDs. -Dawson 21:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 23:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep we have how many anime articles about 'mon' something? This article needs improvement, yes, but I feel such an article as this is not inappropriate. I'm a bit confused at the nomination, not a meme? who's calling it a meme? If I recall, there was a huge phenomenon of children monster anime, and still is, not just in Pokemon or Digimon. I'm against fancrufy type stuff, myself, but this is far from it. Ask a group of parents who had kids go though the Pokemon craze what a "mon" is, they'll probably be able to give you an answer! -- Ned Scott 05:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, unless it could be considered WP:OR... hmmm.. now I'm not so sure.. -- Ned Scott 10:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , revalent but needs improvment--Eldarone 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep legitimate anime genre, linked from several pages, does need cleanup, though. Circeus 14:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a note at WP:ANIME about this, if only because if somebody can tell whether this is OR or not, and clean it up, it's them. Circeus 14:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thermapak[edit]

Imo, this is a gross attempt for advertising. Article even bashes the competition. Brad101 20:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 20:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete blatant ad. --frymaster 20:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanispamadcruft or however it's spelled. Danny Lilithborne 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. --Coredesat 23:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An ad. Perhaps if it was novel and if it explained the process it would be okay but it does not.
  • Delete, advert. Jacek Kendysz 23:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom:

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NME 100 Greatest British Albums Ever[edit]

Delete. Unsourced, incomplete, of questionable notability (do we really need every of list of albums ever made by a magazine?), and seemingly abandoned PlasmaDragon 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This could never be NPOV. RedRollerskate 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally useless. Ac@osr 21:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NME is a major music publication so I think this list is meaningful for our music coverage. --JJay 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We99 23:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. Although the Stone Roses rule. BoojiBoy 23:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the same reasons I've voted to delete at least a dozen similar articles. WP is not an encyclopedia of coverage of others' OR and POV coverage of music. Barno 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft.--Jersey Devil 00:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need Wikilistmania! ~ trialsanderrors 01:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. We don't. www.rocklist.net has these covered. -- GWO
  • Delete listcruft. --Musicpvm 05:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This isn't POV because it's from a noted, verifiable third source (New Musical Express) and is no different in concept than the other magazine-sponsored lists. 23skidoo 22:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Bouffard[edit]

Article about a teenager who (supposedly) plans to push a wheelbarrow around the world. Google has 24 links for Riley Bouffard but as far as I can tell, none refer to this wheelbarrow thing. If he actually plans to do this, he hasn't set up a website and no media has covered it. GabrielF 20:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete From the article: "Riley's quest will begin on July 1". Even if he does it, and even if he finishes it as planned, it still wouldn't be notable. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book, nor should it be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for non-notable crystal-balling. --Coredesat 23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. BuckRose 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is neither a crystal ball nor Guinness nor an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Barno 23:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and unverifiable. Possible speedy.--Jersey Devil 00:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. --mtz206 (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Wep 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep merging the content is possible, I suggest discussing on the talk page first. W.marsh 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Rozhenko[edit]

In no way is this character notable. StunneR 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Abundance of info on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my eyes, this is a sufficiently notable character, and the article, while somewhat short, gives the right amount of backstory to let the reader know just who this character is and why she's important. -- Kicking222 22:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep barely notable character but apparantly interaction with other characters and role within some storylines helps her cause. Expansion of article needed doktorb | words 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and expand per above, but if this is not possible, then merge it to the appropriate article. --Coredesat 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and Sergey Rozhenko with Worf. I don't think there's enough to say about both characters, nor did they appear often enough, to justify separate articles. Alternately, create Sergey and Helena Rozhenko from the two articles and redirect as appropriate. 23skidoo 22:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this into Helena and Sergey Rozhenko and redirect. I don't see a need for seperate articles for both, but they are notable characters -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Sat Jun 24 10:00 UTC 2006
  • Merge per 23skidoo. Eluchil404 03:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Night In The Hills[edit]

