Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 12 November 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete, then send to BJAODN. Don't forget the aftershave. --Coredesat 06:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The beard theorum[edit]

The beard theorum (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Original research at best, nonsense (not patent) at worst.➨ ЯEDVERS 14:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 1ne 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutanese American[edit]

Bhutanese American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No information of its own, no notable expansion since creation in May. More useful as a redlink. Circeus 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (T • C) 01:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and Keep If this article can be expanded in a week, then keep it. Or else delete it. I'll try to work on it. --Ageo020 (T • C) 01:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I do not doubt the article is legit. However, in its current state, a redlink is, in my opinion, a better option than a pretension of article that contains no useful info whatsoever. Bruneian American was prod-ded without opposition, but the template was removed on this one by Bakasuprman, so I nominated it here, along with the others, which i ahd not noticed at the time. Circeus 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can expand it enough by Friday I'll switch my vote. Same goes for other cases where I voted delete.--T. Anthony 20:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:CITE. Not notable and not even the supplied census table list any Bhutanese American.~ Feureau 03:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless expanded and references are cited. If this is work on, then it will be a keep. --Terence Ong (C | R) 04:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete As it stands I find little to indicate there are many, or any, Bhutanese Americans. Multicultural America doesn't have a section on it and the only article I found mentioned them as a "what if"?[1]--T. Anthony 04:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and Keep-as per Ageo020.  Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dosen't even define what a Brutanese American is. Atlantis Hawk 08:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; WP:CITE and WP:N for entire group of dash-Americans...SkierRMH 08:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The shortest article I have seen in 14 months of surfing Wikipedia --Aussie King Pin 10:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Bhutanese Americans are Americans of Bhutanese descent." Thank you very much for that! From List of Countries does that mean we have to have 243x242=58806 such articles? --Steve (Slf67) talk 10:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doing a Google search, there would appear to be little information available for any kind of expansion. I'll change mine to Keep if someone can find enough information on the subject to fill out one of those ethnic group templates, portraits and all. Black-Velvet 11:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per T.Anthony. Punkmorten 11:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article includes no cited information about their arrival in the US, settlement, achievements, etc. --Czj 18:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 1ne 06:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timorese American[edit]

Timorese American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No information of its own, no notable expansion since creation in May. More useful as a redlink.Circeus 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable. No Timorese American listed in the US census link provided on the page.~ Feureau 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete From what I've found it's possible as few as 40 Timorese live in the US[2] and they are not even listed at Every Culture. (The site where I got some info on Sri Lankan Americans) Although if they're more notable than that indicates I could be persuaded to change my mind.--T. Anthony 04:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks of content and too small a community to have an article listed on Wikipedia. Not much coverage on this particular ethnic group in the US. --Terence Ong (C | R) 04:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dosen't really discuss the notability of Timorese Americans. Atlantis Hawk 08:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; WP:CITE and WP:N for entire group of dash-Americans...SkierRMH 08:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are their any Timorese Americas? Aussie King Pin 10:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same Deal as the Bhutanese Americans. If someone can find enough information to fill out an ethnic template, like the one on Welsh people, then I'll change my vote. I sincerely doubt that'll happen, however, so I'll stay with Delete. Black-Velvet 11:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article includes no cited information about their arrival in the US, settlement, achievements, etc. --Czj 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 1ne 06:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maldivian American[edit]

Maldivian American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No information of its own, no notable expansion since creation in May. More useful as a redlink. Circeus 01:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:N no citable source. Not even in the us census link provided.~ Feureau 03:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not much notability on this ethnic group in the US. Non-notable and no sources are provided. --Terence Ong (C | R) 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; WP:CITE and WP:N for entire group of dash-Americans...SkierRMH 08:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ditto other comments. Aussie King Pin 10:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same as above. If someone manages to get enough information to fill out an ethnic template, then I'll change my vote. Black-Velvet 11:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Punkmorten 11:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article includes no cited information about their arrival in the US, settlement, achievements, etc. --Czj 18:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found some things on "Maldivian-American" but what I found was about the diplomatic relationship between the two nations, not immigrants to the US. From what I can tell Maldivians who emigrate mainly stay in Asia or sometimes go to the United Kingdom, I found almost nothing on immigration to the US.--T. Anthony 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 1ne 07:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese American[edit]

Nepalese American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No information of its own, no notable expansion since creation in May. More useful as a redlink. Circeus 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (T • C) 01:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and Keep If this article can be expanded in a week, then keep it. Or else delete it. I'll try to work on it. --Ageo020 (T • C) 01:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on WP:N and WP:CITE Non notability and no citable source. Not even the US census table supplied on the article contains Nepalese American.~ Feureau 03:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (mainly for whoever closes the discussion): The premise to delete this article was that it was a sub-stub with no cited information of its own, which is understandable -- I voted to delete at first. However, the article has since been expanded to include cited information, invalidating (as far as I can see, anyway) the rationale to delete. --Czj 21:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did what I could, but there wasn't as much to the sources as I'd expected. The Sri Lankan one was easier, if more potentially controversial due to ethnic issues.--T. Anthony 18:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article includes no cited information about their arrival in the US, settlement, achievements, etc. I'm changing my vote to Keep; article has been expanded with valid and sourced information. --Czj 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Every American ethnic group deserves its own article. This is the multi-ethnic America. Hmains 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Circeus 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan American[edit]

Sri Lankan American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No information of its own, no notable expansion since creation in May. More useful as a redlink. Circeus 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn Article now has relevant info. Circeus 16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (T • C) 01:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and Keep If this article can be expanded in a week, then keep it. Or else delete it. I'll try to work on it. --Ageo020 (T • C) 01:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have an adopted cousin who is Sri Lankan by birth. I don't think this as unexpandable as Bhutanese-American.--T. Anthony 03:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:CITE. Not notable and not even the supplied US census table list any Sri Lankan American.~ Feureau 03:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations and names of organizations.--T. Anthony 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sources are cited and article is expanded, then its a keep. If not, it's a delete. --Terence Ong (C | R) 04:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; WP:CITE and WP:N for entire group of dash-Americans...SkierRMH 08:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I voted delete for other something-American article this one does have some info and it is sourced.--Aussie King Pin 10:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Template and Keep. Good work, those who managed to expand it. However, a difficulty is present in that Sri Lankan is a broad encompassing term that many ethnic groups are part of. However, if someone manages to construct an ethnic template, this vote becomes a proper keep. Black-Velvet 11:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Those extra sources helped me change my mind a little. Black-Velvet 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been expanded with sources. --Czj 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep contains useful information on another American ethnic group. Hmains 04:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sorry my inclutionists, but I have to agree with the nom & Feureau in this case. The article is not notable. Should we create a Greek American article? Rwandan American article? I'm sure there's a couple out there. What about Lesotho American? There must be one of those... Then we can started on Rwandan Greeks etc. :) Delete outright & salt. Spawn Man 09:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 01:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron denunzio[edit]

Aaron denunzio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN & unverifiable. Seven exact results for "Aaron Denunzio" using Google, some of which are from the same sites, and none of which seem relevant to the claims in this article, nor notable in their own rights. Also, this is an autobiography... look at the username editing the article. --Czj 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- speedy delete, even -- per nom. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Non notable, no sources, nonencyclopedic, likely autobio -- wtfunkymonkey 01:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, NN, not verified, probable vanity hoax --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 01:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete/redirect. W.marsh 22:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Sissons[edit]

Pat Sissons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable and vandalism-prone radio host. No sources to establish claim about being a Duke (probable hoax). savidan(talk) (e@) 00:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Redirect to 107.6 Kestrel FM, because this is an (apparently) non-notable radio host for a non-major radio station. Mention him in the station's article, but stop there. I do not think that predisposition to vandalism should be a criterion for deletion here, but the rest of this is. --Czj 01:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN from the article's contents. And vandalism isn't a reason for deletion, otherwise we wouldn't have a page for George W. Bush! --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: I didn't mean to imply that vandalism was a criteria for deletion. It was just the frequent vandalism that lead me to this article. Notability is the relevant criteria. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a guess here, but I think the "Duke of Kidderminster" thing probably refers to a character or an in-joke they do on the show. This just sounds like the sort of cheesy morning radio fodder jeejays are known for. Wavy G 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete as another non-notable local radio talk show host. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 02:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirect to 107.6 Kestrel FM and merge into article. NNSkierRMH 02:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:N. Solution per SkierRMH ~ Feureau 03:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to 107.6 Kestrel FM, and merge content into article. Non-notable in his own rihgt. --Terence Ong (C | R) 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. Belongs in the 107.6 Kestrel FM article. Spinach Dip 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I am predisposed to wonder whether this article would have even been tagged had the station and the host been American. Black-Velvet 11:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deleting an article and merging the contents is considered a violation of the GFDL (history preservation), so and "delete, redirect and merge" votes would have either be delete or merge and redirect. ColourBurst 17:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to 107.6 Kestrel FM but not sure why it needs deletion Yuckfoo 20:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, and kudos to CallamRodya for the cleanup during this AfD.[3] Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proactiv Solution[edit]

Proactiv Solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Huge and probably unresolvable verifiability problems. The only reliable source cited notes that this product is unremarkable. An article exists on the active ingredient (benzoyl peroxide). In general, this article serves mostly as an ad for the product, and the small criticism section does little to address that. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. MER-C 01:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think if anything, this article is counterpromotional as it is more critical than supportive. Major NPOV issues. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this article is a good candidate for deletion as it is a very popular product and has a strong cultural significance, what with the use of so many celebrity spokespeople. However, this article is in dire need of a rewrite and multiple neutral sources, which I'm sure are available. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 01:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have looked for reliable sources, and the only one I can find says the product is unremarkable. Hoping sources exist isn't the same as finding them. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the product is reasonably verifiable, and the prevalence of ads for it make it pass the notability threshold. But it might be better to have a Guthy-Renker article for this to redirect to instead.. FrozenPurpleCube 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup — Though it seems like an ad, it is actually a very popular product. Needs a good editor with a knowledge of the subject to introduce NPOV into it, and to help clean it up. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Endorsed by celebrities such as Judith Light, Vanessa Williams, Kelly Clarkson and Lindsay Lohan just to name a few. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article could be trimmed down to a paragraph or two and merged into benzoyl peroxide. I like FrozenPurpleCube's suggestion aswell.
    • Comment The Proactiv "system" contains more than benzoyl peroxide, so it would not be appropriate to merge it into benzoyl peroxide. It has three parts - the benzoyl peroxide solution, a salicylic acid solution, and a gentle cleanser. As I said below, you can get all three in larger containers than Proactiv's for about one-fourth the cost of Proactiv if you buy generic at a discount drug store. Its notability (pro or con) is in my opinion not because of its ingredients but because of its marketing. --Charlene 06:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Slap expert verify tag. And probably advert. ~ Feureau 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable product and can be NPOVised, and sources can be cited. --Terence Ong (C | R) 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This product is overpriced and unremarkable in and of itself (you're basically paying $50 for the exact products you could buy at any discount drugstore in North America for $10), but the prevalence of the infomercial and the notability of those who have endorsed it make it notable IMO. Feureau is right; the article needs to be gone over by an expert. --Charlene 06:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only after Cleanup. Reads too much like an ad; quesitonable under WP:COMPANY.SkierRMH 08:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It only reads so much like an advertisement. I would say delete had it been created by a spokesperson for the company, but it would appear not. Besides, I've heard of the product before numerous times and although I would never put any of the shite on my face, I think it is notable enough to stay. Black-Velvet 12:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very visable and popular product. Advert aspect of article means it needs to be cleaned, not the subject deleted. --Oakshade 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Majorly Overhaul the product is a popular one, the article in question basically reads like an advertisement. That's more of a content dispute rather than an AfD. So its worth keeping but it definitely could use a major overhaul.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nature of the article needs to be more scientifically-oriented and factually based. all references of cost compared to similar products should be removed as there are NPOV conflicts. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable product used and endorsed by numerous celebrities. May need cleanup, but that's a different matter. Wavy G 01:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that this company can get people to pay so much for so little deserves study and a nice Wikipedia article. Jessica Simpson's breathless endorsement on their never-ending infomercials ought to confer automatic notability. Alansohn 20:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revision Completed The article has just undergone a major revision. Please review and comment. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. No support for deletion of the article including nominator. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schoenberg[edit]

  • Keep. First of all, what makes it not notable according to WP:MUSIC? You HAVE to point it out when nominating articles for deletion. Second of all, before nominating musical artist/bands article for deletion, try to perform a search in AllMusicGuide to see if they have a page for the person. If they do, then the person is likely to be notable enough for here. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 01:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calm down :) I saved this from speedy deletion. Convince the users who tagged it for speedy, not me. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 02:01Z
  • Keep. His albums on the notable labels Folkways and Rounder Records are proof of notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but this needs reliable sources. A good illustration why the creator of an article is well-advised to either add sources, or suggest some on the talk page. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Chubbles1212 02:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a good openning for notability - "is an American guitarist and owned of a guitar store." But per above, satisfies WP:MUSIC. --Oakshade 02:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, and it reads a lot better now. eaolson 02:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a slightly modified copyvio is still a copyvio. In this case, the article is extremely similar to http://www.om28.com/abouteric.html , so similar you could dismiss the differences. -- ReyBrujo 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not a copyvio any more. I edited the article so that it wouldn't be a copyvioo. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good work. I would have preferred to delete all copyvio revisions leaving only your version, but it is better than before. -- ReyBrujo 04:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it still could use sources. SkierRMH 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC criteria, though sources should be added. Terence Ong (C | R) 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 05:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Intelligence Summit[edit]

The Intelligence Summit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. Non-notable conference with no implications for public policy; barely mentioned in media accounts. The page has been up for over a year and is still a stub; the only content is a misleading one-sentence description that describes this highly partisan affair as "neutral." csloat 01:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article makes no colorable claim of notability. Reliable sources seem not to exist. There has to be a time limit after which we assume no sources can be found, and I think this has reached it. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Very vague, makes no explanation of what the I.S. actually does, and whom it involves. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 02:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For bordering on no content whatsoever. Spinach Dip 06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, very little content, no third-party sources, article hardly touched in over a year. JIP | Talk 10:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Search for it on Google and you'll find it is quite well-known. If you're looking for an impartial news story, have a look at this: [4]. It just needs expanding. Black-Velvet 12:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Impartial? From CNS News, which used to be called the Conservative News Service? csloat 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: My mistake. I have to learn my acronymns. Black-Velvet 04:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it is now called "Cybercast News Service," so it's no longer officially their name,but their partisanship has not changed a bit.-csloat 07:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: CNS News is a conservative but well respected news source. FOX News has also covered stories on the Intelligence Summit. [5] It was the Intelligence Summit that finally forced Bush and Negroponte to create DOCEX on the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents. The Intelligence Summit has a new gathering planned for March, 2007 which is just around the corner and will certainly make news again. RonCram 13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is there any evidence that the Intelligence summit "finally forced Bush and Negroponte" to create DOCEX? DOCEX was established before the conference as far as I can tell. In either case, it seems this article should be a footnote to the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents page.-csloat 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable article. Hello32020 21:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article is a stub at this point. The organization itself is notable, even if the article is short. The article needs work, not deletion. RonCram 13:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's been a stub for over a year because there hasn't been much relevant NPOV content to add. There are plenty of terrorism conferences every year; should we include a wikipedia article about each of them? How about this one in Vegas last weekend? The notability of this particular conference seems to hinge entirely on the "saddam tapes" -- I'd say a footnote on the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents page is enough.--csloat 21:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - POV, NN /Blaxthos 10:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. AFD isn't a vote most of the info is unsourced, WP:V was the main concern in it, which isn't acceptable Jaranda wat's sup 01:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay slang words and phrases (Second nomination)[edit]

List of gay slang words and phrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a collection of dictionary definitions, slang varies depending area/era and is vey hard to verify, there are no citations for the vast majority of words, nor is there any clear criteria for inclusion HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. For anyone interested, please take a quick look at the previous nomination instead of just jumping in. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really should have put that link in myself, sorry. This is the first time I have given an article a second nomination. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not a dictionary. Also, contemporary slang terms are very difficult to verify. -Will Beback 01:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (multiple edit conflict) The previous discussion talked about taking time to consider amending policy, but it has not been amended. Encyclopedic lists generally serve as short summaries of articles or sections of articles, and should have some hope of being exhaustive. Lists of non-technical terms tend to be attractive nuisances. Even lists of technical terms probably belong in Wiktionary. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Dennisthe2 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - erm, yeah, that was me. --Dennisthe2 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Under the slang page, there are 54 pages of slang listed. Some have been Transwiki, but there doesn't appear to be any big push to move the majority of those. Patrick925 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of those have significant encyclopedic text about the slang, as opposed to a list of words with definitions next to them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every time one of the lists of slang is nominated some editors point to the other slang articles as a justification for that article's existence. Consider this a small push. -Will Beback 06:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "None of the other flower beds having been weeded, why should I weed this one?" Consider this my contribution to the "big push". -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From "What Wikipedia is not": "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not...[l]ists of such definitions...usage guide[s] or slang and idiom guide[s]". This is a list of dictionary defintions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Definitions of words go in Wiktionary, encyclopaedia articles go in Wikipedia. This is an unmaintainable list, mostly made up of neologisms. It is largely unverified, making it original research. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwicki to Wiktionary, or very weak keep if there is a significant re-edit including more encycolpedic information (as per HighInBC and Will Beback above]]SkierRMH 08:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the Solomon Islander. Black-Velvet 12:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's worth asking why the list of gay slang words has been targeted but the various other lists (slang words referring to police officers??) have not. I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith here. Can somebody assuage my fears? CaveatLectorTalk 14:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will gladly assuage your fear. I made the nomination. I left a message here[6] attempting to premptivly assuage your fears as I sort of expected this response. The reason there are many other slang lists out there is simply because they have not been gotten to, or they are well referenced with significant encyclopedic content. The reason I nominated this is that it is a list of dictionary definitions.
    • I personally think homosexuallity is a fine encyclopedic subject. I think an article about slang is also very encyclopedic. But a list of words with definitions goes into a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. While it may be hard for you to assume good faith here, pehaps it will help if you look through my edit contributions. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT a guide to word usage, jargon, or slang. This isn't bias, this is WP:WWI / WP:WWIN. If you think another article violates policy the same way and isn't more verifiable or more encyclopedic, nominate it for deletion; don't claim it justifies keeping this one or proves discrimination. Barno 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as a Wiktionary appendix. --Howrealisreal 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Recury 19:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Verifiability. My concern with a slang list is that anyone can come along and add words to the list that are extremely local, rarely used, or even bald-faced neologisms. If we don't require that use of the terms be verified, what good is the article? I think we should include only those terms that have documentably widespread use. That would undoubtably decimate this list, and the terms that are left over are going to be those that are already mentioned in other articles (MTF and FTM, Ambisexual) or are important enough to have an article of their own (Gaydar, Bear community, Twink (gay slang)). So, out with the list. Seriously, what good is it? You can't use it to learn slang for conversation because you have no way of knowing whether a term on the list is completely unknown in your area or hopelessly out-of-date, and you can't use it for research because there's not enough information and it's unverified. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 00:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep technical or cultural jargons are kept unless people don't like the group apparently: see lots of members in Category:Lists of slang, Category:Lists of terms, including the very important List of wizarding terms in translations of Harry Potter and List of popular music terms, oh but we must smash the gay lists, mustn't we... Carlossuarez46 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack removed.[7] HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for pointing out other lists that should be considered for deletion. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. The arguments being made to delete this article have nothing to do with its being related to homosexuality and would apply equally to the other articles you mention, which I also would thank you for pointing out. I work with WikiProject Neopaganism, another area where bias is a concern, but I know that not all articles related to neopaganism will be good ones; when these articles are put up for deletion, it is generally not because of bias against neopaganism but simply because there is something wrong with the article. The same goes for LGBT-related articles. Like articles on any other topic, they can be unverifiable or fall under WP:NOT, and it seems pretty clear to me that this one does both. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is really not the wiki way to assume malicious motives when an innocent explaination has been provided. I cannot tell you the reasons people are !voting, but I can assure you I nominated it because it is a dictionary article, and no other reasons. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this kind of list is what makes wikipedia better than a paper dictionary. - Richardcavell 11:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure you are not thinking of wikipedia's sister project wiktionary? Same idea, no paper, same foundation, different scope. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete CSD G1. Xoloz 03:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Morell[edit]

Edward Morell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy delete. This article makes completely no sense. The author is a notorious vandal. There is no way of verifying if this is true or not and the whole thing is just a mess. CyberGhostface 01:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is apparently about a character from the television series Vanished. However, the IMDb does not list anyone named Edward Morell in the character list [8]. So I don't know what the situation is, but per WP:FICT I don't think this article is needed. --Metropolitan90 01:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I wish it could be a speedy. Close to patent nonsense. I thought about nominating it under A7, because it doesn't make clear that it is a fictional character, but the category probably disqualifies it. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — Article's not needed. If needed, change to a redirect to Vanished. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 02:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. MER-C 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:BIO and WP:COI. --Coredesat 20:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Leslie[edit]

Luke Leslie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable film student; sole verifiable claim to fame seems to be a "Special Innovation Award" in a non-notable film festival for students aged between 7 and 18 [9]. From the username of the creator I suspect WP:COI may be relevant. Demiurge 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "vanity" is now discouraged as a reason for deletion. Instead please use "conflict of interest" per WP:COI as the nominator alluded to. Cheers, Jpe|ob 04:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. His film company gets a whole of 9 ghits and the festival gets 789 ghits. Both of which should be larger for something really notable. MER-C 02:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:N. He got published as a festival winner anyway. ~ Feureau 03:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was concerned myself prior to doing any research on the topic, but now that I've looked at it, I can't find notability (and am also concerned about COI). A number of other family members should be examined for the same issues (although independent AFDs will be necessary). ju66l3r 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong (C | R) 04:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Award much too minor to automatically confer encyclopedic notability Bwithh 04:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Mergewith Desmond Leslie; am going to nominate Shane Leslie for the same reasons offered above. Don't think a minor award meets the WP:N criteria.SkierRMH 08:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Shane Leslie article looks a bit dodgy too. He has had some books published, but it's unclear if they meet the notability standards. Much of the info in the article seems to come from his "unpublished memoirs", thus failing WP:V (and possibly WP:OR). Demiurge 13:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... I wish was an young film-maker. Black-Velvet 12:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy -- Whpq 14:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge with Desmond Leslie) -- no reason to delete all his info; he seems worthy enough of inclusion, if not on his own page then with his grandfather.
I have seen plenty of pages of people with hardly any info. and of even less consequence than this young man, and no one is recommending them for deletion. "Possible vanity" does not justify such extreme sanctions.HOT L Baltimore 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have seen "plenty of people of even less consequence", then please nominate them for deletion as well. You'd be doing us a service. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing against the man, but he doesn't seem sufficiently notable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge with Desmond Leslie) -- the family is famous (or infamous) across the British Isles. Possibly a single page for The Leslie Family - Churchill connections, WW2, Landed estates, Grandfather invented modern mixing desks with Neve, Grandfather author of multiple works, Grandmother OSS spy in WW2 and moderately famous Brechtian cabaret act (ref Marc Almond of Soft Cell), Family home now a famous country house hotel (ref Paul McCartney's wedding), Father a multiple award-winning architect and multimedia designer. The young man seems to be doing a good job of keeping up the family's track record of creativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.133.76 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep (or merge with Desmond Leslie) -- I found 147 ghits for "Luke Leslie"+film, including several pop videos. Given the quirky family background this is one to keep - may not be of much interest to American readers, but certainly worth a family page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.169.105 (talk • contribs)
Comment This IP is registered to "MARTELLOMEDIA", a company which is mentioned in the article under discussion. Possible conflict of interest. Demiurge 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by admin EVula (reason given: Blatant advertising (G11)). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 03:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bears Factory[edit]

The Bears Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Factory in Montreal. Being from Montreal myself, I can attest to its non-notability. In fact, the owning clothing company most certainly fails WP:CORP easily. Pascal.Tesson 01:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7. Naconkantari 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bootleggers (Game)[edit]

Online RPG. Notability? —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 01:52Z

Note: I bumped this from speedy; I am neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 02:14Z
  • Delete — No assertions of notability (not even a user count!). Possible spam. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 02:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And back to speedy it goes. This is {{db-web}} fodder. MER-C 02:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep -- Samir धर्म 10:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher O'Kane[edit]

Bumping from speedy. I am neutral. Notability concerns. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 02:12Z

  • Weak keep As can be seen by the BBC news link and the 480 ghits, notability and verifiability are not issues. Also, the last criteria of WP:BIO states that people who've gained renown as a result of being assasinated are eligible for an article. However, I'm not entirely sure that the 480 ghits and a few news sites constitute "renown". Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 05:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It documents a newsworthy facet of the Northern Ireland peace process' social context, which IMO is underreported in Wikipedia. Stammer 07:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stammer. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stutter. Quite notable when viewed in context. Black-Velvet 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 50 Ghits [10] on a search of name and location, not all of which relate to the article. No more notable than any other murder victim, certainly not renowned. Nuttah68 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This killing is a newsworthy facet of the Northern Ireland peace process only if there's a prominent source for the material in the final paragraph (about possibile political motivations for the PSNI statement). As of now that paragraph is simply asserted and may represent no more than one editor's personal speculation. If this accusation has some currency (regardless of whether it has any truth), provide a source and keep the article; otherwise delete. (I refrain from voting while waiting to see if this can be sourced.) JamesMLane t c 12:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Lin[edit]

David Lin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a hoax. The subject is non-notable, whose feats were either exaggerated or made up. There is no evidence, anywhere, to verify the information in the article. The quotes provided therein are from an internet forum: http://www.dimsum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1178&sid=0b88b95c1ff025a1cb832d8c9fd694e7. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are likewise bogus and created by the same user(s). The subject of this article, David Lin, purportedly founded these organizations. No evidence suggests their existence.

--Jiang 02:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Terence Ong (C | R) 05:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as apparent hoaxes per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete per nomination. Kudos to Jiang for his extensive research into the matter. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.. Clearly a hoax, am trying to follow other bogus links and redirects...SkierRMH 09:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an apparent hoax. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 12:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a bit wary of this. This is rather severe misinformation. I wonder if the creator, User:BogdanM, was aware of it's invalidity. Black-Velvet 13:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As hoax. Spinach Dip 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Chairboy. MER-C 03:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful languages[edit]

Beautiful languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

POV essay, deprodded - crz crztalk 02:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hopelessly POV. Who is to say what makes a language beautiful? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No kidding. Delete, inherently POV. ♠PMC♠ 03:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unsalvagable. MER-C 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Armstrong Busby[edit]

Bumping from speedy. I'm neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 02:36Z

  • Deletenn, vantiy piece, article reads like a resume!SkierRMH 09:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto Skier --Aussie King Pin 10:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For all it's poor Wiki formatting, the subject is entirely unnotable. Black-Velvet 13:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity, advertisment, and the person's name is not even spelled consistently. IMO, based on the tone of the text and a graphic that was uploaded, it's being setup to advertise a company - on it's way to be a db-g11. --ArmadilloFromHell 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, etc. Spinach Dip 20:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LOL, take it to Monster.com. Wavy G 03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. El_C 13:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist left[edit]

Atheist left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No sources, non-notable term, seems to be original research. Mdwh 02:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep 2,390,000 google hits can't be wrong. It's even on a CNN page. ~ Feureau 03:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If it's listed on CNN, please link the page thank you. --Terence Ong (C | R) 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless sources are cited. Looks like a non-notable subject to me. --Terence Ong (C | R) 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV term of abuse whose meaning is obvious and about which there is nothing to say beyond the obvious. Also 780 Google hits, not 2 million as claimed above. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Few Google hits beyond the article itself, most of them clearly POV. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of every derogative right-wing term. MartinDK 06:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. There are indeed only 780 Google hits. [11] And most of them do not use the word "left" to mean "left-wing" (e.g. there is a page talking about the "atheist left behind"). -- Nikodemos 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though I can be described as an "athiest leftist" myself, I can't find the afore-mentioned CNN page, and it seems like an OR attempt to counter Religious right, which is an actual valid term. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete No strong opinion on the matter but think it might be a neologism and/or WP:OR for now. For the record, relevant pages from google are: the cnn quote which merely a single unidentified female using the term (and through a translator no less so no indication from that source that its even a term that really exists). Here is a use by massnews.com the right-wing massachusets news service/propaganda outlet- [12] - they use it in direct contrast to the "religious right." This page indicates that Ann Coulter uses the term in one of her books and gives a page number. If someone has time and access they may want to check that out. Joe Sabia (an undergraduate columnist for the Cornell daily newspaper(and no Sabia, in event that you google yourself regularly, I'm not comparing you Ann Coulter)) apparently had an article where he used the term extensively - [13] and some bloggers responded to it (for example [14]). A mention is also from another right wing magazine [15] and a few from miscelaneous bloggers. Overall it seems to be a term in use but without sources that are talking about the term and not just using the term we can't write an article that meets WP:V and WP:NOR. If Coulter's piece actually tries to define the term then we might be in a position to consider writing an article. JoshuaZ 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The question is if there is such a thing as a distinctive "atheist left" movement, as opposed to a collection of people who happen to be atheistic and hold left-wing political views. If the only thing that can be said about the "atheist left" is that it is a term used to describe left-wing atheists, then we can never write an encyclopedic article on the subject. We cannot and should not have an article on every random combination of two adjectives (e.g. homosexual right, Scientologist left, atheist centrists, Muslim pro-choice, etc) -- Nikodemos 06:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think the sources above make it clear that at minimum there are conservative sources such as Sabia who are using it to mean a specific group and not just the intersection of atheists and leftists but even that is WP:OR. JoshuaZ 06:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Are you sure they use it to mean a specific group? It seems more like they use it to imply that all leftists are atheists (or vice versa). -- Nikodemos 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Not completely sure but I think so. Note in particular the way it is used in parallel to "religious right." However, since none of them define the term its hard to tell. Certainly from the brief Coulter excerpt she seems to think that its an actual group since she complains that the NYT doesn't use it. JoshuaZ 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite apart from the issue of whether anyone has ever used the term "atheist left" before (an issue I believe to be of marginal importance), the article as written is pure, unsourced speculation and conjecture unworthy of wikipedia. There is simply nothing of value in it. Delete. Allon Fambrizzi 07:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Delete - as the Athiest right page (below); both POV articles, non notable.SkierRMH 09:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Allon Fambrizzi, This article is unsourced speculation. --Amists 13:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced oversimplification. Black-Velvet 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems pointless.--Folantin 14:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced and serious POV concerns.-- danntm T C 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Secular left as this seems to simply be about the outright atheists in that political stream rather than a unique movement of its own.--T. Anthony 20:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone's unsourced, OR personal essay that attempts to create (or redefine) a neologism. There is really nothing worth merging, as the article consists of generalizations, many of which are dubious or just confused. JChap2007 01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, but erase all material except the first two paragraphs. The material beyond that is original research. However, I do find sufficent evidence in Google that the term exists and is used. I also think that a decent, small article could be made on the subject, provided that it's sourced. Herostratus 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was vandalism. --humblefool® 03:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyP[edit]

A vandal has been going around for a while posting this stuff. Iridescence talk • contrib 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Very short article providing little or no context, probable vandalism. Mdwh 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. El_C 13:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist right[edit]

