Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 24

< November 23	November 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 03:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getsharing.com[edit]

non notable websites Ag afd 00:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Though it might possibly be notable, the article reads like an advertisement in its current state, and most of the links are to the website. Lastly, it states "If you enjoy sharing through social networking sites, contributing to forums and wikis and feeling a sense of community online then you are going to love Get Sharing." An advertisement, indeed. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 00:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy under G7 if possible. Tarret 00:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising bad! Homestarmy 02:22, 24 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 as WP:BOLLOCKS. Worth keeing an eye out for its creator... Grutness...wha? 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schnitaphon[edit]

The author of this page, Patrique (talk · contribs), has been removing CSD tags from this page, as we are trying to get it off the face of WP. I warned the user that Google has nothing on it after I posted {{delete}}, saying: "If Google has nothing on it, then don't create an article!" I would endorse Patrique being blocked temporarily, and let the rest of us deal with the page accordingly. Speedy delete as nom. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Speedy delete - patent nonsense, and no verification whatsoever. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 00:22, 24 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. Kimchi.sg 03:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyCYC[edit]

non notable websites Ag afd 00:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speeedy Delete: Not notable whatsoever, WP:SPAM and self promotion--aviper2k7 02:16, 24 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. Aksi_great (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skirlaugh AFC[edit]

Aside from the fact that the article is of extremely poor quality, this team plays in the East Riding League Division 4, which sits at level 17 of the English league system, way below the benchmark for notability of clubs ChrisTheDude 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Rakuten06 00:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S kully Collins ^Edits 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnn 7 07:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and for what it's worth, the article could have been prodded - it's been abandoned more or less since its creation. Qwghlm 09:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies - it was after midnight and I wasn't thinking clearly.... :-) ChrisTheDude 09:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to add. feydey 12:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, this actually meets the criteria for PROD'ing. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable.--Poetlister 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly not notable.-- danntm ^T _C 19:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -3,000 hits on Google. Smells like advertisment. :( Arctic-Editor 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Rever e ndG 22:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, dear. Poor grammar, spelling mistakes, dodgy syntax and wholly non-notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete phhfff, these guys are extra non notable †he Bread 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is now in dispute as a deletion criterion. Perhaps we should address the verifiability of this article instead? 70.101.147.74 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (response to my comment) Just checked it. There are absolutely no sources cited. This should be deleted as unverifiable and perhaps vanity. 70.101.147.74 00:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is notability in dispute as a deletion criterion? Surely notability is the cornerstone of WP? ChrisTheDude 21:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. - fchd 20:42, 25 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 Rschen7754. MER-C 04:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punarama[edit]

non notable comics Ag afd 00:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, google results about 3 results of it.--aviper2k7 02:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 03:27, 24 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. not notable at present. Aksi_great (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prefixmag[edit]

non notable websites Ag afd 00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No notability. Delete. Arctic-Editor 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 02:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the speedy tag due to Night Gyr's Keep opinion below. hateless 03:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, magazine has 45 employees and has been around for several years. Seems notable but needs that made clear in the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article as it is now is deletable, but this should be done without prejudice against recreation since it seems like an acceptable topic for an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any encyclopedic notability even being asserted, let alone substantiatedBwithh 04:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Resolute 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved, per lack of assertion of notability. If there's something that makes it notable, it needs to be placed in the article. Otherwise, the only thing keeping me from hitting the delete button right now is Night Gyr's comment above. theProject 06:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and a single sentence stub. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, 45 employees. Rever e ndG 22:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My instant gut-reaction to the article is "so what?". Maybe over-extreme, but no notability asserted or obvious.--Anthony.bradbury 23:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- NN, probably a vanity article fishing for links. Pete Fenelon 01:50, 25 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Marmot's Hole[edit]

non notable websites Ag afd 00:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 275,000 google hits on "The marmot's hole" (with quotes). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 275,000 hits, but I could not find a single one in the first four pages of results that originated from a reliable source. A bunch of cross linked blogs do not assert notability. Resolute 04:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So the fact that there's too many unreliable sources to find the reliable ones among them means that reliable ones must not exist? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Resolute. All google hits seem to come from other blogs in blog echo chamber effect Bwithh 05:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, I'm not big on blogs as a rule but this one is extremely well known in the expat and Koreanist community. Found one published mention, this article from the Joongang Ilbo, which calls it "the most widely read Korea-related blog." (No figures are cited, but if that's not true, I'll be very surprised.) I'm sure more sources can be found, although it will require cutting through an ungodly amount of blogcruft. -- Visviva 14:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No notability and no reason to keep. Arctic-Editor 20:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bring to the attention of folks like WikiProject Korea, et al. If, after a month or three, it still appears non-notable, AfD it again. -Toptomcat 22:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo evidence of notability. Borderline {{db-empty}} candidate.--Anthony.bradbury 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is there a Korean wiki where this might scrape in as marginally notable? Pete Fenelon 01:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more than marginally notable, but I imagine there is already an article about this blog at the Galbijim Wiki. -- Visviva 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once again, documenting blog notability isn't an area of expertise for me BUT this blog does seem to meet WP:WEB, with multiple non-trivial mentions in independent published sources. I have added some. Although I'm not sure exactly where the bar is set for "non-trivial," I assume it would include cases where discussions on the blog are discussed at length (as in the Ohmynews article), or used as a sample of expat opinion, as by the Joongang Ilbo. The BBC ref is a little strange, since it appears on the surface to be a(n official) blog, but also seems to be reporting that Koehler was quoted qua blogger on Have Your Say, which doesn't appear to have an online archive of its own. -- Visviva 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Toptomcat's comments RichMac (Talk) 02:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Keep. Sorry, I haven't had a lot of time lately, so I didn't get a chance to expand the article, but it DEFINATELY deserves an article. Anyway, The Marmot is without a doubt THE best know Korea-related weblog, deleting it would be absurd. It is very often cited by local English-language newspapers and plays an extremely important role in shaping the opinions of Korea expats on Korean issues. --Ce garcon 06:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: Nomination was made by a since banned Single-purpose account. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original article was weak, but the recent changes show it has received some notable media coverage. Polenth 02:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It is considered one of the best blogs about Korean expatriate life, it is a judge on the Asia Blog Awards, (though I am not certain if it was a winner in the past). It places 4th on Google with the keywords: Korea+blogging, and it has a huge following in the thousands. The blog author is a staff writer for Seoul Selection Magazine. I suggest a weak keep because there are many blogs already featured here.--_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 03:00, 29 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. Nomination was made by a now banned single-purpose account. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6park[edit]

non notable websites Ag afd 00:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, obviously notable, media coverage reported in article and over 800,000 google hits, apparent single purpose account whose only edits are listing AfDs. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- alexa rank of 262. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per Night Gyr. I can't read most of the sites on google, but the link at the bottom of the article suggests that it passes WP:WEB. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Resolute 05:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per nom. Daniel5127 <Talk> 08:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, with a ludicrous Alexa rank. -- Kicking222 14:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 70,000 hits is notable.
Keep - Ghits aside these guys appear notable †he Bread 00:12, 25 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 well, merge seems to be a reasonable compromise. Looks like that's already been done, so redirect. JYolkowski // talk 00:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maids Moreton Church of England School[edit]

Non notable primary school with only 45 pupils Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 03:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 45 pupils? Sounds really non-notable to me. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 04:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Maids Moreton. What little relevant information that exists should be copied over to the locality article and the existing article changed to a redirect. There is no valid reason to delete this without a merge/redirect. Alansohn 06:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7, organization with no assertion of notability. Seraphimblade 06:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect The school has been serving the community since 1854. Scribble Monkey 09:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection merge/redirect would be more appropriate. Scribble Monkey 15:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maids Moreton. Catchpole 13:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Alansohn, yet more schoolcruft, but may be of local interest, therefore a redirect per WP:LOCAL would be appropriate. Also, redirects may encourage the school-stub-spammers to focus their time and energy on more useful articles. Xtifr _tälk 14:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maids Moreton. Arctic-Editor 20:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect The fact that that has only 45 pupils does not make it non-notable. Albatross2147 22:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Any reason to keep it? JoshuaZ 02:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm inclined to disagree, 45 is ridiculous. Rever e ndG 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The seeming lack of expansion potential makes this an obvious merge candidate. That avenue should have been explored prior to this AfD. --JJay 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - YAschoolcruftarticle. Pete Fenelon 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Merge bordering on Delete The probability that this school has something notable about it that we are unable to uncover from a web search (given that it has been around for 150 years) is not low. It therefore has a high likelyhood of having something notable about it that would justify an article in the future. In the meantime, there is nothing notabel about this school and the content should therefore be merged. JoshuaZ 02:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. bbx 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above. Another nn school. Eusebeus 11:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to the village article is a good decision here Yuckfoo 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eusebeus. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to village article. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:32, 28 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Miningcamp[edit]

Minor fictional skirmish in a minor science fiction novel. Redirect reverted, prod disputed. Should be deleted or redirected to/merged with the book, Midshipman's Hope. Gamaliel 00:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's no Minas Tirith. It has no secondary sources writing about it, so everything that can be said about it comes from the book and belongs in the book's article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -This article should go, info such as this should be in main article on book. --Bryson 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE, don't delete content that doesn't itself violate Policy such as WP:NPOV. Sheesh.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It probably does violate WP:NOR though. WilyD 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated on the article talk page and repeated below

1)The article is not a stub, and therefore already has a significant amount of information which can be added to- indeed, it is longer than many articles in [[Category:fictional battles.

2)The Seafort Saga is military sci-fi and therefore battles play a significant part in the plot, particularly since this is the major battle of Midshipman's Hope

3)The battle plays a vital role in several plot arcs, notably Seafort's belief in his own incompetence, his conflict with Pilot Haynes, and coming to terms with the execution of Tuak and Rogoff.

4)From an in-universe perspective, Seafort's acclamation as the "Hero of Miningcamp" plays an important role in Seafort being confirmed as Commander of Challenger- and therefore the continuation of the series.

In addition to this, if there is eventually a consensus that this single battle does not deserve an article (though I believe it does) I suggest moving it to Minor battles of the Seafort Saga or similar, which can be expanded, following the precedent of Minor battles in The Lord of the Rings. Many of which are far less important from an IU perspective than Miningcamp. MartinMcCann 10:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 76 Hits on Google and the book is not famous either.
Delete This is - I forget the word - cruft? Trivial detail of a not notable book. This book is not Lord of the Rings. WP:NOT a source of indiscriminate information. Also many of the comments on this page are WP:OR since the only source is the book.Obina 20:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - fancruft. Nuke the page from orbit. Pete Fenelon 01:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- if this is being considered for deletion on the grounds of being "cruft" then why are there so many individual articles on kings of Arnor? There's far less information on them than on this battle, yet they have articles. Plus as I've already said, it is not a trivial part of the book, and although the book itself may not be the most popular in history it is notable. MartinMcCann 15:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate these others for deletion then. Wikipedia is better if it contains 1.6 million good articles rather than 2.7 million bad articles. Deletion is one part in keeping Wikipedia good.Obina 21:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Though I wouldn't object to it being folded into a condensed list of battles. Considering the state of Midshipman's Hope I think it would be better to concentrate on that article and the rest of the series. FrozenPurpleCube 20:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft; we really don't need articles on individual events/battles in fictional series. The book in this case doesn't even seem to be very notable, lack of third party sources also not a good thing. Is anyone else a little bit saddened that many fictional battles get more detailed articles than actual battles? --The Way 07:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the artivcle on the book, which presently has a plot summary copied from the blurb on the back of the book. I see no reason for such a detailed plot summary, sort of a Cliff's Notes to save someone having to read the book. That said, I look forward to reading the books, since I liked the Hornblower novels these seem modelled after. Edison 20:45, 26 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race trivia[edit]

Okay, sorry about last time people, this is the one I wanted to nominate. WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information, there have been far more Keep worthy articles deleted, this has to go. †he Bread 01:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this might not be up to good standards, but I am currently working on the page List of The Amazing Race statistics and trivia, to kind of mirror or parallel, if you will, List of Survivor statistics and trivia. The current trivia page has indeed been a mess of random information seemingly placed anywhere at random, and I was thinking maybe we could clean it up to resemble the aforementioned Survivor page, which apparently has been deemed acceptable.--HansTAR 02:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Amazingcruft which belongs on a reality show/gameshow wiki on Wikia not here. Bwithh 02:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above, WP:AVTRIV and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MER-C 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the WP:AVTRIV I was gonna put that in the nom, but since it sat\ys avoid trivia sections in articles there may have been a loop hole there

†he Bread 07:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Seraphimblade 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you know it's far over the top when it requires its own page. Anything which is seen as excessive on the episode pages is overmuch, period. --Czj 07:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a notable show, but there's no need for this level of trivia. JIP | Talk 10:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but closing admin, give editors time to work this into the main article as prose if they so desire. WilyD 14:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruftcruft. Mystache 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per unwritten policy of who cares?. Rever e ndG 22:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/WP:NOT. MartinDK 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia = trivial. Extraordinary Machine 14:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI realize that this might not be up to good standards, but I am currently working on the page List of The Amazing Race statistics and trivia, to kind of mirror or parallel, if you will, List of Survivor statistics and trivia. The current trivia page has indeed been a mess of random information seemingly placed anywhere at random, and I was thinking maybe we could clean it up to resemble the aforementioned Survivor page, which apparently has been deemed acceptable. If neither Amazing Race page is accepted, then is the Survivor page not keep-worthy too? And while we're on that topic, I don't understand how pages like List of American Idol contestants, which is nothing but names, can be kept while Trivia pages, which actually provide information that many would find useful, say, if one were writing a book or needed statistics, are the constant subjects of deletion. While I understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of "indiscriminate information" (which, on the What Wikipedia is Not page, doesn't explicitly state collections of statistics and the like), that very same page also lists that Wikipedia is not paper, and being nitpicky over what is "important", which is one's own opinion, I believe violates that last link. --HansTAR 18:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe that Wikipedia's policy on trivia is rather clear; it should, by and large, only be included within newer articles to provide information that can be later incorporated more properly into that article. This, by implication, would mean that any article consisting only of trivia should be deleted as there is not a proper article to incorporate that trivia into. If this information is encyclopedic, it should be in the Amazing Race article, otherwise its not needed on the Wikipedia. Furthermore, perhaps the List of Survivor statistics and trivia article should be nominated for an AfD as well? --The Way 07:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, Keep That-I myself have contributed to this page and I think there is way to much irrelevant things. However, the new page, List of The Amazing Race statistics and trivia actually doesn't seem to be too crufty. However, the Survivor one is way too crufty and should be AFD'd also. editor review me!-T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 14:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Amazing Race. Just H 03:19, 29 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P72[edit]

Contested prod. Original reason: Advertisement for non-notable product. – Gurch 01:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article on the Cyber-shot line if it exists. If not, delete. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. People need to stop labeling every non-notable thing that can be sold as "spam". This clearly is not an advertisement. If notability is an issue, it can be merged per TrackerTV. hateless 03:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The Cyber-shot article contains links (~~mostly~~ many of which are red) to pages for a lot (maybe all) of the Cyber-shot models. Should all these models have their own pages, or should the per-model articles that exist be merged? Erik Swanson 03:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One answer: individual articles on that many different models within a single range would be very cumbersome for readers to use. The range of cameras is certainly worth documenting, but in my opinion it would be more useful to have a single article that described the development of the range and its features in continuous prose, rather than trying to create individual articles on every single model with no real context for any of them. Therefore, I would say that the redlinks should be removed, the existing articles all merged into the parent article, and the article this produces should then be expanded and refactored to describe the entire range. — Haeleth Talk 12:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into the Sony Cybershot article. I don't see how this article could be seen as advertising. JIP | Talk 10:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into the main Cybershot article if it exists, doesn't need its own article but isn't an ad. Seraphimblade 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It exists. It's apparently out of production too, so advertising it would be a bit pointless. JIP | Talk 16:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, that was a bit unclear now that I look! I meant if the Cybershot article exists, I was relatively sure that the camcorder did. Seraphimblade 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -Merge with Sony Cybershot article.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ruarua 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obsolete and non-notable camera, and the article adds nothing. Maybe deserves one line in a list of Sony products. Pete Fenelon 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information in Wikipedia either by keeping or merging with an article on the series of cameras. The development of a line of cameras over time is certainly interesting, especially in the opening decade of digital photography. An article on a three-year-old digital camera is certainly not spam or advertising. Fg2 04:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fg2 and my "One answer" post above. The development of a line of cameras is indeed interesting, but it is best described in a single homogenous article, not split into potentially dozens of separate fragments on individual models.
Consider the hypothetical case where an innovative new feature was introduced in three models released simultaneously. With a single article, this is straightforward to explain: the new feature is described in the appropriate section, and the models that introduced it are identified. With multiple articles, the new feature must be described redundantly in three separate places, creating a maintenance nightmare and a tangled web of articles that will confuse most readers. — Haeleth Talk 12:41, 25 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 were created by Dvac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an employee of General Growth Properties, as part of a spamming campaign. All are directory entries. The only one with any claim to notability is a single incident related to an individual and can safely be covered, if it is considered appropriate per WP:BLP, in his article. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Mall[edit]

Group nomination of articles about malls created in an apparent spam campaign of Dvac (talk · contribs). A number of articles have been speedy deleted but the tags I had placed on this one was removed by CharlotteWebb who argues that cleanup is needed, not deletion. The same thing happened for the following:

It's unclear to me what sort of cleanup these may require except complete rewrites. None of these malls meet WP:CORP, none show reliable non-trivial third-party coverage. All of these articles make Wikipedia look like the Yellow Pages and I think al of them are speediable under the speedy deletion criterion A7 if not under G11. Pascal.Tesson 02:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--aviper2k7 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And these malls are worth attention by an encyclopedia why, exactly? Delete on grounds that Wikipedia is not a shopping directory. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Calton, they are just one-of-a-kind non-notable local architecture, just like high schools, bridges, parks, radio towers, public libraries, regional airports, and other structures that typically occupy categories named after the cities in question. But what rational person would attempt to apply WP:CORP to any of these? A mall is a building, not a corporation (aside from the real estate operations which do not directly interface with the public). Keep, regardless of how much re-writing need be done (of course I could always use some help in that area). — CharlotteWebb 03:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...they are just one-of-a-kind non-notable local architecture... "One-of-a-kind"? No. "Non-notable"? Yes.
...just like high schools, bridges, parks, radio towers, public libraries, regional airports, and other structures that typically occupy categories named after the cities in question. Which would be no, no, no, yes, no, no, and no. Free clue: the "If apples are kept, we must also keep all oranges" argument -- or, in your case, the "If apples are kept, we must also keep all oranges, kumquats, potatoes, vanilla beans, matzo balls, deep-fried Mars Bars, and Black & Decker cordless electric drills" argument -- has never actually convinced anyone, though it's certainly used enough by those grasping for straws absent other actual rationales. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a scavenger hunt, Calton, but for a more homogeneous sample, you might try these. In the meantime, why do you feel that malls are less encyclopedic than the other examples I cited, particularly schools? All other factors being equal, a school is noteworthy on a much narrower geographic scale than a shopping mall, even to people who don't attend. — CharlotteWebb 05:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a reductio ad absurdum -- though honestly it required little reductio-ing, your grab-bag analogy of unrelated items merely being a more-elaborate-than-average variation on the Pokémon test. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No assertion of notability. MER-C 04:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless articles if written in encyclopedic style, notable to the local communities as important social arenas. bbx 04:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LOCAL. No assertion of encyclopedic notability. Harmful articles as they contribute to trend of turning Wikipedia into a directory. Bwithh 04:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is your concern, why are you singling out malls? — CharlotteWebb 05:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because this particular afd discussion is about a group of malls Bwithh 05:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Singling out malls in a discussion about malls? How dare you! Why not talk instead about high schools, bridges, parks, radio towers, public libraries, regional airports, oranges, kumquats, potatoes, vanilla beans, matzo balls, deep-fried Mars Bars, and Black & Decker cordless electric drills? --Calton | Talk 07:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Malls are notable in general because they (together with their tenants) are significant employers and significant parts of the economy. Moreover, crimes sometimes take place in or near malls; people are arrested at malls, perhaps for crimes committed elsewhere; mall owners enact curfews to keep teenagers out during certain hours; mall security personnel are sometimes accused of racism or other forms of misconduct; politicians and developers discuss the benefits and disadvantages associated with construction or expansion of malls. Some of the articles nominated here have been expanded since the initial nomination and may now have enough references to unambiguously demonstrate notability. Consider that a regional mall (together with its tenants) employs more people than live in a small town, and the encyclopedic nature of many malls becomes increasingly clear. Moreover, documentation of the history of a mall makes it easier to understand the forces that affected the downtown shopping areas of communities adjacent to a mall. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are significant employers and significant parts of the economy That's an assumption on your part, especially the use of the definite "are". Moreover, crimes sometimes take place in or near malls. As sometimes happens in parking garages, garbage dumps, single-family homes, farms, liquor stores, country clubs, schoolyards, vacant lots, and corporate boardrooms. That something important -- or, as in this case, not really important -- might take place is a very flimsy rationale for notability. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Malls are not notable be default, they have to show why they are notable. TJ Spyke 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CORP does apply here-unless I'm wrong and any of these malls is not a corporate, for-profit venture. This I somehow doubt. Seraphimblade 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really am uncomfortable with this kind of mass nomination here. Especially since there's another one from the day before yesterday. Might there be a better way to do things? FrozenPurpleCube 06:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In defense of the mass nomination, I am not group-nominating a bunch of unrelated malls here. These were all added in quick succession by the same user who has been almost solely creating mall articles despite numerous comments on his talk page and has been blocked for it. Pascal.Tesson 12:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - they fail WP:CORP; WP:NOT a directory of local businesses or a good place for your sneaky ad campaign. The fact that crimes are committed there, employees work there, etc. is in no way an establishment of anything encyclopedically notable. Opabinia regalis 06:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic content. Looks like spam to me. Stammer 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORP among others (and yes, a mall is a for-profit venture). All the arguments listed would be arguments for keeping a WP article on every single man-made structure in every single city in every single country in the world. Wikipedia may not be paper, but that would be silly. And I want a Deep-fried Mars Bar now. Vizjim 09:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, trivia, conflict of interest, and general wastage of time and effort. Truthbringertoronto's 'argument' applies only to the article on shopping malls in general, not to every little cluster of shops in the world. And if anyone cares to nominate any other malls for deletion, I'll vote 'delete' on those too, if they are just generic malls (i.e. not superlatively unique). The Crying Orc 11:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most above delete !votes. If something's notable, the article should show it. With sources saying so. Shimeru 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Rever e ndG 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TruthbringerToronto.--John Lake 06:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If they are of local interest, a mention of these malls can be made in the articles on the local towns where these malls are located as per WP:LOCAL. Not notable enough to merit articles of their own under WP:CORP. Fairsing 07:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that references were added to Killeen Mall after this AfD was created, and that there is a good chance that suitable references could be found for the other malls as well. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is really really weak. Maybe I can't read english but that first reference does not mention the Killeen Mall at all. The second is a 3 line newswire which is not primarily about the mall. The other references are Google maps. If anything, this strengthens my belief that this is not worth a Wikipedia article. Pascal.Tesson 04:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the references. Either I made an error with the first reference or the newspaper reassigns the URLs for its most recent articles. I added the permanent URL for the article. As for the other reference, I think that the fact that the mall was being offered for sale was noteworthy, even though the owner was also trying to sell other malls at the same time. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Taking these sources in order, they appear to establish that: 1) A developer who worked on this mall is now planning to work on another mall; 2) A store in the mall has expanded its space; 3) Shoppers go to this mall for holiday shopping; 4) There are occasionally new stores; 5) The mall hires temps for the holiday season; 6) Another developer is considering purchasing the mall; and 7a-7d) The mall actually exists. What exactly about these facts makes this mall different from any other active shopping mall? These sources all appear to be trivial for the purpose of establishing notability. None of this information seems encyclopedic. Shopping malls as a class are notable, but this particular shopping mall does not appear to be a notable shopping mall. Shimeru 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As was suggested at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Westfield_Belconnen, could any individual mall deletions be deferred until we have some centralised discussion about shopping centres? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No. Especially in the present case where the creator of these articles has been blocked for apparent spamming. If the Wikipedia community somehow decides that we should keep all mall articles then hey we can always recreate this, it's not like this is containing any info not available on the mall's website. Pascal.Tesson 04:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TT. If an obscure suburban Glasgow railway station can become Wikipedia's millionth article (and be turned into a respectable "good"-class article), then we most definitely have room for a major, regionally important shopping centres. (thanks Lefty) Silensor 09:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If these were sourced ot the same standard I've no doubt we wouldn't be having this debate. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All per TruthbringerTO. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:33, 28 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Mass (band)[edit]

No vote here. Deleted before by uncontested prod, see the article's talk page for arguement and the article itself to discern notability. Teke^(talk) 02:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:Music, and clearly fails WP:COI. Crunk 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable John Reaves 07:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PLayed in front of 60 000 persons and are well-known all over the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.160.237 (talk • contribs) .
Comment actually, there was a previous AfD (the result was delete), the admin who deleted the article seems to have made a mistake in his log comment. Xtifr _tälk 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as conflict of interest, fails WP:BAND, recreation of deleted material, etc., etc... Seraphimblade 16:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing verifiability and not meeting WP:BAND criteria. The creator had 48 hours to provide sources. There are still no sources. --Wafulz 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because wikipedia doesnt need an article about every crappy little band out there. ArmAndLeg 17:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hate to do it, but non-notable. Rever e ndG 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I see it, there are two issues that could cause deletion here; 1. repost of deleted content, 2. conflict of interest. When I saw it on NP patrol I marked it as speedy for the reposting issue, but looking at the previous AFD (here) it looked to me like it should have been re-listed to generate a larger consensus. After talking with the article's creator and actually reading the article I became convinced that this article does indeed meet WP:Music. When the article's creator assured me that he could add reliable sources to the article I figured that, once that was done it would be enough to negate the repost issue, though the conflict of interest issue remains. Conflict of interest is a serious problem, but with a recently promoted admin who wrote an article about himself when he was new, I figured it wasn't all that big of a deal. I see now that User:Criticalmassjohn, or someone, has indeed added some references to the article. They seem keen to know if the article will be deleted or not before they go and do more work on it. As far as the criteria for notability set out in WP:MUSIC go:
- Criteria 3: Toured the US and Canada
- Criteria 4: They have released 4 albums with CMC Distribution. CMC Distributon "is the world’s largest distributor of Christian music outside of the United States of America " CMC's website. Here's a google search for CMC [1].
- Criteria 5: Sources have been added
- Criteria 8: They have won the Canadian equivalent of the Dove Awards (If you don't know what the dove awards are, go read the article I linked to. If you aren't into Christian music, but are into Country Music, the Dove awards are like the Country Music Association Awards.).
- Criteria 12: They have had documentaries made about them and shown throuought Canada.