I'm not sure what this is. "Fight Night In The Hills" gets two Google hits. "Roop TV" gets three relevant ones. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 21:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A television show that was broadcast until last month should generate a lot more than 1 Google hit (excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors). [57] --Metropolitan90 03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete fails WP:HOAX, and there seems to be no existance of a RoopTV! except from OP's web page. --DarkAudit 19:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CLEAR Circles[edit]

Group of management courses at one college, reads like PR, nonnotable NawlinWiki 23:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge not notable enough for its own article, but should be merged into La Salle University, -- Where 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem worth merging and I can't see any notability or reason to keep. Stifle (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 21:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not worth merging. --Coredesat 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Crater[edit]

This one smells like webgame vanity. The Alexa rank isn't bad (~1700), but it doesn't seem to meet any of the three qualifiers in WP:WEB, most worryingly the utter lack of outside non-blog/forum commentary. (Before comparing it to Pokémon Netbattle, remember that Netbattle has been covered in the mainstream online game press.) Additionally, it Googles poorly, with 97 unique links, most of which are in the form "Try new version foo of Pokemon Crater Battle Arena!" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cockpuppet[edit]

No information is given as to why a cockpuppet is a notable item requiring a Wikipedia article. If he provides reference etc ones mind might be changed. --File Éireann 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I speedied this one originally. I see nothing that would make me change my mind. Dipics 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not patent nonsense though if you check the definition. I got stick from the main author of the article over that! Mind your terminology!--File Éireann 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term is in common usage. Here are some links

http://www.linkswarm.com/modules.php?name=XForum&file=post.reply&fid=19&tid=1862&repquote=r%7C31202

http://forums.megatokyo.com/index.php?showtopic=1712020&st=25Neuropean 21:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the outrageous language used on some of these sites Neuropean 21:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon attacks[edit]

This is a wholly unencyclopedic game-guide article that...well, let me reprise my comments from the last AFD (nine months ago):

We have an excellent place for descriptions of common or signature Pokémon attacks: in the articles for the individual Pokémon involved. The fact remains that there aren't many (none that I can think of) common Pokémon attacks that aren't plainly obvious, and the uncommon ones don't bear mentioning (for the same reason that List of Pokémon characters doesn't include every single Pokémon trainer in the games; there are hundreds and most are more-or-less interchangable). Anyone with a basic grasp of English or a dictionary understands that Flamethrower is going to be a blast of flame, Water Gun is going to be a jet of water, and that Thunderbolt is going to be a blast of electricity.

As for attacks that aren't as obvious, in both the manga and the anime (where the effects of the attack are extremely fluid, depending on the needs of the plot) they are immediately explained, in all but the oldest games they're described in the game, and, most importantly, it's exceedingly unlikely anyone without access to those primary sources will ever have cause to look up further information on Wikipedia (unless that information was specific in a technical way, a la GameFAQs, which isn't Wikipedia's thing anyway).