Atheist right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No sources, non-notable term, seems to be original research. Mdwh 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I concur ~ Feureau 03:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a silly article, probably intended to create some balance with Atheist left. Wikipedia and mirrors aside, zero Google hits for this as a term. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The only thing that can be said about the "atheist right" is that it is atheist and it is right-wing... -- Nikodemos 05:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As at best a neologism with original research thrown in. Among other issues, the article claims that George Lincoln Rockwell was an atheist while the article on him makes it clear that that was very often not true. JoshuaZ 05:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete even fewer hits (702) than athiest left (780), and the vast majority of them aren't related. Religious right is a term, athiest right is not. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the article is quite absurd. The implication that altruism interferes with capitalism (or that some people believe it to be so) is completely unsourced and based on a cartoonish "Gordon Gekko" idea of what capitalism is. Allon Fambrizzi 07:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Delete - as the Athiest left page (above); both POV articles, non notable.SkierRMH 09:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bunch of nonsense and non-notable views. --Terence Ong (C | R) 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless. Also purely confined to a US perspective.--Folantin 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For same reasons as Athiest Left. Black-Velvet 14:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Secular right as this seems to simply be about the outright atheists in that political stream rather than a unique movement of its own.--T. Anthony 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as orginal research and not-notable. Hello32020 21:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR personal essay about protologism. JChap2007 01:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Herostratus 14:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete article was moved to Soap opera popular couples, then blanked and tagged as "speedy delete" by original creator. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of soap opera popular couples[edit]

List of soap opera popular couples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural nom for User:Mike Halterman. Prod with A lot of this list is sourced at supercouple, and contains original research just by the title of the article. What defines "popular"? Why are there no sources? was removed without counter-argument. As much as I hate biting, it looks like a decent enough rationale for deletion, from where I'm sitting. Thoughts? Luna Santin 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I asked for a second opinion on this, thus the nom by Luna Santin. I'm not voting since it can be counted that I brought it up for AFD. It had previously been merged to supercouple; the merger had since been undone. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research article and fork of supercouple. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 03:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as said on the talk page unlike supercouples, popular couples may not last as long as a supercouple for many reasons like; actor recasting, sudden storyline changes, shows being cancelled during a couple's romance, etc. But are still remembered by long time fans none the less.
As it says on the "supercouple" page:
"While there are many popular couplings on soap operas today, very few earn the right to be called a supercouple by fans and the soap media alike."
So clearly there is a difference between a so called "supercouple" and a "popular couple." As stated on the "supercouple" page. MrKing84 04:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think there needs to be a list of couples article. Articles on the shows themselves should be able to sufficiently explain popular couples and their impacts on the show and the storylines. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know many of those articles are not linked to their respective shows. Especially shows that have been off the air for years and have very little if any character history on their show's wikipedia articles. Shows like Santa Barbara and Port Charles say nothing about their popular couples on their pages. And therefore have no links to their supercouples and or popular couples' wikipedia pages. As you yourself said a long time ago "Who gets to define who is a supercouple? Many print sources that are reliable, that's who!" But yet they're are little if any sources in the supercouple article. But the list of popular couples must have them? And then what if somebody like yourself doesn't believe the source given is acceptable by the soap media like Soap Opera Digest? I just find all this very intresting. MrKing84 05:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly original research. Even if sourced, it would be better as category than as a list. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the love of God Delete this cruft! What defines a 'popular' couple? Why not just list 'popular couples' on the relevant soap opera article page? Is 'popular' a POV statement (do we get a list of 'unpopular couples')? And most importantly, Why is there a need for this list on an encyclopedia? This is what WP:NOT was made for. --Amists 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does not reflect a worldwide view at all - Poland has more than 20 prime time soap operas, all of which receive no mention here. What defines 'popular', I wonder? This could be quite easily a discreet attempt at advertising. Black-Velvet 14:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NeoChaosX. meshach 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David McNamara[edit]

David McNamara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bumping from speedy (G11 and A7). My initial reaction is this person is not notable enough to warrant the permanent privacy violation created by the encyclopedia entry. Apparently he wrote an ill-advised or spoof blog entry and was then made fun of by Fark. There was a previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McNamara. User:Dcmcnamara, apparently the subject, is now a Wikipedia user and objects to this article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 02:55Z

Comment the AFD template on the page does not link to any discussion and is a red link. I don't think this was done properly. --70.48.172.144 04:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing it. -Amarkov blahedits 05:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 09:04Z
  • Delete Whether he likes havign an article on himself is not relevant. What is relevant is, does he meet WP:BIO and/or his blog meet WP:WEB? A google search and examination of the entries given in the article don't seem to indicate that. If someone else can find any evidence otherwise then I'll change to keep. JoshuaZ 06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, in my opinion. Some of information is just completely unencyclopedic, regardless of the notability of the article. Coups to take over the "Archduchy of Pedronia in the Kingdom of Gotzburg"? Very questionable. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notab=ple as per WP:BIO, don't think an internet flame war and '15 minutes of shame fame' meets criteria.SkierRMH 09:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I am the person who proposed the deletion due to the fact that I have moved on from that time. I was young and stupid at the time and my hormones probably had something to do with it as well. Additionally, I don't think I have the prerequisite fame for such an entry. Lastly, a lot of the data attributed to me was put by imposters and until I was informed of them via this very site, I had no idea they even existed! David McNamara 10:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. Not enough independent sources, and so what if his blog is famous, not notable enough. --Terence Ong (C | R) 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Black-Velvet 14:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete falls short of WP:BIO standards. The blog as well does not seem main stream enough yet either.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads as either an attack page or a rambling vanity page. Spinach Dip 20:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. -- Another thing. Since some people might decide to recreate the page, could it (along with the redirector Anti-Porn Guy) be protected from re-creation and the entry(-ies) permanently deleted from the server? David McNamara 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming the David McNamara article is deleted, all redirects to it will be deleted. Protecting from recreation is generally only done in response to long-term vandalism, not pre-emptively. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-14 04:22Z
  • Delete. Non-notable kook. Nothing wrong with being a kook, or having kooks in Wikipedia, but he didn't receive any real MSM attention/notoriety. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, Anti-Porn guy? I knew I recognized this name - strong keep, i'm pretty sure this would meet WP:WEB anyway, but I'll try to dig up sources, but this was a pretty big deal before he got exposed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Balaz Kral[edit]

Ivan Balaz Kral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears non-notable per WP:BIO. The lower half the page used to be in Slovak, and he does have an article on the Slovak Wikipedia, but it looks like neither of these assert his notability as well. For those who swear by Google, the Slovak version of his name (Ivan Baláž Kráľ) gets 10 hits, [16] and the English version gets 7 hits. [17] Searching for Ivan "Areios Pagos" (the organisation he co-founded) gets 39 hits, none of them relevant. [18] Kavadi carrier 02:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - if it's good enough for the slovaks, it's good enough for us. Anyway, he published and a co founder of some society. That should amount for some notability~ Feureau 03:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am now officially founding the Solomon Society for fine art. Can I have an article? -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A student with interests, who writes a blog. No assertion of notability and, per nom's thorough ghiting, no evidence of it either. It's all unverified original research too. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is totally unverified and non-notable. Ale_Jrbtalk 07:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN; looked through Slovak G hits, still appears to be NN there.
    • comment If I officially found the 'Wikipedian foundation for overindulgence in alcoholic beverages', can I get my own page too?SkierRMH 09:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Punkmorten 11:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like a smart guy, though. Maybe we could get him an account. Black-Velvet 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author an argue for keeping it. I dispute this assertion. Ivan Balaz Kral is a young Slovak author and you cannot make the relevancy argument based on Google hits. but to convince you that this entry should be kept. Ivan Balaz Kral already published several books as you will see when I finished my entry. He is a university teacher his webiste and here He has his own entry at slovak Wikipedia. As well his citizen name is Ivan Baláž, Kráľ is pseudonym. So hits on this name Ivan Baláž maybe on Google for his person as well.Sure but let consider, regional newspapers in Slovakia do not have their websites sometimes or do not list everything in archive, here I will post bibliographical notes to some interview Mr. Balaz did like in 2000 in Presovsky vecernik Návrat do minulosti (rozhovor o básnickom umení), No. 2470/ 20.4.2000. Here is a link to another article as Mr. Balaz published new book at the website of one the Slovaks largest cities Presov http://www.presov.sk/article.php?i_id_article=1258 Some of his stories and stories about him were published in alternative magazines. This is a pdf of one interview [19] An interview was in Eastern Slovak daily which is in the group of largest mainstream newspaper SME too "Ako básnici prichádzajú o ilúzie (rozhovor o pôvodnej tvorbe a básnickom umení), In: Prešovský denník KORZÁR" According to these cicrcumstances almost none of young publishing authors in postcommunist countries can make it to wikipedia. When you try to search this author on Google you have to use his citizen name Ivan Baláž as he researches as a scholar under this name, so the hits will be more [20] on the other hand this includes many other Ivan Baláž s of course as that can be a common name. it still lists him on the first entries, he has his entry in wikipedia. I probably cannot make more argument to keep it. I will finish the article and wait the wikipedia s decission. But let me note this, there is almost no way contemporary authors can make it to english language Wikipedia it is only another proof of my theory which I call the "death of freedom on the internet" as this may sound to you unpopular. For countries like mine, Slovakia, there is no way to get attention, even on wikipedia that prides itself as the "free forum". There is almost no entry on Slovak authors here and I will not change it, I even cannot. Decission-makers in your forums are culturally rude. postings like "I am now officially founding the Solomon Society for fine art. Can I have an article?" but "freedom" at least functions at this point - At the end to suppress freedom of small ones. Yeah, google everything, you can google me [[21]] and [[22]]. Guess what. It is in Slovak.But thanks anyway. I added references, I was still working on that article. (Branislav.Ondrasik 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. —Hanuman Das 00:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In the spirit of stemming systemic bias I feel this should be kept. If everything in the article is true, he's notable, and the article does appear to be well sourced. The sources are in Slovak which I cannot read, however the fact that I don't speak Slovak does not, by any means, make the sources incorrect or inappropriate; thats a problem on my part, not the part of the source. I'll give the benefit of the doubt in this case to the article's creator. If someone else who speak Slovak comes along and makes the case that the sources aren't what the article's creator purports them to be, then I'll reconsider. Also, ghits aren't always the best thing to go by, especially when dealing with something or someone from a country without much internet access or presence, or when dealing with certain historical subjects. The lack of many ghits remains rather unconvincing to me. --The Way 06:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V, and even if claims of article were verified, nothing in the article shows substantive claim of encyclopedic notability - would fail WP:PROF/WP:BIO. I'm sympathetic to WP:BIAS, but there needs to be at least a solid claim of encyclopedic notability (not just this is "a contemporary author/poet/academic who wrote some books/poems/research"). Bwithh 07:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is not Slovak wikipedia proof of encyclopedic notability? Btw, I am not the author of Slovak Wikipedia entry about this person... Probably someone, reader of this author.... do not know.... (Branislav.Ondrasik 12:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Doubtful Delete There is indeed massive systemic bias in Wikipedia, but giving authors the benefit of the doubt is hardly the right way to deal with it. By analogy, scientific papers don't get accepted for publication just because the journal's editor cannot find a referee with the relevant competencies. This nomination however pinpoints quite an important issue for Wikipedia, particularly for its English instance, which has an obvious transcultural dimension. An appropriate specific guideline may be useful. To me WP:V suggests deletion in this case, but Feureau and The Way's arguments are not without merit. Stammer 09:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just assuming the good faith of the article's creator insofar as I trust that the Slovak language articles are valid and closely related to the topic. If we refuse to accept foreign language articles as valid sources for the establishment of notability we're going to naturally end up with more systemic bias; many topics, especially historical ones, tend to have few sources in English. For example, I took a course on the history of Kievan Rus and while we had a few books covering the subject, the vast majority of sources related to that topic are only written in Russian and have only recently begun being translated into English. If we aren't going to accept these sources then we're going to miss out on a lot of good and valid information. I will, however, admit that it would be quite nice if we could find someone who spoke Slovak and who was not connected to this article in order to get their opinion on the sources. --The Way 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Making acceptance in one Wikipedia instance a sufficient condition for overall acceptance would enable weakest-link posting strategies and basically sink Wikipedia as we know it. I fully agree with you on the use of authoritative foreign language sources, but I do not think that this is the issue here. I would replace your "quite nice" with "essential" and add that more than one voice would be needed. Stammer 07:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi everyone...so I will not influence the decission anymore, but after you shut down this article, please visit this discussion for my last interesting comment with links etc. to make my claim on wikipedia. I understand your fears, that is clear but... you will see. Anyway, I am glad the discussion went more to substance than in the beginning....I have already given up hope this entry will stay (Branislav.Ondrasik 12:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does not seem to meet WP:BIO for either his writing or academic contributions. Markovich292 21:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as advert. --Coredesat 21:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OnKey Skypeboard[edit]

OnKey Skypeboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[Check Google hits] Borderline advertisement for a non-notable software product. Fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Advert, maybe. But not non notable enough for deletion. Just slap advert tag.~ Feureau 03:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable product, just need to cleanup, cleanup the advertisement part. --Terence Ong (C | R) 05:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete, after evidence given by other editors. --Terence Ong (C | R) 13:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where's the evidence that it's notable? Am I missing something in these Google hits [23] [24], or can you folks point out other appropriate sources? --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sufficiently notable for own article. Bwithh 06:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely no assertion or evidence of notability whatsoever. 9 unique Google hits [25], the first two being this article and the Answers.com mirror. Nothing verified, no sources cited. Border-line speedy as spam. I'm really confused about Feureau and Terence Ong's rationale for keeping. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick Delete - don't see any rationale for keep; article fits the {db-spam} criteria for advertising.SkierRMH 09:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason for keep. Black-Velvet 14:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First become a topic of interest, then an encyclopedia artile is warrented. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam. —Hanuman Das 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete as spam. Smacks of advertising and product promotion. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Esposito[edit]

Dennis Esposito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:BIO unless evidence of playing for the first team can be produced. BlueValour 03:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Delete. BlueValour 03:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - here you go. MER-C 04:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I think MER-C's pretty much killed this one dead. WP:SNOW. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, jumping the gun a little there. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete' - he has the squad number 46 and has not played a game for the first team yet. General precedent is that Reserve/Youth/Primavera players are not inherently notable unless they are also included in first-team games. Qwghlm 09:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No first team games. Catchpole 11:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recreate when he's played a few first team games. – Elisson • T • C • 12:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete not yet call-up to first team, but in the first team squad list only. Matthew_hk tc 13:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Black-Velvet 14:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Angelo 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Markovich292 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Verbeck[edit]

Pierre Verbeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a hoax; no such porn star exists. No Google hits, no filmography at any of the gay porn retail sites. —Chidom talk  03:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 17 ghits, mostly from the same site, verifiability problems. MER-C 04:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per MER-C's spectacularly low google hits. Created by single purpose account [26]. Unverified biography of a living person. Judging by the text of the article, this seems to have been lifted from elsewhere, although Google doesn't return anything for the exact phrases from the article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete, the guy's also not notable. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesing to note that two of the names mentioned here are from the aerospace article "Orthogonal collocation of the nonlinear Boltzman equation"!SkierRMH 09:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definitely fails the criteria, unverifiable. Sounds like a hoax. --Terence Ong (C | R) 13:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are enough male porn stars on Wikipedia as it is. And I'm talking about contributors, not articles. Black-Velvet 14:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No such porn star today. Having said that, this name does turn up hits for a 18th c. German genealogy web site. Augurr 18:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious hoax, Google hits indicate nothing relatively noteworthy.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax/vanity/ad. Spinach Dip 20:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of choral works[edit]

List of choral works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Do you have any idea how many choral works are out there? If this list ever reached "completion" - which it couldn't, because they keep getting written - it would crash browsers. There are no standards for inclusion and I'm surprised it's this small. WP:LIST for policy. Crystallina 03:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see this as a currently useful list, and the subject matter is way too large to make any kind of meaningful list. Mak (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is what categories are for. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are only about a couple million things that would fit here... -Amarkov blahedits 04:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, no need for such lists. --Terence Ong (C | R) 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impossible to get a difinitive list. Spinach Dip 06:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, serves no purpose that a category wouldn't serve as well. JIP | Talk 10:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone has a sense of humour and a lot of tenacity. Black-Velvet 14:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete user is admirable in trying such an effort but for the sake of browser sanity the page should be deleted.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's next? List of Songs? List of Movies? --The Way 06:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many above. Markovich292 22:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lip-Ink International[edit]

Lip-Ink International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I do not believe that this company meets the standard for notability, despite the number of links that have been added to wikipedia. The guidelines for notability state "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc." Bobzchemist 04:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - would fit the WP:SPAM criteria for blatant advertising.SkierRMH 09:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, I'm a bit puzzled by this one. On the one hand, it looks quite non-notable. The press coverage links provided are trivial coverage, possibly based on PR releases, and don't even point directly to the claimed sources—they link back to the company's web site. And a cosmetics company that owns a patent is about as notable as a country music star who owns a cowboy hat. And I see no other serious evidence of notability, and the article does have a strong flavor of pork products. On the other hand, the creator and sole editor appears to be User:CatherineMunro, who is a WP admin! which is about as far from the single-purpose account I expected to find as you can get. I've left a message on her talk page, maybe she can provide some useful input/insight. Xtifr tälk 12:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I had actually forgotten I'd done this one. Looking back on it, I'm uncomfortable with it myself. As someone who often struggles to make ends meet month to month, I do freelance work for hire on another site (usually copyediting and web design), and I was asked to use my Wikipedia experience to write a properly formatted and referenced article on this company in return for $75. After some consideration, I decided that the company was notable enough, in part because of the successful patent challenges against Revlon and the like -- little guys usually either lose or are bought out when fighting the cosmetics giants. I thought I'd done a decent job to make it a straightforward and non-fluffy article, but yeah, from today's perspective I'd agree it is a bit, er, porcine.
I was careful to explain to the clients that once the article was released to the wild, it would be at the mercy of the community -- that I would not be trying to "protect" it from editing or deletion on their behalf. Thank you kindly for offering some respect to my experience here, Xtifr, but the company and the article should be judged on its own merits, not on mine.
Please note I wrote this article well before the recent controversy over User:MyWikiBiz happened, and before Wikipedia:Conflict of interest was written; I would definitely no longer accept money to write any article, and I rather regret having done this one even though there was no policy against it at the time. I certainly should have thought to declare the 'hiring' on the talk page. (For the record, the only other work I've ever been paid for concerning Wikipedia was an external research project on categorization, which did not involve any editing.) Thanks for catching this Bob, and for giving me some notice about it, Xtifr -- I'm pretty sure I can guess where it's going to go from here.  :) — Catherine\talk 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, thanks. I was afraid that I, as a relatively new editor (though fairly long-time browser/reader), was overlooking some obvious reason why this article deserved to be kept. I'm relieved to find that my judgement skills are not that badly flawed. :) I'm no longer puzzled, and agree that nothing inappropriate happened, since this was a while ago, and you gave them fair warning. (For that matter, they've probably gotten their money's worth.) Xtifr tälk 09:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe that the honest admissions of Catherine fully justify deletion. Also, no one should attack Catherine for this, despite her being an admin. Honestly, what person who was struggling to make ends meet wouldn't take $75 to make an article? --The Way 06:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and protect from recreation. This was deleted four times before, and this will be the fifth time. The anons do not bring any evidence of notability to the table. --Coredesat 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Group Films[edit]

Spanish Group Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  ATTENTION!

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

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

This article keeps getting recreated. I nominated it previously for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Group Films) and it was early closed with a speedy delete. It was recreated and eventually protected, but then the protection page was deleted, and now it's been recreated again. Let's settle this by giving it the full AfD run. It is a borderline hoax, as the "company" appears to be nothing more than a few high school kids. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt per nom. May be eligible for speedy deletion as a repost. MER-C 04:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per CSD A7 and possibly CSD G4.--TBCΦtalk? 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, it's pathetic if one of their own 'claims to fame' is that they claim on their website the day they put up their own Wikipedia article![27]SkierRMH 09:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Their website points at the usual ignorance of WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:OWN and Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. IslaySolomon | talk 10:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for visiting the site. Obviously you liked it, and hopefully you watched some of the movies. That is the updates page, and is not a "claim to fame." It is simply a place for our fans to see what is new with the site. Oh, and I think it's pathetic when an adult man edits and deletes wikipedia articles. Especially if the group is working their way up, because you clearly don't know what that's like. So instead of going out and being with people, you edit an encyclopedia. Score! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert, WP:COI, and please protect it. --Terence Ong (C | R) 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:COI again. That describes promoting products. Sorry, we don't have any products to sell, so how can that be true? Also, it describes personal pages. We don't have any of those either. I don't understand you people. I say the same to you as I did to SkierRMH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a hoax in any way. This is simply noticing a WORTHY group, as they have put much energy and work into these projects. If what you are saying below is true, then you are discriminating articles by the age of the writer. Check IP adresses for visits to the site. There are many visits to the site from different places. How come this is not a valid article? What could make this company recieve "accreditation" from your super educated administrators so that this group can be realized? I guess I can understand how this could be a way for you people to make up for the fact that none of you have ever done something notable in your life, but lets be reasonable. Why don't you delete the 20th Century Fox article? Because it's a corporation and makes millions? Or because they have made hundreds of films? Isn't that unfair descrimination? If this article is continually recreated, what does that tell you about the will of this group and how important it is to others around it? You should understand that this was not thought up in one school day, nor is it a joke. It is a legitamate company on the rise, but all you see is amateur filmmaking, and that is what you base it on. By continually deleting this article, you are smashing the dreams of the founders of the company, and are disappointing everyone in the town of Somers, CT. And you should realize that you can continually delete the article, but the it is always going to be recreated. Because that is how important this group is to people that have dreams, something you should learn from as you sit on your couch and laugh at other people's work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Spanish Group Films. It seems to have lasted a long enough time on wikipedia anyway. You would save your sorry selves time and energy blocking all the people that add refrences to the group, and deleting all the articles that are made about the group. Think about it. It's completely understandable that a group wants to get proper recognition. And the site is in no way advertising. It is giving the facts about the founders and controllers of the company, which is wrong how? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justfor52 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It said wikipedia as "the free encyclopedia". Guess not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Free, as in you don't pay to read it. It still has integrity regarding the quality/notability of articles. →Bobby← 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - What encyclopedia do YOU pay for? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Encyclopedia Britannica? Anyway, I can appreciate the work and effort (a few friends of mine have their own production team), but neither are an argument for keeping this article. Once you start showing at cannes, then we'll talk. Delete. --humblefool® 21:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google search on "Spanish Group Films" brings back only 15 unique hits on 41 entries. Removing Wikipedia related entries leaves only 8 unique returns. Textbook non-notable. TheRealFennShysa 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the author's self-admitted promotion ("It's completely understandable that a group wants to get proper recognition"), the complete lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, and the hilarious conspiracy accusation that the Fox Broadcasting Company article is not being deleted because they are multi-million dollar corporation. Wavy G 04:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's true though, is it not? What makes the Fox company more deserving of an article in an encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) .
      • Comment The fact that information about the Fox company meets WP:V standards. Please familiarize yourself with that policy as it is the heart of the matter here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain because this is nothing more than a discrimination against the size of the company. Spanish Group Films is an important part of people's lives and just because of who created it and how large the company is, it is "unimportant" to the people who edit this site. What's the difference between this group and a group who does have an article on this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.100.204 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 November 2006
    • Comment The latter meets our notability criteria. Do not add votes to others comments as you did here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact still remains that this is still a discrimination against the size of the project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment So what if it was made up by a couple school kids? Does that make it any less real? Does it make it any less credible? And it is certainly not a hoax, as the company has clearly put up several movies and has a significant fan base. What about that is a hoax? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) .
      • Comment Call this whatever you'd like, but as long as a topic fails WP:V it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Period. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment So what you are basing this entire argument on is the fact that Spanish Group Fims is not online through a valid source. Which means that the only way a topic can be included into Wikipedia is to have it be online. So what you are implying is that everything worth mentioning can be found online, which you know as well as I do, is certainly not true. If public popularity and mainstream is a necessity of topics, then mention that somewhere in your fance guideline articles. But there are things out there that don't need to be writen about online for them to be important or worthy of mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment No. All our articles must contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Those reliable sources need not be on-line, however we must still cite them. If we were to investigate a topic ourselves first-hand and write up what we had found, that would be original research. We must therefore rely on the information gathered about a topic by reliable sources. This allows us to verify the information in an article by citing those reliable sources. If no reliable sources have written about a topic, as is the case here, then that topic is not notable enough to deserve an article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Just to help clarify further, look at Note 44 in today's featured article J. R. R. Tolkien. This is an example of a reliable source that is not online and that has been correctly cited in an article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Spanish Group Films. In response to the above comments, I would like to add, what is needed for a topic to be "worthy of mention"? What I understand from reading the above comments is that Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia for topics that are important, but rather for the topics that get the most promotions. This is not how the system should be based, and I am sure that Spanish Group Films is not the only one who has pleaded this case. However, I would also like to ask how much of a limit is put on Wikipedia? Is there a limit to the amount of articles that can be put on? I understand where your administrative views are coming, but I also believe that an encyclopedia presents to you facts on whatever you would like to know about, and I know of many people who would like very much to kow about Spanish Group Films. Isn't that a reliable enough source? 72.10.100.204 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nope, it's not. Again, anon(s), I must emphasize that you really ought to familiarize yourselves with our policies and guidelines. Just take the time to read them and you'll understand the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Here, I'll even list the important ones that apply here:
    WP:V (Verifiability policy)
    WP:RS (Reliable sources guidelines)
    WP:OR(Original research policy)
    WP:N (Notability guidelines)
    --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Guys, I'm really sorry, but there's only so much advice we can give you. Please take your time to read and re-read the policies AbsolutDan has directed you to above. They explain things fair better than we can, that's what they're there for. The one last thing I can suggest you do is to take a look at some of the featured articles. Pay particular attention to the "references" or "footnotes" section. These cite sources such as books, scientific journals, respected current affairs websites and newspaper and magazine articles. There is no way that any of these will have covered your home movies. Finally, yes, there is a limit to the amount of information that can be stored on Wikipedia. Wikipedia exists on very real computer servers, that are paid for by real money. Donors do not give money to the Wikimedia foundation to help kids promote their youtube videos. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC
    • SGF is a very real and very important production company. You may not understand it, but its there and its truth, and it will eventually gain enough recognition to meet your criteria, because it is that important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.10.100.204 (talk • contribs) .
Comment - How, exactly, are they important? What awards have they won? What accolades have they received? What press coverage have they gained? What social wrongs have they corrected? What side is their toast buttered on? If all we have to go on is some anonymous IP (especially one that just vandalized another article) posting that the group is important just because (and only because) they say so, you're not going to survive this AfD. TheRealFennShysa 18:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Prosser[edit]

Richard Prosser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person isn't notable. Unsuccessful candidate from a very minor party Randomkiwi 04:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agree with nom.-gadfium 04:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.
  • Delete — Delete per nom as another obscure, minor, local politician who's ultimately not-notable. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, even within NZ. Not only that, but there's potential confusion with Richard Bissell Prosser, and, as has already happened, Richard B.'s father who is also a Richard ("Birmingham, England, engineer and inventor" who could be notable) --Dom 01:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick search on Wikipedia shows this is not a hoax article and Richard Prosser is indeed a Zealand democratic candidate. This is a major party I seen no reason for deletion. Simpleerob 05:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Minor candidate from very minor party (less than 0.5% of vote). Not a major party official and not prominant in other areas - SimonLyall 10:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No need to salt as this hasn't been deleted repeatedly. --Coredesat 21:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of things named after rivers[edit]

A collection of largely random things - a small one at present, but it appears to be only just starting. Though I can see why some might consider this list a good idea, it will be almost totally unmanageable; either things named only directly after rivers are to be included, or things indirectly named after them can be added as well. If the latter is the case, this list will soon become of impossioble size: how many things in the US are named Missouri something, Mississippi something, Ohio something, or Arkansas soomething? They are named after the states, which are named after the rivers - therefore, things like Ohio University are indirectly named after rivers. On the other hand, if only things directly named after rivers are to be added, we veer towards OR territory (how do you tell whether something in Sacramento is named after the city or the river?) and are also still in the realms of the enormous - bridges, schools, shipping companies, towns, you name it. In its present form, I don't see anyway this could ever approach being an encyclopedic article, and to attempt to limit the meaning of the title will define it out of practical use. As such, sadly, this appears to be unlikely to be anything other than a delete. Grutness...wha? 04:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that this is about to go dynamiclist, so I say delete as well. It could become 300-something KB, which is enormous. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nom. Considering that many rivers are named after other things, having a list of things that are named after rivers is both silly & potentially unmanageable. Spawn Man 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the nom says it all. --Terence Ong (C | R) 05:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom - Shaggorama 06:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Will this include everything named after every river? Good grief, I could make a 300 KB article out of things named after the Bow River, and that's a very minor river compared to the Missouri. Unmanageable and neverending. --Charlene 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too broad and vague criterion makes the list useless, also at this stage it shows a geographic bias. JIP | Talk 10:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before it reaches the Amazon. Hydronymcruft.--Folantin 14:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad of a category. Even if there was a point in making a difinitive list, it would be unverifiable, excesivelly long, and would have virtually no encyclopedic content whatsoever. Spinach Dip 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory/unlimited amount of information. Hello32020 21:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Oh, wow, I can go crazy with this. Violates WP:NOT since it's an indiscriminate list. Violates WP:OR since you can't be sure this is why the things were named that. (Mississippi Stadium -- named for river or state? Or tribe?) Violates WP:V since there isn't a way to know , except OR, what was named and why. Violates WP:RS since there isn't a source in sight....I could go on, but WHY? In fact, add some salt to this entry so that it doesn't happen again. EVER. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all above. JGardner 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Excellent nomination argument is fairly convincing, although it could be verifiable (it ought to be possible to determine which things are named directly after the river or not). But in the real world it won't be verified and will become a magnet for WP:OR as the nominator notes. Herostratus 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just give this time to improve and grow. --164.107.92.120 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Shan[edit]

Tony Shan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently autobiographical article which reads like a resume, and describes a seemingly non-notable person. Allan McInnes (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria is Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work (emph. mine), not just that the author be published. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if he's notable, this autobio is just a CV, not an article. His books are obscure at best, not findable on Amazon or ABE. Dicklyon 05:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom - Shaggorama 06:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Resume abuse of Wikipedia. Author of encyclopedically non-notable books Bwithh 06:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete- vanity article, perhaps, reads more like a resume than anything else. Being an author of non-notable books is not enough to justify an article. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tedious article which reads like a CV.--Folantin 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this was so tedious it's almost funny: but not quite funny enough for BJAODN and Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Moreschi 19:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article that fails to meet WP:Bio standards.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uber-vanity. Spinach Dip 20:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Leland McInnes 03:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page Killerhun00 00:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per spinach dip :) Reads like a resume and subject appears non-notable. Markovich292 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all, arguments raised that WP:WEB has not been met have not been refuted, and the individual articles have been deleted. The compilation is at Bibliographic database. If anyone wishes to merge more information, let me know and I can userfy the deleted articles to assist with merging -- Samir धर्म 10:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Book Database[edit]

The Internet Book Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

doesn't meet WP:WEB criteria Dicklyon 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too don't meet WP:WEB criteria:

Comments:

  • Keep "Internet Book Database"? Surely it's notable enough. Wavy G 07:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By which criterion of WP:WEB? Can you fix the article, since "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a Reference, Notes, or External link section."? Dicklyon 08:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - alexa rank 641,921, 165,384 and 1,342,119 respectively. To compare, IMDB has a rank of 35. It's just not high enough for a notable internet book database. MER-C 09:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria. Low alexa ranking, and various factors as well. --Terence Ong (C | R) 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Alexa is not a measure of anything! Google indexes 35000 pages of ibookdb currently (it was 80000 last time I checked). The Internet Book Database is one of the largest of its kind and a very important book resource. Off Topic Note: I have also discovered that iblist and ibdof have links to themselves from 100s of author pages all over wikipedia! Heavenhelllord 15:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your page, so why not tell what WP:WEB criterion it meets, and put the evidence in the article? Dicklyon 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the WP:WEB criteria are not perfect. I'm not entirely sure how I would modify the article to meet WP:WEB. As you can tell by the comments here, the content of the site is what makes it notable. The effort itself is very large and commendable so WP:WEB may not be perfect.? Heavenhelllord 16:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you're suggesting what is commonly known as I like it. You like the website, so it should be kept, even though it is not held to the same standards as other websites? If we start keeping web articles based on personal judgements of their quality and value, rather than the notability standards we have used in the past, is there any objectivity or consistency? Fan-1967 15:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like a lot of sites but I'm not including them all in wikipedia because they are not what should be included in wikipedia. However this particular site is 1) One of the largest of it's kind, 2) A very important resource for the Book Community, 3) It's content cannot easily be found in other sources that are notable by WP:WEB standards - so I would say that it is fit for inclusion into the wikipedia. 128.143.50.94 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that still sounds like saying you think the content is valuable so it should be exempt from WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 19:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the content is valuable, it should be inclued in WP:WEB! Isn't valuable content to a large enough population (book readers), a good enough reason for something to be on Wikipedia? Heavenhelllord 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Fairly new site, no indication it's achieved notability yet. May qualify as repost, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Book Database. -- Fan-1967 15:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original Internet Book Database article (as you can see from that discussion) was written when the site was beta testing and has come a long way since then. The reason I vote for keep is that this is a significant effort for the book community unlike the earlier efforts mentioned above and does deserve mention in the Wikipedia. The site has nearly a 1000 inlinks from external sources(according to yahoo siteexplorer) and that is IMO a good achievement for a site whose domain was registered in Feb. Heavenhelllord 16:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:WEB does not have a provision for "growing quickly". We get many, many articles whose authors argue that a subject is growing toward notability. The only question is whether the site has achieved notability. They may (or may not) be on their way there, but that's not the same thing as being there. Fan-1967 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reason for keeping is not about "is growing quickly" but "is a notable effort", "has alredy grown quickly", "is large and significant enough already"
  • I disagree, then. Alexa rank of 641K doesn't meet my standards of "large and significant", unless you want to argue we should create articles for the 640,000 websites more popular than this one. Fan-1967 17:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa Rankings don't mean squat. That's why I included the count of inlinks from yahoo siteexplorer. Here is one example of a site on Wikipedia with dismal Alexa Rankings - Everyone's a Critic. I can easily dig up some more if you wish. Heavenhelllord 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dug out my own Alexa ranking. My web site has a ranking of 5,915,806 but my links page on my site has a ranking of 11,686! shelagh 19:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, unfortunately yahoo counts, but does not distinguish. Scroll through the pages of results. The inlinks are overwhelmingly from parchayi.net, a related site from the same owner. Fan-1967 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment fanforums for notable authors do not make the forum notable. All this talk about growth but not a single reliable source. ColourBurst 19:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just think that this website is notable because it has a larger collection of books and authors than other popular online book related websites. There are no book related websites that offer such a large listing of both fiction and non-fiction of all genres. There are no other sites that I know of that offer a combination book database/social networking aspect. There are other features unique to ibookdb such as finding other versions of books. The site is notable for it's content and usefulness to the book community. The forums are just a small part of everything that makes this site notable.Heavenhelllord 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's standards on notability are not based on personal judgements of quality, or usefulness. They amount to: is the subject of this article reasonably well-known, based on independent, third-party sources? Nothing has been presented to indicate that this website meets that. Fan-1967 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you proposing deletion of just The Internet Book Database or all the articles in this section? According to you are any of the three sites mentioned above notable? Heavenhelllord 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three; the others don't even seem to have any defenders, and have the same problem re WP:WEB. Dicklyon 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is a shame since they are all excellent, very informative sites and the best websites with book related information. I'm surprised the others don't have any defenders considering they have 1000s of links across wikipedia. Maybe there should be one common Wikipedia article about Online user driven Book Databases that combines all of the three? Heavenhelllord 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the most sensible idea I've heard yet. That way, the topic is more neutral, not specific to a site; it changes the whole point of the article into something much more encyclopedic. Dicklyon 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, having information on notable people does not make a website notable shelagh. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would that be relevant? Fan-1967 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because his comment indicated that the forums had information about notable people, where infact the information is provided by notable people and there is almost no information about them except that they post there. So his comment indicated that he doesn't even know what he is talking about. Heavenhelllord 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The forums are not fan forums HighInBC and ColourBurst. The forums are moderated by the notable authors. The notable authors moderate and post on the forums. shelagh 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should we be modifying WP:WEB, then, to take such things into account? Dicklyon 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You miss my point; having notable authors having forums is fine and all, but it doesn't confer notability (there's no "notability by association" criteria on Wikipedia), because it doesn't say anything about the site itself (other than "notable authors post there"). Again, what's the problem with finding reliable sources to support this site? ColourBurst 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if movie database gets an article, why not book database? —Hanuman Das 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the movie database gets thousands of times as many visitors, and is established and well-known, and is one of the most popular sites on the web? Fan-1967 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And because IMDb has a solid, long-established reputation, which this book database does not seem to posess (at least for now). Pascal.Tesson 05:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the Adult Film Database and Internet Adult Film Database? IMDb isn't the only film database on Wikipedia. Dunk the Lunk 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a number of people seem to think so, yet nobody gives a rationale relative to WP:WEB. What's up with that? Dicklyon 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's another good idea. I would expect you'd be all over proposing changes there since you haven't been able to suggest any way the page meets the present criteria. Dicklyon 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks pretty notable to me. I see no reason deletion. MrKing84 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary: Although people are pretty divided, nobody has yet made an attempt to say how any of these pages meet the criteria of WP:WEB, nor has anyone yet proposed a change to the criteria such that the page would be acceptable. I suggest we have no more comments unless they include such information, and delete all three if none is forthcoming. By the way, I have nothing against these pages and wouldn't mind them sticking around if there's some justification, but the issue came up here: Talk:Book#The_Internet_Book_Database.3F. Dicklyon 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice so a competitor wants to remove ibookdb from Wikipedia because his own site is better :) and would of course like to keep his own article ISBNdb.com here!! His own Alexa ranking is not great, BTW Heavenhelllord 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I just added that one to the list. Hopefully that's OK. Dicklyon 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the owner of the Internet Book Database so I will refrain from taking sides. However, this is fair - Delete one, delete them all. I did like the proposal to create one page about all the databases however. I'm sure the creators of each individual article will contribute if someone starts that article and redirects all the old ones to the new page. Sgd2z 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I already endorsed that idea. Not me, though. Dicklyon 20:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to do it and you did call it a sensible idea :) Heavenhelllord 20:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on guys. I did not say a thing about deleting the ibookdb.net article, all I was against is having a link to that article from Book page because that link seemed pretty arbitrary to me, not the article itself. I personally think everything under moon can be and should be described in Wikipedia -- if nobody links to it, and nobody searches for it then what's the harm? A couple of bytes on hard-disk somewhere? Amaltsev 20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a blogging site. However since we now have so many contenders for a book database how about linking to a list of book databases from the Book article Heavenhelllord 20:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a reasonable compromise I think, useful to actual readers of Wikipedia. I can probably dig through my notes and add some more databases there if needed. Notable or not. Amaltsev 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't particularly agree with some of the stuff on notability here (e.g. - Alexa Rankings). There needs to be some overhaul of WP:WEB. I can undersand Wikipedia doesn't need an article on every website out there but the WP:WEB criteria are not exactly perfect and there are thousands of completely useless articles on Wikipedia, including some on sites that have no place here but somehow deleting these book database articles has taken priority. Heavenhelllord 21:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that the Alexa test is not actually part of WP:WEB. Without the Alexa test, however, you still have lack of sources. ColourBurst 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the harm? The core of Wikipedia itself - Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. We have provisions for things that don't have sources but could reasonably get them, but this isn't the case here. ColourBurst 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them all into Bibliographic database? There's not much there, and the title is appropriate for handling all these online databases and more. Dicklyon 20:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In Category:Book Websites - there are several book meta search engines (isbn.nu, addall, bookfinder, biblio etc.) which are all basically the same thing and probably can all be merged into this new article as a subsection? Heavenhelllord 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above Killerhun00 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, per which above? When a discussion gets this complicated, you might want to be more specific. Fan-1967 00:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and possibly merge into a new article for online book databases. --- RockMFR 20:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Although I said I didn't want to comment originally I'm in favour of keeping all for 4 reasons 1) Iblist has over 65 000 articles or equivelent on books, authors, and series making it more notable than some foreign language wikipedia sites but without any financial backing. 2) Once editor status is granted Iblist and IBDof are fully editable and are effectively wikis. 3) Charles Pellegrino, L. E. Modesitt, Jack McDevitt, Lois McMaster Bujold all use IBDoF/IBlist for their official forums 4) Although they are not the largest websites in themselves they are the largest non-commercial (ie amazon etc) online book databases available on the internet and until one of them outstrips the others and becomes an 'IMDb for books' they all deserve fair representation on Wikipedia. Dunk the Lunk 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough to me. YankeeDoodle14 21:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I've started a merge into Bibliographic database, and put merge tags into the articles, and one more. There are probably others. Since people want to keep the info, but can't say how the articles square with WP:WEB, this seems like the way out. If I don't hear objections, I'll go ahead and make them redirect to the merged page. Dicklyon 22:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drageling[edit]

Drageling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a dragon type from a web comic (http://www.fantasycomic.com) that does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for websites. The comic itself doesn't have a wikipedia entry (that I could find). Polenth 05:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the comic isn't notable, a dragon type specific to the comic isn't either. --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comic isn't notable; neither is a character in it. Hello32020 21:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live Working demonstration of a Totally Energy Independent Farm Operation[edit]

Live Working demonstration of a Totally Energy Independent Farm Operation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

orphan article with one author. Author's contributions are limited to this single article. Most importantly, the article appears to be a personal promotion/advertisement, in violation of WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV Shaggorama 05:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE. nomination vote - Shaggorama 05:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Probable WP:COI. MER-C 09:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. MartinDK 10:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 10:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert.--Folantin 14:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have requested on the talk page for the article that the author provide references mentioned on the associated webpage for related articles shown there as clippings from "Furrow" magazine, "Progressive Farmer" and some unidentified newspaper. Those would go a ways toward satisfying notability. The title is cumbersome and overly specific. Info about the demonstration sawdust fueled boiler could be added to the Biofuel article in the history section, if the deletion here is successful. I do not feel that an article having one author is any ground whatsoever for deletion, and if it is by the founder of the company, who knows the subject better? Likewise there is no ground for deleting an article because its author has not written other articles. Don't bite the newbie, since he could probably add to the Biomass article, the Biofuel article and other farming and energy related articles. Edison 18:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Biomass/biofuel is a working principle nowadays, but is the farm in question notable? Robovski 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the Sirens[edit]

After the Sirens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Band plus label gives 29 distinct google hits[28], they haven't made an album yet, their one TV appearance looks to be rather minor (10 distinct Ghits), and no other WP:V reviews are found (one online review on smother.net only[29]). Label has only three artists, so not a major label either. Fram 05:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entry meets WP:MUSIC based on criterion #9, "Has won or placed in a major music competition." As mentioned in the entry, the band placed in the 2004 "Shake Stuff Up" competition (sponsored by Rolling Stone magazine, the Got Milk? campaign, and MTV) as the winner for the state of Massachusetts. Also, Fram is incorrect in stating that the band hasn't made an album yet. The band released "We Have No White Flags" in 2005. The 8-track release was briefly circulated independently before being picked up by Blue Duck Records. The album is distributed throughout New England in the United States as well as being readily available for international purchase online through various retailers. The album is also distributed in Japan exclusively by online retailer STM, whose label is scheduling a 2007 Japanese release of the band's forthcoming album (to be released in the USA on November 28). The band has also toured extensively around New England since 2003. The band's cable television debut (also mentioned in the entry) was on the Steelroots program on INSP, which wikipedia cites as reaching 21 million homes. The program itself has a viewership of 7 million. The band has also been featured on several major New England radio stations, including Boston giant WFNX, as well as a host of college radio stations across the United States. Rydorn 07:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An EP isn't an album, so they haven't released an album yet, and the album they will release is on a very small label. I don't think the "Shake Stuff Up" can count as a "major music competition" (compare to the "Major Music Award", which is of the level of Grammy and Mercury Prize: a Major Music Competition should be something like the Eurovision Song Contest, or Idol (yep, it's bad, but it's a major bad thing anyway). This is clearly a minor music competition: being sponsored by Rolling STone and MTV is completely different from being organised by them. From the website[30]: "The Shake Stuff Up Tour scouted local bands with the potential to become the next big thing. Two bands were selected in each city to face-off, head-to-head, in a battle of the bands. Check out the local market winners below": local bands, with potential, in a city/ So After the Sirens was the best of two unknown bands from Boston, Massachusetts... Online distribution doesn't really count, so what else have you got... Toured New England... New England is still not a country (as asked for by W:MUSIC), and anyway, it should be "reported in notable and verifiable sources.". So, one more criterium not met. The TV appearance: I can't verify it, it seems to have passed unremarked, and it doesn't meet one of the WP:MUSIC criteria either. In fact, nothing here is verifiable, and nothing meets WP:MUSIC... Fram 08:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the info above is added to the article and sourced. Chubbles1212 07:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly per Fram's response to Rydorn. Non-major award, no other evidence of notability. Xtifr tälk 11:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above research and an article that lacks assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Battle of the Bands → WP:NN ~ trialsanderrors 09:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trifler[edit]

Trifler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability has not been established. The one main editor the article is the person who invented the punctuation. LWizard @ 06:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP The trifler clearly communicates irony and sarcasm with people with education. You cannot delete this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.97.4.57 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP An appropriate quote... "The difference between stupid and intelligent people [...] is that intelligent people can handle subtlety." - Neal Stephenson. The smiley face is not and never will be an actual punctuation mark. The trifler, on the other hand, is here to stay. If you can't appreciate its value, you probably shouldn't be using it anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lips13 (talk • contribs) . — Lips13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. It's idiosyncratic WP:OR. Dicklyon 06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR, with very few ghits, none of which seem to be relevant. Also, I think the ":)" functions quite well, and is more widely accepted as being the standard. :) Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete - seems like something someone made up on a whim. Non-notable. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete You gotta be kidding... this is blatant OR. MartinDK 10:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:NFT. Looks like a made-up punctuation symbol. JIP | Talk 10:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR, WP:NFT. --Terence Ong (C | R) 14:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. As a hoax, nonsense, unverifiable, etc. etc. Spinach Dip 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC
  • Delete, WP:NFT. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.66 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP The trifler is a much more distinguished and mature use of punctuation than the juvenile "smiley face." I have observed an increasing number of instances of this up-and-coming punctuation mark. To delete this Wikipedia article would be a huge gaffe. -ALS The preceding semi-signed comment was added by User:207.237.241.129 — 207.237.241.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP Honeysuckle sways, to cast shadow dances on a fresh litter of pups. Granny apple green eyes meet burning beams of energy for the very first time. A giant bird startles the pup as the pilot noses down toward the airport. My puppy starts her journey into a world with no triflers, only people who know not the trifler existance - the very people who have recently started kicking at her. Folks we can't let this happen, because triflers help sustain good vibes that protect dogs|- --K B 06:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC) — K B Wilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonn nua[edit]

Tonn nua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Vanity article about non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Katr67 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete Alex Bakharev

Zidanist theory[edit]

Not notable neologism. Probably hoax Alex Bakharev 07:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No sources confirming a fourth film have been presented, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat 21:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 4 (film)[edit]

Resident Evil 4 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the third time it's up for nomination, this page is a waste of time and can't be cleaned up because there is nothing to clean it up with. None of the references are reputable. There is no page at IMDb about this movie, Jensen Ackles' management has released a statement saying he has never been contacted about this movie. There is a photo of Ali Larter from the previous movie, that has nothing to do with this one Firelement85 07:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR and Wikipedia is not a fan site. Highly speculative article about about non-existent movie. Filming hasn't even begun yet. Re-create when reliable sources are available and the article is able to contribute something of value to Wikipedia. MartinDK 10:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#CBALL.SkierRMH 10:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, unverifiable, WP:OR and please protect until the studio confirms the film is going to be produce. --Terence Ong (C | R) 14:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For awhile there were reports that RE4 was being made at the same time as RE3, but if this has turned out not to be the case, then this falls under the Crystal Ball rule. The article can be recreated if and when production of RE4 is officially announced. If such a production was planned but has been cancelled, that can be mentioned in either the article for RE3 or the overall RE franchise article. 23skidoo 14:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another article about a non-existent film.--Folantin 15:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are many other pages about upcoming films, this one is no different. Production of the film has been announced and is cited in the article. --Pinkkeith 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This film has been "upcoming" for more than a year now and still there is no confirmation from the studio. Production may have been anounced but this page does not cite it at all, the first reference states the name but they also state that Jensen Ackles is in talks for the lead role which this article says has never happened, it also says that the title is in no way confirmed to be "Afterlife", that may yet be the name of the third film. The link to where Ali Later says the film is in preproduction leads to a homepage on Resident Evil but I have been unable to find anywhere on the site where she mentions this film. Some of the other links also lead to no where or repeat another link. The references are total speculation. Firelement85 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Hujufusuzi 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth per Terence: quit crystal-balling. Moreschi 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right now, it's nothing more than speculation. Once filming starts, this will be a 'keepable' article because it will actually describe something that is sure of happening. Spinach Dip 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pinkkeith.--Notth 00:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of references on the page suggesting that the film is planned. --164.107.92.120 03:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The "references" almost all lead to hearsay, rumour, and speculation. This article can easily be recreated when the film is actually, you know, announced. — Haeleth Talk 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There has been no official announcement from the studio, and none of the sources are trustworthy trade publications. Jay32183 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep IGN has confirmed both name and that it's coming [32]. I've updated the first citation with the one from IGN. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That article is a year old and the heading is
Resident Evil: Afterlife Coming
Third film in game-based series shuffles one step closer.
This wiki article is about the fourth film this has been a major problem with the sequals as the third film may yet be titled Afterlife instead of Extinction, the reference is no more useful than any of the others. Firelement85 10:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a crystal ball Killerhun00 23:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until a genuinely Reliable Source (not a movie rumor site) reports that at least a hundred people have sworn under oath that filming has actually begun, with a director, and a cast, and a script. Fan-1967 00:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect per many above. Markovich292 22:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, there was an equal number of keep, transwiki and delete votes, the but the main problem is that non of it is sourced, thus violating WP:CITE and WP:V, not worth the transwiki and AFD isn't a vote. Jaranda wat's sup 01:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Marines slang[edit]

Royal Marines slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An unmaintainable list of (military urban) dictionary definitions. Entirely unverified original research. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep A similar article for US Navy slang is being transwikied. I think that might be a good compromise, as this list has the potential to be endless, but slang is of interest to many people. Kerowyn Leave a note 09:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment By your "Keep" vote are you implying that you also want this article to remain in Wikipedia? I certainly wasn't suggesting that these definitions couldn't exist in Wikitionary. (Although, frankly, I doubt most of them would meet Wikitionary's standards of attestation.) -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki then delete per nom. MER-C 09:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So much text, so few sources. Where is the proof of notability? MartinDK 09:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as Wiktionary appendix. --Howrealisreal 17:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments on gay slang; also note the existence of Category:Glossaries and Category:Terminology and more specific military related categories. Carlossuarez46 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is that this comment, where you accuse that AfD nomination of being inherently homophobic? I have raised legitimate problems with this article, citing some of Wikipedia's core policies, that you have failed to address. You have also invoked Uncle G's "If article X then article Y" fallacy, which I think speaks for itself. Finally, the implication that I am prejudiced against members of the Royal Marines and homosexuals (I also voted to have that article deleted) is utterly preposterous, extremely offensive and completely untrue. -- IslaySolomon | talk 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, ignoring several votes that was votestacked here and some of the very new users, and most of the article read like original research anyways. Jaranda wat's sup 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken and Rice[edit]

Chicken and Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reads like an ad. Half the article cannot be verified using reliable sources and the article uses weasel words galore to verify it self. Delete per WP:NOR MartinDK 07:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have opened a related afd on Hallo Berlin Bwithh 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI2 I have opened a related cfd on Category:Tourist_dining. Bwithh 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide/directory/advertising service. Largely original research. Two articles are cited, but neither mention "Chicken and Rice". -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oops, actually there is a link to an interview with a chef who mentions eating at a "Halal Gyro and Chicken cart". But I don't think that, or a nomination for the "Vendys", amount to anything close to notability. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That is indeed exactly the problem. It is a food cart operated by (as far as I could tell form the article, no sources given) a maximum of 4 people. I might as well be doing an article on the local hotdog stand next to work. That seems pretty popular too and even has a heater during winter. Nevermind sources or notability, I'll just refer to some award hosted by a free webhosting provider. MartinDK 11:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see how it asserts notability. Amists talk • contribs 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculous. "Dominance over other vendors" - that's really going to be NPOV, isn't it?--Folantin 15:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I saw this article a couple weeks ago, so the last time I passed through the city, I went past 53rd and 6th and there wasn't any halal food cart there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I was there at the wrong hours. Anyway, most of this article is unreferenced--the only verifiable thing is that the place exists and has a following. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a thorough article, but without sources that directly concern the food cart itself, it is not sufficiently independently verified.-- danntm T C 16:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete encyclopedically non-notable. Wikipedia is not a dining guide. I work in this area and occasionally go to carts like these, but wikipedia is not an open advertising space/directory for random food carts. Going off to afd Hallo Berlin now .Bwithh 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep first under WP:NOT there is nowhere where it says Wikipedia is not a place for looking up restaurants as long as the article is non-bias and non-advert. This article is neither. On top of that this place is VERY notable. Quick research shows that this site has been covered by multiple independent sources stating "I work in this area and occasionally go to carts like these, but wikipedia is not an open advertising space/directory for random food carts" is a completely irrelevent argument because the notability of "a food cart" compared to that of Chicken and Rice is the same thing as saying I have met people therefore George W. Bush is no different. This stand is a has been cited as a place for strengthening the muslim communities in New York and is a constant hot spot in New York for food. Secondly, the article is CITED, just because there are a few uncited sources does not warrent a delete. New York city is a large city, how is nominations for the vendy award not notable? Valoem talk 22:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE clearly states that Wikipedia is not a travel guide or restaurant guide. MartinDK 22:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment this is not a travel guide, it is a cited place of interest that has been cited by multiple indepedent sources and has won awards. Secondly Wikipedia does include restuarants nowhere on that page does it say otherwise. That page also made it clear that small cafes and such as not notable per Wikipedia, however a cited awarded dining location is. Valoem talk 22:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a place for strengthening the muslim communities in New York... eh? Bwithh 06:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. meshach 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This place consistently has fifty people and more waiting in line. I would bet that no other food cart has this kind of following. I suppose if it would help I could do a quick week long photo survey to demonstrate this.--DataSurfer 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this page. Being a Chicken and Rice addict I can verify it. By the way if you don't think you can verify the article think again- look at the October 23rd article in the NY Post or Daily News, there was a murder near the stand and they speak of the popularity of the stand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.65 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete For every band there are 5 food carts. I see no indication of notability other than the fact that someone got stabbed near them. That is not notability. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Restated Keep First thing to KEEP in mind AFD is not a vote please dont leave per someone if there is already counter-argument to that argument. Before anyone votes please read through this response. I am sorry, but I am very busy right now with school, however I agree per nom that this article needs to be cleaned of word weasels in order to remain NPOV. One that is cleared this article should pass AfD. Once I have cleaned the article I will update this page.

First of all the Street Vendor Project, Vendy awards is a New York City sponsored public program run by Urban Justice [33] therefore winning the Vendy Awards is notable since it is a public program of New York City. A statement of "street vendors" in my town has also won an award is irrelavent since NYC is among the most notable cities in the world. Also this article pass notability and is not a self promotion since it has been cited by multiple indepedent sources. I will go over a list of citations.

      • 1. Chicken and Rice is an integral part of student life at New York University. It is a major hot spot for food among NYU students. [34]
      • 2. The stabbing involved was directly related to the food served by the vendor. The lines can grow so long that a person stab another person for "cutting in line". Name me another food stand that can do this. [35]
      • 3. Chicken and Rice has won a notable award from a public service of New York City. It is has been cited as "uniting the Muslim community from the tri-state area and beyond in their search for halal food" [36]
      • 4. As both a Wikipedia editor with a good history and a customer of Chicken and Rice, I can be a primary source to this event. All of the information on the page is true minus the POV comments. The food itself is amazing and is more notable than even the Grease Trucks and can generate unbelievable lines. [37] I live in Princeton, New Jersey and have travelled countless times to NYC just for a platter. Many of my peers have done the same. I have cited all the claims. Valoem talk 08:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment AfD is a voting process. You cannot "Restate" your keep and tell everyone else they cannot vote because of it. Doesn't matter if you are in school. If you continue this way you are disrupting the voting process/AfD. People do not make reliable sources. Stop making up your own policies, they are bogus. MartinDK 08:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't a voting proccess, but he is right that you should not Summeries in bold your opinion more than once as it can be confusing to the closing admin. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deeply apologize for not staying cool. The edit he made has since been change by him. The original edit that I reacted so sharply to can be seen here [38] MartinDK 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • quote:"uniting the Muslim community from the tri-state area and beyond in their search for halal food".... um, yeah, its really not so hard to find halal food in the tri-state area, certainly not hard enough to unite the community in a quest. Bwithh 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • quote:As both a Wikipedia editor with a good history and a customer of Chicken and Rice, I can be a primary source to this event - you're welcome to start your own wiki based on this pioneering idea of reliable primary sources. but it's totally alien and unacceptable to this wiki encyclopedia Bwithh 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response One can use a primary source to establish facts, just not for establishing notability. Many of the statement in that article can be sourced by simply going to Chicken and Rice. I was stating that I have been there and can confirm its accuracy (as can anyone) not that I was trying to create a new precedence. Much of the facts are cited on the homepage of the Chicken and Rice as well. Valoem talk 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I live in Manhattan and I've passed by this specific food cart many times by walking or driving. So what? I'm not denying that this cart exists Bwithh 19:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have cleaned the entire article I have removed word weasels and cited information many from primary sources.
  • Comment at MartinDK Please watch your mannerism on Wikipedia. You are still new to Wikipedia please be aware of the rules and to not start a flame war. AfD is not a vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette please read the rules. And you can restated a keep. I have work hard to keep articles on Wikipedia please view my history. Your accusation of me disrupting this policies is an assumtion of bad faith which is against Wikipedia process. It is very clear I am acting in good faith. Please do not flame or discourage others from editing wikipedia it is against WP policy. Valoem talk 08:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since I am now being threatened on my talk page by the above editor to shut up I will leave this to others. MartinDK 08:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Threatened? That is just underhanded. I did not threaten you, I merely told you to not flame people when talking to them Valoem talk 09:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert-style mean that the page reeks of POV, and the notability seems to be questionable at best. Moreschi 10:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article passes WP:V since many citations are sourced. So it passes WP:Notability since it has been cited by multiple indepedent sources. Also the article has been cleaned already please tell me what else needs to be clean and I will do so. Valoem talk 11:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have restored my former edit. I stated that Wikipedia is not a vote, because a few editors were saying the same thing. The reason why I said "Before anyone votes please read through this response" is because I tried by best to disprove many of the reasons why this article was nominated in the first place. I cited sources to disprove WP:OR and that this article was WP:V. I wanted to put an emphysis on what I said which is why asked people to read my comment. However this statement was irrelevant to the debate which is why I removed it not because I was trying to hide something. Also my statement about being busy with school was because I initially did not have time to edit the Chicken and Rice article so I was hoping someone else could, however I did so anyways, which is why I removed that statement as well. Because of issues unrelated to this AfD I was forced to put it back in. Valoem talk 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Falafel slay stuns kin". Good Lord. WP:NOT an advertising service for food carts that received some passing notoriety. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree, it passes the notability test. I do not seem to understand where this is an advertisement, all word weasels have been removed please specify. Valoem talk 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for Pete's sake. A list of New York City restaurants (let alone "food carts") that regularly have "50 people in line" could be a category unto itself.Vafthrudnir 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment once again please read the entire discussion. I will say again, it has been nominated the Vendy Awards which is sponsored by Urban Justice an NYC public program. Secondly Street Cart NEVER get 50 people daily in a line. If you know of others that have not been nominated, then you have a counter argument. Valoem talk 05:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; if you get past the inherent bias against the subject, what you've got here is a well-written, referenced article on something that appears locally notable. I don't think people are treating this article fairly. Everyking 04:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; This is actually a well known New York establishment, although the write-up should do more to establish it's notability. It has been a contender for several Vendy awards in New York, which I believe qualifies it via the Wikiproject: Food and Drink's notability guidelines. Also, the recent stabbing there was very big in the local news. --DDG 17:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Easyas12c 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any particular reason Easyas12c? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This is because Valoem asks these wikifriends of his to come here on their talk pages. I guess he is allowed to do that though and they don't really provide any new arguments. But it would be nice to know why rather than a blank suggestion. MartinDK 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears he only asked one person for opinion. Atleast only one that linked here, see What links here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not just this one person - only a few instances of "opinion canvassing". but its not a good trend. I'm not sure if this variety of vote-stacking is technically out of order, but it's just not cricket. I could selectively post messages "asking for their opinion" on the talk pages of editors I know have deletionist tendencies or are friendly with me, and I could post an one-sided perception of the debate on the talk pages of admins too, but I don't do it because its not in the spirit of afd Bwithh 19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a blatant example of vote-stacking. Another "asking for their opinion" post [39]. Possible "working the ref" attempt [40]. I'm sure these were done in good faith (and the admin gave a fine neutral response), but I don't think this is appropriate for afd. Should I and MartinDK actively go around canvassing deletionists and "briefing" admins? These are things I've never done, and I've spent a lot of time on afd - and tehse are things I won't do Bwithh 19:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I ignored the vote Jaranda wat's sup 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I have only asked for the opinion of EveryKing and Easyas12c. My calling for Easyas12c was more because he is an inclusionist, however I did not ask him to say keep, just what he felt given the circumstances, however for Everyking, it was completely neutral. I wasn't asking Mailer Diablo for an opinion on the AfD itself, just who he felt had the stronger argument. In fact you have asked me for my opinoin for several AfD as well, it happens all the time. I see nothing wrong with asking for notable Wikipedia editors for opinions, it is not the same asking sockpuppets and random people. Valoem talk 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I asked for opinions, also see WP is not paper therefore since the article has been cited and notability is established this should be maintained. Valoem talk 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also first and foremost an encyclopedia and is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Notability criteria are encylcopedic notability criteria. Bwithh 19:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discrimination is based on Notability, which this passes. Valoem talk 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the notability guidelines is to serve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia Bwithh 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • UPDATE: I have added more citation and removed a few more Word Weasel I found, I also added new sources. Primary source is not OR, but a source that can be easily confirmable by simply going to Chicken and Rice. Valoem talk 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Its a new york land mark Darklordabc 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If a push cart is a New York landmark then apparently I haven't missed much which I find strange given what I have otherwise heard of New York as a great place to visit. Seriously, am I the only one who finds this devotion to a food cart a little too much? I can understand they serve great food but this is just an odd AfD when you really think about it. But that is just my two cents, you can disregard them if you disagree. Happy editing everyone, MartinDK 21:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with MartinDK. While this article is now less POV in tone, it's still just an article about a food cart. I'm trying to imagine what would happen if every popular local mobile food vendor in Shanghai or Mexico City or wherever were to get their own Wikipedia article. Can I write a page documenting the history of my friendly neighbourhood ice cream van? It just seems an odd thing to have in an encyclopaedia. --Folantin 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I disagree, all POV references have been removed, the article most certainly establish notability as there was both a stabbing over the food because of the demand and the nomination for top 4 food cart's in New York City. This article was nominated for POV and OR and based off my reading both have been removed. Also, what do you mean just a food cart? Johnathan Wendel is "just" video game player, Charles Carl Roberts is "just" a murderer, and the Wellesley College Senate bus is "just" a bus. Are you suggesting that food carts can not have articles despite notability claims? Of course a small cart in Shanghai won't get an article unless it establishes notability. If that cart in Shanghai is rank one of the best food carts in China then it most certainly deserves an article. Wikipedia is not bias. Simpleerob 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above account's sole purpose seems to be debating on AfD's. MartinDK 22:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doing AfD's, yes, (non-biasly of course) it is easier to do AfD then search for articles with vandalism or add information, however I have been adding information recently. Simpleerob 05:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article passes WP:CORP criteria on more than one level and is not a self-promotion. "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. " and the subject's services pass "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" Killerhun00 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, AFD is not a vote. It looks like one, it has a lot in common with one, but it isn't a vote. It's an attempt to achieve a consensus decision, or failing that, to measure community feeling. The closing admin uses the page to make a decision, considering first the weight of argument, and then perhaps the weight of numbers. Mistakes happen, which is why WP:DRV exists. The raw numbers are a part of the process, sometimes they they are even the major part of it, but it's not a vote.
Regarding this specific page, merge to food cart. Most of this article should be chopped, but there are things in there that are not in food cart, such as a description of how the cart works, typical food. Maybe the bit about customer demographics and probably the stabbing. I think there is enough mentions of Chicken and Rice to earn it a line in 'food cart' but not an entire article of its own. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as a repost of deleted material (CSD G4). cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunchies[edit]