By my count that's 5 criteria they meet. For those of you who like google counts, a google search for ""Critical Mass" rock band Canada" gives 205,000 hits [2] of course, not all of those hits are relevant (does anyone ever manage to get a google search that only gives relevant results?), but most are. Frankly, I don't see how they aren't notable. I think the last AFD did not have sufficent participation and should have been relisted. I trust that this article will, given a short time, change substatially from the one that was already deleted, and the only concern remaining is the conflict of interest. Like notability, WP:COI is a guideline, not policy. Considering the fact that, as was stated on the article's talk page the original, deleted article was not written by a band member, and considering the allowances that have been made in the past for COI violations, I don't see that as too much of a problem in this instance. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From David Wang: I apologize for causing all this controversy over this site. As someone who is new to all this (I am not familiar with the procedures for wikipedia), I noticed an entry for our band about 2 years ago (not sure of the exact time) while doing a routine google search. At the time, the entry was very terse so I took the liberty of adding more info. I was not aware that this was a conflict of interest according to the guidelines. I have added some relevant citations and links to external websites. I have asked a few people who are knowledgable about Catholic music to consider coming in to change the site substantially so that I am not the primary contributor to this site. I believe that, even now, we have satisfied the essence of all the requests made of us to verify the content. I would appreciate it if we could stay on the site as we have made every effort to comply with all the wikipedia.org guidelines. At this point, I will refrain from making any more additions/changes to the entry. Thanks for all of your helpful comments and your patience.

AN ADDITIONAL NOTE: Okay.. I found the original version of the band listing... it was under CriticalMass (no spaces). This was the one that I saw originally. Being new to Wikipedia, I created a new entry as opposed to modifying that one.. as you will note, this has been around since Sept 2005...

I think since all the discussion is surrounding this entry, that entry should perhaps be deleted. Anyways, just want to verify what happened.

Keep, the article is greatly improved over the version that was previously deleted. I still have reservations about the award (being "equivalent to" a much bigger and more well-known award does not imply "the same as" the bigger award when it comes to notability--the San Francisco Bay Area "Bammie" awards are equivalent to the Grammies, but far from being the same when it comes to notability). And most minor indie labels hook up with big distributors (or they don't survive), so having a big distributor is in no way equivalent to being on a "major label or important indie" (which is what WP:BAND asks for). But even with those and a couple of other more dubious claims to notability discounted, they do seem to meet the notability requirements. Barely, perhaps, but barely is all that's asked for. And, more importantly, verifiability seems to be established. Xtifr _tälk 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valuable information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.107.70 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Metzl[edit]

Non-notable individual. Article seems as if it was designed to promote its subject, rather than acting as a biographical entry. The subject is not a "politician"; he is a minor individual in his purported field who soundly lost the only primary election in which he ever entered. Does not fit WP:BIO. Strong delete. Wikophile 02:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Your edit summary for the AfD states that the article is "non-notable, self-promoting, and untrue". You are entitled to claim the first two (as much as I disagree), but a charge of "untrue" needs far greater support. There is something fundamentally wrong with this nomination if this libelous claim cannot be supported. Alansohn 06:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV is so extreme that I think the nominator's claim of "untrue" was valid. 134.193.240.105 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Maybe we read different articles or found different search results, but this is clearly a leading scholar in the field and published author, whose work has been discussed in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs and the Christian Science Monitor and published in the Boston Globe, whoch confers a strong degree of notability. In addition to appearing on The Today Show ad other programs, he has been interviewed by Tim Russert on Meet the Press. The person is clearly notable in full compliance with WP:BIO, and passes the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard with flying colors. That said, the article is awful and needs to be rewritten and restructured. Alansohn 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, extreme POV John Reaves 07:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is so poorly written that even Alansohn's valid arguments and a fruitful GScholar search fail to sway me. Stammer 08:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a vote for delete? 134.193.240.105 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs fixing, not deletion. -Toptomcat 22:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being crappy is not grounds for deletion if it fits WP:BIO †he Bread 00:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the fact that this guy is clearly fairly senior, he isn't actually notable. Pete Fenelon 01:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete - Per nom. RichMac (Talk) 02:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Batman2005 17:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewrite, not delete. Per Alansohn Warhol13 02:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - it's in such poor condition that it isn't able to show notability at all. This guy isn't notable and he doesn't deserve an article. 66.142.236.175 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Terrible article and possibly copyvio, but some notable accomplishments in there, so the topic is worth keeping. -- nae'blis 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to rewrite it? If it's a copyright violation it should be deleted. 134.193.240.105 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Awful article unworthy of Wikipedia, possibly copyright violation, non-notable individual, extreme POV; clearly he isn't notable enough for someone to write a decent article about; this has no place on Wikipedia 134.193.240.105 16:28, 28 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 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

web directories[edit]

Gimpsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
GoGuides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MusicMoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Skaffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The articles for these four well-known web directories were speedy deleted on the 22nd under CSD A7. I've restored them and listed them here to obtain consensus about their future. - EurekaLott 03:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No assertion of notability. Resolute 05:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These are all notable directories and shouldn't have been deleted. Rray 05:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Resolute, Rray: Notability is irrelevant. These articles fail WP:V, and have little effect but to advertise web sites (probably just by virtue of the fact that they are stubs; I doubt the intent was for them to seem like wikispam). Notability is a guideline (for now); WP:V is a policy, so notability issues (whatever their questionable validity) are ever even reached. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - An assertion of notability is effectively the threshold of CSD-a7, which these articles fail miserably. Only reason I did not suggest speedy deletion is that they came from there. Regardless, notability is relevent, even if not an official policy. I can verify I exist in a way that wikipedia would accept, but an article on me would be deleted due to lack of notability. Resolute 06:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I am using alexa.com data to help indicate notability. All 4 of these sites have high traffic counts and a large number of Internet links to them: Traffic Rank for musicmoz.org: 38,218; Other sites that link to this site: 1,405; Online Since: 28-Aug-2001. Traffic Rank for skaffe.com; Other sites that link to this site: 1,137; Online Since: 23-Oct-2003. Traffic Rank for goguides.org: 14,392; Other sites that link to this site: 1,263; Online Since: 03-Feb-2001. Traffic Rank for gimpsy.com: 15,399; Other sites that link to this site: 1,426; Online Since: 06-Mar-2001. orlady
- Comment - Those are all notability things, Orlady; the actual problems with these articles are largely about verifiability with reliable third-party sources. I would recommend focusing on that problem instead. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - It seems to me that the main problem is being a stub - musicmoz is a unique and potentially valuable 'open source' resource (I have no vested interest), but the stub currently has no useful info. Alexa ratings simply score usage by alexa-users; no wider value. I'm not a regular wiki writer, but it seems to me that stubs are better embellished than deleted, uless there's a REASON for deletion. The other sites, for example are three of 10,000 commercial directories. Unless there's a unique aspect to their function or usage, then why list those three - but I am not saying there is or is not a unique aspect in these cases, I do not know 86.31.98.158 11:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - IF the articles are fixed up with regard to WP:V and WP:SPAM, then I say Keep; there isn't anything in them that smacks of WP:AUTO, WP:VANITY, or WP:NFT. Note that the GoGuides article links to a source that can be both cited and mined for additional information that might aid in article cleanup. I believe these articles can be salvaged if someone cares enough to fix them. Cleaneruppers: They have individual problems as well as what's been outlined already (MusicMoz violates the "crystal ball" clause of WP:NOT - "...aims to be a directory..."; Skaffe is based unabashedly on the site's own marketing materials, so it's not reliable - "It touts itself..." - I forget the WP: link to that one.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The link that you are looking for is WP:WEB, where the PNC requires multiple non-trivial published works that are from sources independent of the subject. Uncle G 19:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails verifiability and notability is only weakly asserted above (see WP:GOOGLE; Alexa ranks are explicitly not a part of the WP:WEB guidelines). (I should point out that I was the one who added the speedy tags in the first place.) Demiurge 09:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I noticed that the French Wikipedia has an article on MuzicMoz too. // Liftarn 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now Frankly I don't blame the person who speedy deleted these. They sound like WP:SPAM and provide no evidence of passing WP:WEB. The latter of those is an absolute requirement for inclusion here. MartinDK 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Looks like spammer tactics. I say we axe them all Kobra 06:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gimpsy and Musicmoz at least. Gimpsy is ordered by actions, not the usual DMOZ-style structure. As for Musicmoz, there aren't many detailed music databases around (the only other one I know is musicbrainz), so why not keep this one? Delete Goguides and Skaffe as they don't have much going for them. About WP:V, I'm sure you can find independent articles about all these websites. r3m0t ^talk 13:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC) PS Surely there's more on List of web directories to axe. Starting Point Directory, anybody?[reply]
- Comment - MusicMoz access online has not been an option for me for awhile. Anyone else having problems? If the site is down for the count, I will have to delete the links to it on my site as well.Yippee 23:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI: The AOL-owned server that hosts MusicMoz (as well as some other resources used by the Open Directory Project) was taken offline recently and currently remains offline, but it is expected to be restored when technical issues are resolved. --orlady 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gimpsy. In respect to WP:V, there are several articles that show notability of Gimpsy, like here http://www.crt.net.au/etopics/gimpy.htm and here http://www.seologic.com/guide/gimpsy.php. Goguides and Skaffe are hardly distinguishable from most other directories which are based on the ODP/DMOZ classification method. As for Musicmoz, the site was unavailable last time I checked.Mrdchc 00:04, 30 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, Tawker 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I sense a certain tendency to delete the unfamiliar and the startups, and consideringthe unpredictable name of things in thie part of the world, I think its better to leave them in if they have any real existence, and Alexa is good enough as a test. If they disappear, then is the time to remove them.DGG 06:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I don't see how these could turn into articles that anyone would care to read. If something interesting happens to one of these projects, an article can be made then. BCoates 08:13, 30 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. Sandstein 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of convicted or indicted religious leaders[edit]

I created this a year ago after working on the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial religious leaders. It was fun to work on for a time, but the qualifications are largely arbitrary in time and scope. It may just be an almost random hodgepodge of anyone who claims to head a religion and got arrested. Still I'm not totally certain so I'm not voting myself.--T. Anthony 03:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - "List of convicted religious leaders" would be better. Those who are indicted but found not guilty would effectively be defamed by this category; article would need to be edited down to comply with new scope. Arbitraryness could perhaps be resolved by defining the terms really clearly in the article intro. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd considered a rename to limit it to those convicted. I have this fear though that people would just start searching for petty meaningless crimes of religious leaders, like going 60 in a 55 zone, or go back to the Middle Ages to add Joan of Arc or Jesus. (As has already happened)--T. Anthony 06:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying someone was indicted when they were indicted is not defamitory. Best defence for slander or libel is what you claim being true. WilyD 14:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's US law. I believe there are countries where it is still libellous even if true.--T. Anthony 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of any? It's certainly not the case in any where I know the law (admittedly, a handfull) - but if provably true statements are libelous, Wikipedia has tens of thousands of instances of libel in it. WilyD 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been misinformed. I thought there were British Commonwealth countries where a truthful statement can be libellous if it had not been common knowledge and does the libeled serious damage. Although this may be defamation or slander or I'm just mistaken.--T. Anthony 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, anyways, requires that libellous statements be false. For information to be includable in Wikipedia, it needs to be verifiable for reliable sources so everything that goes into any article has to already be public knowledge. WilyD 17:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no lawyer, but I try to stay familiar with the law. I know in the US (where WP's servers are located), truth is an absolute defense against libel-proof of a statement's truth means it can absolutely never be considered libel. If someone was indicted for a crime, it is entirely true to say that they were "indicted for" or "accused of" that crime (though, until they're convicted, one may not say that the person committed that crime, only that they are accused). Seraphimblade 21:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments above were originally posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/web directories for some reason, so I moved them here, see [3]. — CharlotteWebb 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as even the guilty get acquitted from time to time. As long as verifiable information is presented in a neutral manner, the readers can draw their own conclusions. Useful, interesting list. — CharlotteWebb 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion, perhaps we could limit it to those charged and/or convicted with felony offenses, if we wanted to establish a threshhold for the word "serious" as used in the introduction of the list, however regardless of the standard used I believe the acquittals should be duly noted as such, but not deleted from the list. — CharlotteWebb 09:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Felony offences become problematic for relgious leaders in countries that don't make that kind of distinction, for example. WilyD 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clear consensus should be established on the article's talk page as to what constitutes a "serious" crime, especially in the case of what would be misdemeanors in the US. Without this, the article could conceivably include every preacher that ever got a speeding ticket. Seraphimblade 21:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-nessecery list, individual indictments can be mentioned on individual's pages. Rever e ndG 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a boundless list. This is better delt with on individual pages per Rever. meshach 02:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unnecessary list. Could be seen as inflammatory. RichMac (Talk) 02:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is the only record of its kind which collates the endevors of a disparate and segmented global movement. It certainly assists academics and proffesionals get a snapshot of behavior. It should only be those charged, and/or convicted of serious crimes. It should be a permanent record of such. A title could include more contemporary versions, ie: "Religous, Spiritual or Human Development movements".Legalist 07:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this means. How is religious leaders being convicted of crimes a global movement? How is it any more a global movement than political leaders being convicted? Granted we do have List of prominent Australian politicians convicted of crimes andList of American Public Officials Convicted of Crimes, but neither is a movement.--T. Anthony 13:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

while they are unaffilliated they have common ancestory, and are part of a progression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement. it is a progression which permeates all societies, but at the same time does not come under any one jurisdiction. A lttle like the new banking regime. hence there is no single authority keeping statistics.Legalist 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'keep and rename Objectivity requires us to limit it to convicted. Commons sense may require it to limit it to those where it is not religious persecution, and there will be many who disagree with any line we may draw there. An objective statement of the nature of th crime convicted is essential.I am leary of a list like this being used in unproductive ways.

I would heartily agree with an earlier suggestion , which may not have been meant seriously, for political leaders, country by country. Perhaps we may already have them? They certainly fit notability. DGG 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is whether or not someone has been indicted of an offence a subjective evaluation? WilyD 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, at least, indictment is a very specific step from a grand jury. If one is indicted by the grand jury, it is factually and indisputably correct to state that they have been "indicted for the crime of (insert crime here)." It is not even the same as having been "charged", as indictment requires the participation of a grand jury, while charging is generally an administrative decision by a district attorney. Of course, this may not hold true in all countries. Seraphimblade 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Australian Law has a similar function, a person is charged by the police, the case then travels to the courts where it goes through a committal phase, a Judge decides whether there is enough evidence, or whether the case has merit,the case then proceeds to a trial. It would be appropriate to include only those who have been "Committed" to stand trial.Legalist 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to remove "indicted". Useful for cross-referencing from one article to another. WMMartin 17:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as any information about a particular religion (convicted leaders etc) should be within the site for that religion. I can't imagine a proper encyclopedia having an entry like this. You could always cross-reference between sites. Cooldude7 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is entirely possible to reliably and verifiably determine whether a person has been indicted for or convicted for a crime without any original research. The article should only include religious leaders who are notable (including those who became notable by being indicted or convicted), however. Seraphimblade 00:56, 30 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. Aksi_great (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SimCity 5 (working title)[edit]

All of this is once again speculation (this page was deleted before), Google hits 1,690,000 pages, with more than half being little more than speculation by fans. Also, this page completly lacks sources; just one won't cut it in my optinion. Red Pooka 03:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal balling. Resolute 05:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL JPG-GR 05:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation once release nears and reliable sources begin to report. WP:CRYSTAL for now though. Seraphimblade 06:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — until good sources can be found for this game. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 07:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still a c.ball article. Keep deleted until the first actual info about the game from EA surfaces. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Delete. Non-confirmed game title. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball article, more sources needed. Open poppyseed 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a former active member of a SimCity community, this is pure speculation. Let WP:NOT reign! Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to much speculation at this point.-- danntm ^T _C 20:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculation. Rever e ndG 22:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, considering this is my first time posting on, uh, AfD page. But I'd like to ask a clarification... you mentioned Google hits but did you actually checked out Google News regarding new SimCity? I did a search there with filter set to the most recent option and sorting order set to latest on the top and it turns out to be a quite lot of results following that so-called announcement. I do not know if all of those articles are using Gamespot article as source. But even then, you'd think the press conference would've more than one press outlets taking notes there so I doubts Gamespot is the only source for such information. It's possible that this Wikipedia entry failed to receive those "missing" sources. I do not know if this is due to the fact it's still November, the month announcement were made according to GameSpot. So if it would satisfies the need for more than one sources, I would recommend someone find another source. Keep in mind that all other SimCities in the works, i.e. those being developed for DS and mobile platform were already long announced prior to this earnings conference. So what could possibly be other platforms that SimCity would be developed for? It is highly unlikely for them to be developed on any other platforms other than PC. Those seventh-generation video gaming consoles does not seems to be that much suitable for this SimCity, frankly. So, if I am getting this right, all this article needs to avoid qualifying to deletion is simply another source? Google News might provide one for that, with filter and sorting set, of course. Once again, I apologize if I am doing this wrong or something. I am not exactly experienced with AfD page. Thanks in advance. Legion 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was done with General Google, not Google news, where are you at? :P And also, there is only one source because there is only one. An EA exec just said in no more than a sentence or two saying a new game is in the works, and that is certainly not enough for an article. Only one source, and everything else is speculation/cryatallballery, all it says is that it's "in the works", nothing else. By the way, check out WP:DP. :) --RedPooka 04:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'In the works' is part of the development process, otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned at all. The original source is EA. Speculation doesn't belong here, but the title is a real project. Robovski 00:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that the game has been confirmed by EA we might as well keep it, seeing as an article will eventually have to be made anyway. Martin Leng 16:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately that is not how articles are handled, and EA has only said "in development" and that could mean anything, that is not an official confirmation! --Red Pooka 17:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia's mission is to be the encyclopaedia of everything. Yes it is true this is just speculation, but it is speculation based on a real announcement - not just a press release but official information to the share market. This is a much higher level of speculation than a potential film sequel that is 'rumoured'. This is not just rumoured, this is far more than that. Wikipedia should be a place to come to to get an encyclopedic understanding of a topic. If your topic of interest happens to be SimCity 5, then it is appropriate that the concrete information that is available is available on the SimCity 5 page, rather than on some other page where it would not belong. Tonzo 23:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL; there is not confirmed information from the publisher regarding the release of the title, only conjecture and projection. --Mhking 00:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - very likely this page will be put up again in the near future as SimCity 5 nears completion, however, there's just simply not enough information at the moment to even warrant a stub (perhaps when some screenshots and more press releases are made then we at least know they're more serious about releasing the game). --Rambutaan 01:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal ball tomfoolery. Re-create the article when there's actually something to say on the matter. (A proper announcement should be made some time next year according to my information, after Spore is released.) The Kinslayer 09:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. The article can be recreated when more verifiable information exists. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:15, 27 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. Aksi_great (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 3[edit]

Wow, I don't even really think this has been really verified at all. the only "source" is when an EA exec simply mentioned it in a single sentence in an article talking about something else. Many speculation if you ask me. WP is not a crystal ball. By the way, 26,200,000 Google hits, for some reason an extremely large amount of them being Sims 2 or general Sims not "The Sims 3", and the TS3 stuff is fan speculation. Red Pooka 03:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speculative at this point, search with quotes [4] returns far fewer results. Only a vague rumour to go on. "In development" could really mean anything, and until we start seeing press releases, this doesn't need an article. --Crossmr 03:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 04:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL.--Hús ö nd 04:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use some sources but this title is coming according to the budgeting so it does warrant a article and IMO does not fall under crystal ball status - Mike Beckham 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Mig ^(Talk) 04:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL JPG-GR 05:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete per nom. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 07:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one simple hint that the game is to be released is not enough to merit its own article, yet. Keep deleted until, like comments outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimCity 5 (working title), reliable and more detailed information about Sims 3 comes out. The way I see it, that probably won't happen in the near future in this case, allowing unverifiable speculation to move in the interval. This is not an article worth keeping for now. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Delete. Per above, unless this game title is confirmed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can just add info as it comes. Maybe lock the article up, when a press release is released open it back up for edits. Bettyfizzw 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment as I pointed out on The Sims 2: Life Stories AFD, this isn't proper procedure for handling an article. Locking is only to be used in the case of persistent edit warring or vandalism.--Crossmr 17:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too early to create an article at this point, see WP:CRYSTAL.-- danntm ^T _C 20:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculation. Rever e ndG 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reverend. Plus, looking back at the first Sims game, a Sims 3 is likely not to appear for about ten years and seven or so Sims 2 expansions.--Kross ^Talk 03:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SYSS Mouse 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A little bit related: what about The Sims for Wii (separate from The sims 3 required due to potential Mii support), there is already a website up. [5] SYSS Mouse 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete this is quite far in the future in gaming terms and could turn out as vapourware. Even though it's likely that Maxis will continue with their highly successful franchise, we should only really start working on a game-in-development article when we've at least got more proof (preferably in the form of the existence of an alpha or beta build). Even though I'm usually an inclusionist, I think this is simply too early for an article --Rambutaan 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --FreshFruitsRule 02:40, 27 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.--Hús ö nd 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Teodorski[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable person. However, the person was nominated for a Daytime Emmy. However, the way it seems, it was a local/regional Emmy instead of a National one. I'm bringing it here just to get some more eyes on it. Metros232 03:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Northwest Regional Emmy Award" nomination, not an Emmy or even a Daytime Emmy nom. I have to say, they seem to give a helluva lot of Emmys of various kinds out. Bwithh 04:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable, non-notable person. If he'd actually won the emmy, it'd be a different story. Borderline CSD A7. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 05:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete per nomination. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 07:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per blah blah blah.....Just H 03:21, 29 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. Aksi_great (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims: Life Stories[edit]