This article serves no encyclopedic purpose, and each major revision only adds more game-guide-style detail (such as specific accuracy/damage, specific chances of inflicting a status effect, etc.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. I wish someone would open a game guide wiki, so we wouldnt have to deal with this stuff Bwithh 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's StrategyWiki, Encyclopedia Gamia, or GameInfo. We even have a template for suggesting that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. --Coredesat 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We99 23:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. Any "attacks" held by individual pokemon can be put on their pages.--Jersey Devil 00:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep - What different is this list than any other lists? It doesn't need to be super-specific like most lists... and besides, there's wikibooks. If this gets removed then we'll have lost more good information. And for god's sake it's not "cruft" unless all these status effects get added on, which I never really liked in the first place, what's with this? I'd appreciate it if someone brought this up with me. Toastypk 03:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BryanG(talk) 04:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pokécruft. Jammo (SM247) 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pokécruft, gotta catch it all. -- GWO
  • Delete per all above. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anand 21:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks or one of the other Wikis listed above. It doesn't have to be deleted, and I found it (somewhat) useful. Freddie Message? 23:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is inappropriate to discuss attacks in Pokémon articles, as not every attack is a signature attack of some Pokémon, and some Pokémon have the same signature attacks. Many things which may be “plainly obvious” to you will not be to the average wiki reader( as is always mentioned in Pokémon FA noms. While minor trainers may be interchangeable, I challenge you to have your attacks randomly replaced with different ones in battle and say it makes no difference. I think there is a place in Wikipedia for nontechnical descriptions and lists of attacks. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Serebii has that stuff already. Wikipedia's not a place for it. The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 08:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Theres no need to have an article which is a list of Pokémon attacks, there are many other sites for that kind of stuff. Poke Master (Talk • Contribs) 11:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to a gaming Wiki, this doesn't really belong here, but It might be useful on a Gaming Wiki.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; info is now available on GameInfo, having the info here no longer necessary smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Weak keep; it is useful for linking from other articles and prevents duplicated information: as maybe 250-300 Pokémon share the move Tackle, having a list is more convenient, and the info were to change with a new game, wouldn't require the changing of 300 pages. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I just made a copy of this and put it on Gameinfo.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Although this is not intended to be a strategy guide to the game, a cross-reference to any attacks/moves that are listed in other articles, eg. the signature moves, are probably best kept in a section for the moves. Do we really want (probably) different descriptions of a given move that is particular to certain Pokémon? For example, (and I paraphrase here): "Growlithe are difficult to catch ... because of their Roar ability"... ok, so what is Roar? And, with so many other Pokémon also having Roar, is a page on one specific Pokémon (in this case Growlithe) necessarily the appropriate place to discuss such an attack available to several different Pokémon? Of course, this is not the place for detailed stats such as accuracy, damage, etc., but a general description of each attack, written in a prosaic style to match the rest of Wikipedia, may be in order. Kain 00:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 13:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walle[edit]

Internet meme; does not seem to be sufficiently notable for inclusion. ~ PseudoSudo 22:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep Eluchil404 03:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mangan[edit]

One editor User:Black Knight 1 and seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Rex the first talk | contribs 22:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry, just before I tagged the page I saw my mistake, please ignore. Rex the first talk | contribs 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong SPEEDY keep. One editor? It's because it's a brand new article! And though the article needs some cleanup and citations, it's the very definition of WP:MUSIC notability. The guy has had music appear on a TV show, he has records out on a label, he has toured, he has a lot of coverage on him... is this a bad faith nomination? Rex the first realized his error, let's close this AfD ASAP. Parsssseltongue 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, nom withdrawn. --Coredesat 23:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francine Patterson[edit]