Bunchies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article recreated despite previous AfD reuslting in delete. Prod tag contested. The article and its notability cannot be verified and is being recreated. MartinDK 08:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fits WP:SPAM criteria somewhat for advertising. Also the # of ghits can be misleading/confusing. Still appears that they're "those freaky green galloping mutant giraffe thingies". NN. SkierRMH 10:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, tagged for speedy to determine eligibility for speedy deletion as repost. MER-C 10:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks. I was unsure if I was allowed to do that after the prod tag was disputed. MartinDK 10:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recreation of deleted article, spam. --Terence Ong (C | R) 14:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hops Ball[edit]

Hops Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Google hasn't heard of this. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Weregerbil 09:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into dodgeball/variations thereof.SkierRMH 10:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be part of a wider hoax involving the sock puppets Quillandpaper73 Clonestamper and Dingleberryfinn and also involving the article Footbasket. Made up in school one day. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. Article's talk page is plagued with the same kind of sockpuppetry as other recent hoax articles, such as Footbasket and Theodore Macus--none of which have sources, nor can any be found (How can you know the history of a sport, as well as all the rules, and not know the source?)--and which all feature the same core group of users and IPs conversing about the subject, making extremely vague claims that they saw or heard of the subject recently, followed by the assertion that Google can not be used as it is not a reliable method of searching. Wavy G 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax and block those sockpuppets who created it and warn the anon user who removed the afd template. Storm05 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt this article and other ones made by this vandal and his sockpuppets, per WP:VANDAL, WP:CSD G3 and G5, WP:SNOW. They all should've been turned into a smoking craters the first day on AfD. Tubezone 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was "speedy" delete as an advertisement. --Coredesat 21:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Logic (company)[edit]

Bumping from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 09:22Z

  • Delete-only "source" cited is self-promotional, only other ghits are to self-written ads on open promotional sites. Fails WP:CORP (no non-trivial mentions in third-party sources, and certainly not of a size to meet the other criteria). Seraphimblade 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - also fits WP:SPAM category for advertising.SkierRMH 10:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam or just Delete. Xtifr tälk 11:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, obvious spam, a business not well known to the general public. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. As 100% adertisement. Spinach Dip 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as blatant spammy advert. Hello32020 21:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete as spam, self-advertising. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by Cholmes75. (aeropagitica) 15:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fonebox[edit]

Bumping from speedy. Australian VoiP provider. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 09:26Z

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 10:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources cited but own website, article appears purely promotional. Google doesn't seem to turn up any pages which are not self-created or trivial mentions on "list of provider" sites. Fails WP:CORP on all counts. Seraphimblade 10:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also fits the WP:SPAM criteria for advertising.SkierRMH 10:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletebasket. --Coredesat 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footbasket[edit]

Footbasket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Weregerbil 09:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I resent that. Did you happen to watch Fox yesterday (Sunday, for Australian, Queensland viewers)? You would have seen this game on there, the Cowboys v Hammerheads. I don't see why it's being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quillandpaper73 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete for a lack of verifiability (Google gives pages in Spanish and Japanese for some reason). Certainly there's no indication that the league cited in the article exists, and what little I can muddle out from the Spanish sources suggests that they're using the term in some other way. Calling it something made up in school one day is perhaps a bit harsh, but it doesn't seem to have much currency in the wider world. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a nonsense non-notable article, unless reliable sources can be provided within five days. (aeropagitica) 10:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that was the aim, if you read the discussion you will see I asked if other people had seen it. That way, I would be able to get help finding the sources. Because as written in the article, it is not yet extremely popular. However, if other people had seen it, they too would find sources. Also, are you aware of Google's indexing process? It takes quite awhile to actually have a site enter the database, as a result, with Footbasket only being given regular air-time recently, the site would probably not be indexed yet. As scary as it may be, google does not know all the secrets, including the meaning of life. And also, what about the notion of civilty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. As oppossed to simply whacking a 'delete me' sign.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quillandpaper73 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 November 2006
  • Delete First of all it is not uncivil to suggest that an article be deleted. But any such discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. Delete per nomination. However, if other people had seen it, they too would find sources.. Ah, can I have an article about my new game Headball hoping that more people will add sources without me having to prove its notability or even existence? MartinDK 10:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, relatively obscure and 'new' sport. From the article;
    • "Fasket League" gets 0 ghits.
    • 'Cape Regina Ramblers' gets 0 ghits.
    • I do not see the "creator's" names 'Dave and Mike Walker' and "John Sull" clearly linked to the game (via ghits),
    • the original team 'the razors' is not linked to the game.
  • So, I think we have a clear case of NN here.SkierRMH 10:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverified and probably made up in school one day. The article's talk page stinks of sock puppetry. I think Hops Ball may also be part of a wider hoax involving the possible sock puppets Quillandpaper73 Clonestamper and Dingleberryfinn. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Ah, can I have an article about my new game Headball hoping that more people will add sources without me having to prove its notability or even existence?' Oh, I wasn't aware that other people had played this game, other people around the world, other people from a variety of backgrounds. But sure, if this game has been aired on international television, then post it. But wait, that's right, it hasn't been aired on international television, so I think your argument is flawed there. But as you are speaking with ad captandum, I think I shall ignore your arguments altogether.

    Just a question, when did Google become the be all and end all? I realise that yes, it's a good search engine, but I wasn't aware it was everything. But to follow the logic of my friend over here, as a google search for my thesis on certain topics reveals no hits, does that mean the topic does not exist?

    Finally mate, it's a bit hard to make a 'made in school' notion when you don't attend school, wouldn't you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quillandpaper73 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 13 November 2006

    Uhh, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about Google being the end-all be-all. Google is a search engine, plain and simple. If something as well known as, say, a publicly broadcast sport is documented somewhere on the Internet, chances are, Google will find it. Are you suggesting that there are certain subjects that Google can't find? Wavy G 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Wikipedia is not for thing made up in school one day" is the title of a widely cited Wikipedia notability guideline. It does not literally refer only to things that were made up in an actual school over the course of a single day. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do believe there is a key difference between 'it is classed under things made up in school one day' and 'probably made up in school one day'. Sure, to the experienced person, it may read the same. But for someone new who only knows the rules, it reads as claiming I am a juvenile seeking to cause havoc. And as the wiki ettiquite guidelines go, you should be clear to newcomers, I'm sorry I expected such behaviour here.
  • Delete hoax. Check out the talk page for a good laugh. All those people happened to "catch the game on Fox yesterday," yet, no one else can manage to scrounge ANY information about this on the Internet??? Wavy G 18:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to unverifiability and failure to meet notability criterion "be described by multiple independent reliable sources" per WP:N JGardner 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no hits in Ebbsco's Australia/New Zealand reference centre for footbasket so distinct verifiability problems. The television guide for Sunday in Australia shows no matches of footbasket being broadcast on Fox Sports. Should be placed in the wastepaper basket. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yumm... a hoax complete with a three-headed sockpuppet and the most ridiculous talk page I've seen. --The Way 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, 4-headed sockpuppet! You forgot User:Sadasdas And His Redirect-Vandalisms. 68.39.174.238 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted for a third time as this AfD was being created (sorry). Non-notable company as per WP:CORP; also blogs are not considered reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movaya Wireless[edit]

Bumped from speedy. Probably does not meet WP:CORP. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 09:47Z

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delarun[edit]

Delarun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disputed prod. This is an article on a fan-run game server with no referenced assertion of notability. Suggest deletion as a non-notable original creation per WP:WEB/WP:NOT. --Muchness 09:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Stub about unnotable server. The links don't lead to anything remotely of interest to Wikipedia either. MartinDK 09:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pure gamecruft. MER-C 11:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I personally feel the article is doing no harm and over time, the group responsible for it will probably update it with myth's & legends of the world. This is the way most NWN server worlds go, so I think this one needs the time to follow.... Fantasy 14:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-fails WP:WEB, cannot find any secondary source mentions or awards, and criterion 3 would seem not to apply. Seraphimblade 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Jaranda wat's sup 01:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakkosuomi[edit]

Pakkosuomi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is just a crude copy of the starting section of the article Mandatory Swedish. The term is never used in the regular society and it is also not an established term, but en extremely marginal one. The only ones who use it are fennophiles, who uses it as a counterweight, as a justification for their own term "Mandatory Swedish" (Pakkoruotsi). --MoRsE 09:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a collection of every fact and oddity known to mankind. Whatever information of value in the article can be easily merged into other relating articles. MartinDK 10:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The information it already in the Mandatory Swedish article too. MoRsE 10:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to mandatory Swedish. Pakkosuomi does not deserve a separate article, but it should still be a search term. JIP | Talk 10:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. --Coredesat 21:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Arredi[edit]

David Arredi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:BIO. Soccer player for a fifth tier amateur team, never played professionally. 22 distinct Google hits[41], most from Wiki's and similar sites. I'll nominate the other players of the squad (if they haven't played professionally elsewhere) here as well. Fram 10:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

  • Delete all per nom. All of these articles consist of one sentence (and occasionally another on hobbies) like this:


MER-C 11:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cranium: Turbo Edition[edit]

Cranium: Turbo Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN variation on Cranium; not notable in own right. Article content is just a game guide; Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Prod contested. Percy Snoodle 11:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to Cranium (board game). Catchpole 15:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The game is a variant but differs in a number of significant ways. If it were improved, I would change my vote to keep. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This variant can be adequately covered as a subsection of Cranium article --RoninBKETC 06:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect as above. Robovski 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MiteArrest[edit]

MiteArrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 11:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I see no case made in the article for why MiteArrest is notable; it reads like a technical advert. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 21 non-wiki ghits. Unverifiable. MER-C 11:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and above comments. Chris Kreider 11:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one ignores and boldly excises the blatant product advertising in the first three and last sections, the remainder of this article, containing substantial content and references on the subject of diseases of laboratory rodents, would make a good start to an article on diseases of laboratory rats and mice, which can be a sub-article of brown rat#Brown_rats_in_science and House mouse#Laboratory_mice and can be formatted analogously to diseases of the honey bee. No deletion is thus required. Uncle G 12:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is SPAM, and it would require a substantial re-write to turn the article into something other than an advertisement. In fact, doesn't that reflect the exact criteria for a speedy delete? OfficeGirl 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nolo contendere, this is a product. But the author has gone to the trouble of: a) citing alternatives even if no similar product is available, and b) provided peer reviewed scientific references. Edit if you are capable. Do not delete.User:drvibe 18:15, 13 November 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Vsundar (talk • contribs) 23:50, 13 November 2006, creator of the article being discussed (see history here) FYI OfficeGirl 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all that is present in the article is the same that you would see accompanying advertisements for a drug, such as the accompanying full page of small print text that comes with an ad for a new birth control patch or low-dose pill, etc. "Edit if you are capable"-- requires some scientific knowledge and a COMPLETE re-write. Is anyone ready, willing and able to do such a complete re-write? And just because there is a portion of scientific information included in the article, does that justify an article blatantly promoting a brand-name product by the brand-name? The name of this article is a commercial product, which might not even be a notable commercial product. OfficeGirl 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Macus[edit]

Theodore Macus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hoax. Zero sources. "Well known" yet zero google hits on name. Claims to have won a Young Tall Poppy award but YTP's list of award winners does not list him[42]. Claims to have won an Australian Academy of Science award but AAoS's list of award winners does not list him[43]. Seems like a whole drawerful of socks whose contributions systematically have the problem of zero sources and zero google presence... Weregerbil 11:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete From the edit history this looks to me like just another part of the sock puppetry already surrounding Footbasket and Hops Ball (see above). Even if it's not, it's still an unverified probable hoax per nom. -- IslaySolomon | talk 11:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All of these hoaxes share one thing... the author seems to be able to write articles without sources after which he/she explains on the talk that the article must not be deleted yet because sources are still being looked for. Also, he/she consistently tries to convince us that Google can't be used. Apparently the author posses some kind of magical ability to write articles without knowing the sources. Well, where did the information come from then? If these hoaxes can't be speedy deleted I say slap them all together in one AfD. MartinDK 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant hoax. Even if it was true it would fail for being an autobiography. Try harder or much better... stop trying to fool us. MartinDK 11:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - No assertion of ntability. Chris Kreider 11:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [edit conflict]Delete per nom. There's no proof whatsoever that he exists. Peculiarly, the body he's claimed to be involved with may exist - Google throws up an "Australian Institute for Policy and Science", some of the pages of which are headed "Australian Institute for Political Science" on the search results. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and Ban the creator(s) for awhile: I don't see why we're even discussing all of these hoaxes by the same people/person. They've made a bunch of these hoaxes, all done in the same way. It's clear. An admin needs to close all these and be done with it. --The Way 07:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt this article and other ones made by this vandal and his sockpuppets, per WP:VANDAL, WP:CSD G3 and G5, WP:SNOW. They all should've been turned into a smoking craters the first day on AfD. Tubezone 01:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill vicenzino[edit]

Bill vicenzino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questionable notability, no evidence provided to meet WP:PROF. Contested prod. MER-C 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be the lead author of a study that has gotten some press, though this needs to be indicated in the article. [44] [45]. johnpseudo 16:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still appears to be below the threshold of notability. "vicenzino manipulations" (as a phrase) gives zero Google hits. GregorB 22:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep leader of many studies which have been published in journals around the world, re; google hits over 500 hits under vicenzino manipulations, agreed the direct phrase was not found but did outline the large number of studies vicenzino is asociated with— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondbobby (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, per Johnpseudo. 26 publications listed on GScholar, and seems fairly prominent from his UQ staff bio. Seriously in need of cleanup, though. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unenthusiastic Keep. The NYTimes article about his work is enough to establish notability, despite the poor state of the article. Demiurge 21:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by Mailer diablo. (aeropagitica) 15:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master Crane[edit]

Master Crane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 11:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaaravan Nalam[edit]

Yaaravan Nalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • I've searched the entire net for hours and I have not come across ANY article that provides mention of this film. Also note that all these articles provide the same trivia as Hello Zindagi, Aaval and Ivan Yaaro, that is that these so called "films" are being shot at a budget of Rs. 30 million and these articles have been created on the same day. These articles have also been created in a mere gap of 13 minutes by the same person, which is bound to raise suspicion. I suspect the article has been purposely created - pure fancruft. Therefore, I propose this article be deleted because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It also fails WP:V. -- Visual planet 12:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zero ghits. MER-C 12:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if it's verifiable, it's non-notable if it hasn't even been released. johnpseudo 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep: I have enclosed information by a letter from Madhavan about his projects. This is a e-mail I received from Mr Madhavan himself, a friend of mine. He has confirmed these films. Proof is here. [47] Prince Godfather 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Delete : I'm sorry if I'm being rude but this is utter nonsense. Obviously User:Prince Godfather mistakes us for fools. Firstly, that could have been User:Prince Godfather faking as the actor himself, heck, it could have been anyone. And how in the world would you expect me to believe that the letter that you have brought up has been written by Madhavan himself? The so called proof User:Prince Godfather has provided links to a FANSITE. Don't you think Madhavan has better work to do than to come to Wikipedia and watch us nominating his articles for deletion and then logging on to that fanclub site and emailing User:Prince Godfather with a letter confirming these films?. And why would "he" even provide us with his email address? So that his fans can mob him with fan mails? Sorry, but i'm definitely not buying it! Please provide a more believablebetter reason. You can bring this issue to anyone on Wikipedia and I am sure they would think the same. -- Visual planet 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article makes no attempt at establishing notability and a google search turns up zilch. The above confirmation letter, regardless if it is actually from Madhavan, adds nothing substantial to this discussion to establish the film's notability. Feel free to bring the article back once the film has actually been released with some independent links attesting to its notoriety. As an aside, is it possible that Mr Madhavan was once a civil servant in Nigeria? JGardner 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a definite hoax, per the wonderfully hilarious "email" that the film star sent to the article's auther after reading a Wikipedia AfD. Classic. Wavy G 23:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's up with all these mildly amusing hoax AfDs today? --The Way 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I warned you guys: Wikipedia is now completely full of any possible original content, and the only thing left to submit is poorly conceived hoaxes like this. Wavy G 08:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Can be recreated when/if more reliable sources cover this movie. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zindagi[edit]

Hello Zindagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • I've searched the entire net for hours and I have not come across ANY article that provides mention of this film. Also note that all these articles provide the same trivia as Yaaravan Nalam, Aaval and Ivan Yaaro, that is that these so called "films" are being shot at a budget of Rs. 30 million and these articles have been created on the same day. These articles have also been created in a mere gap of 13 minutes by the same person, which is bound to raise suspicion. I suspect the article has been purposely created - pure fancruft. Therefore, I propose this article be deleted because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I can only find ONE article regarding the film ----> [48] which isn't really reliable because if at all such a film exists, surely it must have other articles providing mention to it, no? It also fails WP:V. -- Visual planet 12:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, non-verifiable. johnpseudo 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep: I have enclosed information by a letter from Madhavan about his projects. This is a e-mail I received from Mr Madhavan himself, a friend of mine. He has confirmed these films. Proof is here. [49] Prince Godfather 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Delete : I'm sorry if I'm being rude but this is utter nonsense. Obviously User:Prince Godfather mistakes us for fools. Firstly, that could have been User:Prince Godfather faking as the actor himself, heck, it could have been anyone. And how in the world would you expect me to believe that the letter that you have brought up has been written by Madhavan himself? The so called proof User:Prince Godfather has provided links to a FANSITE. Don't you think Madhavan has better work to do than to come to Wikipedia and watch us nominating his articles for deletion and then logging on to that fanclub site and emailing User:Prince Godfather with a letter confirming these films?. And why would "he" even provide us with his email address? So that his fans can mob him with fan mails? Sorry, but i'm definitely not buying it! Please provide a more believablebetter reason. You can bring this issue to anyone on Wikipedia and I am sure they would think the same. -- Visual planet 18:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax: why weren't all these films nominated together? --The Way 07:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notability found here [50] Prince Godfather 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaval[edit]

Aaval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • I've searched the entire net for hours and I have not come across ANY article that provides mention of this film. Also note that all these articles provide the same trivia as Hello Zindagi, Yaaravan Nalam and Ivan Yaaro, that is that these so called "films" are being shot at a budget of Rs. 30 million and these articles have been created on the same day. These articles have also been created in a mere gap of 13 minutes by the same person, which is bound to raise suspicion. I suspect the article has been purposely created - pure fancruft. Therefore, I propose this article be deleted because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It also fails WP:V. -- Visual planet 12:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, non-verifiable. johnpseudo 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete > Don't know whether that is அவல், அவள் or ஆவல்  Doctor Bruno  16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep: I have enclosed information by a letter from Madhavan about his projects. This is a e-mail I received from Mr Madhavan himself, a friend of mine. He has confirmed these films. Proof is here. [51] Prince Godfather 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Delete : I'm sorry if I'm being rude but this is utter nonsense. Obviously User:Prince Godfather mistakes us for fools. Firstly, that could have been User:Prince Godfather faking as the actor himself, heck, it could have been anyone. And how in the world would you expect me to believe that the letter that you have brought up has been written by Madhavan himself? The so called proof User:Prince Godfather has provided links to a FANSITE. Don't you think Madhavan has better work to do than to come to Wikipedia and watch us nominating his articles for deletion and then logging on to that fanclub site and emailing User:Prince Godfather with a letter confirming these films?. And why would "he" even provide us with his email address? So that his fans can mob him with fan mails? Sorry, but i'm definitely not buying it! Please provide a more believablebetter reason. You can bring this issue to anyone on Wikipedia and I am sure they would think the same. -- Visual planet 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The email still doesn't negate the fact that either the director of the film has no verification whatsoever. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - User:Prince Godfather believes us to be morons, obviously. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notability found here [52] Prince Godfather 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no mention of Aaval in this link. It only mentiones Hello Zindagi. Is this the correct link? GameKeeper 20:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aaval is the Ram Gopal Varma film as I stressed before. The text is written by Madhavan in a e-mail to his fan club. Prince Godfather 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Even if the film was mentioned in the link User:Prince Godfather provided, it clearly is untitled and all the information provided on the page would be false. Therefore, it should still be deleted and then re-created when more information surfaces. -- Visual planet 14:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete-as per all. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Yaaro[edit]

Ivan Yaaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment : Look fair proof [53] and [54]
  • I've searched the entire net for hours and I have not come across ANY article that provides mention of this film. Also note that all these articles provide the same trivia as Hello Zindagi, Aaval and Yaaravan Nalam, that is that these so called "films" are being shot at a budget of Rs. 30 million and these articles have been created on the same day. These articles have also been created in a mere gap of 13 minutes by the same person, which is bound to raise suspicion. I suspect the article has been purposely created - pure fancruft. Therefore, I propose this article be deleted because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It also fails WP:V. -- Visual planet 12:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, non-verifiable. johnpseudo 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep: I have enclosed information by a letter from Madhavan about his projects. This is a e-mail I received from Mr Madhavan himself, a friend of mine. He has confirmed these films. Proof is here. [55] Prince Godfather 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Delete : I'm sorry if I'm being rude but this is utter nonsense. Obviously User:Prince Godfather mistakes us for fools. Firstly, that could have been User:Prince Godfather faking as the actor himself, heck, it could have been anyone. And how in the world would you expect me to believe that the letter that you have brought up has been written by Madhavan himself? The so called proof User:Prince Godfather has provided links to a FANSITE. Don't you think Madhavan has better work to do than to come to Wikipedia and watch us nominating his articles for deletion and then logging on to that fanclub site and emailing User:Prince Godfather with a letter confirming these films?. And why would "he" even provide us with his email address? So that his fans can mob him with fan mails? Sorry, but i'm definitely not buying it! Please provide a more believablebetter reason. You can bring this issue to anyone on Wikipedia and I am sure they would think the same. -- Visual planet 18:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Nine Inch Nails album[edit]

Untitled Nine Inch Nails album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod: WP:NOT for crystal balls. Please add all referenced material to the main Nine Inch Nails article, and only create a new article when at least the title of the album is known. Prod contested because the article does not violate WP:NOT and does not contain speculation. In my view, it violates at least the spriti of WP:NOT, and the article will become utterly useless once the album will have a name and be released, thus making this a news report / crystal ball hybrid and not a timeless encyclopedia article. All artists are regularly known to say that they are "working on a new album" (and the same goes for writers, film directors, ...): that doesn't mean that we should create articles for them. We don't know who will collaborate, what will be the title, which tracks will be on it, ... Specifically for this article, the info on the tour is unrelated, the info on the unreleased tracks of "with teeth" is probably incorrect in that we have no later info that indeed any of thees tracks will apear on this, another, or no album. There will be an album, hopefully in 2007: why not just add this to the main NIN article and be done ith it? Notice also the so far uncontested prod's Untitled Green Day album and Untitled Dream Theater album, created by the same editor. Fram 12:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, recreate it when there's at least a title announced. Agree with nominator, referenced speculation can go in the NIN article. --Canley 14:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree. Let's wait until an official title is confirmed. Alex 15:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, you see these kinds of articles all the time, and with a release date approaching, little tidbits of information are leaked or revealed about upcoming albums, and this is where this stuff belongs. Besides, like it was forementioned, it does not violate WP:NOT or contain speculation, and when the title is announced, its not gonna take 2 seconds to move that page (unless you have dial-up or something). -- Reaper X 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom: once all the speculation is removed, there's nowhere near enough to justify a full article yet. The only official, verifiable information here is a year-old quote, a photo, and a tour schedule—none of which give any definitive information about an uncoming album. - Rynne 01:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not categorically opposed to articles on upcoming albums; if there's a track list or significant information out there, that's fine. However, in this case the album doesn't even have a title yet. The whole article could be summed up in one sentence on the Nine Inch Nails article: "Nine Inch Nails is purported to be working on a new, as-of-yet untitled, album due out sometime in 2007" --The Way 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that the information here is insubstantial, and could be summarized succinctly in the main NIN article, at least until a title or more substantial information about the album is known.  Tabanger  01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhoom 3[edit]

Dhoom 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • As per a recent interview with director Sanjay Gadhvi, he has clearly stated "I am not making another Dhoom after this". He has also said that "In fact, a Dhoom 3 hasn’t yet been planned. Like any producer would do, Adi is not thinking too far ahead and wants to see the response to Dhoom 2 before planning another film. And had I been the producer I would have had different directors for every two Dhoom films. How differently can I shoot a chat between Abhishek and Uday? As for me, like the game of soccer, I want to change directions... I would rather make a family drama next.". This is concrete evidence that the film has not been confirmed and the director has NO plans of directing the next film even if there is one, which hasn't even been planned yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article therefore must be deleted. Here is a link to the interview : ----> [56]. -- Visual planet 12:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow, VP's quote seems pretty open-and-shut. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Minamoto clan. Merge at your convenience. El_C 14:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genji (clan)[edit]

Genji (clan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Articles already exist for Minamoto clan and Hikaru Genji, the two nearly unrelated topics which this article attempts to cover in one fell swoop. This should be either deleted entirely, or made a redirect to Minamoto clan, which has a "see also" for Hikaru Genji as well. LordAmeth 13:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably that is the right action. I think I created the original article when there was a confusing entry on Genji which mixes up two totally different Genjis.Poisonotter 13:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Hujufusuzi 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Minamoto clan (or there might actually be a case for merging the other way - which is the more common usage?). Since they're the same clan, use the same article. ColourBurst 17:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hikaru Genji and redirect to Minamoto clan. Fg2 21:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karter[edit]

Karter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC, obscure results on Google, little context and content. Crunk 13:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. From the artist's webpage[57]: "Karter is proud of the fact that to this day not one of his releases has ever been sold mainstream". Non-notable. johnpseudo 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex's DBZ RPG[edit]