What the heck is this? This isn't an article. The only things it mentions about this is the release date and the title; nothing else. Nada, zip, zilch. Why would you make an article that doesn't even talk about the subject? Red Pooka 04:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to be first perhaps? If Sims fans want to speculate on the hundreds upon thousands of fansites out there, they can. This isn't the place for it. Until we start seeing press releases or other more concrete evidence of what a product is outside of a name and a theorized release date (Gamestop is not an accurate source for that) it shouldn't be here.--Crossmr 04:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 04:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL.--Hús ö nd 04:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT - Mig ^(Talk) 05:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystalballing, 930 hits. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 05:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Come back when you have more info... As per nom. Spawn Man 07:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete, crystalballing again by Sim fans. (We all like rumors, but there has to be a limit...) –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 07:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like The Sims 3 we can keep it up, lock it, then unlock it when the time is right. Bettyfizzw 15:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment this isn't proper procedure for handling an article. Articles are only to be locked for the short term to combat edit wars and persistent vandalism.--Crossmr 17:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculation, and the article can be re-created if and when it comes out. Rever e ndG 22:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed. Although I don't think it'll hurt anyone by keeping it here and locking it until actual information concerning the game is released, I think deleting it is the most sensible thing to do at the moment. Sillygostly 09:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal balling. The Kinslayer 09:20, 27 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. Aksi_great (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decleated[edit]

Apparently a neologism and speedied several times as nonsense, however notability is asserted on the talk page albeit without sources: "is commonly used in NFL blog-speak across the nation". Procedural listing; no opinion. Kimchi.sg 04:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure neologism. Blogs don't serve as reliable sources, so neither should they serve to assert notability to neologisms.--Hús ö nd 04:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Danny Lilithborne 04:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn neologism, 1240 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 04:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely non-notable neologism. Resolute 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De-cleate-Delete - As per above... Spawn Man 07:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Repeat offender John Reaves 07:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete per nom. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 07:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure Neologism. Daniel5127 <Talk> 08:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 10:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles mentioning "complete gravity obliteration" in a sporting context. Tonywalton | Talk 10:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please. Rever e ndG 22:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am an active member of 3 american football wikiprojects, and the founder of one of them. Decleating is a valid slang term, and appears in press all the time, but even I will admit that among the many things that wikipedia is not is a dictionary. Perhaps a transwiki to Wiktionary. Even I would not miss this one.--Jayron 32 02:35, 25 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siamandas[edit]

Article has been userified and deleted several times. Procedural nomination to decide this. Metros232 04:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear COI - The user who created the article, User:Siamandas has had no edits outside of this article & his user page. NN & poorly written too... Spawn Man 07:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and de-POV. Article appears to assert notability, but is sadly short of sources. It does appear to be a WP:COI but consider; would this have been listed for AfD or would it have been cleaned up on its own merits, if written by User:Somebody not called Siamandas? Tonywalton | Talk 10:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam and conflict of interest; remove from user page as well. 24.77.154.58 (talk · contribs) and Siamandas (talk · contribs) and have added external links to related websites to 20 (and counting) articles. JonHarder 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this If someone puts up a modest note on who they are and resources they have created, that would be available for the internet world free to look at, what is wrong with that? As someone who has established Winnipeg and Manitoba's largest on-line photo galleries and who has produced 6 hour long television documentaries on Winnipeg's history, and who has written 250 stories of Manitoba history, I would argue it is an asset to have this information and these links vailable to the general public. People can see and read 350 pages of information for free. They can look at 10,000 pictures for free. George Siamandas

Keep, but fix. This article needs to be fixed, not deleted. -Toptomcat 23:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Correct me if I am wrong, but I have always assumed that notability implied being notable generally, not just in Winnipeg. --Anthony.bradbury 23:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this a terribly formatted and written article, which in and of itself is not significant enough grounds for deletion, it also doesn't seem to establish sufficient notability. If better sources regarding notability are found I'd support a keep. --The Way 07:15, 26 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 per below (5x edit conflict). It should also be noted that this represents a substantial proportion of the nominator's edits. MER-C 05:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations[edit]

Perhaps the most worthless wiki drek I've seen. I would rather see this go from all the NPOV vios, type-o's, etc than to fix all of the badness. I'm sorry. You may note this is the first edit I've made - but I have plenty of experience with Wikipedia - I just have lots of aliases and anonymous IP editing. --Meryl Kiniry 04:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nom. Article is not in great shape but there's no argument for deletion here. Nom may be violating WP:POINT Bwithh 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a bad-faith nom, and salt the user who created this. Note, this user account appears to be a one-shot. --Dennisthe2 05:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "Salt"? --Meryl Kiniry 05:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep dumb. Danny Lilithborne 05:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is disrupting the afd process through changing votes and also seems to be messing around with admin block tags on another user's page. Bwithh 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bigblackguy890 that is, but he deserves to have his talk page v-protected, believe it --Meryl Kiniry 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what's your defense for this edit? Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and block user. Resolute 05:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh that's an over-reaction. --Meryl Kiniry 05:07, 24 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. Bucketsofg 14:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des Moines University College of Podiatric Medicine and Surgey[edit]

The title of the page is misspelled. It has been marked as advertising, does not provide much information, and a page already exists with the correct title, containing more authoritative information about this college (see it at Des Moines University College of Podiatric Medicine and Surgery) Dionisio23 04:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect per nom. MER-C 05:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per nom. This shouldn't be in AfD. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 05:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What are the chances somebody will type in this title? If they do, i'm sure they will notice their mistake and correct it when they see there's no page there (like I do when I misspell an article title). TJ Spyke 06:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no problem with redirects if the article is a likely typo, but to spell this whole thing out and type "Surgey" instead of "Surgery" seems to be a far stretch. The Des Moines University College of Podiatric Medicine and Surgery article exists and there's nothing here that belongs there. Alansohn 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ and Alansohn, redirect would be utterly pointless. Xtifr _tälk 14:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all other remarks, especially considering the fact that Des Moines is in Iowa and not Indiana. --Iowahwyman 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alansohn and Iowahwyman. Rever e ndG 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The chance of anyone typing in the whole title and spelling the last word wrong must be infinitesimal. And if they do they can re-type it.--Anthony.bradbury 22:57, 24 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.. Aksi_great (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Bane[edit]

A contested speedy. When I first slapped the db tag on it, it was just a resume. Although the author cleaned it up, I still think Mr. Bane fails WP's notability requirement. There's one short mention in the Baltimore Sun noting that he won his election, but that's about it. Requesting a delete. Gzkn 05:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete County sheriffs are generally not notable. Johnn 7 07:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. I won a school election by a landslide in my primary school when I was 6, but am I on Wikipedia? Nope... Spawn Man 07:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as A7 or simply Delete, doesn't come close to meeting the requirements of WP:BIO. Xtifr _tälk 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable. Rever e ndG 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.--Anthony.bradbury 22:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even were he incumbent rather than elect he'd still be NN. Pete Fenelon 01:57, 25 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 CSD A7. Naconkantari 06:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicci Campen[edit]

WP:BIO, nn person, author has removed speedy and prior prod SkierRMH 05:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. In the future, you can restore the speedy deletion tag if the author removes it him/herself. That's a no-no. A {{drmspeedy}} warning on their user talk page might be helpful too. Gzkn 06:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 06:10, 24 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, should have been speedied. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William (Bill) Jarblum[edit]

Reads like a company biography. I'd speedy this under G11 if it were about a company, but I'm not sure it qualifies under A7 for people. theProject 05:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 definitely applies to him. Here are the 128 mostly unrelated ghits. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 06:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sent the creator to WP:AIV for having a commercial username. MER-C 06:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and related article Loraine Jarblum. Danny Lilithborne 06:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. This article is as much about the movies as it is this NN man... Spawn Man 07:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. Rever e ndG 22:47, 24 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. DS 19:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ngangangese[edit]

This article is ostensibly about the Ngangangese language, which is supposed to be one of two languages spoken by the "Ching" people. I could find no reference to a language by this name either using Google, nor on the Ethnologue (which lists over 6,900 languages, and is the definitive authority for all of the languages currently spoken on earth). Likewise for the "sister language" Inginese. I strongly suspect that the language doesn't exist. Waitak 06:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm no linguist, but some aspects of the article definitely seem to be hoaxes (the presence of click consonants, for example). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also add that if the so-called "dialects" are as wildly different from each other as the article seems to be saying, any kept version would need to be radically altered by someone who knows what they're talking about. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note The AfD tag wasn't on the article when I checked, so I added it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I was on my way to add it, but you beat me to it! Waitak 06:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:HOAX. I've looked into it too, and this is just silliness. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Our "linguist" can't even spell one of the basic words in the field correctly: "consanants" [sic]. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the main thing that gives it away is that it's supposed to be related to "Inginese", but the examples of "Ngangangese" and "Inginese" at the bottom are completely different. Also, it says that the language is monosyllabic (like chinese languages) but the example contains words like "limnada" which can't be expressed in a single syllable. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The author's just deleted the AfD and hoax templates from the article page with the edit comment "Your ignorance cannot prove anything". Not sure what the appropriate action is here. Waitak 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads-up. The appropriate action is to restore the AfD tag (and the hoax in this case, although the fact that we're talking hoaxes at the AfD probably makes it less than strictly necessary) with a revert and then to warn the author with the drmafd template, since removing that tag is a form of vandalism. I've done both steps. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete as a hoax. There are exactly zero Ghits. At first, I thought the write was referring to Chinglish, which is a slang of Chinese and English mixed together, but it's not. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 07:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dltee tihs pciee of rbbuish nbopw. Tnhaks pbpeobple! ;) Spawn Man 07:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced. Hahah. Stammer 08:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comedy linguistics. --Folantin 09:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in school one day. Or anywhere else, for that matter. Moreschi 10:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent WP:HOAX WilyD 14:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this were about Spanish, I'd say Chingese would be an apt description of what should be done with this article. Delete Tubezone 16:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this article If you really want to know it IS a language but I just faked the history part of it because I dont want people to know the real history of it for personal reasons. Anyway I was gonna change the history but was merely too busy, wikipedia is not my life! Furthermore why would it be insulting Chinese people? I AM Chinese, so no one here should be questioning that.

Do not delete ETHNOLOGUE IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. I went to the China section and searched for my dialect of Chinese, which is the Taishan Dialect, and it was not listed, I question to reliability of that site.
- I see your question and I'll raise you this page on Ethnologue, which at least mentions the "Hoisan" dialect, which I understand is a variant spelling of Taishan). I can't be sure whether that's the best place to put it, but it's certainly there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Ethnologue does NOT account for different dialects and merely classifies them under the same language, DESPITE the fact that dialects are NOT the same. For example in the Korea section they say there is only Korean and Korean Sign Language used in Korea. That is true but there are lots of other Korean dialects as you can see in article about it in Wikipedia. Therefore how do you know that it lists EVERY language, and therefore it cannot be proven for any language to be real off of a site, is every language known to us in the United States? Just because there is no proof does not mean it does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoisanpride (talk • contribs)

do not delete the words limnada ARE one syllable but they are put together because mnada is a sentence ending which you connect to the word li in order to tell the tone of the said sentence...mnada is a sentence ending you use if a word ends with a vowel sound and your speaking to someone you do not know or giving respect, and in this case i do not know you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoisanpride (talk • contribs)

do not delete I found that the comment about the dialects not being connected is false because not all dialects are the same. example, in Chinese languages, Cantonese and Shanghainese differ completely in that Shanghainese uses multiple syllables in words while Cantonese is strictly monosyllabic. Furthermore while cantonese has 6 tones Shanghainese only has two tones since its language influences were vastly different from those of Cantonese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoisanpride (talk • contribs)

do not delete people here are making fun of the Inginese writing, and Inginese writing is not me just going "ajkldaf kal;sdlkfa askld;fa" for your info, to SOME people (those who know it) it actually has some meaning and this is very insulting to Inginese speakers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoisanpride (talk • contribs)

Comment The burden of proof is on the article's author(s) to provide reputable sources for the existence of this language. Editors should also sign their comments. --Folantin 17:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would someone make up an article, people do not have so much spare time these days so this whole thing is stupid. How do you know that you just do not know about the language? so are you saying that if you do not see someone on internet they do not exist? because i can name a heck of a lot of people that are not on internet or in any books or sources but they sure are alive and i see them everyday. This deletion this is wack because sources do not tell all.

Comment Read this very carefully: Wikipedia:Verifiability. And sign your comments with your user name. --Folantin 17:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever I do not know how to sign because I do not use Wikipedia often, but if Wikipedia is only based on sources then it is not a good site because everything in the world is not on a book or on the internet. Even my teacher says we cannot use Wikipedia as a source because its highly uncredible and the information cannot be seen as true. This is because people like you who think everything has to be written or on the computer, which everything does not have to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoisanpride (talk • contribs)
Comment That's right. What Wikipedia lacks is more unverifiable hoax articles. --Folantin 18:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Signing is actually really, really easy - just type ~~~~ and it will automatically put in your username and the date and time. As for sources, keep in mind why others do not allow Wikipedia as a source is because of hoax articles and random nonsense often inserted into articles. While this page may not be a hoax, the best way for you to prove that is to provide sources to verify the information, so that it can be seen as true encyclopedic information. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 18:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete i speak Ngangangese with Hoisanpride all the time, in fact its a language among some kids at my school, this is a real language but is not in any books since its just spoken among some students. 75.38.63.149 18:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, you just brought up another reason to delete. WP:NFT Tubezone 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Children love to invent new languages in school - I invented three while in junior high alone. Yet, the fact that two or three students can speak it does not mean it's notable, or noteworthy. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a listing of fictional, ephemeral secret codes/languages. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 18:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most likely a hoax. At bare minimum, without sources this is original research. IrishGuy ^talk 19:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gaa being ai li suu zvem lai ksi, o oi luu jaa, ai qaap li ngiu aut uhi ngaam. ai li uhi uuu twel oi saa ngaam yoo tr yoo, xDDDD. aoydp sepgaoy dbg'or depsebtaopqp! xDDD68.121.53.57 20:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many Chingese people are discriminated against for he ways that they speak and the vast amount of doubt on their language. Examples of this can be seen in this article and the comments people have about the credibility. If you're going to accuse wikipedia of cultural bias on this basis, you better be able to prove your "language" exists. Rever e ndG 22:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense article, which I thought I had marked for {{speedy}} (but memory fails). No meaningful google hits, and multiple edits from the same editor in this page do not change my mind.--Anthony.bradbury 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note to the creator of the article: Don't feel bad about making careful notes about the way you and your friends speak, or even imagining other ways or dialects you and your friends could speak. Observation and imagination about language are hallmarks of an agile mind. But ... a language requires more speakers than a few friends, and Wikipedia is not the place for your original observations, research, and imaginings. By posting this article and insisting for awhile it was real, you created a lot of work for other editors trying to track down references and so forth. Please don't do that again, but please do consider contributing authentic information, with references, about language and your other interests. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. If it's not WP:HOAX it's a NN invented language. Pete Fenelon 01:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you I would like to thank Newyorkbrad for being more adult about his comments. Thank you for just telling me how the thing works and what i should do instead of practically insulting my whole language. i dont mind what happens to this page but i just dont want people thinking its a hoax cuz its not. thank you 68.125.110.254 03:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that you, Hoisanpride? I think you inadvertently forgot to log in. I'm glad my comments were helpful. Read some of the linguistics articles here (about Chinese languages and other languages) and you'll learn lots more about the issues you're interested in. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 26 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal khashan[edit]

WP:BIO and WP:PROF, nn person, reads like resume, give no notion of notablity; author removed speedy and prod nominations SkierRMH 05:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF, none of his books get close to even 200 hits. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, only 911 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PROF. Books listed are not notable. Seraphimblade 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Change to keep given new information and sources-apparently some note is taken of his work. Seraphimblade 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A professor of political science at the American University of Beirut is quite notable. He has a significant (though not overwhelming) Google Scholar presence. In other words, he is a Arab voice with a significant foothold in Western academia. I prefer to err on the safe side of WP:BIAS in a case like this one. 08:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC) That was me. Stammer 09:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although his books are not highly listed, I suggest that a University professor, albeit in the Arab world, with a degree from a university in the USA must be seen as notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. His books are taken seriously, with multiple independent reviews; and his quantative survey work is widely reported - for example, in Israel [6] and by Pew [7]. --Mereda 17:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Authored lead article in inaugural issue of the Middle East Quarterly and served on its board for seven years.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Naconkantari 06:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drunken Revolution[edit]

WP:WEB, nn web page, 1 year old webcomic, has removed templates for speedy and prod deletes, no notability SkierRMH 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and so tagged. Gzkn 06:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion. MER-C 06:16, 24 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 redirect to List of students at South Park Elementary. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 06:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gobbles[edit]

"See Gobbles (South Park)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metao (talk • contribs)

Speedy redirect. I'll do it. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 06:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is, after someone else agrees with me. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 06:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Danny Lilithborne 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per nom. MER-C 06:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor characters on South Park#Gobbles. Understandably, Gobbles does not appear in the List of students at South Park Elementary that Gobbles (South Park) redirected to (before I changed it). Alansohn 06:41, 24 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Durkin[edit]

Anonymous user tried to nominate this article for deletion. Anonymous users can't create pages, so I assume anonymous users can't nominate. Anyways, this article is about a sculpture artist. The artist has at least one WP:RS. Prod was removed by only editor (which was the same editor that added the photograph). Abstain ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of online evidence to assert & verify notability. Subject's page at TAMU Commerce. And here, the subject was awarded a fellowship from the Virginia Museum of Fine Art. Caknuck 07:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF as academic (a lot of academics or artists-in-residence at universities are awarded fellowships - nothing remarkable about this) and I can't find substantive evidence for encyclopedic notability as an artist. About 300 google hits - she seems to have had some moderate success but I don't see anything that indicates encyclopedic notability. Given that she completed grad school in 2005, has had only shown her pieces in one non-US exhibition (with the US exhibition participation almost all in galleries local to the schools she attended[8]) - I'd say it's too early for an article on her here. Zero hits in Google Books[9]; Zero relevant hits in Google Scholar[10]. About 9 hits in the Factiva news and magazine database - about 2 or 3 press releases; the rest were 2-3 line mentions in local event calendar listings Bwithh 07:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on WP:PROF.--Anthony.bradbury 23:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NN, WP:PROF. Pete Fenelon 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh. utcursch | talk 08:27, 26 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't sleep, clown will eat me 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie Randazzo-Gallaway[edit]

Probable hoax, fails WP:BIO, WP:V, external link forwards to a MySpace page that makes me want to put on sunglasses. Probably just spam for the MySpace page Tubezone 06:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My eyes! The goggles do nothing! Danny Lilithborne 06:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was created by a user called "Foxiemoxie", which constitutes a Conflict of Interest. 3 ghits, and I think it's meant to be spelled "Galloway". Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 07:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could be wrong, but if we track far enough along the links, is this young lady not a porn movie star?--Anthony.bradbury 23:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is probably WP:SPAM or a bad hoax, enough said. --SunStar Net 00:23, 25 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. WP:SNOW. Proto::type 12:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin Emperor style dildo[edit]

Has been speedily deleted once as an hoax. Let us bring it here just in case it is true. -- RHaworth 06:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two Ghits. Danny Lilithborne 07:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. If this was deleted before, then the author should know to reference their sources when recreating. Caknuck 07:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the claims may be unverifiable, there seems to be significant possibility that this item actually exists. LionelNailer 07:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many references exist to the Mandarin Emperor style on Chinese language sex blogs. I will attempt to reference when I have time. MingNei 07:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above two votes where added by the same user MingNei [11]▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 08:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete please. So far, no references, and as a Chinese myself, "Mandarin Emperor" is not a term used - it's "Chinese Emperor", or "Han Emperor" - which further raises my eyebrows about this article's contents. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 07:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is a hoax. google results Mandarin Emperor style dildo the the original article created by User:Fredsavage had used a photo from this website[12] prior to speedy deletion with an incorrect image licence. the user also had a Inappropriate username Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names Nothing else is known about this claim except for one website. this shows it to be a hoax... from robfeist.spaces.live.com

"I assume that by this time tomorrow, this whole thing will be gone off Wikipedia. But for one brief, shining moment, the world knew the wonder and majesty of the Mandarin Emperor Dildo."
"Edit as of 8:30 AM Saskatchewan time: Due to issues with having no sense of humour, Wikipedia does not feel that my article has a place in its collection of knowledge. They include articles on the Sybian and on Teledildonics, but not the Mandarin Emperor Style. Tragic. Anyway, as this site IS a repository of knowledge, I will include the picture at the bottom. And for being the first person to respond, Jenna wins a matching Mandarin Emperor/Empress double-girth set. Which I expect to be used in some sort of video, which will ultimately gratify me. The end."

▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 07:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - What are we coming to? Mandarin flavoured dildo's?? Girls have all the fun.... ;) Spawn Man 07:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eww.... What is a Mandarin-flavored anything, anyway? Perhaps Mandarin Oranges Now there's a thought... :P? –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 07:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added Chinese language references to the existence of this item. Original may have been a hoax, but actual evidence exists in Chinese. Type in Mandarin Emperor dildo to BabelFish, and search results in Chinese language. WeiWei11
- ~~One add - reviewing comments, KungMing is correct... this should be called a Han Emperor dildo. Perhaps page name should be changed to so reflect.WeiWei11~~
- WeiWei11 only contributions [13] ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 08:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of verifiability. —An gr 08:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've stricken several !votes above that checkuser reveals are from a sizeable sockfarm being run by MingNei in an attempt to influence the result of the AFD. The underlying IP has been blocked for a week to prevent further socking during the course of the AFD. I've also cleaned up the formatting a bit to make it easier to see what is going on. Essjay (Talk) 10:46, 24 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't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eline Vlasblom[edit]

Likely non-notable dutch writer. 5 Ghits and Zero hits at Worldcat.com. Delete. Ohconfucius 07:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine de Vries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Janneke Sier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Renske Homans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sophie Koelemeij (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I want to add the above articles to this AfD, which along with Eline Vlasblom all appear to be products of the fertile imagination of user Ottens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Some checking on Google reveals that these are the names of actual women, but it looks like (bear in mind I can only read near cognates in Dutch) one of them was Miss Friesland 2005 and the others are Dutch students. Just doesn't seem to be any Google hits for the above names in association with the subjects written about in the articles, eg: Sophie Koelemeij being a "courtesan and spy" during WWI. Tubezone 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I doubt many Dutch authors from those years would be listed at worldcat, but I still have verifiability problems. For all intents and purposes, this book doesn't exist. I can't find it. Vlasblom isn't listed as an author on the Querido (publisher) website and the Dutch Royal Library doesn't seem to have her listed either[14]. Searching for both her name and "Vanitas" her supposed best book on Google yields 2 Wikipedia articles -- nothing more. Same goes for Janneke Sier. In other words, this is unverifiable. I can't even verify the existence of printed sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability likely. Possible attack page? Punkmorten 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Not listed on the dbnl, which has many more recent authors. Paint me cynical, but Janneke Sier, Renske Homans and Sophie Koelemeij by the same editor are odd. Have a look here: this (search for vlasblom). We have a Ms. Vlasblom and Ms. Koelemeij collaborating on a dull academic work. Renske Homans appears to be a student at UVA. More in the same vein, perhaps, at Nadine de Vries. A walled garden of hoaxiness ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The publisher, Querido, does exist. Maybe we should write them and ask if they have ever heard of "Eline Vlasblom". [15] The 1970s and 1980s are a dark age for the Internet. If it does not exist on the web is no proof that it does not exist in print. -- Petri Krohn 15:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Koninklijke Bibliotheek depot has 109 books published by Querido in 1984, the year that Levend was purportedly published, and 98 in 1977, the year Vanitas should have been handed in. It seems reasonable to assume that all the books published by Querido found their way to the KB those years, but that Ms. Vlasblom's Levend & Vanitas were not among them those or any other years since 1974. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Flood this diked polder of hoaxery. Tubezone 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comment appears on the talk page for Sophie Koelemeij The British 1901 census results are on-line at www.1901census.nationalarchives.gov.uk. The database lists no one with the name Koelemeij Tubezone 22:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the database for all the names. I could not find even possible family members for any of them. The closest match is Ethel Homans, born 1878 in London Clerkenwell (not Manchester), living in St Luke parish in London. She shares the profession of a "Book Folder" with her mother(?) Louisa B. There are no Siers in Manchester and only 184 in the whole of England. There is no Janneke (with any surname), born 1878 in Manchester, or Renske, born 1898 in London. -- Petri Krohn 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet if the 2000 Netherlands census were public (it's not public after 1938), you'd find all of them. ;-) Tubezone 04:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I endorse the deletion of the articles subsequently nominated by Tubezone per extensive research. Ohconfucius 13:07, 27 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, probably needs renaming and lot of work. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names[edit]

Bad tone, just doesn't seem suitable for Wikipedia. FlareNUKE 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a sometime-chemist, this is interesting and useful to me. Perhaps rename as List of chemical compounds with nonstandard names? Chubbles 07:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Unusual names" is simply a way too subjective standard for what should be included in a list. The article looks more like a list of trivia than anything else. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, presuming that the names (and their derivations) can all be sourced. The title should probably be changed per Chubbles1212 to something more along the lines of "nonstandard names", since "unusual" is a subjective term and the criteria for inclusion would support "nonstandard" as currently written. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjakkalle who has hit the nail on the head. This stuff can be sourced but it is not a list of nonstandard names. That would mean all common, non-SI names. These are names that sound funny but only to culturally english speakers. Sorry. It has to go. --Bduke 08:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maximum delete List of chemical compounds with names that make anglophone adolescents snigger. Really scientific, very encyclopaedic, I don't think. --Folantin 09:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Folantin and evil, evil POV involved. Moreschi 10:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Killitoffalite --Doc^g 10:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for a similar list and its deletion precedents, see Talk:Place names considered unusual. Every entry on that list is now sourced to some other source that considers it unusual. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Bduke. Most of the names seem to be included because they sound naughty to English-speaking schoolboys. JIP | Talk 10:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got an URL floating on my harddrive to a website with similar content. Perhaps a good idea as an external link in chemical compound? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the external links provides a verifiable source for at least some of the compounds on the list. Could be better sourced, but it's not unverifiable. Arguments that the list if POV are poorly thought out, or in conflict with wikipedia's policy on sourcing. POV unusual is fine as long as it's not the wikipedian's point of view, but a verifiable POV (which in this case, it is). WilyD 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I was going to argue keep, but the above comments changed my mind. Although it looks like lots of people have invested a lot of time into making this list, it's nothing but a list of trivia that, as JIP put it, is only appreciated because most of the content sounds naughty to English-speaking schoolboys. Also, it looks like a vandalism magnet. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Even if every word was verifiable, it would still be incredibly unencyclopedic. -- Kicking222 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep: 1. The Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines allow it to have the citations on the specialist page not on the general page, for example for citations on barrelene see barrelene, its that simple. 2. Precedent: the Place names considered unusual survived two nominations 3. starting March 2004 already at least 50 people contributed in some way to this article, that should count for something. 4. this page is releavant to the trivial name page as it is a demonstration of the practical consequences of name-giving in chemistry 5. did anyone mention Fenestrane or sulflower already? V8rik 15:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems that someone has taken it upon themselves (despite surviving the AfD) to remove the entire list at Place names considered unusual, and is likely to delete it again if restored. I'm not interested in starting an edit war, but I wanted to point this out, because that list, as well, is very interesting. Chubbles 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't matter whether the existence of these compounds can be verified individually, it's putting them together on this list that's the issue. As so many users have already stated, the big POV problem here is that these names are mostly "unusual" only from the perspective of an English-speaking schoolkid. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia with an international scope, not a place to laugh at funny foreigners and their silly languages. What next? Do we create a "List of Thai place names with obscene overtones in English" (Phuket, Bangkok)? How encyclopaedic would that be? There's a place on the Net for this stuff, but not here.--Folantin 16:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of obsolete technologies. As Sjakkalle says, the definition of unusual names is vague and subjective. Non standard names doesn't work either, how does one define "non-standard" in this context? Also, the list as defined is open ended as it inherently includes neologisms made for new chemical compounds. Tubezone 16:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indescriminate collection of pseudo-trivia (in that there is no subjective standard to determine what is "unusual". Even if this were an article about "non-standard" names, I fail to see the encyclopedic value in listing examples of things that don't follow a certain rule or norm. Agent 86 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is likely that there are readers of the encyclopedia who are interested in the article. Alan Pascoe 19:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unusual is a subjective term. Rever e ndG 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per V8rik. -Toptomcat 23:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I know or can verify, (about 90%) the names are authentic and verifiable. But it is still a non-encyclopedic article, in that the names are only catalogued here because of their perceived titillation value. Serious editors needing to access data on individual compounds will access the appropriate sites directly.--Anthony.bradbury 00:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - define 'unusual'? This is subjective ticklist crud. Pete Fenelon 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to BJAODN, Wikipedia's repository of non-encyclopedic fun. Before voting to delete this, you should check out Wikipedia:Unusual articles to see what Wikipedia lovingly keeps. Fg2 05:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjakalle, Agent86. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Maybe I'm missing something here, but this seems to be a perfect example of something that fails both WP:OR as well as WP:NPOV. The word 'unusual' in the article's title is necessarily POV, who is to say which chemical names are unusual? --The Way 07:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you peruse WP:NPOV and WP:OR you'll find that this article in fact complies with both. The verifiable, reliable sources are to say that the chemical names are unusual. Your argument applies equally to every statement in Wikipedia. Who's to say Canada is ten million square kilometers in area? Who defines it's borders? Who defines what a kilometer is? Who defines the meaning of the word area? There are already policies to explain how all of this is done. If you don't like the article, say so, but don't accuse it of violating policies it complies with perfectly. WilyD 17:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources can only show the name is used. How can you source its unusualness. Why is 'barrelene' unusual, but 'acetone' is not? It is entirely a judgement. The OR is making that judgment and is not done from a NPOV. --Bduke 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please go back and check the sources again [16] to find that in fact that (at least one) source shows that the molecule has an unusual name, explicitly labelled as such by the source. There's no OR problem and there's no NPOV problem. WilyD 14:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with caveats:
- copyedit for tone
- include more detailed etymology
- possibly rename article or move to wikibooks

Unusual may be a subjective judgment but so are many other descriptors in other articles. That these compounds do exist should not be in doubt, especially if there are separate articles. That only anglophone schoolboys can appreciate the humor is silly. Any English speaking person can. It is possible to merge it into chemical terminology but from its length, it will eventually get split again. --Rifleman 82 21:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per v8rik. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Science. Interesting. Amusing. Encyclopedic. I don't know what I'd do without my morning dose of Fucitol. Herostratus 07:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the bit of inherent subjectivity in determining what is "unusual". The article is sourced with references that refer to the chemical compounds as unusual. The article describes a more interesting side to the normally dry subject of chemical nomenclature. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There have been professional books on this subject, because--apart from all the adolescent puns, there are indeed chemical names that are unusual, and do have unexpected or deliberate connotations. Keep, and I promise to add a few dozen more real ones. I see no harm in mixing the two. There are professional jokes, and there are stupid jokes, and it can be hard to tell them apart. DGG 05:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unusual is a subjective term. utcursch | talk 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something less inherently POV, and keep anything that's sourced. --ais523 11:27, 29 November 2006 (U T C)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storage systems[edit]

Possible non-english speaking author; would need a complete rewrite to make sense or present any info. John Reaves 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Reply] I agree to the rewrite. As of now the article is in the draft state. I will be adding much more contents in the coming days. However I won't be writting in detail on the topics that are already found on Wikipedia. --Rajendra Divecha 05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Data storage device. Tubezone 08:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [Reply] A storage system encompasses storage devices but it not a device by itself. Thats's the distinction. --Rajendra Divecha 05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevent info not already posessed to Data storage device; then delete, as the term isn't really that related. -Toptomcat 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [Reply] The reply above answers this point as well. --Rajendra Divecha 05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - if any relevant info is around, but delete otherwise. --SunStar Net 01:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [Reply] I tried hunting for a relevant, topic specific article for about a week but id not come across any, thus created a new one.
Strong delete - this is illiterate drivel that says nothing of note. Pete Fenelon 02:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [Reply] Please refer this URL [17] for a list of Storage systems vendors. After studying few of the products offered by these vendors, you might be able to understand the significance of this article. --Rajendra Divecha 05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Computer storage. There may be something to say on a class of devices, but this article is not the starting place. Vegaswikian 07:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [Reply] Computer storage talks more about the primary storage devices i.e., the system memory/RAM. It also talks about secondary storage devices like hard disks, CD-ROMs etc. But does not talk about a storage system. --Rajendra Divecha 09:38, 28 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 copyvio. Kimchi.sg 13:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNM Classification[edit]

I suspect that this article has been cut & pasted from another article on the internet. That aside, it is poorly written, not structured & I don't think it's all that notable. This however, could all be fixed with a rewrite, but the copy vio can't. Also, in some ways it sounds like an advertisement for the cancer industry. If the article is kept, all these elements need to be addressed.... Spawn Man 07:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Here's the original. It's been slightly modified, but loads of the copyrighted text remains (which is how I found it). CSD g12 anyone? Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 08:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the AfD tag wasn't on it. I've taken the liberty of adding it. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 10:41, 24 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, defaulting to keep. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Vujicic[edit]

Non-notable; There are no sources refering to him or his work other than his own website John Reaves 07:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well I do know that it is menat for Deletion. If it can be edited and put it would look more neat.rencin24
Keep and re-write, I'm doing it now. It's mainly the way the article's set out, he's plenty notable enough. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 08:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It I feel this guy has not written it properly will do the necessary edits.58.2.238.143 08:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have been re-writing the article, and google searches note a number of relevant hits, who's information will soon be put into the article. His own website does have a useful biographical section on him, though, and that is why it is listed. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 08:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- reads like spam. Pete Fenelon 02:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it It has got a number of relavent links and the page does look now more better than before.ON FIRE

Keep it – he seems notable enough and the article is well organized, although I don't see the point of the "Notable Figures" section. I do admire that he (or somebody) added his name last to the speaker list in Motivational speaker. --CliffC 15:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsI did add his name to the motivational speaker. Because he is quite notable and as his profession is a "speaker". If anyone feels that it is not right then you can take it.But it does not make any difference.rencin24

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age (band)[edit]

Article on otherwise non-notable band. Eirein 07:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Search on album name brings up valid results, but generally POV article, and also bad. --FlareNUKE 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I removed the speedy because it didn't meet CSD A7. Now, after a little googling, it seems they have two full-lengths on Magna Carta Records [18], which has released albums by Liquid Tension Experiment and Ozric Tentacles [19]. Prolog 09:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Not prolific, but notable. See [20]. — CharlotteWebb 09:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some sources to the article and tanked the spammy portions. Two albums on notable label, international recognition. Chubbles 16:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above †he Bread 00:18, 25 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banshee (music player)[edit]

Non-notable open source software. Memmke 09:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep You've got to be kidding me. Banshee is the second most popuar Gnome music player. Multiple published works: [21] [22][23][24][25] Those are only from the first two pages of the 401,000 ghits. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 10:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 299,000 -wikipedia, but alright, I seem to have been to quick to nominate it. Memmke 10:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ultra-Loser. This is actually included in the software pack of SUSE Linux 10 as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - It's encyclopedic and it's a pretty good piece of software. --Victor 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ultra-Loser. Also, it is in Debian-unstable [26] which is a criterion as per WP:SOFTWARE. bheekling 06:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a popular media player. It's also in many linux distributions (gentoo, ubuntu, debian, likely more) Jhawthorn 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all other keeps here. --Oakshade 06:16, 29 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 MacGuyverMagic as advert. Kimchi.sg 13:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Body Kit Reference Guide[edit]

Article is an advertisement for a company that sells body kits for automobiles. It's pretending to be a general guide for all types of body kits for automobiles, but is only specific to Silvia Parts, an aftermarket car parts and accessories company and the web site where this "guide" is. Roguegeek (talk) 09:32, 24 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 argument for notability under WP:BIO has been advanced, and he is already noted at Banshee (music player). Sandstein 10:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bockover[edit]

Non-notable programmer only known for ~~an obscure piece of software~~ a program he has written. Memmke 10:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO specifically The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Gnangarra 11:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Banshee (music player) if that survives AfD. Tonywalton | Talk 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NN hacker. Pete Fenelon 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the creator of Banshee (music player) is pretty notable. --Oakshade 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite notable enough for me. WMMartin 17:21, 29 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. Proto::type 11:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of No Return (3LW album)[edit]

Unsourced speculative article about an album now due to be released next year. A Google seach shows this album was scheduled to be released in August, then September, then October and now, next year. The crystal ball looks pretty murky on this one. Donald Albury 10:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are tracks from the above album:

Feelin' You has been released as a single, but I can find no indication it has achieved enough notability to have its own article.
No Matter What is pure speculation about a track that hasn't been recorded yet. -- Donald Albury 11:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three, "Feelin' You" did not chart, and the other two are pure crystal-ballery. Xtifr _tälk 15:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three -- NN, crystal-ball. Pete Fenelon 02:05, 25 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. Proto::type 11:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Puressence[edit]

As far as I know we don't have list of songs by individual bands, perhaps with an exception for massively famous artists like Elvis or The Beatles. In this case, Puressence discography seems to do a fine job even if it takes a few more clicks to find a particular song. A list like this would be a bad example and inspire people to make such lists about every band we have listed. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Puressence discography. The article is not even a complete list as it stands, and I agree with the nomination that this is not needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - the band's page is the place for this kind of fan-onanism. Pete Fenelon 02:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 30 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. To those complaining about the nomination, it was linked to a page that explained the jargon. Viridae ^Talk 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Rojas (Bonafide)[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. The Crying Orc 11:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is jargon. Catchpole 13:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a non sequitur. I chose to use one word, linked to a document, so that people wouldn't have to wade through screeds of 'This article fails WP:X, WP:Y and WP:Z etc.', which is less legible. One word sums up an entire concept, and if you don't know what the word means you click on the link. If that pisses you off for some reason, then the logical thing to do is not to vote at all, rather than offering an opinion which is not based on the article. Please also read WP:POINT — patrolling the deletion pages and adjusting your votes based on criteria like 'jargon in the nomination' is abusing the AfD process to prove that you don't like something. The Crying Orc 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to demonstrate notability, fails to cite sources, appears to be original research, likely vanity. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, re-nominate for deletion with an actual summary of the article's faults -Toptomcat 23:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you would read the page that is linked to in the nom, you would realize that Vanispamcruftisement stands for conflict of interest, spam, cruft, and advertisement. There's no need to relist. By your logic, your post should be discounted for having "no actual objection based on the merits of the article". --RoninBK_ETC 08:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN, if Ghits are taken into account... Pete Fenelon 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not that it matters (the subject of the article can't achieve notability through any faults of a nominator), but the nomination was perfectly understandable to me. Vanispamcruftisement tells me everything I need to know to understand why this was put up for deletion. In any case, I think the nomination is right - this does appear to be a non-notable bio. --TheOtherBob 01:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanispam-etc... WMMartin 17:23, 29 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 Viridae ^Talk 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Stegosaurus[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. The Crying Orc 11:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination in jargon. Catchpole 13:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a non sequitur. I chose to use one word, linked to a document, so that people wouldn't have to wade through screeds of 'This article fails WP:X, WP:Y and WP:Z etc.', which is less legible. One word sums up an entire concept, and if you don't know what the word means you click on the link. If that pisses you off for some reason, then the logical thing to do is not to vote at all, rather than offering an opinion which is not based on the article. Please also read WP:POINT — patrolling the deletion pages and adjusting your votes based on criteria like 'jargon in the nomination' is abusing the AfD process to prove that you don't like something. The Crying Orc 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to demonstrate notability outside of the slam poetry scene. Article does not cite sources, article appears to be original research. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 15:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and perfectly good jargon it is, too. Doesn't even establish notability within the slam poetry scene in any verifiable way. Robertissimo 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Vanity poets are bad enough. NN Vanity poets are worse. Absurdist NN vanity poets..... really... no need for it. Pete Fenelon 02:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We seem to be having a rash of these supposed artists at present. I imagine that the phrase "vain poet" hasn't entered the language largely because the adjective is always implicit in the noun. WMMartin 17:26, 29 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

CallMe Communications[edit]

Speedy deleted per admission of advertising intent. Someone else not working for/associated with the company is welcome to write a neutral article at some point. -- nae'blis 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not meet WP:CORP notability criteria Rob.au 12:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the organisation is possibly a non-notable going concern as a mobile phone dealer or possibly a new startup yet to begin operations. From my research, I can make the following notes.

Organisation's website

Amongst the products said to provided by the organisation are an extensive range of Internet products - ranging from basic Internet Access, business-grade Internet Access, through to Hosting and other such services - you would expect the organisation's own website as linked in the article to at least have a basic overview of services. It remains nothing but a placeholder page saying "Under Construction". I'm not aware of any internet service provider that doesn't have at least a basic product listing on its website.

Other websites

Similarly, you would expect at least a few hits on the greater World Wide Web. Known listing websites such as Broadband Choice allow ISPs to self-register and yet, at the time of writing, there is no listing for Callme Communications.

Searching Google for CallMe Communications delivers 38 results. From this I can see:

- Wikipedia hits
- Discussion board hits, all of which identify the posters as being staff or principals of CallMe Communications, ie. self-promotion. In all cases, these are for the mobile telephony products.
- Indication that CallMe resells Think Mobile serivces, out of an address in Heatherton, a suburb of Melbourne, not the CBD as claimed in the article.
- Indication that CallMe participates in an Australian mobile-phone recycling scheme, again at Heatherton.

Telephone Directory

The organisation is not listed in the Yellow Pages. The organisation is listed in the White Pages, at the suburban address.

Newspaper Archives

John Fairfax Holdings, publishers of The Age and Sydney Morning Herald newspapers, provide a searchable archive that extends back over ten years, before the existance of Callme. Basic search results are available for free, only displaying the full article attracts a fee. Searching the entire archive for callme gets only one result, an article that is over 18 years old.

Author's own admission

The original article author (prior to the page being speedy-deleted twice as spam) noted at User talk:W.marsh#Deletion of CallMe Communications that their motivation for the article was to attract attention to the organisation. This author also identifies themself as a principal or employee of the organisation in the notes page of the organisation's logo image.

More minor notes

The article still contains many glaring items that appear to be either false or misleading. These have been slowly toned down over the last couple of days, but many remain. For example, the organisation is referred to as "CallMe Communications Pty. Ltd." implying it is an Australian company. If this was the case, it would be in the National Names Index on the Australian Securities and Investment Commission website. My searches there and on the Australian Business Register] indicate that "CallMe Communications" (without the Pty. Ltd.) is a registered business name in Victoria and has an ABN, in the form of a Family Partnership.

The article also states the organisation is a telecommunications carrier and heavily implies it is actually a provider of infrastructure, not a reseller. In Australian telecommunications there is a distinction between a carrier and a service provider. The distinction is whether or not the organisation actually provides carriage service over physical infrastructure or radiofrequency spectrum of their own, or if they resell carriage service from others. Carriers must be licenced and will be listed on the List of licenced carriers on the Australian Communications and Media Authority website.

In my view, the article infringes WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:COI policies, is unsalvagable and should be deleted.

One of the citations added to the article tonight also doesn't satisfy WP:NOR

Rob.au 12:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per impressive research by the nominator. The article mentions "numerous awards" and a product that "stuns the Australian press" — well it seems they were so surprised they forgot to write any articles about it.Demiurge 13:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV. Pete Fenelon 02:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If every nomination was as thorough as this one, these discussions would be a lot less contentious. Bravo. --Jayron 32 02:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy delete. This article has been given more than enough chances to improve. The company may someday be notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article, but until then, the article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not for writing about companies that may someday be famous, it's for writing about things that are already famous. --Elonka 01:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Upgrading to "Speedy delete" after I saw this: [27] --Elonka 06:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One of the article authors has continued disputing the deletion on the article's talk page, however at this point has not provided verification of notability as per WP:CORP. --Rob.au 01:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- as per WP:CORP and WP:COI, also worth noting is the director's intimidation to editor W.marsh User talk:W.marsh#Deletion of CallMe Communications who deleted the page. Extract: "just so you know CallMe Communications Ltd. as a company has a "good will" program which in our first year of existance has donated over $1500 to WIKIPEDIA and I think a little bit of respect is owed, being a Australian company about to go public it is in our best interest to have an article on WikiPedia. I need a reply from you ASAP, otherwise I will consider stopping donations to WikiPedia" This kind of intimidation attempts to undermine wikipedia principles and this also comes to show the intention of the management with regards to this article. --DryBitterMelon 06:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please do not delete this article. If you give me 2 weeks, I can establish notablity and deal with any other concerns you may have. Please raise these conerns with me BY EMAIL to [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveng75 (talk • contribs) 01:08, November 28, 2006
- — Steveng75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi Steven from CallMe Communications,

I fail to understand your urgency in keeping an article on your company in Wikipedia, other than for promotional reasons. Attempt to "establish notablity" for a particular article in 2 weeks is certainly not how anyone would contribute in Wikipedia. You either have it now (write about it), or you don't (delete it). And when you do have notability in the future, you will be surprised that others will start writing about your company even without your intervention.

I suggest that you take the content of this article about to be deleted and stick it on where it is suppose to go; on your own corporate web page which is under construction at this very moment.

May I also suggest you sign your comments on Wikipedia, this will faciliate discussions, thanks.