vanity, not notable We99 22:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Bad faith AfD. Danny Lilithborne 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Bad faith AfD.. Parsssseltongue 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand what makes her different or special enough from any other faculty member. Generally most faculty members are running some kind of "Center" these days and the fact that one of her parents died of cancer, while tragic, doesn't make her so unique that she merits an entry into Wikipedia. Also, the fact that her youngest sibling was 5 years at one point isn't that special either. Has she been able to repeat her success with other animals? Or was Koko a one time wonder? We99 23:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've heard of Dr. Patterson and Koko, and I haven't read a newspaper in years. Danny Lilithborne 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is one of those cases where people who lack understanding or awareness of an article's subject should not nominate them for deletion. Either that, of you have some kooky agenda. Looking at your contributions history, most of what you do around here is nominate things for deletion. Parsssseltongue 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Danny hasn't read a newspaper in years, how does he know Dr. Patterson? Should we give more weight to his vote if he knows her personally and lacks objectivity? If you look at what I have done, you will see that most other people agree with me when I suggest something should be deleted. Therefore, it's not just me saying something should be deleted, but rather, the Wikipedia community as a whole agrees. I'm sorry but these ad hominem attacks will have no bearing on whether the article is kept or deleted. We99 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know if you're too young, or what, but this is a well-known, notable person from a well-known, notable news story. I doubt Danny knows Dr. Patterson personally. So I question your motives. This is a bad faith nomination, period. Parsssseltongue 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know why you are trying to shut down discussion on whether this article should be deleted. If she is really distinguishable from many other professors -- let's keep the article. All I'm saying is that if we had to include every professor who ran a "Center" or published a book (semi-well known or not) of one-hit wonder professors, the quality of Wikipedia would go down. Why hasn't she been able to replicate her results? A good measure of someone's contribution is being able to replicate the results somewhere else. We99 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe you should have used {{prod}} instead? Regardless, you have some other agenda, or you're knowingly nominating what you know is a notable article. BAD FAITH!!! Parsssseltongue 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment I don't think yelling at me with "BAD FAITH" in bold makes your argument stronger. It just means you are resorting to ad hominem, which is a fallacy. If she is truly notable, the Wikipedia community will find her to be that way. Maybe we should focus the discussion on what makes her more worthy than a lot of other professors who have published but aren't in Wikipedia. Are we going to include every professor who publishes a semi-noteworthy book? We99 23:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • 20,500 Google hits for "Francine Patterson," 15,600 for "Penny Patterson," 45,100 for "Koko the Gorilla"... use some common sense. Parsssseltongue 23:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment High numbers of Google hits isn't notability. Are all those 20,500 hits of Francine Patterson the same Francine Patterson that we are talking about on Wikipedia. If not, I submit that your argument has been made in bad faith, because it's misleading. You're trying to imply that she is more popular than she really is. In any event, Koko never used ASL signs. Non-signing people saw them where there were none. Ape sign language is a pipe dream. See Pinker, S. The Language Instinct. Also, as the article currently stands, it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. notice that someone else nominated it for cleanup. So it's not just me who has problems with this. We99 23:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleanup is far different from deletion, and let's leave our debate at that. Parsssseltongue 00:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note. This isn't a debate to defend the article from being deleted. You act as though we have to present evidence that the article should be kept. But these proceedings aren't votes. Danny Lilithborne 23:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case your comment is to me... I realize I'm beating a dead horse here (or maybe feeding a troll), but this nomination is so ridiculous, I am trying to point out why it's bad faith. Parsssseltongue 00:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think she is notable and I've made my arguments. Since this is not a vote we should discount the two speedy keeps and look at whether ape sign language is really a pipe dream. If you don't believe me, check out the book I cited. We99 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Regardless of whether or not ape sign language is a pipedream, Francine Patterson is very notable and meets WP:BIO in at least two ways:
1. "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." (the field being zoology)
2. "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." On Amazon.com, there are positive reviews for her books from Library Journal and Booklist.
I'm sure I could come up with more, but this seems sufficient. --Joelmills 00:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Koko apparently was well known enough in the US in the 1990s to be a major joke in a Seinfeld episode (the one where George Constanza wants a cool nickname at work) Bwithh 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly notable. Not a bad faith nomination though because the article should do more than just a link to her affiliation and an outdated U of I website. I get 23 JSTOR hits, most of which seems to be about her and her books. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. I've heard of her, and it has nothing to do with my newspaper reading habits, it has to do with her work being discussed in one of my university classes umpty-ump years and the long-time big freakin' controversy regarding the validity of her work. On the latter score, it looks like the nominator has decided the work is bogus and is trying to get the article deleted on that basis. Uh uh: the work is controversial but very well known, which is what counts more than one editor's opinion of what the truth is. It does look like a bad-faith nomination, given that most of the nominator's arguments is made up of vigorous handwaving. --Calton | Talk 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helen Hunt played her in a movie, after all. Let's calm down and Assume good faith first, always first. Teke 03:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Koko? That chimp's all right! High Five! -- GWO
  • Comment it seems the people who want to keep her can't support her science so they turn to the fact that they have heard of her as a reason for keeping the article. Seriously, look at the article. It's not notable that her mom died of cancer. Her proclaimed contribution is of questionable scientific value, and the article doesn't cut the standards of Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but 2 years have passed since its creation. If we can't clean it up to meet the standards, it's because the content of what we have to say about her is not worthy to be on Wikipedia. Also the fact that she has reviews on Amazon means nothing. Anyone can write a review on Amazon. Merely because people have "heard" of her is not a reason. A lot of people who have heard of freeones.com but that does not mean we need to have an entry for it in Wikipedia. We99 07:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only since none of the key policies other than WP:BIO have been cited yet and I'm assuming that you're simply unaware of them rather than pushing a bad faith agenda: It is completely irrelevant what we think of her science. The key criteria for inclusion are verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. For an article to warrant inclusion the subject must have garnered enough scholarly or media attention that any editor can write a balanced article, based only on reliable sources, without any foreknowledge of the subject. Patterson has clearly received ample scholarly and media attention, and not all of it positive or flattering. If you're so adamant about this book you're touting, quote from it in the article and see if it stands the WP:RS test. Whatever your scientific objections are to her research, an AfD is not the right outlet for it. And I'm writing this as someone who hasn't called your nomination in bad faith yet. ~ trialsanderrors 08:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, AfD Is Not Cleanup (or Source Check). Solid or questionable observations aside, I heard of Koko and her landlord years ago. From television. From books. From everywhere. I was quite a fan of apes and monkeys at one point, see. =) And in Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if the subject is truthful or not, as long as the article is truthful and accurate. We have a category full of hoaxes, for crying out loud. In conclusion, either we have here someone who taught sign language to a gorilla, or a scientific "scandal" that has stood at the verge of mere suspicion for a couple of decades. It's notable either way. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep she is notable, but her work is also probably pseudoscience; certainly her work has been severely criticized (should be easy to find citations if you search). So someone should check for NPOV edits and keep watching. ---CH 09:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep at As Neves Eluchil404 12:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Las Nieves, Galicia[edit]