Alex's DBZ RPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

web content with only 42 google hits for the article name. References are either directly from the web content itself, lack information on the subject(i.e. just a link to the page with no information), or completely uncheckable(e.g. the personal interview with no context) i kan reed 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Personal interview cited MLA style. As explained, this style does not require reference to the interviewer. Interviewer is made available via phone/email contact by request. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 2:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia referencing guidelines require that sources be verifiable. Personal communications are not verifiable; therefore, they aren't valid sources. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are personal interviews considered an established source in every other aspect of literature then? While burden of proof is on the user, it simply cannot be said "these are unverifiable." Reasons for this accusation must be made so it can then be shown it is not true. Keep in mind sources are only needed for something that might be up for debate in the article. Much of the article is not update for debate, however, and need not a reference to be proven while it can be be viewed by the user themselves (thus the referencing of the subject twice) Placing an impossible to reach burden of proof simply to strive for articles deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander756 (talk • contribs)
        • Comment Please sign your comments. It's not an impossible burden of proof. One simply needs a source discussing the matter that is well-acknowledged as a source of valid information, such as a newspaper, or magazine. personal inteviews fail this requirement because there's no means of verifying they happened. Other kinds of interviews, such as formal interviews by a magazine, or any sort of documented and beckcheckable source would be accepted. No one here is claiming the interview didn't happen, or that anything said in it was untrue, it's just there's no way for any other editor to use the interview to check information cited. That's important to wikipedia because it's an encyclopedia edited by numerous users who work together to fact check things. i kan reed 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Since you are not aware of what a personal interview explains, I will tell you here. A personal interview explains the method of interview. This does not mean it was informal and it does not mean it was not conducted by a magazine. MLA style of citation does not require that these things are made known. Odd that you would declare wikipedia above the level of MLA citation! In fact, magazine "The Maverick" is cited within article as well and you neglect to mention that. Keep in mind what was said in another comment of mine, citation is only needed for facts that may be disputable. Numbers of something, dates, rankings. These things are all indeed cited. Claims that citations are needed for things that do not need to be cited show lack of knowledge. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 12:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. It doesn't matter whether it's true, or whether you can say things about its contents, what matters is that some other person could look it up, and backtrack the various claims to their sources. Most of the time people don't, the ability to is a requirement for references. Otherwise the claims made through them are no more meaningful than arbitrarily declaring "I have the biggest stack of matresses in a residential environment". It may be true, and I personally may be able to verify it, but no one else can. That is the reason why personal interviews are problematic. Secondly, I did check all your links, and "maverick" is owned by you, and is a personal site, not a well read publication. Since it mentions that the maker of "Alex's DBZ RPG" is also the writer of the article in question, this is also evidence of violating WP:VANITY, but that's another issue, and nothing to do with the article in question.
"I have the biggest stack of mattresses..." is completely different than articles subject. Nowhere in article does creator of site claim anything. The article was not written by someone associated with the site. Nor was "The Maverick". Affiliation with ADBZRPG does NOT mean site creators are same. Look at list of ADBZRPGs affiliates. By your logic, Alex must be the owner of all of these sites! You seem to neglect to read things that disprove your points and skim sources for things that vaguely may. Writer of the article in question? Compiled By: Alexander Hinkley. Compiled specifically means they were not written by this person. As per the interview, I have said multiple times, interviewer is made available by telephone/email by request. Interview-ee also is available by request. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. Assertions of importance on article's talk page don't do anything to convince me otherwise. -- Kicking222 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources; 41 members. I seriously doubt this RPG was the "forerunner to idea of games like Everquest" (as the talk page claims), especially as Everquest was released in March of 1999, while this one was "born in June 1999". Zetawoof(ζ) 19:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Your reference to the talk page misinterprets the quote. "Games like Everquest" refers to the genre of MMORPGing and games similiar to that of Everquest which did not begin to gain popularity until around the time site was created. Everquest referenced as well known PC MMO. Hope that this clarifies it for you. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 1:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Everquest wasn't the first MMORPG either - not by a long shot. MUDs date back into the late 1970s. I'm not quite sure what you're claiming - that people started playing Everquest because they'd seen this RPG? That seems terribly unlikely.Zetawoof(ζ) 08:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete; vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment there's no evidence of that. I have no reason to beleive that this article was created by the creator of it's subject. i kan reed 02:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN this sucker. Obviously not notable, but its absurd and outrageous claims need immortality. Interrobamf 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep; Proposed deletion based on incorrect assumptions. 42 google hits? According to [tracker on site], site has hundreds of google hits. This was raised on faulty information. Server moved/domain changed several months ago, resets google valuability. Goes to show "42 google hits" is wrong. 41 members is ignorant conclusion leap. Forum has nearly 1,000 members. 41 member count displayed on site only displays characters from the show that are taken. Site allows for non-show participation and creative writing membership. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 1:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • 1,000 members is still not all that many. Articles have been deleted on web forums with thirty times as many users - Genmay, for example. Member count really doesn't mean much until you get into the hundred-thousand range, and even that can be debatable. Also, "google hits" refers to the number of unique results on a Google search for "Alex's DBZ RPG", not the number of clickthroughs from web searches. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Must be educated on the genre of game we are talking about to know 1,000 members if phenomenal. Do you not think best of a genre is note worthy? Aware that some genres may be so small it would not matter but if you are to search wikipedia thoroughly, you will find dozens of articles about indie rpgs and their importance as well as mmorpgs, roleplaying, and the mission to make these things more noteable on wikipedia itself. Keep in mind the history of the game as well. Since this summer 1,000 members. There are online games with far less of a member base than this game still on wikipedia. Linked tracker refers UNIQUE HITS FROM SEARCH ENGINES! Would be impossible to receive 42 google hits and 600 "click throughs".
  • Comment no, that's simply not true. Your claim that it's the "Best of a genre" is unprovable, and uncited. Second you misunderstand what "google hits" means. That's the number of TOTAL PAGES which mention the subject(found by google). It has nothing to do with how many people click this or that, just a measure of how noteworth it is in the context of other internet sites. For comparison "Everquest" gets 15,900,000 hits, and everquest is not even web-based(internet based, but not web) i kan reed 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is incorrect. Citation within article proves that it is the top ranked of the genre. I do not know why you say it is uncited...seems every argument made so far has been on fallicious reasoning. You've refused to share your sources for the information you are using to prosecute so how can anything you say be disproven when it seems to be made up off the top of your mind without any evidence? Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what "facts" I have to prove, and google stuff you can just check yourself., and as I've said, I did check your links, and, among other concerns, "ultimatetopsites", which I'm assuming is the reference in question, as you didn't specify, is not a noted authority on the subject, nor has it been updated in nearly 5 years. None of this is "off the top of my head" either. The things I'm mentioning are part of wikipedia policy. Articles are to verifiable, and it's generally accepted that they be notable as well, by a defined set of guidelines. The policy pages in question may be found at WP:N(for this one also see WP:WEB) and WP:V. Please don't think I'm on some sort of "witch hunt" against you, it just seems you have not yet read this guidlines, as none of your replies have been (as far as I can tell) with regards to the actual reasons for nomination. i kan reed 00:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google stuff? This is why in a court trial evidence must be submitted to make an accusation. I've "googled stuff" and came up with different responses. I would like to know how one could arrive at yours is what I'm asking. Yes I have read the pages you are linking me, too. Site is complient. Ignorance of site content and nature does not make it uncomplient. Comment about your "hasn't been updated in 5 years" was also false! Right on bottom of referenced page states "Last Update: November 14 2006, 6:13 PM PT". This is the 3rd time you have expressed a conclusion that was either false, or hidden behind a shroud of secrecy whereas others cannot duplicate your results. It is getting tiresome. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bit crufty, too, and a miss on WP:WEB.--WaltCip 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 21:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEO Lessons[edit]

SEO Lessons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spammy how-to, written in second person. Contested prod. MER-C 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both. --Coredesat 21:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monatomic elements[edit]

Monatomic elements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ORMEs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Blatant hoax. Contested prod. MER-C 13:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hysterical pseudoscientific hoax. Source material includes 'science' book by well-known Holy Grail charlatan Laurence Gardner. AlexTiefling 13:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 13:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Obvious hoax Baccyak4H 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article could possibly be salvaged if rewritten to be about the particular pseudoscientific theory that it is (rather than about some blatently false so-called facts). This could mean acknowledging the nomination is POV-based as well. Baccyak4H 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added ORMEs to this nomination, as it had virtually the same content. --ais523 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've also reverted an edit by the same editor linking monatomic to these articles. --ais523 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Poor thing. Stammer 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Obvious nonsense. I do not think the pseudoscientific theory has yet got enough legs to be notable. Of course if they are kept, one should be a redirect to the other. --Bduke 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Clearly in WTF territory. Is this some sort of hermetic belief system? — RJH (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vexels.net[edit]

Vexels.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questionable notability, no assertion of meeting WP:WEB. Contested prod. MER-C 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete minor web forum, <4000 accounts, of which an unknown number active. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB, no evidence of significant coverage in neutral independent sources. Guy 15:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I answered a helpme request on the article's talk page (a user asking where they could find the reason for deletion), but there doesn't seem to have been any followup. --ais523 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Horribly fails WP:WEB. Any community with less than 100,000 members should instantly raise red flags in terms of notability. --- RockMFR 00:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another non-notable forum --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, article contains no tangible assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 06:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MC Smalley[edit]

MC Smalley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreferenced, and I'm not really convinced the guy is notable by reading the article. JDtalk 14:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Subject seems to be notable from a Google test. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MatthewFenton. Very badly written I must admit, and no sources to speak of, but still notable. --Alex (Talk) 14:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's not credited as a contributor to the album/song referenced in the article.[58] He doesn't have an AllMusic page himself, he had no hits on GNews, and none of the generic google hits constitute reliable sources. Only 74 of them are unique sources, anyway; the rest seem to be mirrors. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't on the album, he covered the song. Still, your other comments are valid. --Majorly (Talk) 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Anderson[edit]

Aaron Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article makes no assertion of notability. A Google search of the book title yields 13 hits, which suggests that the controversy (if there is any) has escaped everyone's attention. A Google search of his name reveals plenty of people named Aaron Anderson, but I saw more hits for a man fleeing a warrant in Minnesota than this fellow. To boot, the article is completely unreferenced save for a link to his website, which is how I ran across in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 1ne 06:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RemoveWGA[edit]

RemoveWGA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable software, was deleted already, Prod lasted 5 days, but was removed today. PPGMD 15:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 05:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Design by Use[edit]

Design by Use (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This concept seems to be original research, copied from the author's blog. [59] [60] johnpseudo 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is also original research from the same author:

  • Delete both - per nom. Smacks of "How to..." as well. Bubba hotep 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both 0 hits on Google scholar for "design by use" software Slinker. Leibniz 14:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete possible hoax or OR. Storm05 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 21:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuodai[edit]

Nuodai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable YouTuber/blogger/vlogger. References include mentions in major newspapers, but the articles weren't primarily about him - they were about the Google/YouTube merger, and included nuodai's thoughts on the subject as well as those of several other YouTubers. Alexa rank for his website is 4,321,358 . FreplySpang 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree- the news in which he is mentioned use him as a typical youtube user, not as a notable entity by himself. johnpseudo 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Recury 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Johnpseudo. The given sources don't make him sufficiently notable. Heimstern Läufer 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 700 subscribers, woh! Absolutely non-notable. Bubba hotep 22:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 21:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Lightfoot Paz[edit]

Luis Lightfoot Paz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to be either a hoax or a non notable person. One single editor, no sources and google does't show any relevant results. Delete -- lucasbfr talk 18:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had a similar inability finding anything relating to him or any of the facts mentioned in the article. johnpseudo 16:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Big fat 0 on Google. Either WP:BOLLOCKS or just unusually non-notable. MartinDK 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, completely unsourced, runs afoul of WP:BLP.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Elementals[edit]

The Elementals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:MUSIC - crz crztalk 19:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 15:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tim O'Reilly (musician), who was in The Mexican Spitfires seems to give this band notability according to criteria #6. johnpseudo 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a choir of many people... He's one dude who was there at some point... Unless he's Princess Diana, I don't think it rubs off quite like that. - crz crztalk 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Yeah, the more I look at it, it seems this choir was not representative of a particular music scene, and Tim O'Reilly isn't really notable enough to give this group notability. johnpseudo 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. See my closing statement for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. Note: I am not deleting it for a few hours to give participants a chance to merge pertinent material. El_C 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal error: Could not delete the page or image specified. (It may have already been deleted by someone else.) And it was. El_C 07:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun[edit]

Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article should be deleted because: (1) it is a POV fork of Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident created by a known POV and edit warrior named Striver in an attempt to shoehorn material that violates WP:NPOV into the article it forks, (2) the images used by the page are all copyright violations. RunedChozo 16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since a number of people are trying to confuse this issue![edit]

The facts in the case are:
#1 - The original article, Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, was created at 13:06. NINE HOURS LATER, Striver comes along and creates a fork. There is zero possible chance he didn't know the original article existed, yet instead of editing on the original article, he created a fork. It strains the bounds of credulity to try to presume he was not creating an illegal POV fork as defined in wikipedia's policies.

#2 - I nominated this based on that principle.

#3 - The idea that the content of a highly POV forked article should be merged into the original article directly contradicts our NPOV policies.

Now, to the other items at hand: In reading the responses and checking the userpages of the editors in question, it appears that Striver, Bhaisaab, Nielswik, Puddleman, Truthspreader, Palestine48 (counting those I've identified so far) are all either (a) members of a POV-pushing group on Wikipedia that calls themselves "The Muslim Guild" or else have strong POV biases in the Palestine conflict that they are trying to push. I do not consider it an unreasonable assumption that they are even going so far as to try to "stuff" this AFD by calling in friends to vote for them, seeing as only Striver and Nielswik have any connection to the page in question. This is behavior that Wikipedia very much frowns upon and I again believe it strains the bounds of credulity to try to assume there is good faith involved when editors like this are saying things like "showing the atrocities committed by the Israeli government" is their goal for the article in question. WP:NOT a soapbox and obvious propaganda, which is all that the POV fork up for deletion is, ought to be excised as quickly as possible. RunedChozo 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a note to Striver: your demand for an apology is denied. AGF does not require that I ignore the resounding evidence in front of my eyes. A 9-hour gap between the creation of the article, when the article was edited heavily, and when the article was being edited by other members of your guild like Nielswik, it seems to me almost impossible that you somehow did not know of its existence. I am stating, for the record: I believe that as per AGF, your behavior strains the bounds so far that I can not assume you are operating in good faith. If you can convince me otherwise, fine, but the creation of a POV fork so late after the other article was created, and the pushing of obvious propaganda statements as well as copyright violation images, and the concurrent statements by your own guildmates indicating that the whole purpose of your POV fork is to be as negative to the Israeli side of the issue as possible, shows me that it was a bad-faith creation. RunedChozo 15:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as per below that title (esp. the word 'incident') is a revolting euphemism for the slaughter of innocent civilians. it is highly POV & everyone supporting it knows very well that people would take issue with it. this article was created afterwards with a purely descriptive title in an attempt to redress that mistake per per 'npov' & naming conventions. obviously the other article should be merged on these grounds. then 'debate' about content can proceed (it's not relevant here). furthermore the nomminator's biases and prejudices are amply demonstrated in his/her refusal to acknowledge this problem and in the above hypocrisy about other users spreading "propaganda". clearly these are all reasons for terminating this process & allowing a purely procedural merge to go ahead.  ⇒ bsnowball  16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. Don't insult my intelligence. If you have a problem with the title of an article, you hold a discussion on the title of the article on the article's page. You don't go off and create a Propaganda POV Fork, which is a violation of both WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. You just proved that you are interested in this purely to introduce bias by the wording of your own statements. WP:NOT a Soapbox. You are admitting that your goal in trying to get this disgusting piece of POV propaganda merged is because you are trying to create an article that has emotional context. You are in bad faith trying to create an article that violates NPOV standards. Shame on you. RunedChozo 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary by others[edit]

  • Keep and merge: RunedChozo, the articles should be merged. You are a POV pusher who is attempting to white wash the "unpleasant" aspects of the "incident" on Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. This request is done in bad faith, and you simply dislike the pictures, there is no copyright violation, which you dont really care about in my opinion.--Burgas00 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your blatant show of bad faith Burqas,, I'll note I have edited only once on the normal article, and never edited on the POV fork your buddy created, except to nominate it for deletion according to Wikipedia's policies. I also note you were one of a muslim group who keep trying to POV-push the title of the forked article into "Massacre". Go push POV somewhere else.RunedChozo 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really are interested in my religious background I inform you that my family is Catholic. Yes I feel massacre is the appropriate term but I will also agree with "killings" as a consensus title.--Burgas00 16:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the title of the main page, this is an AFD about deleting the POV-pushing fork created by Striver. Please do not clutter the AFD page. He and his pov pushing guild will probably be here soon enough to do that. RunedChozo 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
btw, the other article was created 13:05, my was created 22:18, and this is how the other article look liked when i created mine: [61]. At 22:56 i added the merge tags. What sounds more logical, that i created a bad-faith consensus dodging article just so i could merge it 48 minutes later, or i had no idea the other article existed? You owe me an apology. --Striver 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody owes you an apology or anything else. You knew, or should have known with a simple search, that an article already existed on the same topic. You created yours anyways rather than add to that article, even though you're trying to claim the preexisting article was somehow inadequate. Assuming Good Faith is being a Simplistic Gullible Idiot to think you were doing anything other than creating a propagandistic POV fork. NotAWeasel 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. - taken from the Assume Good Faith page. And your edit history and behavior are perfect evidence that you're not behaving in anything close to good faith. NotAWeasel 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody needs to look at this, preferably an admin. --Striver 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like who? I see nothing wrong with the comments. They edge the line of civility but assuming good faith only goes so far before you're acting delusional, and it is quite clear that you and other editors are engaging in deliberate, coordinated pov-pushing behavior. NotAWeasel 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this POV fork ASAP. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. REminder to Striver and his buddies, we "strive" for NPOV meaning Neutral POV here, not MPOV meaning Muslim POV. NotAWeasel 03:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge - there's nothing wrong with showing the atrocities committed by the Israeli government. BhaiSaab talk 03:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look: a proud member of "The Muslim Guild" of POV pushers. NotAWeasel 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. Remember: "Assume good faith" is a nicer restatement of "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice." Try not to be stupid either. I'll just assume you're a (Personal attack removed) then. NotAWeasel 04:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep this massacre is notable event. to runed: please WP:CIV and WP:AGF . Peace.--Nielswik(talk) 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And we have a better article for it: Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. POV forking is not allowed. Do some reading on policy and stop being deliberately dense trying to help your POV-pushing Muslim Guild brethren. NotAWeasel 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But 'shelling' or 'killing' is more preferred than 'incident'. Please be civil and assume good faith to your fellow editor, otherwise you may be reported. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy deleteWikipedia is not a soapbox for Hamas propaganda.Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident is just fine.Hkelkar 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve Keep, merge, and improve The incident is signifcant and deserves a space on wikipedia. TruthSpreaderTalk 06:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge and improveBoth of these articles are very similar, and Israeli Shelling of Beit Hanoun is a better title, factual and NPOV. It's dissapointing to see the vicious diatribes and personal attacks on here, I hoped that on Wikipedia even if people were opposed politically they could treat each other civilly. Isn't it better to let people you disagree with 'condemn' themseleves with their words rather than attacking them? Puddleman 06:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with Nielswik this massacre is a notable event in the Palestinian Struggle. However, I think we should use a better sentence structure in the article in order for it to be more encyclopaedic and off-course the Israeli excuse for this "mistake" should be clearly stated within the article. --Palestine48 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & merge other POV article (Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident) with this one. this ('Israeli..') is a descriptively correct title. the other ('Beit Hanoun...') is a disgusting attempt to gloss over what is arguable a war crime (this is the effect whatever the intention was). also please note weasel in the above is a recent (nov 13th) single issue account & has now been banned 48hrs for racism, can be ignored when closing?  ⇒ bsnowball  13:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident here per bsnowball above. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 14:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & merge Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident to Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun. This article's title is clearly the more accurate and informative of the two: there is no dispute over the facts that Israeli shells hit Beit Hanoun, there are no "weasel words" in the title (unlike "incident" which is completely undescriptive). As for POV in content, that can be cleaned up by making sure all content is properly sourced, which at the moment both articles appear to be trying to keep on top of. QmunkE 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect POV fork. Any encyclopaedic information should be merged, but discussion about content and naming should be held on the original entry's Talk, and should most certainly not be forked out like this. TewfikTalk 17:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect to Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. This article is highly biased against Israel and written in an unencyclopedic tone. --PiMaster3 talk 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. Blatant PoV fork.--Rosicrucian 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have just completed some major cleanup of the article (including references), and I have to say that unless someone points the NPOV violations out to me I can't see any - all the references (with the possible exception of the Gush Shalom article which I suspect is likely not to qualify under WP:RS), seem to be from reputable sources, and no statements made in the article are taken out of context. This article is now better sourced and contains a good degree more information than Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, all of it verifiable. The only question that remains in my mind is whether it is encyclopaedic (at the moment it seems to be more of a news article, but it has become an increasing trend on Wikipedia for events in the news to develop rapidly). I'd like to see some other unbiased editors opinions on this (I am neither pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, or anti-American), since it appears to be almost exclusively users with strong views on this conflict editing here. QmunkE 21:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my mind furthering the split by improving the newer article is counterproductive. This is editing that can be better spent on the main article.--Rosicrucian 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It doesn't change the creation of it as a POV fork. If you have information that you think belongs, it could be added to the real article. But I notice that the bad faith POV pusher Burgas00 has now put the real article up for deletion and even falsely claims it to be the fork, and is such a cowardly bad faith POV pusher that he wouldn't even sign his name to that AFD. RunedChozo 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course it is, but to not have "Israeli" in the title doesn't hold the same level of "oh look what those evil Joos did now" POV that they POV fork's creator was trying to push. RunedChozo 23:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus just not seeing the consensus that this is a dicdef. Very corny AfD though guys! In lieu of a third AfD people might consider a merge to Human penis size. But again, I'm not seeing consensus to delete outright. W.marsh 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size queen[edit]

Size queen was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-13. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Size queen/2005-08-13.
Size queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A dictionary definition, followed by some original research, followed by a list of examples, the few of which I have seen do not actually use this term. Even the original statement of the term, in the lead, lacks a source. Guy 16:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This one would be a lot better if it were very short :-) Guy 17:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You prefer them short, huh? So not a size queen... Otto4711 17:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mention in the linked penis size article the existence of the term, if it's not already there. Otto4711 17:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. Recury 19:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge the 1-2 useful sentences into penis size. otherwise it's mainly dicdef (no pun intended...sorry). Crunk 19:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid topic; more than a dic(k)def. ;-) Carlossuarez46 01:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, well-known and easily expandible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A Google books search comes up with over 200 uses, including verifiable definitions. This can absolutely be a verifiable stub, expandible past a dicdef. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What, you mean like Principles And Practice Of Constraint Programming - Cp 2004: 10th International Conference, CP... - Page 57 by M. (Mark) Wallace - Computers - 2004 - 822 pages ... (all(i in Size) queen(i] + i)); from the n-queens problem can be viewed as a shortcut for expr{mnt} d(m in Size) — queen(i) + S .post ( ..., and Portraits of the Ptolemies: Greek Kings as Egyptian Pharaohs - Page 76 by Paul Edmund Stanwick - 2003 - 256 pages ... under life-size queen with a triple uraeus in Paris also belongs here, although the quality of execution is lower (D26)... and, top hit, Turtorials on Emerging Methodologies and Applications in Operations Research: presented at... - Page 3-9 by Harvey J. Greenberg - Business & Economics - 2004 - 342 pages... in Size) queen [i] » v; Figure 3.4. A Simple N-Queens Constraint Program statement of constraints, and the search procedure. The program first declares ...? It's a dictdef. It's in some dictionaries of sexual slang for sure, but that still makes it a dictdef. Nothing is lost to humanity by a transwiki, after all. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'll note I said "usable." Nothing is lost to humanity, no, but plenty is lost to Wikipedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so dictionary entries should be moved elsewhere. Eluchil404 11:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quake II: Lost Marine[edit]

Quake II: Lost Marine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Video game mod with no real claims of notability. No sources either, failing WP:V. Googling only brings up assorted download sites/forums/usual stuff. Delete as failing WP:V/no sources. Wickethewok 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: verifiability was easy enough, there's a link to the project page at bottom of the article, and the project page does list the 2003 article as being the reason the conversion project was started. Notability might be questionable, but WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia! RunedChozo 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability requires reliable independent sources. The project's webpage is certainly not independent. Wickethewok 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The status of the project, and its existence, are no problem to verify. If you want to be a deletionist, that's certainly your right, but WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, the interview with Carmack is indeed verifiable (and I've verified it myself), the status of the project is listed on multiple Doom 3 repositories. I still vote keep and think you should do better research. RunedChozo 16:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming I'm reading the same interview you are, John Carmack had nothing to do with this project. He doesn't once mention "Quake II: Lost Marine" - if you're looking at a different interview please post the link. Wickethewok 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna ask one simple question: are you really so dense you can't try a simple google test? RunedChozo 18:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors do not accept hits on a search engine as a valid measure of an article's notability. If you want to implement a search engine test, though, you need to do it properly. The search in your link finds all pages with the words "Quake", "Lost", and "Marine" in any portion of the text (including more than 120,000 on the subject of various real-world earthquakes). If you search for the string "Quake II: Lost Marine" (as in this search, you only get 538 hits in return, and the majority of those appear to be download sites hosting the file. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a notable mod, though I don't object to the source (V does not require a source be independent when the information is non-contentious and simply self-descriptive). I just don't think it needs an article. Give it an external link in the Quake II or Doom 3 article, and any others which it has been modded for (which seems to be Quake IV?). FrozenPurpleCube 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a point of clarification, WP:V does explicitly say "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Wickethewok 17:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That goes more to weighing notability than determining verifiability, and you'll note that lower down in the article, there is a bit about self-published sources being acceptable. The policy itself is defined in the three points at the top of the article, not the discussion below, and it only requires reliable sources. Sometimes the most reliable source is the people who made it. Doesn't matter in this case though, at most I'd say it's an EL candidate, maybe a section in another article, but not one itself. FrozenPurpleCube 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Recury 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. The policy WP:V requires that information be verifiable; it does not require that sources be in the article itself. In this case, basic details about the mod can be sourced to the mod's web site. They also have coverage by a third party in PC Zone magazine (visible on the website). If an article is lacking sources, AFD is not the right place—tag it for cleanup or fix it. Only if there is no reasonable possibility that sources exist (i.e., it is unverifiable) is that a criterion for deletion. That said, this mod doesn't appear to be finished and doesn't seem to be particularly notable, so I do think it is unencyclopedic on those grounds. — brighterorange (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - video game mods are not generally notable, and this does not seem to be any extraordinary case. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:42, 14 November
2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I posted this in response for Wickethewok for deleting everything ever mentioned about me throughout Wikipedia in a whole, which all is notable and proven with sources, though I've noticed before the deletion of such pages, someone editing the page deleting the sources, saying that even those weren't viable sources.

I am the creator of the Quake II: Lost Marine project and it has been brought to my attention your request for deletion. As well as all other references to me within Wikipedia that users have created. I share a network with 15 other people which some have created and edited these articles about me and my professional career.

It doesn't make sense after reading your discussions with other admins that you say the articles you had deleted have no notability or you can't find any resources. I believe you to be in the wrong by doing this, and I do feel this has been a personal attack. Articles that I'm aware of that you had deleted.

Thearrel 'Kiltron' McKinney Quake II: Lost Marine The Mean Arena Futrix Studios (not 100% sure on that)

As well as any links to any other mentions of me or my works within other Wikipedia articles. You aren't doing very thorough research to request the deletion of information about other professionals and their careers. For example, Quake II: Lost Marine is a mod for DOOM 3 (currently) and not for Quake 4. What research tells you this mod is available for Quake 4? It isn't, it's only available for DOOM 3 and is being ported to Quake 4. So the removal of the link to the mod or article from the DOOM 3 article and relisted in the Quake 4 article is invalid on your part. I could understand maybe 1 or 2 things being removed for your lack of research, but to remove me completely from Wikipedia as a whole is no doubt vendictive, intentional, and a personal attack. Especially when every instance mentioned and all articles are valid articles that all have notability and all sources can be sited. Type any one of those into Google and you're guaranteed to have them at the top of the list. The articles were 100% accurate and true and valid. You're not doing a very professional nor thorough job editing Wikipedia when it's obvious you aren't doing the right research. Do you even know my professional history or the companies I've worked with, or for or the games I have worked on? Probably not, so you felt it necessary to delete everything about me mentioned. Or there is another motive which I'll be glad to look into. Thanks.

  • Delete after exploring the article and the web this seems to be NN. For those who want the article to remain - DO NOT get drawn into arguments here but provide evidence of it's notability WITHIN the article. That would stop the AFD. --Charlesknight 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also: google test. RunedChozo 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note my objection to this method, as detailed above. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most mods are not sufficiently notable to merit an article, and this one is not an exception. I do not view bulk Google results as an accepatable substitute for reliable sources. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I love how you deletionists refuse to do even the modicum of checking the magazines the mod has been profiled in (MAGAZINES, which do NOT NORMALLY PROFILE MODS) out of your zeal to delete the entirety of Wikipedia. RunedChozo 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, many gaming magazines run various material on mods, as I have seen through past AFDs. Wickethewok 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a deletionist; I just don't think this mod is notable. Given the relative unimportance of mods in the general scheme of things, I look for either widespread coverage in the industry, or crossover to non-industry sources. This article has one industry source listed, and when I went to their site, I wasn't able to find any mention of the mod in question. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Article Why is there no notability? I'm not understanding this? It's plastered all over the internet this mod is. It has it's own site, it's been featured on major gaming news sites, it's been in several issues of PC ZONE Magazine and published on the DVD's etc. It was at QuakeCon in 2005 and it's been well perceived by the DOOM 3 community and it's widely known. For one person to come by and say, well I'm deleting it cause I don't feel it's notable is pure rubbish. If you're going to delete this article you might as well go the long hall and delete all of DOOM 3's mod articles. As well as other mod's for other games I see on Wikipedia that aren't even actually released and were flat out canceled. Those are the things you should be deleting. Speaking of industry sources, how can someone say they can't find anything on the website? That's bull as well and when there were sources cited in this article including the PC ZONE issues and articles themselves to proof these, some idiot deleted those as well thus making no viable magazine sources. The mod has had widespread coverage. What more can be proven? It's not on your HDD so it don't belong on Wikipedia? Personal vendetta? What? Wikipedia hire some new admins that do real research and base articles on real research not on what that individual just feels belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.87.172 (talk • contribs)
  • If there are articles on other mods that you would like to nominate for deletion, we'll be glad to evaluate those as well. If they're of the same type as this one, you'd be doing us a valuable service by pointing them out. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, forget it. Wikipedia's AFD is just being run by deletionist vandals who don't know shit on the subject but can't be bothered to do any research. RunedChozo 15:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want this article saved from deletion, by all means seek out these references and add them to the article. Remember, the burden of proof is on the article's editors, not on the nominator or those not editing it. And please keep WP:NPA in mind. GarrettTalk 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof was added when the article was created from the start but some deletionist said the proven sources weren't valid and removed them way back. Basically saying PC ZONE and such articles did not exist nor does the person who created the mod. If the person that created the mod does not exist then how is it they can be found everywhere on the net and their name is tacked onto it as it's creator? Plus the articles are right there on the mod's website. Anyone who decides to delete article ever take the time to email someone and ask them personally about it? That may help a lot. Pure craziness.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography of a fictional character, advertising a non-notable and speedily deleted film article WP:VCSA refers. (aeropagitica) 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Mavis[edit]

Jolly Mavis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable YouTube film Amists talk • contribs 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete criterion A7. Looks so much like vanispamcruftisement that one wonders how it could be anything else. Multiple edit summaries of I am a fan and have created this page. do not help. Guy 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Guy. Note that The Tales Of Mavis should probably be deleted as well. --Brad Beattie (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under A7. Makes no assertion as to the notability, totally unsourced with no references. Ale_Jrbtalk 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete meets A7; no asserion of notability. Hello32020 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleto - please make Mavis not so f'ing sure of herself. :) Bubba hotep 22:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — Delete per nom. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't belong here. --Oakshade 05:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it doesnt but the user removed the speedy tags and contested. Amists talk • contribs 10:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per all above and WP:SNOW. One ghit for Jolly Mavis: creator's MySpace page. Tubezone 15:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted

Scene (subculture)[edit]

I already nominated this one for deletion as original research on a subculture which fails notability, etc. It got deleted on 5/11 [62]after an AfD filled with sockpuppetry [63]. Then it was recreated, still without sources, etc. So I am nominating it again. The following is distilled from my original nomination, which still largely applies:

This is a terrible article about an alleged subculture, which is actually just a flattering name for 'trendiness'...There have not, as far as I can see from Google, been sociological studies of 'scene' as there have of goth, punk, metal, etc. In short, this is not a verifiable topic, it is probably just a slang word of a particular sort of trendiness, and hence not a valid subject for an encyclopedia article, belonging more properly to a dictionary.