Regards,

--DryBitterMelon 08:13, 28 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 Viridae ^Talk 20:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glebe Markets[edit]

This article is an orphan, unnotable, and the tone in unencyclopedic NauticaShad e s 12:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Extremely non-NPOV tone, possibly an advert. No notability as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Downright insulting. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reads like an advertisement. Jam 01 22:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert for NN market. WMMartin 17:28, 29 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 Viridae ^Talk 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currency debasement[edit]

Original unsourced nonsense. Factual parts already covered in Counterfeit. The rest is utter speculation that belongs in an essay and not an article. Prod contested without reason. MartinDK 13:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XD It is pretty funny...I archived a copy but this is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. --SonicChao ^talk 13:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is it real or merely fake crankery? Whatever the case, this article should be withdrawn from circulation pretty currently. --Folantin 14:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fiat currency. Currency debasement with metal coinage is documented (the Romans were famous for it), but this article doesn't address that. Tubezone 16:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WTF? Loathfully POV essay. Moreschi 16:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete terrible article. Rever e ndG 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - crank. Currency debasement has a specific meaning in economics; this isn't it. Pete Fenelon 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone's homework, I imagine. WMMartin 17:29, 29 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 as unsourced nonsense. (aeropagitica) 16:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive autoerotism[edit]

Probable prank article. "Automotive autoerotism" and "Exhaustiophilia" get no Ghits. "Chanking" appears to be either someone's name or a slang term with a different meaning. Robotman1974 13:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 13:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, BJAODN. --SonicChao ^talk 16:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy BJAODN and Delete - crz crztalk 13:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I thought it might need speedy too, but I wasn't sure. I've still got the training wheels on. ;) Robotman1974 13:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN I have no words for this. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 15:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G3, joke articles qualify. BTW, do articles with misspelled titles qualify for speedy? autoerotism? Besides, title is a non sequitur, inanimate objects can't, ahem, you know.. Tubezone 16:21, 24 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. Sandstein 10:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott-Moncrieff[edit]

WP:CORP - crz crztalk 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- significant accountancy firm in Scotland Astrotrain 13:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. - crz crztalk 13:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject matter is potentially notable but this is an un-referenced stub whose main purpose seems to be to direct visitors to a commercial website. In short, it is {db:spam}. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly, I wrote it at the same time as various other accoutnancy firm articles. Astrotrain 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear Astrotrain, I have no wish to cause offence, and maybe my wicki-jargon is not up-to-speed. I certainly don't mean to suggest that you are 'spamming', just that in my opinion, unreferenced articles about commercial organisations that appear to be 'blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article' per Template:Db-spam should be deleted. I certainly have nothing against Scott-Moncrieff themselves who are a professional and competent organisation. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- small accountancy firms are NN, although there have been some notable Scott-Moncrieffs in the past, especially in the motoring community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete Fenelon (talk • contribs) .
Delete unless notability is asserted by reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. WMMartin 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable (it appears #36 in the top 50 ranking of accountancy firms (link provided in the article), sounds like WP:SPAM and in no way complies WP:CORP. -- dockingman^talk 06:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Viridae ^Talk 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of jokes considered clichés[edit]

This is the second time this is nominated. Come on.. how is this not blatant original research. Delete per WP:OR. It is this kind of thing that makes people say we aren't a real encyclopedia. MartinDK 13:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lists of clichés always have inherent POV/OR problems and this article has made no attempt to solve them.--Folantin 13:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research/POV. There has been plenty of time since the previous AfD to turn it into a proper encyclopaedia article but nothing has been done. Demiurge 13:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are added - this article probably could be written to be verifiable and encyclopaedic. If someone wants to do that between now and the closure, good for them (I have class/work). WilyD 14:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously OR and very crufty. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 15:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is plenty of precedent for deleting these cliche lists and this one is worse than most. Moreschi 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WilyD Tonywalton | Talk 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uncited OR Hut 8.5 18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Folantin and nom. Whether or not anything is a cliche is entirely a matter of opinion and incapable of an objective standard. That this article is largely OR is a symptom of the subjective nature of the topic. Agent 86 19:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually not a vald argument. All kinds of articles deal with "subjective" topics and fly through AfD or even reach featured article status. The important thing is that opinions and subjective evaluations be credited to a verifiable source - which does not occur here. WilyD 21:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I beg to differ. I did not say that subjective topics are not encyclopedic. I stated that I believed that the reason why this particular article was made up of original research was because of the subjective nature of the topic. This is on top of the fatal POV problems. Agent 86 21:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I really can't buy that argument. Tons of apparently non-subjective issues end up with exactly the same OR issue. I'd guess almost every new user's first edit consists of OR (or at the very least, doesn't CITE) ~ my first edit [28] to a namespace article essentially was - it was accurate, but it's simply the way most editors start. The POV problems aren't necessarily fatal (since by looking at the article, I have to imagine much of it could be sourced). WilyD 21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete infinite list from hell! Rever e ndG 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - devil's advocate !vote at this point, but this is not a novel concept: compare the entry under "released jokes" here. Newyorkbrad 23:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BJAODN --RoninBK_ETC 08:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original AfD seemed to focus on whether it is notable - but that's beside the point, as this is unsourced and likely original research. On that note, perhaps some or all of the other articles listed at Lists of clichés need to be considered for deletion... Mdwh 23:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed. I've just written about the problems with List of clichés found in literature on its talk page if you're interested. --Folantin 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:37, 29 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 already deleted. Aksi_great (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by CGMA[edit]

This article is highly questionable for it does not cite sources and it is not verified. Kevin Ray 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is already an AfD for this, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kahit Wala Ka Na. Tubezone 15:41, 24 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 Viridae ^Talk 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour management system[edit]

Procedural nomination. Prod was contested after deletion. Note that this article is the creator's only contribution. - crz crztalk 20:31, 17 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, Yomangani ^talk 13:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 651 Google results, and apparent OR. "The term tour management system is still relative new and is only generally used by tour operators or travel service companies" speaks for itself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with Michealas10, and would add that the external links seem to be used as a directory of web sites. -- Whpq 14:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto. WMMartin 17:38, 29 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 Viridae ^Talk 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigposters.com[edit]

Reads like an ad and fails WP:WEB. Contested speedy without reason. ~~I have no idea how the closing admin came to the conclusion that this should be kept last time.~~ MartinDK 13:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have no idea how this was allowed to survive either. This time it's bye bye. --Folantin 13:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You didn't read the closing statement carefully. He said "no consensus; keep". Kimchi.sg 13:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, but it was 3-1 and the policy reffered to in the nomination was WP:SPAM which would have qualified it for speedy; consensus or not. MartinDK 14:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The AfD was back in January 2006 and spam was not a speedy criteria back then. Nominator's "vote" is not counted in the closing result - if he/she didn't want to delete it shouldn't be at AfD anyway. It was a proper legal closure and still would be today. Kimchi.sg 14:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removed the phrase. Whatever, it has no impact on the nomination now anyway. MartinDK
Delete per nom. Fails to cite sources, appears to be OR. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adverts not allowed. Moreschi 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. Rever e ndG 23:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Keep for the same reasons it was kept before, rewrite to address the issues brought up by the nom this time. --Myles Long 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrators are not magic rewriting services, and the issue brought up in the nomination was that the subject does not satisfy the WP:WEB criteria. To refute that you have to cite sources to demonstrate that it satisfies the WP:WEB criteria, which has the incidental benefit of demonstrating that a rewrite is actually possible. You didn't cite sources when you wrote the article, you didn't cite sources when the request for sources was made in September 2006, and you haven't cited sources now. Please cite sources. Uncle G 16:19, 27 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. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Church (Naperville, Illinois)[edit]

A local church, no evidence of notability. There are many churches claiming this sort of attendance, some evidence of notability other than size should be offered (political influence, getting in the news etc.), and there is none. Google search shows no evidence of news coverage or assertions of influence, even in evo christian circles Lurker ^oi! 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to establish notability, reads like an advertisement. Obvious Original Research. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 15:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So clean it up--Doc^g 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't have every church. Rever e ndG 23:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? --Doc^g 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanispamcruftisement (if you don't like 'jargon', click on the link; I get tired of saying the same thing all the time, and it's always the same issues anyway). The Crying Orc 11:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started a page on notability guidelines for local churches. You can join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) Lurker ^oi! 11:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more notable that most schools. Clean it up. --Doc^g 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That it's a church? Churches in that area are a dime a dozen, as they are very commonplace. Delete, just non-notable without good external sources, which are nowhere to be found. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But are churches of that size commonplace in that area? I can say from personal experience: No, so I vote "keep" (below).Realkyhick 06:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up. Material reads like it came from the church web site. Realkyhick 06:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Churches are not inherently notable, and this particular church has no claims to notability. Also, Doc, the burden of proof is on those who want to keep the article. It is not the job of the nominator or the 'voters' to 'clean it up' in order to make it more likely to be kept. If you feel strongly about it then you should attempt to clean it and establish notability, as it stand now however such requirements don't seem to have been met. --The Way 07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not make a case for notability. I suspect that nothing would be lost if this was deleted and recreated if the church becomes notable. Note that all schools are not being kept and all churches should not be kept. Vegaswikian 07:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Naperville, Illinois. Sure, it might not make sense to keep all churches, but we can always relocate the information to the article on the parent community. JYolkowski // talk 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. The assertion that this church is more notable than most schools is irrelevant, as most schools ( including, sadly, most of the schools covered by Wikipedia ) are also non-notable. Nice use of specious logic, though ! WMMartin 17:40, 29 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 Viridae ^Talk 20:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warrant officer (Star Trek)[edit]

Intro says it all: "Warrant officer is a conjectural" rank etc. etc. and then proceeds to document (but not really) speculation about what might or might not be the case, but is never actually stated in the show EEMeltonIV 14:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-admitted original research. Doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Demiurge 14:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent OR about a non-existing rank. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research per what Wikipedia is not. Eron 15:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, and unverifiable speculation. -- Whpq 15:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. --Tango 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. — The Gr e at Llama^moo? 17:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, most of Starfleet ranks and insignia and linked articles could use a thorough going over to remove speculation and original research from them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some hashing out on the talk page trying to address this -- in particular, falling back on fanboy website speculation as a "source." Ongoing work in progress. --EEMeltonIV 18:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fansite is a good source for statements like "There is speculation that...", but you can't write a whole article in that form. --Tango 19:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article basically admits that it's all original research. Edgecution 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to much original speculation about a rank that may exist in Starfleet.-- danntm ^T _C 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Rever e ndG 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - zap this one, into the same place as that Starfleet Marines fancruft last week. Pete Fenelon 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a strong tolerance for fancruft of all kinds, but even I will admit that this crosses the line. Someone should direct the author to the fact that conjectural is a synonym for original research. --Jayron 32 02:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Memory Alpha is thataway... --RoninBK_ETC 09:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Original research. Maxamegalon2000 15:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Damnit Jim this is an Encyclopedia, not a fansite. RFerreira 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This isn't Jim's fault. Jecowa 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zoooom.... that was the sound of the pop-culture reference flying over Jecowa's head. The preceding snide comment is brought to you in full humor and sarcasm. --Jayron 32 05:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same sound Jecowa's tongue-in-cheek response makes at it slips past Jayron32. :p --EEMeltonIV 05:10, 29 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 nonsense and redirect to fish. Kimchi.sg 14:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishy[edit]

Nonsense article. Perhaps a redirect to "fish" would suffice. HappyCamper 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to fish. Most likely a hoax about non-existing poems and authors. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to fish. Nonsense article, CSD G1. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 14:29, 24 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't sleep, clown will eat me 09:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Kundapur[edit]

Because he only gets 72 distinct Google hits that don't mention Wikipedia and the prod was deleted by user with a suspiciously similar name. Rmky87 14:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, and the article's creator, Ashok rao kundapur, is most likely himself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Conflict of interest, vanity, etc. I like the way he called the prod tag "dated" even though it was added on the same day he removed it. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You've never edited an article after it was prodded? Hint: You won't see a {{prod}} template anywhere. Kimchi.sg 14:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Claims of notability as a solar cooker expert are not backed up with verifiable sources. -- Whpq 15:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. --SonicChao ^talk 16:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 23:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, vanity page. •Elomis• 06:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. As per the present policies, WP:COI per se is not a criteria for deletion and Vanity is not a term to be used in discussions Doctor Bruno 20:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Article doesn't meetWP:BIO. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:01, 27 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 merger may be discussed further on the article talk page. Sandstein 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BRIMC[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for POV essays, which this effectively is. The user:AlexCovarrubias benefits Mexico. [29] [30] João Felipe C.S 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False, I created a list of alphabetically ordered countries including flags [31] AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False historical? João Felipe C.S 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - João Felipe C.S 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BRIMC is an economical term used in the world. This user "Joao Felipe C.S" is trying to get this article deleted only based in his personal brazilian bias. Please check article Emerging markets edit history aswell as Newly industrialized countries edit history to see his biased edits. He continues to blank information perfectly verifiable and cited. Also, take a look at my personal talk page in order to see this user's personal attacks 1. The article cites verifiable sources in various languages (including his own), it should not be deleted just because he does not like it. However, I seriously doubt there's a real reason to get it deleted, since I just read the policy for deleting articles and this one does not meet any. Do not delete.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Personal attacks? Can you indicate them? João Felipe C.S 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original Research/Neologism, even if all of the contents is true. Very speculative, possible vanity. Mystache 16:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that this can be classified as OR. Sources are provided; it might be a neologism, but it seems to be a sourced neologism.

Xdamr^talk 16:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Weakly passes WP:NEO, but I would doubt its verifiability. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is perfectly verifiable, I provided several sources and I still can provide even more. Just Google a little and you'll find the sources. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per AlexCovarrubias. --SonicChao ^talk 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Michaelas10. This isn't a political or México vs. Brasil discussion, but rather whether this term is notable enough to include. Be civil, OK? ;-) Tubezone 17:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly! Tell that to the brazilian guy, he's the only one being uncivil and he started the personal attacks. And it is verifiable ;) AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article can remain, which I do not find correct is the user:AlexCovarrubias to modify the texts that originally quote BRIC for BRIMC. [32] João Felipe C.S 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge to BRIC. The article itself says "It is primarily the same of the BRIC."(sic). It's also coming from the same guy who apparently came up with BRIC, who uses BRIMC in reference to BRIC. Apparently there's also some people who use "BRICS" (to add South Africa rather than Mexico) according the UN link in the article. Why do either BRIMC or BRICS need a separate article? Also there does seem to be some OR and speculative elements in the article (China and Mexico politically cooperating together? really?) Bwithh 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only terms officially coined by the bank thesis are BRIC and BRIMC. I might ask, if the article is merged, what would be the new title? BIRC, BRIMC? AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 01:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I didn't suggest a merge to an new article. I suggested a merge to the existing article for BRIC which is much more widely used and known acronym. The others are just slightly different versions of BRIC Bwithh 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Bwithh -Toptomcat 23:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like the merge option myself. Merge. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Citing sources does not mean this is not WP:OR; if the concept is a neologism, which appears to be the case here, then it should not warrant encyclopedic treatment, regardless of how the author chooses to support their research. Eusebeus 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by neologism? The concept has self evidently been created at some point down the line, are you suggesting that it is the creation of a WP editor? The supplied sources do use the term 'BRIMC', so that is certainly not the case.

Xdamr^talk 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with an option to Merge in the future. Definitely not OR; the only question is whether it is best dealt with in BRIMC or in BRIC. On the whole I favour keeping it in its own article for now. If the concept develops further, in the way that BRIC has, then it can be expanded appropriately. If it withers away then it can be merged.

Xdamr^talk 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only terms officially coined by the bank thesis are BRIC and BRIMC. Officially? BRIMC was a comment of Jim O'Neill published in a French newspaper and exaggerated by Mexican newspapers. And if BRIMC remain. Articles like BRICS, BRICS+G, BRICET and others, also will be created. João Felipe C.S 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BRIMC is a term created by Jim O'Neill (same guy that created BRIC) while BRICS, BRICS+G, BRICET and the others are just marketing terms, not thesis. And OMG your brazilian bias is so huge. "Exaggeration by Mexican newspapers"? By 2 Mexican newspapers and it was basicly a translation. OMG... AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 05:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Officially? Why only the BRIC is mentioned in the site of the Goldman Sachs? Mexico is mentioned here [33]? Not... And... As a matter of fact, was not the Mexican newspapers that exaggerated, was you. João Felipe C.S 15:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May be a term from 2 years ago but it is valid and used. Dr.Kerr 19:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism. Wouldn't mind a Merge, but can live without it. WMMartin 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mexxxicano

Merge into BRIC and please stop this Mexico vs. Brazil nonsense. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 18:33, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bev Koester[edit]

This article does not seem to be notable. --SonicChao ^talk 16:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a Clerk of the Canadian House of Commons, although 279 Google results show low notability. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say exactly that. weak keep per Michaelas10. Tonywalton | Talk 16:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the article, it is stated that the subject had received the highest civilian honour, the Order of Canada. This award in itself is notable. Thus, those people who receive this honour are inherently notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The clerk is the senior non-elected employee of the House of Commons. That is, he runs things, and reports to the Speaker of the House. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete senior but ultimately nn bureaucrat who was rewarded with the Order. The Order is notable, yes, but given the degree to which it is a tool used for political reward, recipients are not necessarily notable. (Review a list of O of C recipients if you don't believe me). Eusebeus 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we need to maintain the distinction between "not necessarily notable" and "not necessarily famous". By virtue of being awarded the highest civilian honour in Canada, a recipient is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, no less so than British knighthoods. What the OC doesn't necessarily confer is fame, which isn't the same thing. I have to incline to keep on this one. Bearcat 06:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Eusebeus. If we started listing every British nonentity with a [CMO]BE... Pete Fenelon 02:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Eusebeus's comments.RichMac (Talk) 03:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Not sure the original author is allowed a vote, but in any case here is mine. YUL89YYZ 23:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Order of Canada isn't handed out like candy. It does not make people famous, but if the GG's recognizing the person, it would make them notable. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Clerk of House of Commons + Officer of the Order of Canada establishes passable notability. -Kubigula (ave) 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I had not heard of Mr. Koester, now that I have read his credentials I find that his life accomplishments are far more worthy of an article than several politicians we have articles on. He was a soldier, teacher, and served as Clerk of 3 legislative bodies. Mr. Koester was no flash-in-the-pan. PKT 23:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Royalguard11. --Oakshade 00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PKT, also note receiving Order of Canada should make him automatically worthy of inclusion. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:25, 29 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's nothing (more) to merge, the info is already in Wii as far as I can tell.Sandstein 12:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii hardware specifications[edit]

An unnecessary fork of Wii that just duplicates the text of the hardware section in the main article. Maxamegalon2000 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wii, under the "hardware specifications" section, whilst removing parts already mentioned in the section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ruarua 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the "hardware specifications" section of Wii, otherwise this article would be redundant.-- danntm ^T _C 22:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Rever e ndG 23:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. 160.10.7.121 01:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little to merge considering it is not just a fork but almost an exact word for word duplication of the hardware section of the Wii article. The only thing that is not in the original article is the Ratail package section. So mabye that can be merged there but nothing else is needed since it already exists. --65.95.17.145 00:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate section in Wii: it's too early to start dissecting it. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all important info is already in the Wii entry and its related articles. Just64helpin 18:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge even though there's not much to merge. It's just a copy of the Wii article. -Ryanbomber 12:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - consensus and OR problems. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connection between Poles and Vandals[edit]

Possible original research, unreferenced. Polish Wikipedia has an equivalent article slighty expanded and with two references, however: there is a note about one reference (from 1947) being considered obsolete and biased by modern historians. The article is also the place of low level revert war ([34]) and honestly, without refs, we can just as well toss coins to chose side to support... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. The subject is definitely notable, but could use a major rewrite, with translation from the corresponding Polish Wikipedia article, and addition of references. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. There is nothing to rewrite, because the subject is inherently not encyclopaedic. There is no such article in any other encyclopaedia. It's enough to highlight the obsolete believes inside a single passage in the article about Vandals. If we are to dedicate a separate article to all sorts of "connections" between other articles, I don't know where we would end. There are too many unmaintainable pages as it is. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's possible a good article could be made out of this. Sarmatism and Gothicismus certainly deserve full treatments, but I'm not sure about this one. It might be best just to merge it with the main Vandal article.--Folantin 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should belong in History of Poland and then forked out if necessary. But WP:OR is not acceptable. Eusebeus 01:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not too good on Polish history, but seeing as there's original research, I'm willing to help re-write. Folantin makes a good point. --SunStar Net 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus and Ghirla Alex Bakharev 06:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. The history of Poland is complicated and can be interesting for readers from Central Europe. The article should be rewrite based on Polish version. Superborsuk 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotruś. - Darwinek 11:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No need to keep badly written articles on historic errors.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the people whose histoy it is think its notable, the article belongs.It is not appropriate for us t critize it on the basis of being "wrong", "historic errors," or "badly written"DGG 05:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Badly written" isn't a criterion for deletion, assuming the problem is not so bad it's beyond redemption. This article is about an historical error; the point is to decide whether it is a notable enough error for inclusion on WP, i.e. did this idea have a major impact on Polish history or culture in the way Sarmatism did. If so, it's worth having an article on this subject, as long as it's made quite clear any connection between Poles and Vandals is probably non-existent. I know something about Polish history, but not enough to decide on this issue. As usual, it could easily be resolved one way or the other if somebody came up with the relevant reputable sources. --Folantin 19:03, 28 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. Mackensen (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Übersite[edit]

If you came here because some guy told you to here: http://www.ubersite.com/m/96148, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fails WP:V by having no independent, third-party sources. No indication that anyone who isn't a user of this site gives a damn about it. Recury 17:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." By this definition, any and all references to ANY website in particular should be removed, as there are VERY few published third-party works about existing webpages/websites. Any Wikipedia reference to a specific website would probably be written by users who frequent those websites themselves. The deletion of Ubersite alone because it isn't "Verifiable" is ludicrous. Also, the statement "No indication that anyone who isn't a user of this site gives a damn about it" is completely out of line, and should not be taken seriously to merit a deletion. I would seriously consider revoking the moderator status of the user "Recury" because of his childish and selfish comments on this discussion board, since his comment suggests a deletion solely because of personal biases against Ubersite.com ~ Matt Maiorano —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.52.174.234 (talk • contribs) .
- Verifiability is a bit funny policy to use for deletion debates, which is exactly why, down below there, I claim the site is not notable. But the thing is, fulfilling notability is also about fulfilling verifiability. Last I checked, websites themselves can be used to explain why they're notable (i.e., if they provide a count of users, we can believe that without outside verification). However, if the site itself says "hmm, we have this weak mention here and this weak mention there", it doesn't help with explaining the notability of the site. Notability is about cultural impact. Hope this site has it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been referenced on CollegeHumor.com CollegeHumor Hotlinks Ref: April 20 2006 This counts as both an external reference, and an award of recognition, thus satisfying the WP:WEB conditions. CodeMalicious 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say that one or two references on CollegeHumor in the hotlinks section counts as an external reference, per se. College Humor puts upwards of 30 hotlinks up per day, and many of those sites are nn enough, including many personal myspace pages. I think the spirit of the reference requirement deals with newsmedia articles, references in books, trade journals, etc. With regard to the 30,000 user argument. How many people from that number aren't "alters" or users who signed up to rate and then leave forever? How many post on a weekly basis? 100? 200? I can't count how many times I saw single users create 10, 15, 20 user names for whatever reason. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable references and a very low traffic. Doesn't pass WP:WEB by any means. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and fails both WP:V and WP:WEB. Was getting around to working out what best to do with the article myself. Ollie 18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very notable site. In fact, I'm shocked and appalled at this. Tell ya what. I can damn well add some third-party sources, just you watch! Floaterfluss 22:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a valid article and i wuvs it 154.20.101.55 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If floaterfuss can keep it neutral and unvandalised then I think it should stay...I have seen it in a couple of UK papers...the Guardian is the one I recall though I don't have time to back that up...Restepc
Unless you really are trying to find sources for this page, delete per WP:WEB and Alexa's rank of 43,518. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is well referenced, and Ubersite has 183,000 ghits, while Ubersite has 14,300. --SonicChao ^talk 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alexa ranking isn't good enough to delete a reference to a website with over 30,000 users. [35] If you have any other traffic measurements other than Alexa, we would certainly like to know. Furthermore, just because a select few Wikipedia moderators don't like the website, it doesn't give you the right to delete it. If you're sick of the vandalism, block the page from being edited by anonymous users. For further unedited thoughts on this matter from the users at Ubersite, I would strongly recommend reading this: [36] ~ Matt Maiorano
- I agree that "magnet for vandalism" is not a good enough reason for deletion. If it were, George W. Bush should be up for deletion. On the other hand, I don't think the burden of providing references is on the administrators here, it is on the writers of this article to provide enough respectable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss whatever is in the article. If that can't be provided, it is tough to make a case for keeping the article. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that the "Alexa Test" is discouraged by Wikipedia as a reason for deletion. Alexa is flawed, and if the moderators are unable to provide another source for measuring site traffic to back up Alexa, then a reason like "low traffic" cannot be used. I'm not asking the moderators to provide anything other than a better traffic measurement. There needs to be proof on both sides here, and right now, I have not seen any reason to delete the page apart from personal bias and a source that is discouraged by Wikipedia itself. As for notability, there may not be very many news articles that mention Ubersite, but it cannot be discounted that it has been mentioned by Maddox, linked to from Collegehumor.com, entensity.net, and a plethora of other websites that cites Ubersite.com as a source of entertainment. Granted, some may see Ubersite users as crude, crass, and childish, but that is completely subjective. So far, I have not seen one SOLID reason as to why it should be deleted. I'm not even sure what harm it's causing in letting it stay either, apart from certain aspects that people may not agree with on moral grounds. The morality of Ubersite, however, is not in question. I do believe that the page should be cleaned up. There is a lot of unnecessary information in there. The moderators who are hellbent on having this page deleted need to get off their high horse and realize that there are about 30,000 people who want it to stay. ~ Matt
  - First of all, if you're going Wikilawyering, it would give a better impression if you'd sign your posts. =) Secondly, ultimately, we're not concerned with the content of the site. That's of secondary importance. We do have a reason why this site is being considered for deletion; specifically, we're questioning the worth of the external mentions of this site. Was the mention of Collegehumor.com remarkable? Or entensity.net? Did these mentions affect the lives of people? I have, however, read a sizable chunk of The Best Page in the Universe (which I assume you're referring to with Maddox) and, well darn it, I completely missed the mention of this site. In other words, do you have any remarkable references from sites that actually have authority? As for "30,000 people who want it to stay", can you cite a poll on your site, and explain the polling method since the article claims there are only 8200 verified unique accounts? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are so many blatant logical fallacies in EVERYTHING you say, that we will only be going around in circles. This whole discussion is moronic on so many levels, it's dizzying. All I'll say is that there has not been anything "remarkable" about an "authoritative" internet user like Maddox that has "affected the lives" of people outside of the internet. I'm done here, so please continue with your single-mindedness and backwards logic. ~ Matt Maiorano
    - Maddox wastes book store shelf space, among other things. Anyway, since I'm obviously clueless and I'm usually the first one to admit it, I'd really love it if you'd enlighten me where, exactly, my logic fails, and in what way. It is my intention to comprehend; if you just resort to saying my logic sucks, I'm not really any wiser. That's why I'd really appreciate it if you'd tell me why, in your opinion, my arguments are not logical. Oh, and please sign your posts. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I'll bite. You say that the content is "of secondary importance" when that is EXACTLY what is being called into question. You ask how the site is notable, when there is an entire portion about notable incidents involving the US Secret Service and several lawsuits brought against Ubersite (wouldn't you say that some poor law-office employee who had to file all that paperwork had their lives affected by Ubersite? I would.) You ask for something "remarkable" from a third-party source, knowing full well that there is NOTHING remarkable written about ANY website from a third-party source. Even if there was, it would be too easy to denounce it as "ALMOST remarkable". How are we supposed to voice our opinions about a matter that we care about, when you are asking for completely unreasonable information? As users, we don't have access to "polls", statistics, and the numerical information you're asking for. The only person who DOES have that information is Bart Cilfone himself, and I think he has more pressing matters to deal with than the existence of a Wikipedia page. If your logic ISN'T bad, then your rhetoric certainly is. Pick one. On a side note, I've just figured out how to sign my posts. 24.52.174.234 22:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The deletion nomination, last I checked, concerns notability of the site, not notability of site users. Notability of the site is all that matters in this debate. Has the site been subject to USSS raid, or just some unaffiliated user? Did the newspaper headlines say "Übersite user placed on no-fly list"? Did the headlines say "Übersite user pleads guilty in a rape case - site admin flabbergasted"? Also, I fail to see what's so illogical asking for more sources, even when, as you admit, there's none; I ask the same stuff about all articles. Hey, some other article subjects gladly provide that stuff, even when I didn't know that stuff existed! Believe me, if you provide such proof, I'm more than glad to change my opinion in this debate; such things has happened before and will undoubtedly happen in future. Imagine what would happen if I'd nominate, say, Rush Limbaugh article. Heck, he's completely unknown here. I don't know damn about him. I don't even know the guy exists. People would give me a bunch of really good sources in three seconds flat. A moment later, I'd be "Oops! My bad! Sorry!"... And why is it unreasonable, if many other article subjects are very easy to verify, anyway? Try to demolish this logical conclusion with your logical sledgehammer, now that you have it all polished: "Unremarkable information does not generate external sources. Lack of external sources means finding information is difficult and, to the searcher, frustrating. Site X claims finding information is unreasonable. Therefore, Site X suffers from lack of external sources. Therefore, Site X is unremarkable." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe WWWwolf is being extremely judgmental as to the extent of remarkability. Who is to say what is important? If even one person could find something useful from the Ubersite article, would you not say it is important, and therefore remarkable, if only to that one person? Say, hypothetically, that a college student decided to do an art project based on the growing medium of MSPaint. Ubersite has been an integral part of the internet phenomenon, and depriving that person of any information they could use, well, it's just mean. As long as Wikipedia has the server space to maintain such a page, which they most certainly do, there's a purpose to having the Ubersite article, if only for a select few. And you can't argue that. You can't say that no person will ever want to find information on Ubersite.
        