This page is ridiculous. It is clearly not POV, and is not about the town at all.--the Dannycas 23:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Copyvio from [58]. Apparently a genuine festival, though - probably should be kept if re-written. Tevildo 23:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep although per nom I agree that it is certainly NOT NPOV and it is ridiculous for an encyclopedia. However, the topic itself is verifiable and can be written NPOV. I'm also sure there's sufficient info out there for it not to be OR. Finally, there's real notability. But this article isn't yet in proper form. I'll try to work on it to make it Wiki-worthy. Interlingua talk 23:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, copyvio. Removing the copyvio and cleaning up the article may make me change my mind. --Coredesat 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I read several articles, in English and Spanish, and used them to write the article from scratch without the copyright vio. Someone in the meantime suggested merging with As Neves, and I did that. This is all OK to do without having an AfD consensus first? Interlingua talk 23:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep thanks to Interlingua's sterling work. Tevildo 00:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, that works also. Should Las Nieves, Galicia be a redirect to As Neves?--the Dannycas 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a tossup. Galicia is a part of Spain. "As Neves" is the name in Galician. "Las Nieves" is Spanish — but Galician is officially recognized in Spain. Depends on what it's more widely known as, but I'm leaning towards "As Neves". Grandmasterka 08:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy and delete. Punkmorten 13:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantabulosa time of your life[edit]

This should be deleted becasue it does not belong on wikipedia. Ncosmob 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete. I have re-directed the information to a userpage I created for the user. Parsssseltongue 23:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is obviously someone who was trying to make a userpage and doesn't quite know how to do it. How about helping him/her out instead of making a vague deletion nomination? OF COURSE you think it "does not belong," otherwise you wouldn't have nominated it. You need to explain WHY. Parsssseltongue 23:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Redundant to the user's user page. --Coredesat 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't read the first "vote". It should still be speedied. --Coredesat 23:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Danny Lilithborne 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from the mainspace since it has already been userfied. --Metropolitan90 03:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no consensus. W.marsh 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Farivar[edit]