(Note that the term here is not being used as a synonym for 'subculture' (as it sometimes is) but is rather simply cruft written about an alleged subculture, without any claim to notability, verifiability, proof it isn't original research and so forth). The Crying Orc 16:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good suggestion, but the article is not (from what I can remember) identical to the last one (which is necessary to speedy delete it, isn't it?). The Crying Orc 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase it uses is "substantially identical". I understand this to mean that unless there are major changes either addressing the concerns that caused it to be deleted last time or otherwise making them irrelevant G4 should apply. But I'm no expert, nor am I familiar with the old version of the article. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. There are no really substantial changes (wording only: the content is just as silly). So I suppose the speedy criterion ought to apply. The Crying Orc 11:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found that an article can be written from. Agree with nom that this probably doesn't exist in any real way. Recury 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - 'Scenester' returns a vast number of Ghits[64]. I agree that this is probably nothing, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.--Nydas 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons cited by the nominator as well as expressed the last time this article was deleted. Really, looks like something made up in school one day... --The Way 07:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because "Scene" does not describe a specific subculture, but is a term to decribe many movements and subcultures such as the punk scene, art scene, goth scene, etc. What this article describes is the fashion trends associated with specific modern music scenes...Mainly the post-hardcore and emo scenes. This article fails on many levels and makes plenty of contradictions that prove the point that it is written about modern youth trends and subcultures in general but trys to present them as one specific subculture. Rzrscm 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moonberry[edit]

Moonberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't give context, but apparently, a minor fictional fruit from World of Warcraft; unreferenced, dicdef, not notable even within WoW. Previously prodded, but it was removed with the reasoning that this should go to Wiktionary -- I don't think it should, first of all, but second, it should still be deleted from here. Mangojuicetalk 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there was any information there, it should be merged to existing pages about the games which reference it. Since there is none, it should just be deleted. -- Renesis (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Not enough for a separate article. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center in film and media[edit]

World Trade Center in film and media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What we have here is a looooong list of: pan shots which skim the New York skyline prior to 9/11, anything filmed with New York as a backdrop between the building and destruction of WTC, movie scenes in which the protagonists drive past the WTC... hell, read the article and see just how trivial some of these so-called "featured in" references are. Add to that the near-complete absence of sources (and those which do exist appear to be primary and often links to offsite copyvios) and we have canonical listcruft: original research with no apparent bar to inclusion, any glimpse however trivial is included. Guy 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep useful list, but delete those entries that are not notable or are limited. --Pinkkeith 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. In first looking at the page, my feeling was to vote keep solely based on the size of an effort to create such a list. However, it fails way too many Wikipedia policies and guidelines to be kept, especially No original research, verifiability, and most importantly what Wikipedia is not. -- Renesis (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There appears to be interest in such a list, however it should be culled to remove incidental usage otherwise potentially every production set in New York City from the early 1970s to 2001 could be listed here. Stick with productions in which the WTC is featured either in an iconic sense, or as an actual location. Pan shots, remove. 23skidoo 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Terrible idea to begin with, not to mention WP:V and WP:NOR concerns. Interrobamf 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft, i.e. an indescriminate collection of information formatted as a list. Eluchil404 11:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines Kargo Destinations[edit]

Malaysia Airlines Kargo Destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy. An empty article merely repeating information from the company. Even if it is improved the article would fail WP:NOT (see also the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia Airlines Products and Services) Nuttah68 17:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it looks like spam, it reads like spam... it should walk like spam. A list of destinations does not an article make. Bubba hotep 23:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a travel guide. —Hanuman Das 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shows on SEN[edit]

The article acts as an advertisement for the station's programs. Not encyclopaedic. Nath85 12:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not TV Guide, so it also shouldn't be Radio Guide.--TheOtherBob 01:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean upIf you read the article, it is not a radio program guide. It is a listing of shows to have appeared on SEN the radio station. I agree though, it is very poorly written and bits sound like it's an advertisement. The parts such as "defunct shows" and the first few shows contain genuine detail though and don't contain gushing phrashes. TheRealAntonius 05:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Keep I don't see a problem with having a list of programs on a radio network, it's not that different from major television broadcasts. It could certainly be cleaned up though, and otherwise improved. Not sure if some of the sub-articles should exist, however. FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 01:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jevan Snead[edit]

Jevan Snead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD for non-notable athlete. I didn't speedy because Texas is the reigning national college champion, but this fellow is just a back-up. Delete Xoloz 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a freshman back-up player. While there was an effort made to establish notability, I find it insufficient.I would have supported a Speedy (especially since I tagged it that way in the first place). --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Changing my comment because the article has been improved and the subject's notability has been established. I'll politely refrain from comment about how Texans seem to obsess about their football teams :) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 06:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I'd write more - but I have game film of the 1972 Cotton Bowl I have to re-watch. :-) Johntex\talk 06:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's possible this kid will be starting in a year and at that time the article can be recreated. No real point in userfying the data that exists right now. →Bobby← 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but don't salt). A backup QB for the Longhorns doesn't seem enough to warrent an article. Jevan, you're encouraged to prove me wrong in the next couple of years. --Oakshade 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Vote changed to Weak Keep per Johntex.--Oakshade 07:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Khoikhoi 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article was just recently created, right after Snead saw some playing time vs. Kansas State after Colt McCoy got injured. I'll deduce that he wasn't notable in the first place, and the only reason to create the article was because of his brief action last Saturday. A few snaps doesn't make you notable. SliceNYC 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One of two freshman quarterbacks playing for the reigning national championship team. He's a very highly recruited player with more than enough information available about him to write a full article, even though the article is currently only a stub. He may be the starting quarterback next weekend if Colt McCoy is not ready to play. Just a few weeks ago, there was an attempt to delete the Colt McCoy article as well. Johntex\talk 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expanded the article with some of Snead's high school honors as well as college stats. The article has 12 references now. I learned something interesting in the process: Snead's game against Kansas State has the distinction of being the most points ever scored by UT in a losing effort. Snead gave a good performance coming in off the bench, but the defense collapsed. I'll add more as I have time, if the article is not deleted. Johntex\talk 07:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you delete this article now, you will just have to recreate it again in the future VarunRajendran.
  • Keep All-American and two time All-state awards are more than enough for an article, since being All-American guarantees there will be national coverage. Unfocused 13:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep National news, QB for a major DI-A program. The AFD was probably a little premature. --MECU≈talk 14:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A backup college quarterback doesn't warrant an article. Yes he did take over for Colt McCoy when McCoy was injured, BUT he'll be back on the bench as McCoy returns as the starter on Nov. 25, 2006. As long as McCoy stays healthy, he'll be the backup quarterback to McCoy, and McCoy is a redshirt freshman, meaning that he'll be there for the next 3 years. Granted that Snead is a true freshman, who's to say that he won't be beaten out for the #2 spot at quarterback by someone else next year? If that is the case, then would there be a need to put an article on a 3rd string quarterback? I'd vote delete for now, IF however he becomes the permenant starter, THEN there would be a need for this article, at this current point he is not the starter and I stand by my decision to delete. Someone above (>Johntex brought up the point that Snead is a backup for the reigning national championship college football team, so what? Come 2007, a new champion will be crowned in college football, should we also make articles for the backup quarterback of the 2007 college football team or better yet should we make articles for all of the backup quarterbacks of past national championship college football teams? I think not, as that would be pointless. Like I've said before, IF and WHEN he becomes the permenant starter, go ahead and recreate the article. Abstrakt 00:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no harm to having articles on back-up quarterbacks if they are well sourced and well written. Besides, his high school accomplishments are notable even if he had never taken a snap in college. As Wikipedia expands, we will naturally have more in-depth coverage of more topics, including more minor figures in sports, politics, music, etc. Johntex\talk 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like I said before, IF he were to remain as a backup quarterback to Colt McCoy or be beaten out by someone else next year and never see any playing time again, he would be just that, a high school quarterback who played a couple of games in college. That is why I voted for delete. I mean "minor sports figures" is really pushing it, at this rate we might as well start up articles on high school athletes who didn't go beyond high school. Abstrakt 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. El_C 13:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Proverbs[edit]

Pakistani Proverbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unlikely to become more than a laundry list without context Kathy A. 17:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coulrophilia[edit]

Coulrophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

9 word orphaned article. Google returns 876 hits most of which are from Wikipedia and mirros of it and from unserious personal web sites. Delete per Wikipedia is not an endless list of every fact and oddity. Contested Prod. MartinDK 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could be a case for merge and redirect as proposed in the deprod or a transwiki, but I have neither time nor interest in fetish research. Even if it's a neologism, it has a lot of documented interest (or perhaps more properly, interest in documenting), given the presumed rarity of the fetish. Unfocused 18:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would agree if I was able to find a reliable source for this. If anyone is able to find a reliable source describing this as other than a fictional fetish and assert its notability then fine. MartinDK 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pretty sure that this word just means a fear of clowns. In any case it should be moved to wikictionary. meshach 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, you're thinking of Coulrophobia. -phil- would be more to love or obsession. Coulrophobia is a much more well defined and sourced article, (note that I'm not saying much by that,) and while Coulrophilia would be a logical antonym, there is no known documentation of it. Submitter can come back when there is more than nine words to say on the subject. --RoninBKETC 06:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC) And quit clowning, yo![reply]
      • I stand corrected, thanks Roninbk, change my vote to Delete meshach 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't transwiki. Non-notable, unverifiable protologism Bwithh 06:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clowns, eh? Still less creepy than my initial assumption, which was a neologism dealing with sexual attraction to Ann Coulter. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 01:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Manalo[edit]

Jay Manalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy, so AfDing as procedural. Asserts being award-winning, but lists no awards so no idea if awards won are significant. No reliable sources. Tone is not neutral (and emphasizes his characters too much), but can be corrected with a tag. Neutral for me. ColourBurst 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but clean up This seems valid enough from Google and IMDB. Needs some cleaning up especially when it comes to the way photos are placed but really that is a minor issue. MartinDK 18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I agree this looks like it was written by the subject's publicist and should look more NPOV, he does appear to satisfy WP:BIO . Just with a little research I'm finding that this is a notable Philippino actor and have already found a few articles from reliable sources about him [65] [66] [67] (will insert into article). Plus an extensive credit list on IMDB [68]. --Oakshade 01:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE The three articles that are primarily about this subject from independent sources cited above have been inserted into the article, plus the IMDB listing. --Oakshade 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LSS Lucarlys F.C.[edit]

LSS Lucarlys F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Playing in the First Division of the Humber Premier League which is at level 14 of the English football league system (the threshold of WP:CORP is level 10). Previously they were at level 12 which is still too low. Delete. BlueValour 18:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they played at Central Midlands League previously so they should be kept if they can be promoted back to the league. Rakuten06 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that was still too low - Central Midlands League are at level 12 whereas the threshold is level 10. All teams can theoretically get promoted to whatever level you wish, given time. BlueValour 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP . The above argument seems like a creative way to escape WP:CORP. No proof of immediate advancement to level 10. Policies and official criterias are there for a reason. Let's not try to bend them. MartinDK 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. – Elisson • T • C • 18:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP --Angelo 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd say that any club that's in the same division as a team called Discount Carpets F.C. isn't really notable ChrisTheDude 11:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Harchick[edit]

Jon Harchick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relentlessly self-promoting web video dude. I get about 102 google hits, most of which seem to be videos he's uploaded, plus some from the "anti Jon Harchick" "movement". Non-notable per WP:BIO. Previous AfD here ended in strong delete consensus; I am re-nominating for a definitive outcome, but would support speedy. Delete. bikeable (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His stuff was on G4TV what does he need an F-ing grammy.

Delete Non Notable, self promotion. Vyse 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BoxTorrents.com[edit]

BoxTorrents.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was {{prod}}'d, but since it survived an AFD, prod shouldn't be used. This is a procedural relisting. Prod tag was "This article does not meet several Wikipedia criteria (see discussion)." UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no news associated with BoxTorrents, unlike The Pirate Bay. No other reliable sources either, and an Alexa test is not enough by itself, as the Alexa test is unreliable. ColourBurst 19:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a web directory. MartinDK 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing there asserts notability. Just another torrent site. Caknuck 19:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of how this passes WP:WEB. Certainly can't find any press/independent coverage on Google. Some torrent sites (e.g. Suprnova, Pirate Bay, etc.) might be notable, but this isn't one of 'em. Seraphimblade 19:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for my list of reasons please see BoxTorrents.com discussion, section Proposed Deletion. DocSnyder 00:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reviewing prior nom, there were only two reasons in four !votes to keep it. Three !votes were to keep if it could be improved, and the other keep !vote was in dispute over the Alexa Test, (which I don't know why any AfD editor would use the test given its flaws, but I digress.) In four to five months, there have not been significant edits to the article bringing it in line with WP:WEB or other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Without a last minute overhaul, or some other reason offered, I think we can reach consensus this time --RoninBKETC 07:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If someone really really wants the list of links, let me know and I'll put a copy on their user space. Proto::type 13:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online alternate histories[edit]

Online alternate histories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Basically a list of external links, which is something that Wikipedia is not. Nothing that couldn't otherwise be covered at Alternate history or something similar. Recury 19:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This page does seem to be a spin-off from Alternate history actually, so it might be intended as an attempt to reduce the size of that article. I agree it wasn't well-done though, and as it stands, the page is lacking in good content. Might be fixable, might not. Not quite willing to vote delete, but I wouldn't oppose a merge back either. FrozenPurpleCube 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A list of links this long would take major maintenance to make sure they are all live - plus would anyone want to scan through this list? Would they use a search engine to achieve the same goal? I agree with the nominator that this is what WP is NOT, but I'm not up on the context of all of them. Is it something which grew because people kept adding their own links? If so, it definitely should go because it will grow into a monster. Reserving judgment. Bubba hotep 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would the interested be opposed to the idea of trimming (per comment of Bubba Hotep) and making more artickly (per FrozenPurpleCube)? Perhaps listing only those that actually score hits through Alexa.com? The remainder of the list could be moved to the Althistory Wikia, which would be a more suited venue for such a list. Bo-Lingua 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory for external links, and the rest of the article seems to be OR. --The Way 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I left were AltHistories/groups that actually scored on Alexa.com. If you'd like me to link to each group's Alexa traffic page, I can. Bo-Lingua 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is little more than a copy of the list of links on the alternate history article. I suspect it was created by the alternatehistory.com mod and his underlings as a way to acquire more member ship. can it I say.
  • Merge back, don't delete. This looks like an honest attempt to shorten the article, and it just happened to bite off too small of a chunk. --M@rēino 21:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I actually went in and removed a lot of the links yesterday of the smaller groups, leaving what I could see were the larger groups as opposed to single author's pages. I think I transferred about 20 links to the AltHistory Wikia. If the links are the problem, I can migrate those with the rest at AltHistory Wikia and we can crosslink to that link page, thus decreasing the "cruft." The rest of the article _is_ useful, though and SHOULD be, somewhere. Bo-Lingua 22:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in order to keep the Alternate history clean. See Published alternate histories for what a useful article could accumulate over time. Possibly merge the "online ..." and "published ..." into one. Do not merge back into the main article which, IMHO, needs much more pruning. Pavel Vozenilek 03:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is original research. ~ trialsanderrors 00:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and stubify. Editors are advised to read, and re-read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT a gameguide and WP:NN before adding to this article (and its offspring, List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks). ~ trialsanderrors 06:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GunBound[edit]

GunBound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Google finds nothing but self-published pages and the odd strategy guide. Article is more instruction manual then summary from reliable sources-of which none seem to exist in any case. Seraphimblade 19:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, has it occured to you that its 3,790,000 Google hits indicate widespread popularity for this game? Punkmorten 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not searching correctly. Google search using correct title brings up only 266,000 hits[69]. Plus, raw score is not enough - quality and context of hits matters too - and even then google count is only a possible indicator not a guarantee of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 12:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not familiar with a "popularity" criterion in WP:WEB, and was looking more at the quality of the hits then quantity. "Gun" and "Bound" are common words and very likely to cause a large number of hits. Seraphimblade 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Has it occured to you that only 788 or those Google hits are unique? And that this Wikipedia article is the fifth hit? And that most of the rest are forum posts/blogs/self-published sites/Wikipedia mirrors? --RoninBKETC 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aside See WP:GOOGLE#On_.22unique.22_results for why all searches give less than 1,000 "unique" hits. --Groggy Dice 03:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Quite correct. I think the lack of quality hits is much more an issue then the lack of unique ones-if there aren't any secondary sources, what shall an article be written from? Use of personal knowledge is likely to be POV and definitely is original research. Received a couple of replies now that such sources exist, but none as to where or what they are. Seraphimblade 04:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think it would be best to keep the article, it's informative about a game that is fairly popular. If we delete one article about a game, it would only make sense to delete all articles about games that go into detail about game play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.184.117 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 14 November 2006
  • Keep—Better sources can be found. This is a very popular game, with much information of a non-game nature about it. It's just needs a little rewriting. Mazin07 (C)/(T) 00:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Where can these better sources be found? I looked through several pages of Google results but it turned out quite fruitless, if you know of some please point me in that direction. The game may be popular, but verifiability is not a popularity contest-the question is, how much coverage has this thing received from which an article can be written, without resorting to personal knowledge? If there are better sources, this whole thing can be settled easily. Seraphimblade 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try googling for non-reader reviews of gunbound on major reputable review sites such as Gamespy, Gamespot, PC Gamer magazine etc. for basic description of the game. Most or allof the information on tips and instructions for playing the game that is currently in the article should be removed as a violation of WP:NOT however - so its moot question regarding sourcing for these elements Bwithh 02:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a review index site (with standards for inclusion)with links to several reviews for Gunbound. Bwithh 02:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Gunbound is one of the most popular, if not *the* most popular free online game. It usually has several thousand games going on at any one time. There have been tournaments held as part of a world competition with thousands of dollars in prizes (this can be verified in old news on the official site). As for sources for the article, there is always the handy www.softnyx.net for actual official info, and there are a bunch of sections on MMO sites and GunBound fansites (search for Bunge Holes for a good one). Kargath64 01:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - well-known freeplay game with player count in the hundred thousands. --Czj 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The game is well-known, but there are seemingly no reliable sources or other methods of verifiability outside of the game itself. GarrettTalk 21:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on condition of major rewrite Somewhat well-known game with international following that is published by major Korean game company NHN. Certainly there are reliable sources with info about the game (e.g. major commercial review websites). But Wikipedia is not a game guide, and this article needs to be purged of its game guide content which seems to take up more than 90% of the article Bwithh 13:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very notable subject, shitty article. --- RockMFR 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs to be substantially stripped down to remove all the promotional/instruction material. The article should be an encyclopedic discussion of what the game is, and its impact on the world -- not instructions on how to play it. --Elonka 04:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 01:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airimba Wireless[edit]

non-notable. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 06:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral This page gets some vandalism, apparently from disgruntled customers; I've been reverting it every so often. I'm not certain how notable the company is; there are certainly mentions of it in the business press, but mostly press release sorts of things. On the other hand, as a wireless ISP, they do have a lot of customers. --Brianyoumans 19:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So far I've found a couple of independent non-press release articles from reliable sources that are primarily about this company. [70] [71]. Wether the company has lots of disgruntled customers who feel like vandalizing their article or not, it appears to satisfy WP:CORP. --Oakshade 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was sigh. By relist, I mean start a brand new AfD and list it on the new AfD page. This one is too convoluted to mean much so it should start from square one. W.marsh 22:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College Tonight[edit]

Note This article was originally created by single purpose account User:Thesuchman (a name very similar to one of the site founders), and it is an obvious advertisement. This was enough to successfully speedy Evergreens UK, and this article has itself been Speedied twice before. I've reopened the vote with permission from the closing admin and notified the people who voted Keep the last time around. Even with possibly-valid media mentions, this article is still nothing more than a blatant ad with no prospect of improvement in the forseeable future, and should be removed ASAP. --Arvedui

  • Strong delete Fails WP:WEB A two month old web project hasn't any notability. This should be on Google but not in Encyclopedia. Tulkolahten 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (Original nominator)[reply]
  • Strong delete Granted, the site has a number of media mentions, but these seem due more to the publicity-savviness of the site's creators than to any actual newsworthiness of the site itself. There really is nothing whatsoever to the article so far that wouldn't apply to just about every other moderately-sophisticated web-forum out there. Also, the original wording of the article (plus the username of the creator) suggests that it was planted in WP by one of the site-founders as a means of boosting their search profile. I don't want to reward that. --Arvedui 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment, if there were even a single detail both notable and unique to the site, such as some well-known cultural or internet phenomenon that originated there or an obviously unique net-subculture that inhabits it, I would probably vote to Keep. But as it's basically a two month old dating/party-promotion site, this seems very unlikely. --Arvedui 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable website. Edison 16:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB and/or any other notability measurement. The two "reliable independent sources" mentioned in the last AfD were a school newspaper and a syndicated column on msnbc.com. Media mentions do not automatically give a subject notability if the subject itself is obviously non-notable. --- RockMFR 19:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to buy a duck?[edit]

Do you want to buy a duck? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Been Prodded, the PROD removed. A seeminlgy non-notable (and not that fun) word game or drinking game, probably one of many variations of a similarly-titled game. And Dumbot can finish the AFD listing, I can't be arsed to list it on the log now we've go 'bots to do the work for us Dangherous 08:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. N-n variation. Do I want to buy a duck? Do I f... no, I don't, thanks. Bubba hotep 23:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've played this game a good number of times, but I don't think it's sufficiently notable for a 'Kipedia article. Heimstern Läufer 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and block Wikipedia from any future edits, forever. I think Wikipedia has pretty much all the information it could possibly need, once people resort to writing stuff like this--a parlour game which sounds about as fun as riding a bicycle without a seat. Sheesh. Wavy G 00:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Hanuman Das 01:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Then delete it again. Freshacconci 02:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wouldn't be caught dead playing this game. Also, sue A for sexual harassment. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it walks like something made up in school one day, and talks like something made up in school one day, and quacks like... (you get the joke) --RoninBKETC 07:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Aflac![reply]
    • A to B: Would you like to delete an article?
    • B to A: What's it about?
    • A to B: A circle game that is used as an icebreaker.
    • B to C: Would you like to delete an article?
    • C to B: Is it documented? Games don't belong in Wikipedia if they aren't documented.
    • B to A: Is it documented?
    • A to B: Yes, it's documented here.
    • B to C: No, it's not documented. Delete it per nom.
    • C to D: Would you like to delete an article?
    • D to C: Is it documented? Games don't belong in Wikipedia if they aren't documented.
    • C to B: Is it documented?
    • B to A: Is it documented?
    • A to B: Yes, it's documented here, too, on page 8. That's two.
    • B to C: No, it's not documented. Delete it per nom.
    • C to D: No, it's not documented. Delete it per nom.
    • D to E: Would you like to delete an article?
    • E to D: Is it documented? Games don't belong in Wikipedia if they aren't documented.
    • D to C: Is it documented?
    • C to B: Is it documented?
    • B to A: Is it documented?
    • A to B: Yes, it's documented here, too. Look, why don't you just put the name into Google Web? You can find these and more.
    • B to C: No, it's not documented. Delete it per nom.
    • C to D: No, it's not documented. Delete it per nom.
    • D to E: No, it's not documented. Delete it per nom.
    • E to F: Would you like to delete an article?
    • F to E: Is it documented? Games don't belong in Wikipedia if they aren't documented.
    • E to D: Is it documented?
    • D to C: Is it documented?
    • C to B: Is it documented?
    • B to A: Is it documented?
    • A to B: Yes, it's documented here, too, and here, and here (on page 88), which is a handbook handed out to student supervisors at the University of Berkeley. This is a real game, and it's widely documented!
    • B to C: No, it's not documented. Delete it per nom.
    • C to D: No, it's not documented. Delete it per nom.
    • D to E: No, it's not documented. Delete it per nom.
    • E to F: No, it's not documented. Delete it per nom.
  • G: Keep. Uncle G 16:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game dates back to at least 2002 and is cited at several websites about games. Edison 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & the fact if we documented the existence of every petty game invented, all hell would break loose. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't document the existence of every petty game invented. We don't document them on the grounds that they haven't already been documented, in multiple sources of good provenances, outside of Wikipedia. WP:NFT explains this. But we do include games that have already been documented outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I appreciate the sense of humo(u)r in this AFD debate. --Dangherous 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 23:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. ticker symbols[edit]

After a decent amount of review, I have decided that a consensus should be reached regarding the proposed deletion of List of U.S. ticker symbols. The 1st nomination is here.I would also like to make the following points:

  • List of U.S. ticker symbols contains an absurdly large amount of broken links. A quick lookup of many of the symbols indicates that the stock symbol is no longer in use and in addition, many of the companies seem to also no longer exist. I am unfamiliar with the exact source of the content, but it clearly does not match up with the NYSE or NASDAQ listings on wikipedia. There is no reason we shouldn't have this content in the encyclopedia, but in this format it is mostly useless.

If I think of any other points, I will list them. Flying Hamster 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete I'm going to start this one off with a strong delete recommendation. Flying Hamster 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, while I don't think this list is particularly good, I can't really get behind the categories approach either. I go into those categories, and it seems like there's several subcategories that really shouldn't be there, since they don't really cover that subject, but are rather related to the company. That's not quite the place for it, and I think it messes up the flow of the pages, which are already bothersome enough. I don't know where the source for this page was either, but it seems that it uses all caps as opposed to the format Wikipedia uses, which explains the number of redlinks. It could probably be more or less fixed with a style-script, but I'm not going to suggest doing that until there's more consensus on how to this thing. I also think that the current way the NYSE companies are listed is poorly done, since it makes over a dozen pages when a single page might be what somebody wants. Though that could be easily solved with adding another page listing every company in the NYSE for example, on it. Anyway, I really think something more constructive than an outright deletion needs to be done, but I'm not ready to propose anything right now myself. FrozenPurpleCube 20:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your problem with the categories exactly... I also don't understand what you mean when you say that the current way that the NYSE companies are listed makes over a dozen pages... I think that alphabetical sections are appropriate when listing anything of this magnitude. There isn't any need to have a page that itself lists every company in the NYSE when we have this page with this page linked to from it. Also, salvaging this page will be more difficult than you mention, since a substantial quantity of these links are companies that do not have any wikipedia entry at all, and furthermore may no longer exist. As well as this, this page arbitrarily claims to list all U.S. stock market ticker symbols when seperate pages for each stock market would be far more appropriate. Flying Hamster 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate the problem with categories, go to: Category:Companies_listed_on_the_New_York_Stock_Exchange and see the subcatergories. It just seems a little ugly. I think alphabetical listings may have some use, but I'd suggest a combined list for times when you want to search the whole thing at once. FrozenPurpleCube 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how Category:Companies_listed_on_the_New_York_Stock_Exchange is ugly besides the fact that it is a category page. It is not dissimilar to other regular category pages. Wikipedia does not currently have any equivalant of Companies_listed_on_the_New_York_Stock_Exchange_(by Symbol), or its NASDAQ counterpart, etc, and there is an obvious encyclopedic imperative to first create these listings (which would not be category pages). Wikipedia isn't the place to list databases of symbols based on the nation in which the stock market they are in is located. I think this may be an example of WP:LC as well as WP:BIAS as it seems to fit in with the characterization of the inherant biases in wikipedia to have a list of U.S. only ticker symbols instead of a global list of ticker symbols (not that I would enourage such a cumbersome listing). WP:LISTV talks about how lists are sometimes used to get past WP:NOT and WP:V and since a large portion of the links that are here are unverifiable and the listing is primarily a resource to conduct business, I believe that this is the case for List of U.S. ticker symbols. Flying Hamster 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had to think about this one for a bit. Aside from the fact that this list is going to be incredibly difficult to maintain (as evidenced by its current state and the fact that this information changes constantly), I don't think this list makes much sense. If this were a list of stock ticker symbols on the NASDAQ or NYSE, then maybe this works. But a combined list of all US exchanges is less useful. In some cases, a company can have multiple symbols, making this format even less useful. This sort of information is better off in individual lists of symbols for notable stock exchanges (American or otherwise). ScottW 02:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually think a combined list is better, since it allows someone who doesn't know what exchange a given company is on to look them up. And I don't see why there's a problem with multiple symbols. Just have them all on there if that's a concern. FrozenPurpleCube 03:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to list a symbol that exists on multiple stock markets on one page, that page should not be a list of U.S. Ticker Symbols, it should be a list of all ticker symbols. However, this approach is prone to unencyclopedic pages that will not be updated and will have a ton of broken links constantly. Currently, this page is of very little use compared with say, finance.yahoo.com, which is a much-used resource for ticker symbol verification in the U.S. Stock Exchanges especially. Keeping an outdated and redundant list is unneccesary. Flying Hamster 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That a company like yahoo.com is willing to pay people and keep their lists up-to-date and accurate is a natural consequence of Wikipedia is a community-driven approach, as opposed to profit-driven. That's not a good argument, as there are literally thousands of databases with better, more up to date information than Wikipedia. We don't delete articles on sportsteams just because you can find more recent information on them elsewhere. Nor do I understand your comment about a list of all ticker symbols when you have multiple stock markets or multiple symbols. You can still restrict it to markets within the US. FrozenPurpleCube 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the reason Yahoo keeps its lists up-to-date and accurate is because they are actively invested in the quality of information on their site because they make a large profit from the verifiability of their information. Secondly, Yahoo outdates wikipedia by many years, and they have always had a reputation for the quality of their economic data and statistics. What you call the community-driven approach of wikipedia is something that I have a deep respect for and understanding regarding. If you are suggesting, however, that wikipedia, because of this non-profit approach, has more accurate information, then you are mistaken. It is an inherant quality of wikipedia to have unreliable information, and this is important for everyone from editors to researchers to understand. In this case, however, the difference in information is aggregious and the updating would be infinitely more intensive than the update of a sports team's roster. Additionaly, I am not proposing a list of all ticker symbols anywhere, I was pointing out the WP:BIAS in having a U.S. only listing since there are not canadian exclusive listings, etc. Flying Hamster 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Touchy situation. Current format is unmaintainable, without a dedicated WikiProject. Other solutions offerend aren't much better. I rather like the idea of Wikipedia having this information, but in this case we're just reinventing the wheel. I would rather leave the heavy lifting of this type of information to sites like http://finance.yahoo.com/ where they have dedicated professionals maintaining their lists, and save our volunteer man-hours for other articles. --RoninBKETC 07:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a company has an article AND is a ticker symbol on one of the many worldwide exchanges, then add a category to the article. There is no point in having a list which doesn't get maintained. Edison 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way too cumbersome to be properly maintained and verified. Plus, this is the last place people would look for what a symbol meant.Balloonman 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (note: i gave a link of what I was doing in wikipedia to this user and he took it upon himself to comment... you can disregard his comment as he is not familiar with WP:POL...) Flying Hamster 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Searching for Rough Consensus I believe that this proposed deletion should be extended to the point that a rough consensus can be reached. The debate has gotten lengthy and while not resorting to a vote, I believe there should be an attempt to gauge the degree of consensus that exists regarding the proposed deletion of List of U.S. ticker symbols. Flying Hamster 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect seems harmless. W.marsh 21:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of W.I.T.C.H. cast[edit]

  1. Delete This page serves only to duplicate information held elsewhere (See list of witch characters). perfectblue 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I say it is good for people who need a quick, fast, on the go cast list findings. I have had 40 requests! Tyar 02:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide link perfectblue 07:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was other. Confused nominator, only one participant... just wasn't really a fair AfD. This can be renominated whenever if anyone is interested.. W.marsh 00:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about firearms and weapons[edit]

keep-and the afd was linked to the wrong discussion. Chris 19:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This just seems silly. Besides, Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of lists. (I wonder how many "List of songs" articles are out there. Is there a "List of songs about cars"? "List of songs about pizza"? "List of songs that mention phone numbers"?) George J. Bendo 10:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I just discovered how many lists of songs are on Wikipedia. Most of the others are listed here. George J. Bendo 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Characters in Arrested Development (CiAD). Two reasons for choosing this over redirecting to simply Arrested Development (AD): it's much easier to find your way to AD from CiAD then it is the other way round; and this is closely related to the characters more than the plot etc. which is on the main AD page.