        And as far as your argument on notoriety, that the site is relevant, not its users...you obviously don't understand what Ubersite is. Ubersite is a forum where people convey their personal thoughts and stories. Without the site users, there is no site. Literally, Ubersite would not exist without the myriad personalities that freckle its many users. If I may use a simile, that's like saying George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson...all the great forefathers of America...that's like saying they don't matter, that the end result of America is all that counts. But America wouldn't be America without those voices. Same goes for Ubersite. CodeMalicious 11:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability is not subjective. WP:N says a topic is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Given that no published works have been cited either here or in the article, I don't think that you can accuse WWWwolf of being judgemental. Ollie 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And before you go off on "unreasonable information", I say that it's unreasonable because no matter what we throw at you, you and I both know that you'll still end up saying what you've been saying for the past three hours, so it's pointless. 24.52.174.234 22:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have a good procedure for withdrawing nominations. We do that if damning evidence to contrary materialises. It happens all the time. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs aggressive cleanup, its references are largely to its own content (aka WP:OR). Perhaps if it were about a quarter of its current length and stripped oif the namechecks it would be better. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been a previous AfD for this article, the result was delete. Ollie 01:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (again) per WP:WEB. Eusebeus 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Ubersite has over thirty thousand users, a one-time Alexa rank of ~14,000, influence on the MS Paint community, and is recognized by CollegeHumor and Maddox. I strongly suggest keeping this article. 01:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Axolotl2 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's information, and this is an encyclopedia. There's no reason NOT to keep it.--The4sword 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; Just because something is "information" doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia. Basically, we can set limits to what kinds of information we include. We also set the bar; demonstrated lack of notability is a reason to delete an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'Ubersite is the internet home of ilikesteak, and people need to know this kind of information. 24.3.75.105 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ilikesteak[reply]
- If you are a frequenting member of a website, you're free to state so on your user page. It doesn't, however, mean it's a good idea to create an article on your favourite website just because you happen to like it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a bit of editing, the article could be made less unwieldly. I'd say to keep, on the condition a bit of the self-indulgent fat be trimmed. Chris Conway 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:WEB. A series of petty, nn incidents on an nn 'humour' site. Pete Fenelon 02:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Regardless of the site's content, it has a huge number of hits, a large user base, a steady flow of daily traffic, and an interesting design. There is no reason to remove the article simply because you don't like the site. That shows personal bias in this which is supposed to be an encyclopedia, an impartial collector of facts. 68.33.75.122 10:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC) HighVoltage900[reply]
- I fail to see how claiming the article has no solid proof that the site is notable according to the Wikipedia guidelines is "personal bias"; I agree nominator is using a bit strong language but that's not (in this case, at least) enough to invalidate what they're saying. It would be more constructive to just ignore strong language provide evidence to contrary. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost-but-not-quite Weak, with the sockpuppetry keeping the Weak part firmly pinned against the floor. While superficially OK, the site's notability appears questionable. Claimed user count is almost within realm of notability IMO, but I'd also like to see proof that world at large likes it too. The content of the article gives me a headache and the culture investigations are possibly original research (in vein of Slashdot subculture articles that got deleted). It's hard to put this in words, but something in the article tells me that this site is not notable, while the stuff they've done could be, if you're really stretching the definition. I'm not changing this for better unless there's some concrete proof that this site is actually respected in any form anywhere else. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again all you are doing is looking at your personal feelings of the site upon your inspection. Just because you don't like the KKK doesn't mean the entry on them should be removed. Likewise there are references to far smaller websites in this august collection of information, yet it is being harped on that it is '"almost" within the realm of notability'. It doesn't need to be Myspace or YouTube to deserve an entry. If someone feels they want to spend the time to write an entry about it, you don't need to waste your time looking it up and reading it if you don't like it. 68.33.75.122 16:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC) HighVoltage900[reply]
  - Why do you say that? No one has said "man i really hate this site lets delete it" so where are you getting that from? Recury 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tell you what.... you tell me why this [37] isn't up for deletion. This page has no notability either, it fails your precious "Alexa Test" (Ubersite beats the hell out of [38]), yet there is nothing being discussed about its deletion. This is clearly a case of personal bias, and while you personally may not have any vendetta against Ubersite, it seems that there are other moderators who do. ~ Matt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.52.174.234 (talk • contribs) .
    - Because we don't immediately delete articles that don't, on superficial side, look awful on the first glance. We haverules on what we delete right away; everything else is left around until someone decides to nominate it for deletion and the community consensus is that the article should be deleted. Also, deletion doesn't create a strong precedent; you can only use them as guidelines if the cases are extremely similar and you bring that up in the deletion debate. "This other article was kept/deleted too" is a tired, unhelpful argument unless you can demonstrate the relevance to this case. Feel free to nominate it separately, just make sure it won't sound like a retaliatory nomination based on conclusions from this AfD. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will agree with you here. ~ Matt Maiorano
  - "... but I'd also like to see proof that world at large likes it too" We don't have to prove that the world likes it or respects it. Personal taste is not only an invalid reason for deletion, it is also completely idiotic to suggest it. This kind of arrogance and backwards thinking should be left out of discussions like these. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.52.174.234 (talk • contribs) .
    - You do; the prevailing opinion in Wikipedia just happens to be that if the site has no claims to fame - as in "the world at large likes it too" - then there should be no article. Here's a philosophical quandry: What exactly is the point of keeping something that's very little known and has had little impact to anything at all? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you mean to ask "What exactly is the point of keeping something that YOU know very little about and has had little impact to YOU personally?" Ubersite.com has users from America, the UK, Australia, and a number of other countries. How can you conceivably suggest that "very few people know about it" and it "has had little impact" on the world at large? Just because YOU and a handful of other people haven't heard about it is not a good enough reason to delete a website with nearly one-hundred-thousand written works by tens of thousands of people. Take an hour to yourself and look around on the internet for Forthewin's MS Paint masterpiece, Tom's P2P Networking article, and a number of other pieces that made their rounds across the internet and THEN try to tell me that they haven't made any impact on outside internet communities. In fact, there have been NUMEROUS cases where articles have been stolen and plagiarized from Ubersite.com and made their way to the most famous lists on Craigslist.com and Pointsincase.com, thus resulting in the existence of this website [39] which happens to have been written by an Ubersite user. To even begin to suggest that everybody has to LIKE the topic being discussed is the stupidest thing I've ever read. ~ Matt Maiorano
Keep but just barely. The highest profile notability references to the site can be demonstrated by it's close ties to boredatwork.com (also run by me) and the notability of that site. The most notable external references to boredatwork.com are a few years old now: http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2003/02/03/editorial4.html http://www.collegejournal.com/successwork/onjob/20031210-maher.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108783,00.html . While boredatwork.com has had a handful of references in larger outlets, ubersite.com clearly has a lot more references in the small media space http://www.google.com/search?q=ubersite.com&hl=en&lr=&start=130&sa=N due to its less focused more chaotic nature that is more attractive to people in the blog world. The Ubersite Alexa ranking is lower now than it was two years ago and a lot of that is intentional due to reasons I can't elaborate here. I don't really see how that's relevant though as it seems the primary goal of the Wikipedia would be to provide a repository to store historical information that is otherwise unavailable in the common culture. Anyone looking to see what Ubersite is now would go to http://www.ubersite.com. People looking to see how Ubersite came to be could reference Wikipedia. At the same time, Ubersite does its own good job of maintaining a history, so I don't think the world will lose anything by not having an Ubersite article in Wikipedia. It seems to me that if Wikipedia is to survive in the future, it would need to have scores of articles like this or face irrelevancy brought about by a competitor with a deeper catalog. Bcilfone Bart Cilfone 23:15, November 25, 2006 (UTC)
- *claps* now here's a good example of how to present a case in AfD. Now, we're getting somewhere. Anyway, allow me to clarify one more policy thing: Wikipedia doesn't want original research. Wikipedia should not have original, never-before-seen information about the site history; if the deletion of the article means there's loss of information, there's something wrong with the article. Neither is Wikipedia a web hosting service. So, I'd encourage the site user community to take whatever historical research information there is in the article and document the information elsewhere. I hope this is a fair warning, because this fact will stand whether or not the article is deleted. As for Wikipedia's irrelevancy, one must consider the stated mission of Wikipedia; Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia, and not a web directory. (Wikipedia does coexist nicely with web directories, as well as more specific-purpose wikis. WikiMedia Foundation doesn't try to do everything, you know.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it to BartBart to come in and explain something a lot more rationally than I could ever hope to do. As for your comments, wwwwolf, I think that while Wikipedia may not be a web directory, there ARE unique websites out there that are worth knowing about. The layout of Ubersite is, at best, unremarkable. It is the community, however, that makes the site as noteworthy as it is (even if we cast ourselves in a negative light on a regular basis). The history of Ubersite can also be found on Ubersite itself, so no history would effectively be "lost", per say, if the article were to be deleted. The original intention of the Wikipedia article was to provide a compilation of Ubersite's history in one easy page, but the main focus still being the COMMUNITY and not the website itself. I suppose I failed in illustrating this idea originally because I was busy nitpicking at everything other people said, but that was the main issue I had with the idea of the article being deleted in the first place. If this is in violation of Wikipedia policy, then I suppose there really is no point in me arguing against it. Cheers. 24.52.174.234 00:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
""keep"" without Ubersite, i'd have nothing to do at work and they will fire me. *weeps* on a side note, go bears woo! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.204.36 (talk • contribs) .
""keep"" Without Ubersite, I'd have nowhere to post gawdawful pictures of myself. Flickr just doesn't have enough hits. Woo! 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)~Targa
Strong delete - Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Furthermore, most keep votes are premised on the idea of "Ilikeit" which is completely worthless as a rationale. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to catalogue one of a great, great many websites with 30,000 accounts. Whether or not you agree with the policies, they are the policy, and I don't see anything in this article or the site that would impel me to invoke WP:IAR to set the policies aside.--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be deleted only because Maltese totally sucks! And by totally sucks, I mean big old balls, dude.----Flack
- LOL!!!!!! I liked when he said "balls". Recury 20:41, 28 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. — CharlotteWebb 08:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatisation[edit]

the subject is goes beyond POV is inflammatory, and represents propoganda & WP:POINT iruka 17:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you please explain yourself further? Why do you think it represents propaganda? Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion for expanded arguments. iruka 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see that much of a POV. Croatization is a fact. Expand instead. --Hús ö nd 18:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the same as Magyarization and Anglicisation.--Еstavisti 21:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As much as I hate any article that causes conflict between people we can't delete articles for being POV. We have notability guidelines that we follow and if you can provide arguments why this isn't notable then we can talk about deleting it. I hate nazism/facism more than anything but I don't AfD related articles because of it. I'm not saying these articles are a good idea but really there is only so much AfD can do. If you want articles deleted for other reasons than our policies you have to go to ArbCom as far as I understand. We just look at how the article fits with our policies. MartinDK 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the above, but would add that we certainly can delete articles for POV if that is the principal thrust of the material. The real question is whether this actually exists, since WP is here to reflect, not create. Eusebeus 01:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The major thrust of the article is POV and WP:POINT as can be seen by the choice of examples (pls refer to this stubb's discussion page). It is WP:POINT because it represents a minority trying to push a particular line through the use terms such as Croatisation as opposed to encyclopeadic terms such as assimilation and integration. I also believe the creation of a separate stubb as opposed to expanding discussion in existing stubbs such as Demographics of Croatia or Ustasha or Croatian War of Independence, has the objective of agenda setting outside the oversight and scrutiny enjoyed by said articles. iruka 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the choice of examples is flawed, the solution would seem (to me) to be as simple as adding other examples. You've mentioned yourself the case of the Brazilian footballer who is now a Croatian player, and that would seem to be a perfectly legitimate addition to demonstrate a situation in which non-Croats becoming Croats can be done in a relatively benign manner. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the term in the title (that is highly politically charged) and the use of a separate stubb that are the issues. The examples cited merely reinforce the agenda setting motive and WP:POINT.

As I have stated on the discussion page, I am not objecting to the discussion of the term in the wider context or social integration and assimilation and said examples on the appropriate page such as Demographics of Croatia or setting up a linked paged to the Croatia page titled History of Social Integration in Croatia. Certainly you would agree that it is a far more NPOV title that accurately reflects both benign and non-begign examples and would remove the WP:POINT. iruka 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. The phenomenon itself is generally called "integration" or "assimilation", true. What this particular page is about, though, is integration/assimilation/whatever you want to call it as it applies to Croatia - or as it applies to non-Croats becoming Croats. I don't agree that renaming it would be more NPOV, since I'd argue that ~isation isn't POV to start with. The only reason that it appears to be POV is that there are some perhaps poorly-chosen examples and citations in this article as it currently stands and that issues of ethnic identity around the Balkans are always thorny issues. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think te reference to the Balkans is a red herring. The issue I see it is twofold.

the use of ~isation term. I see it as POV because they are amorphous and poorly defined (see Anglicisation example in post below); and it is predominantly used as a politically charged term by fringe nationalists whereas the majority will use terms such as integration and assimilation;
the creation of a separate stubb instead of covering the issue in existing stubbs that are more appropriate, the use of a politically charged term in the title and unsubstantiated examples, makes it look more like just an extra vehicle for pushing a particular fringe view. It is for this reason that I see it as WP:POINT iruka 14:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since there seems at least to be a perception by some that these things occur - that the "some" are ardent nationalists representing other countries (Milosevic, for example) is neither here nor there for the moment). There's considerable room for expansion, as there is in most "-isation" articles in parts of Europe where the borders have been a bit fluid over the centuries, and as with any other article on Balkan politics this one should be watched very carefully, but there's no reason to delete it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term ~isation is WP:POINT and unencyclopeadic. The term & it's POV nature can be discussed within a sub-article on Demographics of the country of interest or an article on Social integration or assimilation. Notions of fluid borders and consequences belong in an article of same name, as an example, Border history of Serbia. Setting up a separate stubb is agenda setting - pls refer previous comment. iruka 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, although I can see where you're coming from. The term ~isation is largely value-neutral. Anglicisation, one of the other articles cited here as a comparison point, simply talks about the process of making that which is not English, English. It's a recognised phenomenon, as the article demonstrates. Likewise, any other ~isation is just about making something which is not already X into something which is X. The reason why I made the comment about countries with more fluid borders is that Croatia (or Ukraine or Hungary or wherever else we want to talk about) has historically expanded and contracted and as a result has been in a position where it could make non-Croats into Croats much more easily than, say, Papua New Guinea has had to make non-Papuans into Papuans. Additionally, because the borders have been relatively fluid even quite recently, we do run the risk of having POV information added more readily than we would if we were talking about making non-French people into French people. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree - the terms are politically charged. Take for example the term Anglisation - what does it mean? What does turning non-English to English person mean. If I was Asian; when am I considered Anglicised, by policy makers, general population and myself. Is it when I receive an English eductaion? Do I have to convert to Protestanism? Is it an English accent or acceptance of "English values" (whatever they are). Is it culinary i.e. I must be able to appreciate fish & chips and a good curry? Or perhaps be a fan or black pudding?

This is why we use more broad terms such as assimilation or integration into the mainstream. It is because it is difficult to define precisely what ~isation is, that it is politically charged, a fact reinforced by looking at the groups that use the term.

I think the discussion of fluid borders is a red herring on this issue. Indeed, in Croatia's & BiH's case at least, it has not been as fluid as presented & indeed been relatively stable over the last couple hundred years since the treaty of Karlowiz in 1700's that defined the crescent shape that Croatia still has today. iruka 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand The article needs to be expanded to make it more balanced. It does not violate WP:POINT and it is not an attack page, hence we cannot delete it for being POV. If this is notable or not you really need to look at how many examples you would be able to find and of what importance those events are/were. Much of the above debate really should have taken place on the talk page rather than here. If you feel that Croats are being singled out with this article you might want to consider starting related articles for other countries. Also remember that WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. MartinDK 08:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You may also have a look at Anti-Croatian_sentiment just to compare what is being kept here and what it is you want us to delete... MartinDK 11:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't see the connection WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND has with this case. As explained above, the issue is two fold - 1. use of a politically charged term for the title - I would argue that any ~isation article should be deleted or merged into corresponding demographic section for given country subject; 2. the creation of a separate stubb (instead of covering in relevant existing stubbs), the choice of title and examples, leads me to believe that purpose of the stubb is to push a particular propaganda line - for this reason I see it as WP:POINT. I'ld appreciate it if you could explain why you don't see it as WP:POINT, and if my reasoning is flawed, point out where it is so. Also, what is the relevance of the Anti-Croatian_sentiment stubb. If it contravenes wiki rules then it should be subject to the same criteria and resolution process. iruka 14:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You are reffering to WP:POINT when you mean WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. WP:POINT is about not using the Wikipedia system such as policies and AfD to prove a point. That is disruptive when people do that (like keep taking the same article to AfD). What you are reffering to above is WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND which I agree with. Articles should not be propaganda but you should also make sure that you apply that policy in all cases and not only when it is of benefit to youyr own views. Assuming good faith I know you would never do so and would view this fairly no matter what but it is a dangerous path for us to take because it allows a whole wave of possible AfD's on the same premise. I showed you the other article to show you how much it takes before an article is deleted. That article would most likely also make some people offended. If you want to merge the article then do so. You don't need to go to AfD to do so. MartinDK 15:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor nomination. POV issues should be sorted out within the article. JASpencer 22:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Croatisation indeed oh-so-much-exists - but is it notable enough to have an encyclopedia article? Think about it. --PaxEquilibrium 18:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though let's try to keep the tone neutral. WMMartin 17:46, 29 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. —Cryptic 09:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candyspace[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, full of links and ad-talk, and nothing else. Was created by User:Candyspace. Speedy was removed by admin, prod contested by creator. Femto 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is purely spam. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree that this is sufficiently blatant to deserve a speedy tag; but it doesn't really matter and it's better for an admin to err on the side of caution; delete. Demiurge 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 (vanispamcruftisement). Danny Lilithborne 01:06, 25 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 Viridae ^Talk 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PUATraining.com[edit]

This has been speedy deleted twice as spam. Kidtonio (talk · contribs) (the article's creator) is questioning this decision on my user talk. I have restored the article to bring here to reach a community consensus on it as Kidtonio brings up some points that should probably be examined by more than just me. Metros232 18:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ Delete per nom. Clearly a non-notable company, as seen by extremely low traffic, and no third party publications whatsoever exept details in a web directory[40]. Doesn't pass WP:CORP. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote to delete because of the Daily Star publication, but it is still a tabloid newspaper per Demiurge, and doesn't show real assertion of notability. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith on the FHM citation, it does have two non-trivial external references, so it passes that test. However there are a number of shortcomings with the references — the Daily Star article does not confirm most of the details asserted in the article (is the "SYSTEM" one year old, or two years?). Also the Star is not a very high-quality source — it's a tabloid newspaper which focuses on celebrities and gossip (note this part of WP:CORP: "newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary." — I believe the Star article violates the spirit if not the letter of that rule). Combined with the WP:COI violation, I'm saying delete. Demiurge 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the research of Demiurge. Eusebeus 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - it's pink, it comes in blue tins and it's made from pigs. Pete Fenelon 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-admitted WP:COI --RoninBK_ETC 09:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Low traffic due to the fact the site has been running only for a few months and does not rely on a hig hit ratio due to the nature of the Seduction Community and the way we do business- REMEMBER I am not creating this Wiki as an advertising tool so hits on this article are not at the heart of my intentions and I don't see why it should matter if our website has many hits as to whether our Wiki deserves to stay and not be deleted. The SYSTEM has been developed over 2 years since it is the brain child of more than the 1 person cited in the Daily Star article, who have spent varying amounts of time in the Community putting it to work. The newspaper story credits a reporter by the name of Phil Boucher. Kidtonio 03:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Daily Star article is one long quotation, from beginning to end, of a statement made by the founder of the company. It's a simple re-print of an autobiography, exactly what WP:CORP excludes. Moreover, it says nothing at all about the company, the web site, or the system. Uncle G 16:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure looks like advertising to me. I'm joining the queue to spank Kidtonio for his naughtiness. WMMartin 17:48, 29 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. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuquaan Muldoon[edit]