Cyrus Farivar attained brief fame by making reference on Slate to his own (then self-authored) Wikipedia page. In the fullness of time, this notability has faded and the importance of this egoistic act has passed. Ultimately, the subject is non-notable and the article should be deleted and userfied. Wikipedia should not contain articles the sole importance of which derives from Wikipedia itself. Eusebeus 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You say. "Wikipedia should not contain articles the sole importance of which derives from Wikipedia itself." Oh, really???Parsssseltongue 23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Jimmy Wales article has been kept because there are many citations of featured coverage by reliable sources. Yes, most of those are related to his involvement with Wikipedia, but there are some outside awards and such. Barno 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was being a BIT tongue in cheek (about the comparison, not my KEEP reccomendation). But I love your [[T&E:FEQ]] essay, Trials! Parsssseltongue 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It links to an interesting piece of Internet history. Danny Lilithborne 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with the nomination. A self-authored article in an online magazine, and a couple of mentions in blogs and podcasts, don't turn the "controversy" into an event notable enough to pass the 100-year test. Barno 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. ~ trialsanderrors 01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another average working journalist. Let him get his ego-boos elsewhere.--Calton | Talk 01:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least because you did not explain what's wrong with the previous two AfD results! - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point - my apologies. I refer you to the article's talk page where the saga can be found. Basically, the subject was perpetrator of an adolescent (so-called greenlighting) hoax, and in the brief publicity flicker surrounding the event, his (self-authored,vanity) page became a touchstone for disagreement. One year later, however, this should be accepted as simply a flash in the pan; the notability of the subject is highly questionable. Eusebeus 10:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I wasn't the perpetrator, merely the messenger of the greenlighting hoax. --cfarivar
  • Delete per nom. (Liberatore, 2006). 14:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I am compiling a list of navel-gazing Wikipedia pages at User:Paolo Liberatore/Wikipedia. I think we have enough (actually, excessive) coverage of Wikipedia-related things. I plan to nominate some of these articles for deletion. Urdu Wikipedia seems a good starting point (600 articles). (Liberatore, 2006). 14:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable journalist. -Will Beback 21:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passed two VFDs already. Wikipedia should strive for inclusion, not exclusion, of content. Subject writes for numerous publications with huge circulations. Why should someone who wants to understand more about the name behind the byline not be able to get that information from Wikipedia? Just today Farivar's byline appears in the San Francisco Chronicle with no other biographical information. Why should people who write for large publications not be discussed in Wikipedia? The suggestion that Farivar's article should have existed only because of the Greenlighting story is bogus. These sort of endless-VFD cycles give Wikipedia -- and more specifically Wikipedians -- a bad name. Jsnell 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it should be noted that if Cyrus' vanity page is removed, your own page Jason Snell might be userfied in much the same vein. (Not that by this I wish to suggest in any way your comment is invalid.) Eusebeus 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But of course. I'm sure you only brought it up "to be fair," as you said. I will feel free to disagree with your deletionist approach to Wikipedia regardless. Jsnell 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just like the last two times, there's enough here, both of historical and future interest. Qnonsense 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Also, this is one of those articles that people like to drag out and say "Well if Cyrus Farivar gets and article then I should too!" While that in itself is by no means a reason to delete, it's pretty clear that continually keeping this has set a rather bad precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yet another wonderful example of "I didnt like the previous AFD result... let me relist 'til I get one I like." let the previous AFD decisions stand.  ALKIVAR™ 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable journalist. bbx 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The greenlighting incident itself was flash-in-the-pan, but the person is still notable enough for WP:BIO as a journalist, and the name returns over 46,000 relevant Google hits after discounting the Wikipedia-related links. [59] Yamaguchi先生 08:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fellow. --Myles Long 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nothing has changed really. --Liface 07:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fed Up[edit]

This article's sole creator and maintainer is affiliated with the authors of Fed Up and is using Wikipedia to promote the album. This Wikipedia article and the MySpace page are the only resources on the Internet for this topic. Reasons to delete: conflict of interest with subject of article, noteworthiness of album, original research. Dwiki 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unknown rap artist without a label. No reputable references. Non-notable. Junk it, homey. --Jayzel 00:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, Kevin Federline is not an "unknown rap artist without a label." Keep in mind that this is an alleged bootleg release from Federline. If it can be verified, keep, but I have a feeling that this is a hoax, as I can't find a damn thing about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a self-proclaimed bootleg album consisting partially of songs by Federline and partially of songs by other artists making fun of Federline. Since it's impossible to imagine this album getting a legitimate commercial release in the form described, ample press coverage would be required to prove that this bootleg album exists and has come to the public attention. I haven't found any yet and the article cites no sources, making it unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 03:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't the place for infomercials. Dsreyn 17:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Punkmorten 12:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brainscrambler[edit]

Non-notable, Google brings up little. Crystallina 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_June_22&oldid=1081096259"