Never-nude[edit]

Fictional illness from Arrested Development. Josh a z 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Risk-aware consensual kink[edit]

Risk-aware consensual kink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Totally unencyclopedic and highly inappropriate Skobelief 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's at least as encyclopedic as many other articles. It explains the term, where the term comes from and why, and what it refers to. It also explains that it doesn't bar it from legal prosecution and explains that the term doesn't refer specifically to particular acts, although that's what's considered... Given there's no porn, no graphic descriptions, I also don't see how it's inapproriate. Cantras 20:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Also edited the tag so the "this article's entry" comes here instead of a blank page. Cantras 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" I assume the objection is to the (controvercial sexual) context surrounding the RACK philosophy/idea. However, this entry does not contain any information which would shock or mislead a young person, or a person sheltered enough to be not yet aware of that context. I do see this entry as plainly factual, potentially edifying for one who comes accross the term in research or recreational reading, and carefully non-explicit. The RACK scene, like many controvercial counter-culture behaviors, does exist and people may want to know about it. It is not necessary that those people agree with RACKs endorsers or participants. Nor does this entry advocate for such endorsement or participation. In fact, knowlege of the existence of such a scene could reduce the risk of someone "unwittingly" entering it... or being duped into it. 70.23.228.75 05:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)AC[reply]

Keep. — As per Cantras's comments. This does indeed seem to be a valid article. Also, it appears to me from looking at Skobelief's previous contributions that this AfD request is POV pushing. Robotman1974 22:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in reply to Robotman1974 Yes, there is some pov in it and thinking beings cannot be without it. However I think it is better than that pov, which pushes every shade of masturbation, penetration, foreplay, oral sex etc. as encylopedic stuff. I have a feeling that you are falling prey to an organised conspiracy of the detractors ( who are flocking around enterprises like Encylopedia Dramatica) to push obscenity and sexual content into Wikipedia. Skobelief 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. The questions are whether this is a notable term which we can write about without original research using reliable sources consistent with Wikipedia's verification policy. JoshuaZ 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Cantras and Robotman1974. —Hanuman Das 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have concerns about the notability of the term which I would like to see addressed but it does turn up a fair number of google hits. Someone should take time to source it better. JoshuaZ 04:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree about the sourcing, but firmly believe this to be a valid article based on searches, etc. Do not see any reason under policy or guidelines to delete. Shimeru 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been revised to expand sourcing, and to improve the prose. --RoninBKETC 09:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Varano 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The distinction between SSC (Safe, Sane and Consensual) and RACK is a key point of debate in kink communities, and many issues of personal philosophy are centered on an understanding of what the terms mean. This is very basic to knowledge of modern BDSM. Chris Hall 17:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Bangin' 101[edit]

Gang Bangin' 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet any of the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (songs). Is not, nor are there any sources that say it will be released as a single. --Ted87 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and Delete --Ted87 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete- not a single from the particular album. Not a particularly notable song from that album, either. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it will be a single, then we'll work on it. Lajbi Holla @ me 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/keep, why screw over wp users who want to find out what this song is about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talk • contribs) 10:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom but wouldn't object to a redirect to the album. JoshuaZ 16:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus a bit short of an outright Keep. TRIVIA is not a very well written proposed guideline, and I find it quite a poor basis for an AfD nomination. - crz crztalk 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2001: A Space Odyssey trivia[edit]

List of 2001: A Space Odyssey trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:TRIVIA, specifically. If we don't allow trivia sections, why in the world would we allow trivia articles? The "significance" of the film doesn't excuse this. Also, WP:NOT concerns. Interrobamf 19:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TRIVIA. Weasel words galore rather than useful references. MartinDK 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a guide to trivia. RobJ1981 21:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs deletion per WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT. Hello32020 21:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. The information in the article is not so that people can play Trivial Pursuit, but rather adds context to the movie and permits a better understanding of it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then put it in the actual article, not dump it in this mess of an article. If it's considered trivia, then it isn't significant enough to be noted on Wikipedia, period. Interrobamf 04:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and rename as above. The film is notable. The information is intereting and referenced. Its not just a collection of random factoids. MightyAtom 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a collection of random factoids. Unless your English is completely an totally distant from all modern use. "It's interesting" is not an actual argument. Please cite actual policy. Interrobamf 04:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) and redirect —Hanuman Das 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Relevant information to the film. Merging to the main article will make it way beyond the preferred length. Wavy G 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if you want to keep some of the trivia then merge a small part of it into the article. All this is way too much, delete per WP:TRIVIA. Whispering 01:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Possibly rename - needs reworking to remove weasel words. Provides quite a bit of useful information that was moved from the main article because it became too long! -- Bungopolis 02:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you people simply refuse to read WP:TRIVIA? "Lists of facts, as found in trivia sections, are better presented within the context of the text rather than in a section of unrelated items." You are supposed to integrate the "trivia" with the actual prose, not create an absolutely worthless article. That simply showcases the laziness of Wikipedia. Interrobamf 04:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:TRIVIA does not forbid trivia sections nor does it advocate deleting of them. If there are any items that can be added to the main article, fine, but otherwise there's nothing wrong it a sourced article like this for a notable film. Wiki is not paper applies here, too. 23skidoo 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia sections in articles are heavily discouraged which implies that entire articles based on trivia are even worse. Most of the information is irrelevant and what is actually encyclopedic can be merged. --The Way 08:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep interesting information too much to include in its own article, and it trivia on a notable movie.Killerhun00 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The information in this article is super-interesting, yet does not belong in the already overly-long film article. Since Wiki doesn't want 'trivia' articles, rename and rework it.
The real problem here is Wiki's silly policy against trivia. Half of all visitors to Wiki come here SEEKING trivia! Wiki says "Be Bold" -- OK, I say, change the trivia rule, and Basta already with all you Wiki-weiner rule interlopers, who otherwise have not contributed a thing to any of these wonderful 2001-related entries. Sailorlula 01:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have nothing but arrogant insult and proposals to ignore policy based on something you can barely substantiate? I implore the closing admin to consider this beyond headcount. "It's interesting" means precisely shit. We don't retain things based on "interesting", and certainly not in a mass of text because people are too lazy to actually improve the main article. Interrobamf 14:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found this article very relevant for an analysis of the movie I have to do for a college class. The information might not seem important at a glimpse (especially when titled Trivia), but it is nonetheless significant, primarily as facts anyone could use for a further scrutiny of the movie. So this information, which could be hard to find anywhere else as a whole, should be kept, either here or on its main article (you'd have to make considerable editing to fit it over there, though). Kreachure 00:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

}

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzay[edit]

Dizzay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can't find any reliable sources on this web site, and it strikes me as not particularly notable. I could be wrong, though, which is why this is at AfD instead of using {{prod}}. Powers T 19:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Alexa rank of 1,407,780, it that's your thing. Couldn't find any sources through Google, as expected. Fails WP:WEB. --- RockMFR 01:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave this entry in here. It is still a young site, and getting better. I believe it will be noteworthy soon enough. --71.49.39.219 13:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that you suspect that a website will be noteworthy "soon enough" is not enough to give it merit enough for an article. The website is not currently notable; it has an Alexa rank in the millions. If it becomes notable by Wikipedia standards for websites, the article may be recreated. Delete. Srose (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have your order of operations reversed. First, the site becomes noteworthy; then someone unconnected with the site writes an article on it. Powers T 13:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously authored by the site creator. LittleOldMe 13:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and RockMFR. MikeWazowski 18:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 21:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roscoe Dsane[edit]

Roscoe Dsane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable footballer, never played at professional level - fchd 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't play in a fully professional league. Catchpole 22:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would tend to agree, but then it seems everyone who's kicked a ball in any league (including the Conference) has an inalienable right to a page nowadays. There seems to be a different set of rules applied to football articles for notability. Bubba hotep 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the standards are the same; its just that there are a lot of fans out there who want their players to have articles. BlueValour 00:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO. BlueValour 00:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has an excellent name but unfortunately his career to date doesn't merit an article.... ChrisTheDude 08:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BlueValour then! Bubba hotep 09:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fchd and BlueValour. It's worth checking to see if any other AFCW players fail this criterion as well. Qwghlm 13:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Angelo 17:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 00:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Shah[edit]

Salman Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Salman Shah dosen't seems to meet a noteable. I am also living in Pakistan, never heard the name of this chap more then two times. A M. Khan 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. The article be speedy deleted, as I don't think Salman Shah meets the criterai to have separate page for him. A M. Khan 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple search finds thousands of news stories and references to him. Fan-1967 19:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. That nomination looks like a joke to me. The person has a status of a Federal Minister in Pakistan and is the architect of economic reforms in Pakistan. Ceratinly passes the Google test. Also Fulfills the criteria of WP:BIO. --Marwatt 20:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Dlete There are many advisors to PM of Pakistan at the moment. Advisors are having no values. Just before a month, Punjab High Court dismissed the status of many of the Advisors of Chief Minister Chaudhary Pervez Elahi. This shows that advisors seems to be nothing, except whatthey are working in current government. They are not elected members nor they have legislation rights. Nor Salam Shah is answerable to both houses of Parliament of Pakistan, National Assembly and Senate. So to best of my knowledge, a strong dlete should be recommended. Otherwise, nothing harmful in this article Begu Khel 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)) This is a defintetly a sock-puppet, a new account. Whenever and wherever User:A M. Khan wants to initiate a bad faith AFD, this sock puppet or some other which he has created creep in to balance the scale in his favor. --Marwatt 14:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:BIO. Like it or not he is notable according to Google. MartinDK 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Apparently a bad faith nomination. The nominator may be warned for nominating articles indiscriminately. He is one of the top Finance Officials in the Government of Pakistan. Meets the criteria of WP:BIO.--Mina Khel 22:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC) This is a sock-puppet, a new account. Whenever and wherever User:Marwatt needs this I.D comes in and saves his cause. [reply]
  • Comments There are many things listed in Google but they aren't notable things to be pasted on Wikipedia. Whatever Begu Khel claims is right, many advisors were dimissed. So the article be speedy deleted. Just yesterday, many other Advisors of Chief Minister of Punjab were thrown away. You can make easy search in google for this news.)) Regards A M. Khan 16:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC).)) This appears to be a drama comment by User:A M. Khan so as to show as if User:Begu Khel is not his sock puppet. --Marwatt 22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. --Marwatt 00:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- It is ridiculous to nominate this type of articles to Afd. Really a notable person. He had visited India with President Mushraaff .  Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 14:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI don't see the reasoning behind this nomination, he is de facto Finance Minister of Pakistan, and a front like spokesperson of the GOP on finance issues. While I find him boring and to technical he is without a doubt worth a mention on wiki. --Zak 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 21:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois high school hockey[edit]

Delete - PROD'd and then DEPROD'd with the edit summary of "deprod obviously notable school" (?) Basically, there is no verifiable information available to suggest that there is any sort of overall (or even WP:LOCAL) notability for this topic. As it stands the article is comprised of an unsourced POV statement about the growing popularity of hockey in Illinois, a statement that "high schools field varsity teams competing, in the Amateur Hockey Association Illinois" [sic], the factoid that Al Montoya played hockey in Illinois, and a 1 entry list of Amateur Hockey Association Illinois club teams. The problem is that even cleaned up, there is no real useful potential for expansion here. AHAI itself does not appear to be a notable club and if it was it would merit its own article with a list of teams. As I said before, I can find nothing reliable to suggest that High School or Amateur level hockey is a significant or growing sport in Illinois. There is a merge tag on the article, but without verification, I wouldn't even suggest a merge to Illinois because at that point all you have is a unsourced POV statement and mention of a non-notable organization (AHAI).--Isotope23 20:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Non-notable and unverifiable. I am not sure that AHAI is non-notable but this article in particular sure is. MartinDK 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very little content, and what's there isn't notable. In fact, there's no way this topic could ever be notable. The proposed merge with the Illinois article is almost BJAODN-worthy. -- Kicking222 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete per nomination. Lack of content, and the user who started it was quite new, registering on November 14. Surely that doesn't automatically make it non-notable, but I do question it's notability, and its need for a separate article. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two sentenses that form the bulk of the article have OR/POV problems. No real sources; as it is, no notability is established. Also, as a side note, I'm from Illinois and I can say, at least in central Illinois, hockey is not very popular. Sure, some teams exist (though I know of no high school teams), but then again I'm guessing all states have some sort of hockey league. --The Way 08:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Gallery[edit]

Notabililty concerns. There are lots of small art galleries in the world. Unsure whether this particular gallery is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. MidgleyDJ 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even the 2004 coverage of Stella Vine didn't produce "a significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject" as WP:ORG. I prodded two other articles yesterday, Ariel Gallery and Stride Gallery, for the same reason. --Mereda 08:33, 24 October 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, KrakatoaKatie 11:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite clearly an advertising puff for a small rather insignificant gallery in London's East End. It does not represent a store of knowledge of any kind.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.1.226 (talk • contribs)
First and only edit by anon account. Tyrenius 02:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a major problem with applying the definition from WP:ORG quoted above to art galleries, which is that even major commercial galleries do not usually command such coverage. The coverage is given to the artists who exhibit in them, and this is the means by which the gallery achieves its reputation (e.g. Daily Telegraph). The fact that Stella Vine was exhibited and discovered by Charles Saatchi in Transition and has subsequently gone on to achieve an international reputation and ongoing media coverage is enough to make the gallery itself of enduring interest. Anyone reading about Vine may well want further information on this initial event and its context. Failure to provide it will be disappointing. Additionally Vine had her first solo show there, has continued to exhibit in group shows and is scheduled for a further solo show in May 2007. An rare example of critics focusing on the galleries rather than the artists is in The Evening Standard, where only 4 galleries were singled out, one of them Transition. There are in addition other blue link artists listed for the gallery, and others bought and shown by Saatchi such as Liz Neal again referencing Transition. The bottom line is that it has sufficient repute and position in contemporary art to merit an article. Tyrenius 02:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Tyrenius, you have me confused. first you write half the article, then you sponsor (?I think) & vote for deletion, then you give a spiel for keeping. Like JFK, I am on this occasion prepared to follow the last opinion i heard, so narrowly go for KEEP. Johnbod 02:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, i see now you were only commenting on the other vote. Still KEEP Johnbod 02:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I have now clarified by adding anon IP address to the unsigned comment. Tyrenius 01:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Dicdef. El_C 14:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One (word)[edit]

One (word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. humblefool® 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Whpq 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is entirely duplicate with one (pronoun). Delete, and I suppose redirect if it seems likely that people would point themselves to this article. - Che Nuevara 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per duplicate info from both One (pronoun) and wiktionary:one. --McMillin24 contribstalk 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is not merely a dictionary definition and it's not a duplicate of one (pronoun) either. It explains also the history of the word "one" and how it got to be pronounced "wun", rather than how it looks, which is quite interesting. If this is deleted then man (word), orange (word) and god (word) should be deleted to. Topses 23:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, but the etymology section is blank, and the pronunciation section is unsourced. Fagstein 04:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Oh, can I do an article on the word two and how the w became silent which I am sure is quite interesting too. Then again as long as this crap gets to stay I am not sure we are being consistent in the enforcement of WP:NOT. MartinDK 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DCEdwards1966 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Kept: started by indef blocked user, clearly some sort of sockpuppet of a banned user anyway. Cowman109Talk 15:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Farrell[edit]

Contested prod, with that prod reason being that this article was to be deleted had she lost the race for Congress.--Brokendowntoyotacamry 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • very weak keep as I don't know the policy on runners up in national campaigns, but this is a fairly well documented article on a former mayor of a town. It meets WP:V and is locally a notable individual. i kan reed 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. No ex offico notability for small town mayors. National campaign now over and failed Bwithh 21:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been one of the most contested House races for two cycles now and it has generated a huge amount of national press coverage - Farrell may very well run again in two years which will continue to keep her in the news. Even if she completely disappears tomorrow an article about her could still be useful for anyone interested in CT politics. GabrielF 21:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to pass WP:RS and WP:V, as for notability its a toss up. They are notable after the last race and for having a political position equivalent to a Mayor, which is more then just an alderman at least. For now I say keep unless some compeling arguement comes forth with why Mayors arent notable. --NuclearZer0 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't live in Conn. and I've heard of her. The article needs some work, but it seems reasonable to have an article on her. - Che Nuevara 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep too soon to have yet another debate. This article has already survived AfD twice. Catchpole 22:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She was a candidate. Now she's just mayor of a town of 25,000 people. "May very well run again" is crystal-ballism. Fan-1967 02:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's clearly one of the most important politicians in Connecticut, having run two high profile campaigns for congress and she doesn't cease being an important politician just because she lost this election. She's an elected municipal leader, raised millions for her last bid, etc. Also, this has ALREADY been argued -- how many AFDs is this going to get?--Francisx 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main argument to keep in previous AFD's was that she was still, at that time, an active candidate. She no longer is, which nullifies that argument, so it is valid to reopen the discussion. Fan-1967 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification Highly misleading AFD request -- there has never been any consensus to delete Diane Farrell pending the outcome of the election.--Francisx 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She may run for office again. Not to mention if she is deleted and she does run again a future editor might not know about her 2006 run for Congress and not only that they will have to start all over again. Plus many other candidates that lost this year (and in past elections) still have articles. MrKing84 07:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Does somebody have it out for her? Why a third attempt? Is WP paper? She's run two very competitive campaigns the latter of which got national attention; she was elected twice as "selectwoman" (equivalent to mayor); As I wrote in the 2nd attempt to delete her: please note in WP:BIO that one positive factor is: "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". As of this writing, she gets 429 news.google hits, and " 'Diane Farrell' + candidate" gets over 100,000 google hits. Further, that she lost last time by only 4% shows that she is a significant figure in her district (as well has holding previous elected office) -- Sholom 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She was deleted in the first AfD request, early in the election process, because she was only an ex-"mayor" of a town of 25,000. She was kept in the second AfD request because the CT 4th CD race had become so noted. Farrell's notability is that she ran against Shays. Her information should be included in the 2006 Connecticut 4th Congressional article. It does not rate a seperate article unless all current and former mayors of small towns are allowed individual articles. -- Wspta 15:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have mixed feelings about this. If the final decision is to not keep the article, I highly recommend a redirect to Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006, as was just done in a similar case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samm Simpson. A redirect preserves the page history (and older versions of the article), which would be valuable should (for example) Farrell again be a candidate in 2008, which would clearly (in my opinion) make her again quite notable again. John Broughton | Talk 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GabrielF. JamesMLane t c 14:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Eddie Guerrero. The article fails WP:NOT a memorial and WP:NPOV, so I'm definitely not going to dump this into the already very lengthy Eddie Guerrero article, but the edit history is still there, so editors can discuss on the talk page which parts to pick and choose and merge back into the Eddie Guerrero article. My hunch is not very much, but this is outside the scope of this AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tributes to Eddie Guerrero[edit]

Tributes to Eddie Guerrero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is tributes for wrestlers all the time. The tributes for Eddie Guerrero are nothing that sticks out. This is a good article that should be transferred to a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Smerge to Eddie Guerrero. --- RockMFR 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Eddie Guerrero. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge, it's just not necessary to have something like this have it's own page. It also carries a slight NPOV slant to have this article keep it's own space, I don't think there is a "tributes" page for every celebrity that has died. Cornerbock 05:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment...well,i saw delete and dont delete/merge...i dunno,on the one hand theres quite alot in the articla and would significantally lengthen eddie geurreros article,but on the other hand,owen hart doesnt have a tribute page....Merge,i 'spose.
  • Merge with Eddie Guerrero. --Aaru Bui DII 21:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with article on the wrestler. Originally the article was a useful offshoot for the tribute stuff from the main article, but it's become cluttered with some unnecessary stuff. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna go with Merge seemingly notable but not standalone quality †he Bread 00:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Whispering 00:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Motor Corporation[edit]

Poorly made article that should be totally wiped out and started from scratch. Neutrality disputed and quality lacking. This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Merge with Lexus perhaps. --U-666 21:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC) — U-666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Speedy Keep: bad faith nom, first edits of this editor. Fram 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid fool you forgot the "*"! And besides this article needs a lot of work and maybe this nom, while not successful, is a wake-up call to fix it. --U-666 21:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adequate article. If it needs repairs, fix it, don't delete it. And remember WP:CIVIL. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Very notable article. Bad faith nomination. Don't remove votes, it is blatant vandalism. Also, do not use words like fool about other editors. It is considered uncivil and a personal attack and may result in a block. MartinDK 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above and obvious. Newyorkbrad 21:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:CORP. I recommend that the nominator be warned or temporarily blocked for a bad faith nomination, a personal attack, and vandalism by altering or removing other people's recommendations. --Metropolitan90 21:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It turns out he already has been blocked. --Metropolitan90 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, they got him after he pageblanked today's featured article. I'll check if he nominated anything else today. Newyorkbrad 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zenrutn 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Speedy keep, nom's been blocked. hateless 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Delete an article about one of the largest auto-makers in the world? How un-encyclopedic that would be....--Endroit 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Rickett[edit]

Martin Rickett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod: fails WP:V: Martin Rickett plus price-drop, price drop, pricedrop, or bid tv, all give zero google hits. Fram 21:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilyah[edit]

Lilyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Finnish R&B singer, with one downloadable single, page a year old and career does not appear to progressed. MNewnham 21:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:RS.--Húsönd 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she's cute and Finnish, and has a top-40 hit and a myspace page. What more can you ask for. ;-) —Hanuman Das 01:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does having a top 40 hit not satisfy criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC - "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country"? JoshuaZ 04:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The last thing we need is a long debate about whether or not Finland qualifies as a 'medium-sized country.' If its true that she had a number one hit for 6 weeks on the Finnish Top 40, then keep the article... though it needs to be expanded, for sure, as its currently useless. --The Way 08:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I read the text as indicating that she was in the top 40 downloads on the site, not that she was in the Finnish top 40. If I am mistaken, then I would withdraw this nomination MNewnham 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rereading it your interpretation seems correct. So she fails WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 01:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Delete fails WP:MUSIC by a wide margin. Eluchil404 12:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as redirect to James H. Fetzer, merge at your convenience. El_C 13:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Evolution of Intelligence[edit]

The Evolution of Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable academic book - google scholar came up with only two citations [72] - amazon sales rank is over 1 million [73] - article has no assertion of notability - note that the author is one of the most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the editor who created this page has created a huge number of stubs for 9/11 conspiracy articles with few if any edits to articles about psychology, animal behavior or AI that are unrelated to conspiracy theorists. It is entirely possible that this article was created to give academic legitimacy to the book's author - that's not what wikipedia is for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielF (talk • contribs)

  • Merge into Fetzer, the article has no content on its own, may as well help support the Fetzer article. --NuclearZer0 21:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fetzer. Not all of these books need an article, but Fetzer is notable.--Rosicrucian 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No need for this article, it's just a pretty book cite. Crockspot 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. Brimba 05:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even notable enough to merge. Tbeatty 06:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I thought we were done with all of the Striver-cruft. Is there more? Morton DevonshireYo 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into James Fetzer...ranks at #338,792 on Amazon.[74]--MONGO 09:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep. Notable author, etc. Gamaliel 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I went ahead and beefed up the publications section of the Fetzer article, to include pretty much all of his Amazon hits. (The guy has written a LOT of books!). There's really not anything else to merge from these book articles, unless you count the book cover graphics. - Crockspot 01:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the citation and ext links with Fetzer article. That's about all that can be salvaged. JungleCat talk/contrib 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crockspot's done all that can be done as far as merging. --Aaron 02:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Berlin[edit]

Hallo Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nomination for deletion Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a tourist or dining guide. This is an article about a street vendor food cart. It won an award for best street food vendor from the Urban Justice Center[75]. This contest gets some local news coverage e.g. in the local news and dining pages of the NYTimes[76][77]. But minor awards and news coverage do not automatically translate into encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see related afd for Chicken and RiceBwithh 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also see related cfd for Category:Tourist dining Bwithh 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and the above comment. Unverfiable claim of fame. 2-man non-notable food cart open 4 hours a day monday to friday. MartinDK 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fame is demonstrated by its newspaper clippings. If the New York Times, one of the world's leading newspapers, thinks that Hallo Berlin is notable, then that is a judgment which has considerable weight. Besides, other food service establishments, such as Tour d'Argent, have their own articles. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal As I emphasized in the nomination, the Vendy awards received local news/dining coverage in the New York Times. The NYT is not just an international or national newspaper, it is also a local newspaper covering issues of local interest specific to New York City and surrounding area. (The Times has reviewed the majority of the thousands of restaurants in NYC too. Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide so we don't need articles on every single one of them.) As for Tour d'Argent - it's a 400 year old landmark (i.e. older than the United States.... and the NYTimes calls it "a famous landmark", "a legendary restaurant", and "a monument historique") - not comparable to Hallo Berlin Bwithh 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, Tour d'Argent results in over 1.8 million Google hits. I fail to see the comparison with a part time food-cart operated by two people. MartinDK 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Just because something is "more" notable does not mean this is not notable. Winning the Vendy Awards by itself is establishment of notability, even without the NY times articles. Valoem talk 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't make it encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE clearly states that Wikipedia is not a travel guide or restaurant guide. MartinDK 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment this is not a tourist guide, it is a cited place of interest that has been cited by multiple indepedent sources and has won awards. Secondly Wikipedia does include restuarants nowhere on that page does it say otherwise. That page also made it clear that small cafes and such as not notable per Wikipedia, however a cited awarded dining location is. Valoem talk 22:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only does this award not make the cart notable, but I can't seem to find many references to the award itself other than people saying they won it or were nominated(other than it's own page[78]). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Firstly, how does the Vendy Awards, not merit itself? How is the award not notable. Also Hallo Berlin has been cited as a notable dining location by multiple indepedent sources: [79], [80], [81], [82], there are also 3 newspaper clipping including one from the New York Times posted on the cart itself stating the notability of the cart. Valoem talk 00:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be frank, I don't see a push cart being notable unless it did something pretty amazing. A couple reviews, and some directory listins don't cut it for me. I don't see any mention in the times abstracts. If that counts, then there are 15 or so little food shops around here with a few local reviews. I am not going to make articles on them though. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this were ny.wikipedia.org, I may have a different opinion. But for a general interest encyclopedia, I just don't see it. While the New York times is certainly a substantial publication, not everything in it is non-trivial (All The News That's Fit To Print). The publications seem to be in very local in nature, and no different from the type of article that appears in the primary newspaper of localities around the world. Not to say that no weiner stand could ever be the subject of an article, but this one doesn't seem to be it. ScottW 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment several things to note. New York is considered to be the financial headquarters of the world. Therefore, anything notable in NY is more notable than anything in small towns. Of course magazines and other magazines that publish locally in small towns are hardly notable. But when an article is published in NY Mag and New York Times it is notable. The real question is does this dining location merit enough notability that people not from the location would be interested, because it has been mentioned as a notable dining location in NY mag, it most certainly would (not to mention Vendy Awards). Valoem talk 04:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh, trivial local media coverage is trivial local media coverage. (and debatable whether NYC is world's financial capital) Bwithh 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to see multiple indepedent sources sir :) (Hallo Berlin has that) Valoem talk 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant reviews (especially such pieces on the level of a brief blog entry by one guy (gothamist link), one-line opinions by one person as in the "best power lunch" link, a few lines in a quote from one guy(Food & Wine link), a youtube video (!!!)) are not a good basis for encyclopedic notability. Awards and press coverage do not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia's primary overriding function is as an encyclopedic not a general information dump Bwithh 18:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking way too quantitatively. The guidelines on notability for companies say nothing about how much needs to be written to qualify for inclusion. All the sources I cited (obviously with the exception of the YouTube video I threw in there for fun, in ext links not references) are "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself". (That's taken directly from the guideline, so yes, press coverage and awards do designate notability. By definition, when you give something an award it's to show it's more notable than the rest.) You're going to toss out the fact that this food institution was given awards (Vendy and Best Power Lunch), because they didn't see the need to write a novel about it? That's unnecessary, the notability lies in the fact that major magazines and newspapers wrote about Hallo Berlin with distinction regardless of the fact of how long those articles are. --Howrealisreal 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; marginally notable. Everyking 04:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Howreal, who shows that the cart/restaurant chain has sufficient notability. Add some of the above citations to the article. -- Kicking222 14:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I overhauled the article with references. I'll most likely get back to this later and add some more (the Restaurant heading is obviously lacking). Thanks for helping out here. --Howrealisreal 16:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Easyas12c 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not need articles on every restaurant that ever won a local award of some kind. See WP:COMPANY. -- Ssilvers 01:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Ironically, this article passes WP:COMPANY - "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself" Valoem talk 01:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please know that consensus trumps a guideline. So any irony would be academic in nature. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure I know excatly what you mean. He cited WP:COMPANY as a reason for deletion, however when I read the article it actually supported my inclusion, hence the irony. Since WP is not a vote for consensus, I believe I countered his argument. Valoem talk 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 00:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murder in Dealey Plaza[edit]

Murder in Dealey Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable JFK conspiracy book. The article reads like an ad and doesn't assert notability. Amazon sales rank is about 125,000 [83], only about 540 google hits of which 78 are unique [84]. GabrielF 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Fetzer same as other book, the article has no content on its own, may as well help support the Fetzer article. --NuclearZer0 21:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Though I strongly disagree with its conclusions, it is a book by a notable author from a significant publisher which has been reviewed in mainstream publications such as Publisher's Weekly. Gamaliel 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fetzer. Not all of these books need an article, but Fetzer is notable.--Rosicrucian 22:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fetzer. No need for an article for each book, and the Fetzer article could use the improvement. Crockspot 00:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fetzer per Crockspot. Edison 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fetzer as per Crockspot. Brimba 05:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Tbeatty 06:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Are you sure he doesn't have a book about the Apollo moon landing hoax as well. Morton DevonshireYo 08:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into James Fetzer--MONGO 09:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I went ahead and beefed up the publications section of the Fetzer article, to include pretty much all of his Amazon hits. (The guy has written a LOT of books!). There's really not anything else to merge from these book articles, unless you count the book cover graphics. - Crockspot 01:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fetzer - I'm sure Fetzer had the moon landing in his list of "things to do". JungleCat talk/contrib 13:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This book can be mentioned in the James Fetzer article, but does not merit its own article. --Aude (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 00:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Zapruder Film Hoax[edit]

The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable conspiracy theory book. Article reads like an advertisement and makes no claim to notability. Amazon.com sales rank is greater than 286,000 [85] and the title only generates about 750 google hits [86] GabrielF 21:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge. Though I strongly disagree with its conclusions, it is a book by a notable author from a significant publisher which has been reviewed in mainstream publications such as Publisher's Weekly. Gamaliel 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fetzer. Not all of these books need an article, but Fetzer is notable.--Rosicrucian 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fetzer. Crockspot 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fetzer same as other book, the article has no content on its own, may as well help support the Fetzer article. --NuclearZer0 21:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fetzer. Edison 01:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Brimba 05:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete man, fetzer is is a prodigious creator of non-notable conspiracy cruft. No need to boost his nonsense with added google hits. --Tbeatty 06:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Next he'll uncover the "truth" about the Easter Bunny and Santa. Morton DevonshireYo 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Into James Fetzer.--MONGO 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I went ahead and beefed up the publications section of the Fetzer article, to include pretty much all of his Amazon hits. (The guy has written a LOT of books!). There's really not anything else to merge from these book articles, unless you count the book cover graphics. - Crockspot 01:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fetzer - JungleCat talk/contrib 13:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This book can be mentioned in the James Fetzer article, but does not merit its own article. --Aude (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. If anyone wants to smerge this, I'll be happy to userfy. - crz crztalk 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity[edit]

Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

original research, essay topic -999 (Talk) 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. -999 (Talk) 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What has happened with the Rudolf Steiner and Waldorf articles is that individuals from outside Wikipedia have brought a very vicious and personal fight into Wikipedia. These articles are the battlefield. A mediation request has been accepted, but no progress has been made. No Wikipedian has been able to de-escalate or to talk any sense to either party. The two groups are very well dug into their respective positions, and I am utterly skeptical that there will be any solution short of arbitration. Someone needs to take control of the situation, because the edit and ideological war does tend to spread to other articles and certainly does not do Wikipedia any good. Determining the status of this article without dealing with the conflict is pointless. — goethean ॐ 22:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See also what was done in response to WP:BLP complaints about Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole at [87]. That page was on a living person and was explicitly created as a POV fork to try to avoid WP:BLP, but the cases are nevertheless similar: long tracts of quotes and original-research-narratives by Wikipedia editors with references almost exclusively to primary sources written by the person. The deviation away from the centrally notable, encyclopedic subject, the person, and the lack of secondary sources on the minute particulars that fill the article, inevitably leads to never-ending POV disputes. Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability (under section "Notability as a reason for merging") are informative here. —Centrx→talk • 23:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the text at Rudolf_Steiner#Rudolf_Steiner.27s_views_on_race_and_ethnicity is sufficient coverage of the matter. Accordingly, I suggest that the article under consideration be deleted. We can provide links to the extended debate in the footnotes and external links, although we should not link to waldorfanswers.org or waldorfcritics.org or similar sites. — goethean ॐ 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV OR. —Hanuman Das 01:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What happened to the idea to merge it into the main article, rather than delete it entirely? The gist of the debate is this: The "Views on race and ethnicity" article is, in fact, essentially a POV fork, but it was created because agreement couldn't be reached in the main article on Steiner as to how to appropriately represent his very controversial racial views. Steiner's devotees want minimal if any mention of his racial views on wikipedia because it is very, very bad press for them. They know that even scanty quotes on Steiner on the topic of race strike outsiders immediately as appalling. They will not consent, in the main article, to even cursory coverage of this controversial aspect of Steiner unless it is to whitewash the overall offensive nature of his views. They raise inane, unscholarly arguments about how many quotes there are that are racist, noting he wrote so-many thousand lectures and in only, say, 10 of these lectures did he describe blacks as having overdeveloped sexuality and boiling blood etc. or describe the white race as the "spiritually creative race" or the "race of the future." Critics of Steiner cannot consent to this aspect of Steiner being hidden or buried in the main article; it is central to his worldview. This ultimately led to creation of the sub-article; this also pleases Steiner followers to some extent because probably fewer people will read the subarticle. Full and honest coverage of Steiner's racial views does belong in the main article; the sub-article should not be deleted, however, until that issue is resolved.DianaW 01:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That needs to be done through reliable secondary sources, and Wikipedia articles are not the place for an agenda of "revealing the truth" about someone. —Centrx→talk • 17:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that. These sources have been cited. (Yes - secondary sources, published in scholarly journals, by academic authors.) They are routinely deleted by the Steiner devotees; that's what the continual edit-wars are about. My comments pertain to keeping the material in the main article where it belongs. Anyway, I'm not sure what's wrong or questionable about "revealing the truth" about someone's racial views by quoting those views directly.DianaW 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was created because the main article Rudolf Steiner was becoming swamped by enormous tracts of quotations from both secondary and primary sources on this topic - the same kinds of material that appear in this article. Though the article clearly does not conform to Wikipedia standards, if deleted, there is a clear and present danger (see above comment) that this swamping will recur. Thus, its only value is to prevent the main article from looking like this one! Hgilbert 00:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is a common issue that might need some solution. It is convenient to let the edit warring and epic POV disputes be on a separate page that no one will read anyway, to save the main article. —Centrx→talk • 19:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and suggestion The issue of race, as it was understood at Steiner's time is a peripheral issue in his published works. About five of the appr. 3.000 published lectures by Steiner have the issue of race, as it was understood at the time, as their main theme. In total, the Dutch commission that in 1996 started to find, document and comment on all comments by Steiner on the issue of race, as it was understood at his time, found and document appr. 245 such comments in its final report from 2000. They probably constitute about 0.5-1% of his total published works, including the context for them. Of these, in the view of the Commission, 16 would probably constitute a violation of Dutch legislation on discrimination if expressed by someone in the Netherlands today on his or her own responsibility. Five of the 16 comments were made in 1923 during one ad hoc morning lecture to construction workers in answer to a question by one of the workers. The remaining 11 are spread out in the appr. 90,000 pages of the published works. For more on this, see here.
In anti-Waldorf propaganda they constitute the main focus of the "criticism", and is the primary reason for their appearance in the article, budded off from the Steiner article.
The allegation that they play any significant role in Waldorf education is contradicted by empirical research on Waldorf pupils in Sweden, comparing several hundred Waldorf students there (grade 9 and 12) to corresponding students in Swedish public schools. Among other things the research showed that the majority of the pupils in both types of school repudiated Nazism and racism. However, the proportion of pupils who suggested anti-Nazi and anti-racist solutions, i.e., solutions that involved counteracting or stopping Nazism and racism was considerably greater among the Waldorf pupils (93%) than among pupils at municipal schools (72%). It indicates that similar research in other countries would come to similar results, and that the heavy focus on the allegations of racism in anthroposophy and Waldorf education primarily is an expression of anti-Waldorf propaganda, not reality.
One possible consequence of this would be to delete the separate article on "Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity" and reflect the description and discussion dedicated to the issue in the main article on Steiner to the actual importance it plays in his his works, in quantitative terms being on the order of 1%, as reasonable. Thebee 12:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Above, we see the problem here. One or two authors don't understand what racism is and why it is important to identify racist philosophy especially when it is the foundation philosophy for a SCHOOL. Steiner invented Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy elevates one race above another. Anthroposophy is taught to Waldorf teachers directly (including the racist material). Waldorf teachers teach Anthroposophy to the students indirectly (including the racist material). The two authors will never admit this - it's literally against their religion - and furthermore, they don't believe the material to be racist. The edit wars here are often focused on disputing the reliability of sources that identify Steiner's racism and hiding the Anthroposophical affiliations of sources that refute it. One author, in particular, believes his own original research website to be a legitimate supplement of Wikipedia.
The problem we have with second-sourcing the material is that second sources aren't acceptable to either side. The "Dutch Commission" that TheBee talks about was not an unbiased commission, it was a commission exclusively made up of Anthroposophists (a fact in the article, the inclusion of which was hard-fought). Nobody who wasn't an Anthroposophist was on the commission. So we have Anthroposophists excusing their guru, Steiner, of racism. Big surprize!. Learned professors confirm Steiner's racism, and those, according to the Steiner revisionists, require labels like "Skeptic", or the inclusion of more articles by more Anthroposophists that obfuscate the information presented. The intent seems to be to bore people into not reading the article. That's why Steiner's own words have been provided here - because they are indisputable.
The information contained in this article is absolutely relevant to who Steiner was. Steiner was a philosopher. Racism found its way into his philosophy. He was a political activist who promoted assimilation of the Jews and took a political stance on the housing of black troops in France after WWI. He wrote articles published in activist magazines. He promoted social reform - even proposed a plan to the League of Nations - while holding and promoting racist views. That's at least as important as a good portion of the material that is currently on the main article (meeting with an herb gatherer) - most of which is branched off in other Wikipedia articles such as eurythmy, Waldorf, bio-dynamics, Anthroposophy and almost two dozen other articles.
Wikipedia has become a place for Anthroposophists to advertise Steiner and his mediocre accomplishments. If the race and ethnicity article is deleted, at least a dozen more need to be deleted as well. Clearly, the material contained in this article needs to be merged into the main Steiner article before deletion is considered. It represents who Steiner was in his time, and the bulk of the controvesy surrounding him today (as demonstrated by the various reports and studies cited by TheBee). The controversy about Steiner's racism rages on because of Steiner's influence in Waldorf. It is essential that this part of Steiner's biography not be buried simply because Wikipedia does not have room for controversy. Pete K 16:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus amongst established editors that this does not meet WP:WEB, so defaulting to keep. W.marsh 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZineWiki[edit]

ZineWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable website. Google 14,600hit, alexa rank: 2,910,006. AJMS 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)— AJMS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Keep. (acknowledging I’m the page’s creator) Google searches and Alexa rankings are not used to determine notability on Wikipedia. However, even if they were, a site that's only four months old would, of course, have low search results and rankings, as it takes a number of months for Google to update. Also, I looked at your user contributions and you joined Wikipedia for the sole purpose of nominating this article for deletion. It's been your only contribution. How... helpful. Alanlastufka 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, it doesn't take "a number of months" for Google to update. This article was created less than a month ago, yet, after zinewiki.com, it is the first G-hit for "ZineWiki". Second, the nominator may have proposed this article for deletion based on some ulterior motive (or, s/he may not have), but no matter what the motive, his/her reasoning is completely valid. -- Kicking222 22:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per multiple verified references from reliable sources. The keep is "weak" because all of the sources are zine-related, thus signifying that while the zine community (if such a thing exists) may have picked up on the site, few people outside of this group have heard of it. However, while I am arguing for this article's existence, I highly dislike that much of the article is about the creators' distaste for Wikipedia. While it's quasi-relevant to the article, it's also highly self-referential of this encyclopedia (which is to be avoided) and slightly POV (which is explicitly disallowed). -- Kicking222 22:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep. I edited the listing to drop the POV and added a link to the Portland Mercury's write up on it. There is definitely a zine community, dating back before the early days of Usenet with alt.zines, multiple yearly zine conventions, zine related books, Factsheet Five, zine libraries, zines included in college library collections, etc. ZineWiki is definitely very new and is just starting to gain attention outside the zine community, but it attempts to collect all the zine resources around the Web and in print into one complete database, which is essential to documenting America and the world's small press history and culture. ZineWiki is already the largest online guide to zines, small press publications and zine publishers and it's growing rapidly. The Wiki, like the listing, will be growing in leaps and bounds over the next few years. It seems short-sighted to delete it now because it's relevance is only justified by some Wiki editors in mainstream attention (which it will no doubt get more of in time). Dan10things 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)— Dan10things (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Notth 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)— Notth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
          • Keep. Wikipedia lists several other wikis on a wide variety of topics. ZineWiki is becoming a major repository of information about zines, both historic and current. While one might argue that the zine community is small, in terms of the online world's population or whatever, you could just as easily make the same argument about many of the communities who would use the other wikis listed within Wikipedia. Jerianne 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)— Jerianne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Merely being a wiki is not a sign of notability, and I have opposed the inclusion of articles here about other wikis (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)). ZineWiki has an external link from Zine; I don't think it needs to have a full article of its own on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 04:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Less notable than Wikifur or Encyclopedia Dramatica that have been deleted and failed deletion review. Anomo 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would think a more serious subject matter like zines and the small press that spans decades and that is a key element in social movements like punk, riot grrrl, hardcore, as well as the comic and science fiction communities, would hold a little more weight than a TV show, people that talk shit, and people that dress like squirrels. This is the first I've heard of Wikifur, but thanks for adding it in your comments, wow! For me the notability is not that it's a Wiki, it's ZineWiki's content and importance in creating a comprehensive database of information about zines and the small press--something up until now, no one had attempted.Dan10things 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep - Zinewiki is a reality. It deserves fair recognition in any general encyclopedia on or off line. It has recognized and celebrated the decades of recent zines - a zine explosion of thousands and thousands of independent writers and artists and desktop publishers who are the major source of quality contemporary writing and art. It celebrates a new art form, zines - that combine bookmaking, writing, publishing, and illustration. It is also representative of the world of independent and small publishers outside of the recent media/art consolidation that has occured in the last few decades. If wikipedia celebrates the hack commercial writers of the mainstream publishers - that are overly promoted - then it should cover the gifted writers outside that commercial promotion. And cover those that celebrate these gifted writers. Zinewiki does. The world of writers it covers is real. It's work is all the more important and valid for becoming the source for the history of so many gifted and neglected writers. It is a recorded history of zines and deserves recognition as a history source as much as any other history source. If writers are covered in wikipedia, then zinesters should be covered. If online sources for writers are covered, then zinewiki should be covered. If zines are covered in wikipedia how can one not cover zinewiki? There seems to be a dangerous challenge of all artists that aren't apart of the handful of corporations that control the mainstream arts (music, film, writing, tv, etc.). This isn't fairness its prejudice in favor of big corporations. As a zinester, I say a strong keep. 172.150.43.75 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)— 172.150.43.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
          • Keep - There seems to be a lot of perpetrating in the zine world by individuals who seem to be agents for interested parties. Though I don't know zinewiki well I'd surmise that this challenge is a form of disinformation. — James Nowlan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
          • Keep. - I may not be someone who contributes or edits Wikipedia, but I am someone who finds it useful to use. Zinewiki on the other hand, is something that I have edited and contributed to. As someone who doesn't know much about the Wiki world, I figured that this was the same thing - but alas, I suppose not. All that aside, after reading the "notability requirements," Zinewiki does in fact, fit two of the three (according to the requirements, an entry only needs to meet one).
          Zinewiki meets the first requirement, as it has been covered in such places as The Small Press Exchange (http://www.smallpressexchange.com/directory/magazines_and_e-zines/zines/zinewiki/details/), Supernaturale\Glimmer (http://www.supernaturale.com/glimmer.html?id=612#g612), and Powell's books (http://www.powells.com/review/2006_10_14.html). Zinewiki has also been mentioned on numerous blogs and even on some non-english language websites. The coverage on Powell's books also meets the requirement for number three, as Powell's online is an extremely well known website and the content of Zinewiki was used in a review on the site.
          In addition to meeting the criteria, I believe that Zinewiki represents a large subculture, and is worthy of its own Wiki entry in the same fashion that Memory Alpha (the Star Trek Wiki) has its own entry. Zinewiki is a relatively new entry, and still has plenty of time to grow. It has already been of great interest to people in the zine community (trust me, there is one) and has a potential of being of great interest to people in the small press community.Aaroncynic 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)— Aaroncynic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
          • Keep - ZineWiki is an attempt to catalog what is in fact a huge subculture. Zines are written and created everyplace-- an authentic expression of American culture; of the American voice. Is Wikipedia to give attention only to those who've been blessed and sanctified by a select group of mandarins representing not the American voice, but their own privileged status? The writers mentioned in Zinewiki are MORE genuine, more American, than the John Updikes of the mainstream. I've made this argument in many venues, and will debate the idea anywhere. If Wikipedia is to represent a true picture of our times, of more than one cultural stream, than a site like Zinewiki has its place. -King Wenclas.— KingWenclas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
  • Reluctant weak keep - Frankly, I'd be happier if so many of those voting "Keep" were people who actually contribute to Wikipedia itself; and if the article, and those supporting its retention, didn't have so much trouble keeping their points of view out of the material. (And frankly, I'm unconvinced that Memory Alpha has a place here either.) The paranoia displayed here by the person calling him or herself James Nowlan is not a good sign for rational discussion.--Orange Mike 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is Wikipedia only for those who have the free time to create or edit its entries? Or does it exist for the online community to use as a powerful reference source, whether they contribute or not? I am a regular Wikipedia user, both at home and at on the job (at a library). I'm also someone, yes, very involved in and interested in zines. It's because of that involvement that I can second the validity of Dan10things's comments above. As a user, I do think it is notable. Jerianne 03:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What he means is, this type of debate is really designed for regular wikipedia editors to participate in. Every so often, a debate will attract a lot of new accounts, almost always supporting whatever article is under discussion -- but it doesn't help get a good picture of what the Wikipedia editing community thinks, which is what really matters (Wikipedia runs on consensus and is not a democracy). New users can sometimes make arguments that sway established editors, but in most cases, they just state preferences, which are pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. Mangojuicetalk 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Orange Mike, I dislike the stream of meatpuppets here, but multiple media mentions make this pass WP:WEB in my book, and I think any POV issues have been resolved at this point. Mangojuicetalk 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I'm a little hesitant, on the basis of "notability first, encyclopedia article second." I don't doubt that the Wiki has potential to be a very good resource on an area worth documenting, but the article seems a little premature. I certainly would not have started it at this time, but since it is there, I suspect that we should keep it, since it will probably merit mention soon enough. - Jmabel | Talk 07:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. All the mentions are trivial or zine-related. The article's creator has admitted a conflict of interest. We cannot give in to a shitstorm of meatpuppets. This website is far from notable. WP:WEB is not met. - crz crztalk 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 00:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Assassination[edit]

American Assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable conspiracy theory book about the death of Paul Wellstone. The book has a sales rank above 293,000 at Amazon [88] and the title generates only 500 google hits of which only about 100 are unique [89] GabrielF 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Fetzer. Not all of these books need an article, but Fetzer is notable.--Rosicrucian 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fetzer. Crockspot 00:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fetzer same as other book, the article has no content on its own, may as well help support the Fetzer article. --NuclearZer0 21:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fetzer, or add content. Edison 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge nn book. Brimba 05:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn book. Fetzer article should be deleted too for polluting the world with this nonsense. --Tbeatty 06:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tried deleting Fetzer, but he came to the Wiki to defend his article, so I showed pity and withdrew the nom. Perhaps it's time to reconsider. The Cruftinator. Where's his book revealing the "truth" about Reptilian Humanoids? Morton DevonshireYo 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into James Fetzer.--MONGO 09:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep. Notable author, etc., etc. Gamaliel 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went ahead and beefed up the publications section of the Fetzer article, to include pretty much all of his Amazon hits. (The guy has written a LOT of books!). There's really not anything else to merge from these book articles, unless you count the book cover graphics. - Crockspot 01:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, do not delete. Relevant search term, preserve history. --Striver 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fetzer. JungleCat talk/contrib 03:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's just hit no consensus to annoy the hell out of everyone. Merge in good faith.--WaltCip 01:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This book can be mentioned in the James Fetzer article, but does not merit its own article. --Aude (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kingsley[edit]

Daniel Kingsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I nominated this article for deletion, as there is nothing in it to suggest that Daniel Kingsley (while he sounds like an excellent human being) is remarkable enough to merit an article of his own (yet). At best, it seems to fall foul of OR. Nomist 21:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forde Memorial Cup[edit]

Forde Memorial Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to be a group of friends making their own tournament. It has two primary editors, one of whom is anonymous, and questionable encyclopedic content. Flibirigit 22:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete wikipedia is not a personal web site. Flibirigit 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Forde Memorial Cup started out as a very questionable idea that I thought about one day when I was supposed to be doing my homework. Need I say more? MartinDK 22:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed - how do you spell NFT again? Grutness...wha? 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it!. Hoax. Original research, violates WP:NOT,WP:ENC and Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in school in one day. Storm05 17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. El_C 13:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turing-test Argument for the Existence of God[edit]

Turing-test Argument for the Existence of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should be deleted. Not only original research but also just silly. The turing test doesn't test belief at all. It only tests practical applications. The turing test requires at a bare minimum, interraction, and this article obviously claims none. Original author removed Prod without discussion. Dipics 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per submitter. Does not attempt to establish that the argument is notable, but is rather written as a persuasive essay; a rehash of the blog entry linked to in the article. JGardner 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a published argument, and blatant original research. DoomsDay349 22:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR and a terrible argument at that - a textbook example of Begging the question GabrielF 23:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant WP:OR and borderline WP:BOLLOCKS. MartinDK 23:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Calling it WP:OR would be a compliment; it's nonsense. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadly, CSD G1 specifically excludes poor writing and implausible theories. --RoninBKETC 09:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC) That's fifteen seconds of my life that I will never get back...[reply]
  • Delete: pubphilosophycruft, complete bollocks. Cheers, Sam Clark 08:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Varano 15:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luigi's Mansion's ghosts history[edit]

List of Luigi's Mansion's ghosts history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is a unreferenced, filled with original research, fancruft, and listcruft to boot. Original research is blatant, there is even a sentence that says "...but my guess is". DoomsDay349 22:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zenrutn 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vincent Van Gore The Starving Artist - based on his name, he starved to death" - does that mean because he was called "Vincent Van Gore The Starving Artist" he was already predestined to starve to death, or... never mind. Delete - OR. Bubba hotep 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yeah, article is loaded with junk like that. They are interesting theories though; I wonder if there is a place we could point the user that did the most of this to? DoomsDay349 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OR, WP:NOT. -- Renesis (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is 100% original research. I've played through this game before - I don't remember a single bit of this being in the game. --- RockMFR 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Or perhaps userfy, so the article's creator doesn't lose his work. — Haeleth Talk 10:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is complete crap and is not official at all. BTW, sorry; I thought I signed this earlier. My bad. 138.217.214.192 06:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal Chaos[edit]

Vocal Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND and the page is based on a conflict of interest per creator's username. Prod was removed by article creator. Under 200 Ghits for "vocal chaos"+cappella+chicago (predominantly self-promotion). ju66l3r 22:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They seem like they might become notable one day, having been in a movie and sung the national anthem at a World Series Game, but those factors don't make them notable. Far as I can see, they don't seem to have any recorded music for sale, and thus fails WP:BAND. DoomsDay349 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many press releases for this "award-winning" group, but no one says which award they have won... Fails WP:MUSIC. Fram 15:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends broadcast details[edit]

Friends broadcast details (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete Wikipedia is not tv show timetable guide. per WP:NOT. Upup33 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Definitely a WP:NOT issue. ju66l3r 23:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JGardner 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Friends.--Notth 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Friends. --- RockMFR 01:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was more than likely split from the Friends article, which is good, 'cause now we can zap this useless information altogether. WHO CARES??? Wavy G
  • Delete per WP:NOT. —Hanuman Das 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As others have noted, this violated WP:NOT and is absolutely, 100% unencyclopedic. And please, do not merge this either, it needs to be removed entirely. --The Way 08:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to refresh yourself with the rules here. You cannot delete an article simply because you feel it's "unencyclopedic". Dan100 (Talk) 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a laugable position. An article not being appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia is exactly the reason why articles are deleted from the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Friends article is over-long and this is one of the spun-out sections. Not a WP:NOT violation as it's not a TV listings guide (can you see any times in it? No, thought not). Furthemore it seems perfectly verifiable, and does not seem to be original research, therefore I table that there are no grounds for deletion and that this is an invalid listing. Dan100 (Talk) 18:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge This is trivial content. No encyclopedic value. I'd rather see it deleted although I can see it merged back to the Friends article. On the other hand, it seems like the Friends article does not want it. Perhaps that's because it's considered too trivial... Pascal.Tesson 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge depending on what the editors of the topic think makes more sense), meets content policies; no reason has been given for deletion. JYolkowski // talk 23:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even most Friends fans would not care about this. Go start a Friends wiki if you want Friendscruft (that is a funny word). -Amarkov blahedits 00:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Grobelnik[edit]

Marko Grobelnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite a large CV, this article is largely written by the subject and thus is a likely violation of WP:COI BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is a large CV. A large CV of an otherwise non-notable character. Bubba hotep 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds of non-notability, or userfy to User:Grobelnik. Article is a CV. However, WP:COI is not a grounds for article deletion. --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a blog or a resume posting service. meshach 01:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, resume. Pavel Vozenilek 19:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Barr (artist)[edit]

William Barr (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable and is definitely vanity. Possibly a copyright issue (one phrase near the top is a direct copy from http://www.askart.com/AskART/B/william_barr/william_barr.aspx here but some of that site is subscription-only). Both images have similar copyvio issues since they say the author created them but this painter died in 1933! The external link I just mentioned, askart.com, appears to have zillions of artists - 5,393 in B alone - but it's one of the only decent sources I can find. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vanity? How come? Seems to be a notable artist. I'll move to William Barr (artist) per WP:MOS. The two pictures in the article are photos that the uploader has taken of the original artwork, hence his assertion that he owns them. However, I am not an expert on whether this is allowed as the works in question are almost certainly not his. Askart is a database of painters and their works so it will have a few people listed! --Steve (Slf67) talk 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vanity because the author is Wbarrart (talk · contribs) - W-barr-art. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's him, considering the article states he was born in 1867. I don't know many 140-year-olds writing wikipedia articles. Wavy G 02:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I figured that - but it's obviously someone who is only here to create this article. Relative, art dealer, whatever... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The romanticised notion of Scotland (the implication that in the early 20th century, an artist would have to travel "freely about the countryside to sell his paintings" or that Scotland entered WWI without the rest of the UK), unsourced quotes from the man himself, references to the "Paisley Museum of Art" (Paisley has a museum with local art galleries, but it has no "Museum of Art") and the username of the creator (Wbarrart) suggest to me the well-intentioned efforts of an American descendant. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.--Notth 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — Notth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation if reliable sources are found about the man. The article did not cite reliable sources and Google Books does not have anything on him. [90] I question whether askart.com can be used to assert notability. Moreover, that is just one source and I could not find any other reliable ones. JChap2007 01:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being dead certainly does not equate to notability. There is no assertion of notability in the article and no reliable sources are cited. Moreover, the section beginning with the outbreak of the First World War isn't so much original research as just made up. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep. Seems of some minor notability in the art scene of California in the early 20th century. If you're looking for reliable sources, JChap, I can suggest here, or here, or here. The thing needs trimming back to what is actually verifiable, though. His works seem to sell for a couple of thousand $US, which is a reasonable indication, BTW. Grutness...wha? 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, they're listed for a couple thousand $US. Listing and appraisal don't equate to sale value. At the last art auction I attended, every piece was appraised at 5-10 times what they sold for. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sources are short blurbs from websites that sell art. If he were truly a notable late nineteenth or early twentieth century artist, one would expect to find him discussed in books or scholarly resources, but Google Books and Google Scholar turn up goose eggs. JChap2007 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's obviously not as well known as Picasso, but he's an artist who received enough note to still come up in a basic web search. He seems notable to me, from what I've seen. I think more citations should be added to the article, and that it should be cleaned up. I also think any portion that is a copyvio should be cut out - but none of those are reasons to delete (rather than just trimming back to a stub, at worst). In any event, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the author of the page was somehow associated with the painter (e.g. a dealer or relative). It seems to me just as plausible that he is a huge William Barr fan, noticed the lack of an article about the artist, and signed on just to make one - precisely the sort of thing we like to have happen. --TheOtherBob 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So coming up on the web at all = notability? That's a new one to me. I guess all 5,000+ other artists starting with the letter B on the page I provided should also get an article, eh? We better get busy. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I'll assume good faith, and maybe I'm in a bad mood (it's pretty early in the morning), but your response seems overly sarcastic and antagonistic. Anyways, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about how many Ghits equals notability - but here I see enough. You disagree? Ok, please feel free. Oh, and are there 5000+ other artists on that website whose names start with the letter B? Great. That should keep us occupied for a while. --TheOtherBob 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't mentioned ghits at all. Now that you mention it, if I put in more than two or three relevant words into a Google search, I come up with nothing. [91] shows nothing, [92] brings up unrelated genealogy, this one for his "notable painting" shows zero hits. Frankly, if one were to remove all unreliable info from this article, very little would be left. From the tone of it, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a copyvio from a book but I can't prove it. Also from the tone of it, it's very spammy sounding and a WP:CSD#G11 candidate. My WP:AGF was in bringing it here instead of just deleting it on sight. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • We aren't talking about Ghits? I was under the impression that we were, since that's what you were responding to - but I'll take your word on that. Anyways, the searches you've run (including "Anne Beaton" (I don't know who that is) and "John McGilvray" (same problem - though I see the name in the article)) seem to me to be poor indicators, and I'm in no way surprised that an individual work of art by a minor artist doesn't show up in a Google search. (I'd suggest running the artist's name and "artist.") To address your other points: if the article is about someone on whom there is reliable information, but is not based on that reliable information - write something reliable (or add a tag asking someone else to). If it's a copyvio, cut it down to a stub. I disagree about the claimed "spammy" tone - I rarely receive spam regarding early 20th century artists, and sincerely doubt (unless you can point me to something more than a naked allegation) that it's blatant advertising. I would be very surprised to find someone actively advertising the works of a long-dead painter. On the other hand, articles about them are precisely the sort of thing I'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. So I'm still on the side of keep. --TheOtherBob 15:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Search this page - the first mention of Google and ghits is not mine. The three searches I just did were all with the first three unique-looking things I saw in the article. We agree that the whole article should be chopped down to a stub - and it will be if no one finds sources for it all. The search you suggest is a common misconception at AFD - if you search on his name and "artist", all you've proven is that he's an artist. I'd like something to prove that he's a notable artist - or at least more notable than the 5,000+ artists that start with the letter B on that page. You yourself just characterized him as a "minor artist" which doesn't speak well for his notability. I'll drop the spamminess hints - at the very least, the last sentence left me with a spammy feeling. The whole thing leaves me with a copyvio feeling: William Barr was struck by the beauty of the California landscape... - how does anyone know that? John McGilvray was a successful builder... - based on what? Who says? I'll bet whatever brochure it was copied from says. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wait - your comment is under mine, and I took it to mean that you were discussing what I was saying. Are you not discussing whether my comment on web searches was accurate? (I suppose the web search we were discussing could have been done with Yahoo, but I think that's a distinction without a difference.) Anyways, I don't think it matters, and will gladly grant you that it was my idea to talk about Ghits if that will resolve that part of the question. You are, however, confusing (if you'll excuse my saying so) notability with fame. They aren't the same thing - and a notable artist can be a minor artist. (Wikipedia should include minor, perhaps even obscure, artists.) I also disagree about the "searching his name with artist only proves that he is an artist." If I searched for Joe Smith with artist, and got lots of pages saying "Joe Smith is an artist," that's probably (though not always) a notable artist - notable enough to have been mentioned as an artist multiple times. Have I found something saying "Joe Smith is a notable artist who probably would meet the standards of AfD"? No - of course not. But if I've found enough about the person (and I think I have here), then he's probably notable. So, I'm still in Keep. The copyvio thing - yeah, like I said, I get the same general feeling. As I've said all along, I think it should be trimmed and cleaned up.--TheOtherBob 21:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheOtherBob. --Oakshade 06:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - fairly notable. I c e d K o l a (Contributions) 22:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Jayden54 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Me The Horizon[edit]

Bring Me The Horizon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Second nomination (first AFD decision: Delete), blanked by anon and possibly still non-notable. RoyBoy 800 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sole claim to fame is releasing an LP and EP on a minor label and thus fails WP:MUSIC. JChap2007 01:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep. Authough I don't personally like the band: they are very important on their scene and their album is currently number 9 in the UK Rock charts. Robincard Robincard 07:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Music says "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" - They have appeared multiple occasions in Kerrang, and have even received a special pullout mini-magazine in Rock Sound issue 91, as well as one of their tracks being on the free CD of that magazine. They have also won a "Best Newcomer" Kerrang Award. --Cardboardboxman 14:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is a boss band and has a great live show. been featured in many many magazines up and down the country, released a sold out EP, a massive selling album, has a huge fanbase and has done many achievements most bands have not in past two years. --ChrisDT 14:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — ChrisDT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. The award win seems to make them sufficiently notable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The band have had a massive two page poster in Kerrang the biggest selling weekly magazine in the world, as well as winning the award, as well as being on a record label that is owned by Sony records. Xsharksx 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as usual. Here's the log for this article:
  • 21:16, October 16, 2006 Fang Aili (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (A7)
  • 21:05, October 16, 2006 Mr. Lefty (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (CSD G4)
  • 20:52, October 16, 2006 Merope (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (csd a7; content was: 'Bring Me The Horizon (BMTH) is a death metal band from Sheffield in South Yorkshire. They pwn.Why has no one made this article yet?' (and the only contributor was 'PWN3D'))
  • 04:22, September 24, 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (Old deleted-protected page)
  • 14:22, May 8, 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (redirect to deleted article, also title is repost.)
  • 01:46, December 11, 2005 Enochlau (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bring Me The Horizon)
So, serially re-created band vanity. Pretty close to 100% of the edits to this and the linked This Is What The Edge Of Your Seat Was Made For and Count Your Blessings (also previously deleted) are by anons and users with little or no history outside of this one subject. It's really hard not to see this as vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the band have only just reached the point where they are relevant enough to be included in Wikipedia hence the articles being deleted in the past...you can just expect a band to start and suddenly be notable, can you? Robincard 18:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See User:JzG/And the band played on... Guy (Help!) 22:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any evidence that the band added themselves Weed patrol 11:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The band were on the cover of Kerrang and are signed to a large indie and have made a significant impact on the UK scene.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_November_13&oldid=1081097179"