Possible hoax and unverifiable: I get 2 unique GHits, both from wiki Delete. Ohconfucius 18:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Non-existing persona. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Non-encyclopedic and quite probably WP:HOAX. Pete Fenelon 02:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. James084 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Kathy A. 01:13, 29 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 redirected to Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Arcis sur Aube[edit]

Reason for deletion request
This is a duplicate article. Also the name should be “Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube” See, Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube.--Bryson 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also 'Battle of Arcis sur Aube' should redirect to 'Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube' --Bryson 03:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube, as an alternate spelling. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:38, 24 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fosh (game)[edit]

there are no references to this game outside of Wikpedia. Either it does not exist, or it does so within a vanishingly small sphere Princess Tiswas 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no sources and the content is not verifiable (WP:RS, WP:V). In addition, there are warning signs in the text such as "relatively new" that suggest it's just an inside joke. Crystallina 22:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable bullshit. Rever e ndG 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSeconded. BS! Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . 3} 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - WP:HOAX or something the author made up and plays with friends, and hence utterly NN. Pete Fenelon 02:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non=notable if it does exist, which it may not. Most importantly, the lack of any sources is damning. --The Way 07:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't buy the notability of the game. Montco 07:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that I have not come onto this website to deliberately create a 'hoax' or cause any sort of trouble. I am simlpy creating an entry about a game which is, in fact, very popular among school children. I have just viewed the list of entries which concern playground games and I must say that there are many of them which I have never heard of. 'Relatively new' is not an inside joke; it refers to the fact that compared to other games (such as football or bulldog) it is fairly young. If people DO have a serious problem with this entry and require more proof of the game's existence, i am more than willing to discuss. Comments like 'probable bullshit' and 'dumb' appear to me to be very immature and show an incredible arrogance. Let's remember, just because you haven't heard of it before, it does not mean that it doesn't exist. --Soupy Dan — Soupy Dan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am incredibly suprised that anyone doesn't know Fosh. I was messing around on Wikipedia, avoiding homework, then I thought I'd look to see the oficail rules for Fosh as our Foshers gang had had a dispute earlier that day about a misjudged Mogmog. Now I find that people are disputing the exsistance! Shocking. I really didn’t think anyone could avoid it. It has dominated my life on the playground for a long as I can remember. I think I have photographs of the Fosh gang playing, would it help if I posted them? - Kitten Kid — Kitten Kid the Artist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Kitten Kid, you do seem sincere and I am guessing this game may actually exist, however you don't seem to understand why this has been nominated for deletion. The fact that something exists does not necessarily mean it deserves an article on the Wikipedia. In order for a game of this sort to get an article, you must provide third party sources about the game meaning that you need to find either books, newspaper articles, or other such types of things that discuss the game and help to show that not only does the game exist, but that it is also well known to a sizable community. --The Way 07:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that third party sources are vital to the way wikipedia is run, but it would be difficult to find newspaper articles or suchlike for any playground game. I know that we play fosh at our school; it would be interesting to see how far across the U.K it has spread. Soupy Dan, do you know what the record number of munties is? In the Leicester area, it is generally the opinion that Keyham Lodge school holds the local record with 43. Where do you play fosh? --User:D_Gray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.164.55 (talk • contribs) — 84.64.164.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am amazed that some people are disputing the existance of Fosh as a widely played game amongst children (and sometimes just the young at heart) in playgrounds today. I do not know to what extent 'relatively new' implies, but I know that Fosh has been a prominant passtime in my family since I was a very small child. Admittedly, we probably play slightly different rules to the hardcore Fosh players out there, but it seems to work in our small garden. Not only this, however - but at our last family reunion we introduced the game to our entire family, from the youngest toddlers to the elderly grandparents. I defy anyone to not like Fosh. - Blondy Boy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.97.111 (talk • contribs) — 84.69.97.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I must say Fosh is one of the most excitable games I have ever played. Being a skilful Fosher myself, I find it hard to comprehend how some people just havnt heard of such a popular sport. It has coem to my attention that this intricate and demanding sport has originated in a small place called Milton Keynes and am not suprised how far it has spread. I live in Inverness and just taking a morning stroll to the local shops past the park it is amazing just how many youths of today are seen enjoying a casual game of Fosh or even the local teams who take things to the next level completely. I would recommend this sport to anyone as it not only is a fantastic form of excercise, but also stimulates the brain and gives the player endless hours of the same sort of adrelenine excitement as you would imagine a skydive to do. So if you wish to be in with the youth of today, simply play the remarkable game that is Fosh... --Mana Superbean 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) — Mana Superbean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Initially, I was leaning towards believing that this game was real, though still likely unsuitable for Wikipedia due to a total lack of notability. Now, after the above comments that appear to be suspiciously like sockpuppetry, I am guessing this is a hoax. It really, really seems similar to a number of other 'games' or 'sports' which were hoaxes, such as footbasket, that went up on AfD a couple of weeks ago... --The Way 06:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The anon IP's all seem to be from London, three of them from the same ISP. Also, see Max cards, The Game of OBOT, Handy Slappy, and Garden Hopping. Looks like the real game here is "Fun with Wikipedia" ;-) Someone buy these kids a copy of World of Warcraft for Christmas to keep 'em busy, puh-leeeeze... Tubezone 07:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whether or not it is suitable for wikipedia is, i guess, up to whoever runs the site, but i can tell you it is not a hoax. it IS a real game that many people play, and it's great fun. i know loads of people who have played variations of fosh. i appreciate that sources are needed, but as soupy dan said, it is difficult to find newspaper articles and suchlike about playground games. how often do you see newspaper articles etc for games that are not played in leagues, like bulldog, or polo? (the running back and forward polo, not the one that is played in leagues. heh. 84.71.212.249 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Little My[reply]

yep, i know it's strange but it is a real game, it's even got a site www.freewebs.com/foshers, it has been around for a few years and i've played it, it is certainly NOT a hoax (greatest gnome in the world) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.46.120 (talk • contribs)

Delete An obvious experiment with wikiality. Time to shut it down. --Arvedui 04:02, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Clancy[edit]

Not notible club player (Gnevin 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. — The Gr e at Llama^moo? 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fairsing 05:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Arvedui 04:00, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHPCow[edit]

contested speedy then prod. This company is not notable enough, fails WP:CORP. The username of the main contributor User:Phpcow.com suggest this is advertising more than anything else. Isn't this kind of usernames forbidden by the way? -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam per nom. I've sent the username to WP:AIV and tagged the userpage with {{db-g11}}. MER-C 06:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a speedy, as the article doesn't read like advertising (so isn't blatant). Proto::type 15:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to assert notability under WP:SOFTWARE. Almost but not quite blatant enough to be speedyable. Demiurge 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 175,000 Google results, but the most are just duplicates and costumer news websites, with no assertion of notability. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. — The Gr e at Llama^moo? 19:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spamvertisement. Bucketsofg 22:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an ad. Jam 01 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete obvious article-spam. --Arvedui 03:57, 30 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 would like to merge a brief mention to somewhere, the text is available on request. Sandstein 10:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft Diplomacy[edit]

Nomination for deletion Afding rather than prod'ing as this substantial article has been around since November 2004(!!) and has a fair bit of an edit history (it has been prodded in the past but this was contested though never taken to afd) . This is an article about a set of fan-created scenario maps for the video game StarCraft which are used to play a version of the boardgame Diplomacy using fan-customized rules. 1,060 google hits but almost all relevant hits are on amateur video game sites or forums plus there is a high level of spam/wikimirror sites. This is game fan-made scenario type (not really a mod) which fails WP:NFT as well as being gamecrufty. Bwithh 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't assert notability apart from being "popular on the Battle.Net servers", but from the mod's website (hit counter reads 21,000, forum has 127 registered users) this does not seem to have the same level of popularity as notable game mods such as Counter-Strike. Delete unless independent sources are added and notability is asserted. Demiurge 18:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The information is well-written and accurate, even if weakly notable. Where's the harm? -Toptomcat 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT). Wikipedia also maintains discerning criteria for reliable verifiability(WP:V). Treating Wikipedia as a free-for-all site for all "harmless" information undermines its authority and mission as an encyclopedia Bwithh 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, game guide in violation of WP:NOT, fails to demostrate notability, and is mainly WP:OR. Crufty, vanity, original research game guide = delete. NeoFreak 01:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NN fancruft. Pete Fenelon 02:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources, verification, might be fine as an external link in the Starcraft article, possible a brief mention there, but AFAICT, that's it. It's not a Rocket Arena. FrozenPurpleCube 03:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a small summary to StarCraft per WP:NOT and per proposed game notability guidelines. Insufficient evidence of notability to pass WP:NET. Hasn't had broad influence like Counter-Strike. Hasn't generated significant coverage in the Diplomacy (game) community nor in general gaming magazines professional enough to meet WP:RS. Barno 19:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I like this article, it's well-written and reasonably interesting to see how a game like Diplomacy can be ported to an online RTS setting, but it doesn't quite stand on its own. I wish there were better sources available, but given the subject-matter, I don't see it as likely. --Arvedui 03:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while "fancruft" is hardly a deletion criteria that should be taken seriously, there is a lack of application to WP:RS, WP:V, notability, and WP:WEB. OR WP:SOFTWARE. Or even WP:NOT a collection of Diplomacy remakes. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Place To Bury Strangers[edit]

Delete, meets none of the 12 criteria for musician notability.Xpendersx 19:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. — The Gr e at Llama^moo? 19:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with apologies to Missvain who did an otherwise excellent job of cleaning up an ugly and poorly-done stub. --Arvedui 03:26, 30 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 can identify the reliable information that was proposed to be merged (I can't), the text is available on request. Sandstein 10:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian connections to Mieszko I[edit]

Tagged as unverifiable original research, single refs is to a German-language Google cached page, no equivalent page on Polish (or scandinavians) wikis. Seems like OR based on some hard to verify sources from middle ages... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A theory about Scandinavian roots of Poland merits a separate article, on a par with the Normanist theory of the origins of Russia and Ukraine but what we have here is an archetypal sample of original research. What we need to do at this point is to merge reliable information into Mieszko I. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge, unless we know what exactly is sourced and what isn't. Citing only a single source means that it is likely most of the article is in the latter category. I'm surprised this wasn't killed in the VfD days; it's been around since 2001. Kimchi.sg 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable theory. No anti-normanist hysteria, please.--Arzamas2 07:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, and the strong scent of POV-pushing. WMMartin 17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional keep~~ Merge, per Ghirla. This information looks reasonably sound and a notable theory (which this may or may not be) deserves its own article, but the sources (well, source) cited so far are completely useless. I'd hate to lose what we've got so far, however... --Arvedui 03:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Kimchi. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meng and Ecker[edit]

Non-notable, little sources or info about the series itself, and seems to be fancruft that wouldn't be too informative if someone wasn't familar with the series. CyberGhostface 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's obscure (I had never heard about it, and there aren't much sources around), but at the same time it is real and has made in its circle quite a stir. I have found a reference to it in the Comics Journal [41], so it's definitely more than fancruft (the comic, not the article about the comic though). Another article, partly about the banning of the comic in Britain, written by respected author Roger Sabin, can be seen on this (in itself perhaps not so trustworthy) site[42]. It is also mentioned in this article from Asimov's Science Fiction [43], which also mentions that the latest compilation of these comics has a preface by Alan Moore. So it seems that even though not many people know the comics, they are notorious (banned) and at the same time hihgly appreciated by respected experts in the field. The article could be improved a lot though, partially by these sources and probably even more by offline sources and by people who know the comic. Fram 14:02, 20 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, Agent 86 19:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with deference to the above, it looks like fancruft to me and is of marginal notability at any rate. Eusebeus 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, the novels were published in the mainstream, and the comics were controversial. Pete Fenelon 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the fact of it having been noticed by public authority, and banned, somewhat increases notability. 69.140.173.15 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is notable in the United Kingdom as a notorious banned comic, and is mentioned in numerous books and articles about media censorship. AdorableRuffian 11:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what the article needs is some verfified info from reputable sources, and The Independent, The Observer, and The Guardian have several articles on this. (I'll add them as sources when I've got a bit more time.) For example, The Independent on March 12, 2003: "Britton's most notorious title, the brilliantly vile Lord Horror, became the first book to be banned in Britain since Last Exit to Brooklyn. Defended in 1992 by Geoffrey Robertson QC, Britton's Meng & Ecker comics still languish under prohibition." -- Dragonfiend 21:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've added four newspaper sources, two from 1992, one from 1997, and one from 2003. Hopefully that takes care of the sourcing and notability issues as far as all are concerned. -- Dragonfiend 07:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-- It definitely made a splash at the time. Historic interest in the history of comics censorship. -- Rhinoracer 12:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per fram and Pete Fenelon. --Arvedui 03:19, 30 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't sleep, clown will eat me 07:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adim[edit]

I can see no non-wikipedia based page in Google that defines this person. Markh 15:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update see also new related afd for Kianto Bwithh 02:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. I found this[44] and this[45] within a few seconds; neither are Wikipedia based. He appears to be a legitimate figure in Egyptian mythology and/or history, but is he notable? I don't know, but with respect to historical items I personally tend to be a bit more lenient because there isn't often as much online about ancient historical figures as there is, say, about Katie Holmes's wedding. --Charlene 17:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing numerous sources when doing a Google Books search. --- RockMFR 19:04, 18 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, Agent 86 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable hoax along with related article Budasheer. Fails WP:V anyway. Can't find reliable sources on Adim on Google (including links mentioned above - Thinkquest is "created by students from around the world as part of a competition"[46]; Encyclopedia Mythica has low barriers to article submission and questionable factchecking (sources are asked for but are not cited in the article)[47]). Google books gives a lot of false positives, but nothing an Egyptian king named Adim from around the time of the Great Flood. Zero hits on Budasheer. Single google hit on "Budashir" in a pay-locked journal (unable to assess). Egyptian Mythology and kings (and Great Flood stories) are very well documented - should be easy to get a solid fix on this supposed king. "Cave Salt water distillation secret passed on by father's ghost" anecdote sounds like baloney too . Bwithh 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh. Eusebeus 01:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced per reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budasheer. ~ trialsanderrors 06:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of lack of verifiable source. 69.140.173.15 19:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no source, no article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 03:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please there is at least basic documentation for this and we should be careful to call something a hoax this article was created by tuf-kat who is a long time and respected wikipedia administrator here Yuckfoo 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails WP:V, and tuf-kat is not necessarily the hoaxer. I think its likely that tuf-kat used Encyclopedia Mythica for this wasn't realizing it was an unreliable source. Looking back at his edit history, tuf-kat created a lot of god/mythological article stubs in a short period early on - and I think he was basing this on EM. Bwithh 22:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I created a large number of mythology articles and stubs based around EM, and other sources too. That was back before sourcing was considered important for Wikipedia. Anyway, the vast majority have been improved and (I think) cited since, but many of what remain are perhaps hoaxes, mistakes or whatever - I can't provide any additional documentation beyond the Encyclopedia Mythica, so if that's not an acceptable source, then this should be deleted. I have no particular position myself. Tuf-Kat 23:40, 26 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 without prejudice; a new article may be created with reliable sources at any time. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budasheer[edit]

I can see no non-wikipedia based page in Google that defines this person. Markh 15:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update see also new related afd Kianto Bwithh 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but move to Budashir, the name under which he's normally known. There are only two hits on Google Scholar, one of which is in German[48], but there might not be a lot online about a semi-legendary pre-pharoanic Egyptian king who is only mentioned in one ancient source. --Charlene 17:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --- RockMFR 19:01, 18 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, Agent 86 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable hoax along with related article Adim. Fails WP:V anyway. Can't find reliable sources on Adim on Google (including links mentioned above - Thinkquest is "created by students from around the world as part of a competition"[49]; Encyclopedia Mythica has low barriers to article submission and questionable factchecking (sources are asked for but are not cited in the article)[50]). Google books gives a lot of false positives, but nothing an Egyptian king named Adim from around the time of the Great Flood. Zero hits on Budasheer. Two google hits(?) on "Budashir" in a pay-locked journal (unable to assess) as cited above. Egyptian Mythology and kings (and Great Flood myths) are very well documented - should be easy to get a solid fix on this supposed king. "Cave Salt water distillation secret passed on by father's ghost" anecdote sounds like baloney too . Bwithh 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh. Eusebeus 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. I translated what I could find on JSTOR: "Another, not further researched development exists in the figure of HERMES BUDASHIR, named son of ARINAS or ARIS on page 53, or ABU DASHIR, son of ARAS on page 74, and is supposed to have written an epistel addressed to AMNUTHASIYA, named Risalat al-sirr fi'l-kimiya. The name BUDASHIR sounds similar to PETOSIRIS or BUSIR, AMNUTHASIYA is reminiscent of AUTHASIYA and other corruptions of THEOSEBEIA." The name pops up twice, once in 1936 (the quote), and once in 1983 (a footnote). I can't really be stressed to apply any notability guidelines if this is really sourceable, but an unsourced stub like this should not be allowed to exist for four years on Wikipedia, with numerous cleanup edits. A systemic failure. I contacted the original creator and asked him to contribute to this debate. ~ trialsanderrors 06:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of lack of verifiable source. 69.140.173.15 19:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep if a verifiable source can be found. 69.140.173.15 19:41, 25 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. I've redirected it, the content to be merged can be found in the history.Sandstein 12:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isidoro Acevedo[edit]

Repeatedly deproded so I bring it here. This person is a relation of Jorge Luis Borges who is notable. Being related to someone does not, however, make him notable. Fails WP:BIO across the board. Being mentioned in a single poem does not denote encyclopedic notability. At best, it should be a small paragraph in the Borges article. IrishGuy ^talk 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: "repeatedly deprodded" — IrishGuy, please read WP:PROD: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back". --131.111.8.104 21:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - move into Borges article. Pete Fenelon 02:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Jorge Luis Borges. Catchpole 07:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Catchpole. --Arvedui 03:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant data into Jorge Luis Borges article. -- dockingman^talk 05:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Opabinia regalis 06:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zen es nada[edit]

This article doesn't really say much at all, and the sources it gives are not particularly relevant. ^{[Check Google hits]} I can't find anything on Google that indicates the significance of the phrase. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Whpq 21:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm afraid that textual or web-based citations don't really exist"[51] — delete. Demiurge 00:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baleete Danny Lilithborne 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Demiurge. - Mailer Diablo 03:55, 26 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:SNOW and WP:CSD G7 --pgk 09:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namtons[edit]

WP:NFT, WP:BOLLOCKS, zero ghits, fake reference given. "Namtons" is "Snotman" spelled backwards. I should tag this as db-vandal, but put it up for AfD for decision as that way if it is recreated, I can stick db-repost on this silliness.. Tubezone 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. The source listed in the article is right here and mentions absolutely nothing about "namtons". IrishGuy ^talk 21:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source to which you refer is intended to give information about the context in which the legend developed: Grosse Pointe Park of the 1970's. Labeling an article about a character in an urban legend a "hoax" is a bit presumptuous. The article on "Bigfoot" is not labeled a hoax article, though the existence of Bigfoot itself has not been verified to the satisfaction of the scientific community. The article does not attest to the authenticity of the legend, just that such a legend exists about someone called Namtons.

The article was just posted yesterday. Why are you in such a hurry to have it deleted. The fact that you can construct anagrams from letters in a word is immaterial. For instance "Dog" is "God " spelled backwards, but what's your point? What is your criteria for legitimate folklore? Give me a chance to develop this a bit. Why not allow those familiar with this particular piece of Grosse Pointe Park folklore to make there own contributions? Why such Venom?

I am new to the Wikipedia community and offended at the reception I have received. Is there a way to defend oneself from other users who wish to gang up and delete something before giving it a chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotaboman (talk • contribs) --Scotaboman 01:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the anagram isn't necessarily material, but it's kind of a red flag. So is "Namtons" establishing a kingdom on a planet in the Space Ghost universe, "Namtons" best buddy being named "Suds" , and "Namtons" having come into being by dropping 'shrooms. So is a reference that's not really a reference and lack of Google hits or media mentions on a legend that's supposedly famous and over 30 years old. So does editing from a single purpose account and having made no other contributions.

Yes, there is a surefire way to keep people from ganging up and deleting your article: Write about something that's encyclopedically notable, and provide references to show that it's not made up. Right under the edit panel, it says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" It's up to you to do that for things you put in WP. Rules for folklore are the same, you have to show the folklore exists and that it's notable.

No, it's not possible to leave it up until you find sources, etc. People with SPA's with put hoaxes and junk up every day, and editors get sick of having to wade through it. Find the proof then write the article. Simple enough. Tubezone 03:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tubezone... You say "Simple enough" but I can't find information on how to do this. How do I withdraw the article so that I may "Find the proof then write the article." as you say?

Well, your wish is our command, it's been zapped. You'll have to run it past WP:DRV to get it back into Wikipedia. I will db-repost this if you don't. Meanwhile, put it on a MySpace page or one of the many places on the web where you can post whatever you like. Tubezone 09:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told numerous times already: you need sources. This is completely unreferenced and therefore unverifiable. IrishGuy ^talk 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irishguy...It is not "completely unreferenced" it is full of references. Just not referenced to your satisfaction. I would like to "Get the references first then post the article. How do I withdraw the article, until such time that I am confident I can provide enough references to be secure?

Delete It's a hoax. Eusebeus 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why accuse me of a hoax. I posted this in good faith. I am trying to meet requirements but I am being slammed before given a chance. Imperfection and incompleteness does not a hoax make. If I knew there would be such a rush to delete it, I would have developed this more before posting it. No-one seems willing to direct me to the procedure by which I may do that. I am guilty of posting prematurely. Name calling is not appropriate. Saying the article is a hoax, is a slam on the author.

Delete or redirect to Urban Legend. meshach 02:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finaly a constructive suggestion. I would be please to redirect to Urban Legend it is an urban legend. I am new to this. Would this then be a contribution in some part of the article? Would I simply paste Namtons content at the end?--namtonshistorian 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep- withdrawn by nominator. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adamu Tesfaw[edit]

Not notable at all Terveetkadet 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The article cites a book on Tesfaw's art published by U. of California press. This easily meets notability bar. Bucketsofg 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. [52] Demiurge 23:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - very notable. Pete Fenelon 02:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn After a bit of reserach, I found some info proving the notability of this artist. Anyway I don't believe in deletionism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terveetkadet (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A reference is given, encyclopedic notability clearly established, and AfD is not cleanup. Without passing judgement as to motivation, the nominator should read and inwardly digest WP:POINT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunayn bin Ishaq[edit]

Not notable, no reference given Terveetkadet 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The pdf that is linked to is sufficient reference for now to keep. Obviously someone needs to work on the article, but its subject is obviously important enough for a wikipedia article. Bucketsofg 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I will AGF. I dont think there's way too much western documentation on medeival arab scholars anyways.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep bad faith nomination. [53]. Demiurge 23:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notability is not in question, and there is no reason to waste time on this nomination. (There is an article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica on Hunayn bin Ishaq.) Uppland 10:10, 25 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. Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously![edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I don't think the article satisfies WP:WEB. _JD^talk 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 21:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The site doesn't appear to have been given non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't appear to have won any notable awards, and it's content isn't distributed by an entity notable and independent of the website. Quite possibly it's only claim to notability is being the main mirror for Croteam downloads, but I don't think that's important enough to be considered notable. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website promotion. I can't find any evidence via google that this meets WP:WEB. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rever e ndG 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per absence of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without the coverage of independent reliable sources, this site does not satisfy WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nomination. I nominated it for such initially, citing WP:WEB, and still believe it does not satisfy that. --Mhking 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- gamefanblogcruft, NN Pete Fenelon 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I must rather say that there is some 'rules' in the WP:WEB is not good enough to prove how good the web is. Awards doesn't mean that the website is good, because the awards doesn't mean anything, except that you are good, that's it. And though it doesn't met the third one, many people (including fans) actually knew the website without having to even search once. Why? Croteam has already provided a link on their web, and even in their games. Don't tell me Croteam is not famous enough. --165.21.155.17 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The site is the largest Serious Sam and Serious Engine website on the net, and has been for approximately the past 6 years. The reasons it is notable are as follows:
- Its message boards are the official Croteam and Serious Sam message boards. They are linked to as official tech support on Croteam.com as well as in the Start Menu folders for the two most recent games.
- It is the official download site (not simply a mirror) for Croteam's official file releases. If you look on Croteam.com you can see that all of the links on the main page go directly to Seriously! (there are also direct links on the left sidebar for the official forums and such).
- They sell official merchandise for Croteam and the Serious Sam games. I don't think very many other gaming sites can make this claim (if any at all). In my opinion, this fact alone makes it notable enough.
- The Serious Editor Workshops (again, details can be found on Croteam.com) are held on a regular basis and bring in members of Croteam to discuss the engine and the editor.
- Numerous stories and downloads from Seriously! have made their way onto other sites dozens of times (e.g. Blue's News, Voodoo Extreme, ShackNews). While no specific feature-length articles have been written about the site, dozens of news posts should qualify as noteworthy independent publishing.

All of these reasons should qualify the site as noteworthy under WP:WEB policies. Not to mention that in a Google search for "serious sam" / "serious sam 2" / "serious sam II" / "seriously" and other related searches the link is among the top several results. --SamFan64 03:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC) — SamFan64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It would be good if you could collect examples of those numerous stories and create a small section listing some of them (along with the originals on Seriously!) in the article itself, only assuming those sites republishing them are larger (definitely not smaller) than Seriously! itself. --Arvedui 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia should be a source of all information in the world. Adding content like this should be allowed, and not deleted. These contents are the ones which beat almost every search engine because they provide more useful infomation than the others. Deletion like this will probably attract less people here as people will not be able to find required info like this.
This article should not be deleted 165.21.155.8 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (moved from the article's talk page)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's policy regarding Notability for Internet content is far too limited to be valid and should not be used as a reason for removing this article. Let me point out some reasons why as follows:

Criteria #1, The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

There are several problems with this criterion. First, when it comes to the Internet very few entities write articles about the content of another entity, in general they merely link to it and provide a brief description. Second, the mainstream sources that do publish articles on the content of an entity are usually biased and have content policies about catering to their target audience.

Essentially, mainstream sources generally do not write non-trivial articles on sites, or their content, that do not fit the material guidelines for their target audience. This is especially true of independent entities like Seriously! and therefore is not a valid criterion for notability.

Criteria #2, The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.

This is also an invalid criterion because awards, by nature, are biased and cannot be considered as reputable proof that the site, or its content, are noteworthy. In a contest for awards any and all of the contestants may be equally as noteworthy as the winner.

Criteria #3, The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

Again, like with #1 this criterion fails in a very fundamental way. Mainstream sources will not publish or distribute content from an entity they do not feel is of interest to their target audience, and who they consider as not being noteworthy. Thus, Wikipedia's policies become subordinate to those of all outside sources, biases, and 3rd parties.

In defense of this article one person compared Seriously to TribalWar, which has also had its bouts with AfDs. In response a point was made by Humblefool, on the Seriously Talk page, "Tribalwar's had major news media coverage (G4TV), which makes it notable." Based on the issues I have mentioned with Wikipedia's policy, how is TribalWar any more notable than Seriously? Currently TribalWar is nothing more than a general news site, whereas Seriously hosts most of the content and services related to the games it has always supported. Based on present circumstances TribalWar cannot be considered more notable than Seriously.

Before I go on I want it to be clear that I am not advocating the removal of the TribalWar article from Wikipedia. I am merely pointing out that the current Wikipedia policy being used here is not based in reality. The Internet operates on a different system than the traditional literary and historical records do. The notability of anything is subject to the opinions, views, experience, and awareness of each person or entity. CNN may have never heard of TribalWar except for some silly meme that popped up there. G4TV may have never covered TribalWar's 2004 event except for the support of the developers of Tribes: Vengeance. Does this mean that TribalWar is now more notable than they were before they were noticed? Did they go from zero to hero by chance?

The point is that notability should be derived from the actions and accomplishments of a person or entity and not by who writes about them. Abraham Lincoln was notable for what he did, not because he was the President of the United States or that we have been writing about him ever since. This same principle is what must be applied when it comes to the Internet, because otherwise we might as well just have one page for Myspace and Google because people write books about them.

Seriously has made many accomplishments over its 6 year lifespan, but you will not find many, if any, articles recording them by 3rd parties. All it means is that this site has not been noticed by anyone. But let me ask you this, if it was not worthy of note then why have nearly 15,000 people registered on its forums? Why has it averaged 1,000s upon 1,000s of visitors per day? Why do the vast number of non-mainstream sites that report on or mention Serious Sam link to Seriously? The reason is because Seriously is the top level site in its subject area. It is like Microsoft.com for all Windows related subjects.

Seriously has had the full support of the developers of the game series the site is based on since day one. Seriously has run competitions, hosted lan parties, provided technical support, done live coverage and interviews at major media events like E3, and has even arranged and facilitated live workshops between the developers and their fans. Just because very little of this can be verified by outside sources should not be reason to remove this article. Notability policy is worthless if it is unfair. --Louva-Deus 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is true that notability is just a guideline, and a disputed and contentious one at that. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Verifiability is official policy. If, as you say, very little of this can be verified by outside sources, that by itself is reason to delete the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That dosn't merit reasoning for the articles deletion, but rather for a extensive cleanup of the article with proper citations and added varifiable content. I tend to see the "Delete it now" reaction to certain articles here and there in Wikipedia and I feel it's not the proper, constructive way to deal with the problems presented in the article. Encouraging proper information presentation and article editing standards is a far better solution that remove information because not *everyone* finds it relevant and useful. AT worst the article can be merged into the Serious Sam article as a subsection. -- Daniel "BurnHavoc" Pawliw 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Is this article unreliable? Didn't Croteam posted news on their Website? Isn't it already reliable enough? Seriously! isn't a site which post anything that is untrue. If it is, I doubt the onwer will waste money to setup a server just to do that. Also, yeah, very little of this can be verified by outside sources, but there is still some part that verify this article, don't you think so? Very little doesn't mean there is nothing, please mind that. -- 219.74.108.61 02:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC) — 219.74.108.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
You are missing my point. My argument applies both to Notability and Verifiability. Just because a site has not been noticed by anyone "important" does not mean that it is unworthy of being listed. The only thing the article needs is to be rewritten and properly cited. It is unreasonable to think that every site on the Internet that should be listed on Wikipedia must have been mentioned by some biased media source. There are billions of pages on the Internet, and it is impossible for these sources to cover them all just so they could be listed here, and as I have mentioned they never would do this anyway because of their content policies. If TribalWar can be listed for having accomplished the creation of a fad, then are you saying that Seriously should come up with their own meme and lobby CNN to publish them just to get listed on Wikipedia? In my humble opinion it would be unfair and discriminatory to have such a requirement. So I say again that the only thing this article needs is to be rewritten and properly cited. --Louva-Deus 03:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- - This looks like a good discussion to be having on the WP:WEB talk page. I haven't checked it to see if you're already there or not, but if you aren't I strongly suggesting bringing the case over there. I'm not particularly fond of the guideline in its current form either, to be honest, and that's the place to get it changed. --Arvedui 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless reliable third-party mentions can be found-WP:WEB allows for notability if someone major distributes your content, not if you distribute someone major's content, which seems to be an important distinction here. As to those objecting to the notability guidelines-you may wish to read User:Uncle G/On notability, he says it much better then I ever would. Seraphimblade 08:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are already articles on the game which can link to this site. The Website has no significance beyond the game so no separate page --BozMo talk 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Non-notable website about possibly notable game. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many of the reasons for notability have already been mentioned (e.g. Official Merchandising for the games), but regarding outside sources publishing works, there are numerous cases of this. Blue's News, Voodoo Extreme, Shacknews, and others have frequently posted stories referencing either articles or content on our website or posts on our message boards. Additionally, GameStar magazine published several items that were exclusively posted on Seriously! on the DVD that accompanied their September 2003 edition of their magazine. They're the biggest gaming magazine in Germany. --Rodzilla 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) - Also, there was an article written specifically on the site that is referenced in the wikipedia entry. --Rodzilla 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At best redirect. Cool Hand Luke 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SeriousFan and Louva-Deus, despite their having a fairly obvious interest in the site itself. The WP:WEB guidelines are extremely contentious (and guidelines to boot), so I'd prefer to give it the benefit of the doubt. The article is well-written and informative, if a bit uninteresting (hardly a hanging offense around here!), and contributes verifiable knowledge about a website known and used by a reasonably large number of people. --Arvedui 02:52, 30 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. Kimchi.sg 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crank Dot Net[edit]

Effectively an incomplete stub article on a non-notable Web page serving as little more than a link-spammy advertisement. Only two other pages currently link here (both allegedly belonging to "cranks"), and so has little or no connectivity to the rest of Wikipedia. Doesn't cite its sources or any third-party authorities. Doesn't meet Web notability criterion. Xihr 22:12, 24 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 self-admitted neologism, vandalism, per cited source. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumourdely[edit]

Contested prod. Neologism. D enni ^talk 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow high up wikipedia muckety muck editor[54], I think this should be deleted because it's an unsourced neologism. Demiurge 23:12, 24 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Parker[edit]

Music copyist, assistant to composer, tour consultant per his bio on imdb. Only saving grace seems to be having won a Henry Hewes Design Award for Sound Design in 2003. If it weren't for the award, I would have speedied it. Can anyone help putting this article in its proper context? Ohconfucius 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a vote for the Cathedral of Hope AfD on this AfD; I've moved it to the right page. Please advise if this was the wrong thing to do. --Charlene 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that was very probably the right thing to do. Bubba hot ep 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I can't put it into context, but his IMdB page is twice as long as some of the people with articles on Wikipedia. I'd say being composer on two films and a TV series of debatable quality is more notable than not. Producer of music on Intolerable Cruelty (haven't seen it) is obviously a plus, but what does that mean anyway? Can't hurt to keep, 'spose. Bubba hot ep 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When he's really notable, rather than just someone doing a job and getting a nomination for an award by his professional organisation, I'll vote the other way. But he's not notable yet. WMMartin 18:08, 21 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, Chick Bowen 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply not notable. Eusebeus 01:09, 25 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, —Xyrael / 10:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete that "Henry Hewes Award" doesn't seem to be massively notable. It is awarded by the same people who do the Tony Awards, but it's restricted to New York City only. The Intolerable Cruelty mention could be notable, but it's too vague. Demiurge 13:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firm delete. The individual may meet WP:BIO at some point soon but hasn't yet. Length of IMDB entry is irrelevant when the listings are of minor credits such as "music copyist", and composer of music for a few indie films isn't quite enough. We wouldn't be so forgiving of an actor with the equivalent resume. --Dhartung | Talk 17:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rigid As A Rock Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Demiurge. --Arvedui 02:24, 30 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. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booksontrains[edit]

non notable websites Aququa 22:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable (google searche for "booksontrains" on nme.com returns nothing; dannywallace.com results are forum posts promoting the site). Carries all the telltale signs of self-promotion. Demiurge 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; WP:V. Eusebeus 01:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. - Mailer Diablo 03:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no evidence of mainstream media exposure, or anything else that would indicate notability. AdorableRuffian 11:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a cute idea, but has no place here. Fairly obvious (self-)promotion. --Arvedui 02:14, 30 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 a resounding Keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megha Sandesham[edit]

Non notability. RHB 22:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed on imdb [55]; apparently won no fewer than four Indian National Film Awards in 1983 [56]. Demiurge 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Re-written. Moved to correct title Meghasandesam. utcursch | talk 05:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Keep- Dasari Narayana Rao is a highly popular director in South Indian Film Industry.His film Megha Sandeshamis also notable. I had read an article about this film in Filmfare magazine. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Can I know as to know the nominator came to the conclusion of Non Notable. Doctor Bruno 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment check the history, this is what it looked like before User:Utcursch fixed it. Demiurge 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A proper Google Search reveals that the movie is notable. Should not the nominators have the patience to do a proper Search before putting an article for AFD. Even if you search [57] Google suggests the alternate search term and you can verify quite easily. Doctor Bruno 20:15, 26 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.--Hús ö nd 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAD Studios[edit]

non notable website Aququa 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB Eusebeus 01:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 03:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:57, 29 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. Sandstein 10:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LuaForge[edit]

non notable hosting websites. Aququa 22:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB Jayden54 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB Eusebeus 01:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 03:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable Lua (programming language) website. --- RockMFR 07:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assert notability, thanks! - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are 48,500 g-hits for "LuaForge" (excluding hits from their own site). The official Lua website regards LuaForge as an important hosting service and community for Lua projects.[58] --- RockMFR 17:57, 27 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 (G1). theProject 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshalls park school[edit]

No evidence of notability. D enni ^talk 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, non-notable, only one line of text and no sources. Jayden54 23:11, 24 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. Requested sources haven't been provided, WP:V holds more weight than a meatpuppet army. -- Steel 01:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max cards[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Searching Google for the terms listed as "notable" for the gameplay does not result in any hits. Neither does the card game creator given by the article. Neither does the game's name itself. No sources. Potential hoax. ju66l3r 23:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This looked familiar but on closer inspection it is not the game I thought it was. Needs proper sources, otherwise delete as unverifiable. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. NN, lack of web evidence. Pete Fenelon 02:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - there is a lack of evidence, but i can verify that this is the (most possibly a myth) story behind max-cards (or as i knew it "maxcard"). My father used to play and talk about it. Very happy, but suprised to see it here on wikipedia! Page should state that story is myth only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiteboarder1 (talk • contribs) .

— Kiteboarder1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You may be able to, we can't. Hence the problem. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sources? Delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the two images of it being "played" are paintbrushed Windows Solitare (I'm pretty sure), and so likely Fair Use violations. 68.39.174.238 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article I can also verify that max-cards does exist and is infact a real game, I have played it regulalry with friends and although there aren't any sources on the article, i still think it should be kept as it is a less-well known game and being on wikipedia should give it a chance to become as big a game as whist or solitaire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.127.69 (talk • contribs) — 82.152.127.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Article I too have played this game, but have not been able to find any sources to its origin or rules. However, i agree that if it is played by anybody, it should be on wikipedia. Many others I know play it, so it does exist!!! Keep the article!!! SiDUDe 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC) — SiDUDe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Keep Article What a surprise I found when I logged onto wikipedia and found an old game from my childhood. Max Cards or as I knew it, Maximus Cards, was a huge craze at my secondary school. I too agree that if it is played or ever has been played by a significant amount of people, it should be on wikipedia. Although there are no written rules the basic principle is the same as the game I used to play. Please Keep this article! User:Maxdabomber 20:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Maxdabomber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Article As a Swedish citizen and distant descendant of Hal de Max himself I can assure you of Max Card's existence. It is hugely popular in the coastal towns of Ånge and Härnösand. As we often say after a good game of Max Cards: Varumärkes och kommunikationsarbete! User:Dogend4000 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) — Dogend4000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete I have played a good game of Max Cards many a time, although I was taught it under the name "Min cards" (obviously someone had a sense of humour!)I have never seen a rule book for Max Cards, but I am sure that, as demonstrated above, many people are aware of it's existence. I think it is time for Wikipedia to accept that concrete proof is not needed to confirm something that many people acknowledge exists, and is based on word of mouth. I would also like to make it clear that no card game I have ever played has equalled the skill and emotion involved in Max Cards. KEEP THIS ARTICLE!!! KEEP THE PAST ALIVE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS!!! User:bobdabildur 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC) — bobdabildur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not Delete Well my, my, my there has been a lot of interest in this article. As you can see from the comments above the game is real and although there may not be any sources on the internet, this is a real game and it should be kept on this fantastic site for other users to see and possibly play the game thereselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin99 (talk • contribs) — Robin99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Cut the cards as unverifiable. Non-notable, even if it could be verified. Tubezone 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete i have used wikipedia regulalry for looking up things and researching areas, after reading some of the comments above about there not being any sources. What happens to an article on a theory?? there are no sources for that?? so I think although there is a lack of sources there, are plenty of people who can verify/support it. And so it should be kept on here for people to learn about it (even though a dubious history) and play it for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.127.69 (talk • contribs) — 82.152.127.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do not Delete Although there seems to be a rather strange cult following trying to save this article, I agree with the above user...I myself know a card game virtually exactly the same as this one, although we call it "quick-draw", and it is much fun and quite well known where I live...Lets spread the word. --Murray0056 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC) — Murray0056 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per V, RS, NOTE etc. - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can the author prove that this exists? There are many card games and very few written rules. Furtehrmore this is not the first card game to not appear on Wikipedia, I would like to remind people of the very popular card game "Shithead", which is also absent from Wikipedia. I understand that some evidence is necessary, but surely if all these contributors claim to have heard of this game then it must exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.17.51 (talk • contribs) — 84.66.17.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can we please close this AfD now, before it chokes on sockpuppets ?? Tubezone 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article People have rightly said that this has no verifiable sources, and that a google search draws a blank - but that does not mean that it doesn't exist! I have seen this played at a friends house, at the suggestion of someone who had played it at uni. The article matches pretty well with what I remember, this is the first time I have actually seen a complete set of rules (I have found variations but these are closer to standard solitaire than Max Cards). I appreciate that this wouldn't get into the Encylopaedia Britannica, but since Wikipedia prides itself on being user-edited, there is no reason to delete an article about a 'cult' card game which is causing no harm - and has finally let me understand why my friend kept shouting Full Levens at me! Cheers. AlfaFoxtrot — AlfaFoxtrot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep article I have played this game (but called quick draw) in the past, it was a minor craze in my form at one point, it definitely is a real game i can assure you. I think just because it doesnt have any sources doesnt mean it should get automatic deletion, surely? So it might not be played by many people, but it obviously does exist, I've played it myself!! Who knows, perhaps more people might start playing it if the rules, etc, are left on here for other people to see. It really is a brilliant game, much less monotonous than many other card games I have played. Rich burger55 17:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC) — Rich burger55 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Kelly[edit]

This article is about an unreleased album that has been cancelled. See [59] - Donald Albury 14:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should elaborate a little. This article is about an album that was due to be released in June 2006. It was originally to be called Ms. Kelly. The name was changed to My Story at some point, and a second article was created for that title. Someone recently redirected My Story to Ms. Kelly, but neither album has been issued, and Kelly Rowland is now planning an album, as yet unnamed, for release next year. -- Donald Albury 14:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The album was orginally entitled Kelly Rowland: My Story and had recently been renamed to Ms. Kelly. I posted a link to an audio interview with this information on the site a few days ago. -- Noboyo 16:30, 18 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, Agent 86 23:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure speculation. If this was the Stones it might be worth it, but this artist only has one album, and that not terribly good by some accounts. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear-cut crystalballing. Even interviews with people that talk about planned albums is silly, unless it is a CLEARLY NOTABLE planned and failed project, like say the BEach Boys "Smile", or Dave Matthew's "The Lilliwhite Tapes". This meets no real notability threshold, and thus needs to be deleted. The fact that the name keeps changing points to the lack of encyclopedic nature of topic. When the album is finally released in its final form and name, we can recreate the article. --Jayron 32 04:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already an article on Kelly Rowland. 69.140.173.15 20:09, 25 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 complete bollocks. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater mall[edit]

May seem to be patent nonsense to some; but others believe it is a unique concept.

Keep. has a reliable source. --Nint3ndud3 23:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such as nonsense and OR. TerriersFan 23:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence shown that any such thing is even in the planning stages. OR for sure. D enni ^talk 00:11, 25 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. -- Steel 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3[edit]

Its way too early to start an article. Nearly every fact here needs citation, and I don't think they've even started a script yet. Heck, we don't even know if this is the proper title. CyberGhostface 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vacuous speculation. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#CBALL. AgentPeppermint 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sauce or delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:51, 26 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.

Delete much too early to do an article about it. Totnesmartin 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Lots of breathless reporting, before and after Sunday's game ("The nation is too busy talking about the admittedly promising Luke Fitzgerald" says the Roscommon Herald, and who could doubt that it's true ?) to demonstrate the non-subjective notability of the subject. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Fitzgerald[edit]

Not notable, future projections Pigman (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator is correct that he's not notable currently, but in two days time (i.e. before this AfD closes) he is due to line out for the Ireland national rugby union team, thus establishing a much stronger notability. It might be worth postponing this AfD until he's either played or not played on Sunday? Demiurge 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Keep, he is now an international sportsman as of two hours ago[60]. Demiurge 16:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have no need t scoop anybody. Wait until the end of the season and see how he fares. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with Guy. Eusebeus 01:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He hasn't (yet?) played for his country, but he has played for Leinster. WP:BIO guidelines are that those who have played "in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports" might be considered notable. Assuming that the Leinster v Edinburgh match referred to in the article was a first-team one, that seems to me to be enough to satisfy the criterion mentioned. Loganberry (Talk) 04:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Loganberry and especially that he's been ~~named~~ officially added to the Ireland national rugby union team. Even NFL draft picks are worthy of inclusion long before they're even part of a team. --Oakshade 16:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm persuaded that this guy is notable. My main concern was the projection/prediction that he would be on the Ireland team. That made it seem like part of his fame rested on him making the team. Also, I'm a stupid American fairly ignorant of rugby rankings and generally a non-sports person as well. I bow to more informed people and opinion. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable player. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has now represented Ireland at both International and International A levels, as well as playing for a professional club, Leinster, in two professional leagues, the Magners League and the Heineken Cup Smoneill
Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - The AfD nominator has voted "keep." --Oakshade 18:05, 29 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 copyright violation of [61]. Metros232 00:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livia Liu[edit]

There does not appear to be anything in this article to indicate the notability of this person. Being a judge (of what appears to be a fairly low level of court) is not any more inherently notable than being a member of any other profession and, while forming a small part of the working population, there are an awful lot of judges out there. However, given the amount of information that is provided in the article, it is certainly not "speediable" and should have community consideration. Agent 86 23:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, copyvio from [62]. Demiurge 23:54, 24 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't sleep, clown will eat me 09:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy (StarCraft)[edit]

This article gets into indepth stategy and tactics of game mechanics for StarCraft. It is WP:OR and fails WP:V and as a "how-to" its a game guide and in violation of WP:NOT. NeoFreak 00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Bwithh 00:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now this is a game guide, and I can support deletion here. While some of the concepts of StarCraft may be encyclopedic, and there might even be something salvageable from this one, I don't think there's enough here to warrant keeping. Especially since Gameplay of Starcraft is much better. FrozenPurpleCube 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per gross violation of WP:NOT. - Mailer Diablo 03:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete a good example of what deletable how-to guides look like. — brighterorange (talk)
Delete - For the same reasons all articles like this need deleting: Game Guide, Instruction Manual, Indiscriminate Info etc etc ad nauseum. The Kinslayer 09:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Gameplay of StarCraft. Combination 21:35, 27 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. -- Steel 01:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECW Super Summer Sizzler[edit]

Non-notable wrestling event. Same thing that happened here. Unless the significance of the event is established, the article should be deleted. This article does not indicate that this was a PPV or otherwise a significant event. Wikipedia certainly doesn't need results of every wrestling program ever aired and there is nothing that can be mentioned apart from the results. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable wrestling event. Edgecution 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 03:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 15:33, 27 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 A2. Kimchi.sg 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sözler[edit]

notenglish Bcvt 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD-A2 (foreign language article already existing on another wikipedia) [63]. Demiurge 00:58, 25 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 nominated version was vandalism, and pre-vandalised version is that of a clearly notable footballer. Kimchi.sg 08:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_Eagle[edit]

This article is obviously total nonsense, possibly an expression for hatred Kvdveer 08:35, 27 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.