Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 25 November 27 >

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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Genius Home Collegiate School[edit]

Genius Home Collegiate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With due respect to all who have taken great pain to read the page or visited the school site and put their comments to keep or delete. I'll not put any request. However, I'd like to add that whatever was written in the school page was true - no less, no more. It's true that the school is not famous or very old. However, the school committee is trying to develop it as a low cost sustainable model for better education for the local cummunity. Besides academic activities, the school have successfully arranged several rounds of polio imunization and health check-ups for students and all the members of their families (all free of charge) and several fairs in its second year. This has been appreciated by all the people living in the community. In recognition to this, this school was placed in record by Prothom Alo, the most popular daily in Bangladesh, as one of the mentinable schools of Mirpur, Dhaka (please see Prothom Alo, in Noksha, 25 July 2006). I'm really sorry if I have done a big upset to wikipedia. I'd rather suggest other renowned schools of Bangladesh to come forward and put information about their institutions.

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





























































The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yoshi series bosses[edit]

List of Yoshi series bosses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unverified crufty game guide. Steel 00:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating: List of Yoshi series enemies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although it needs cleanup, I can't imagine sources would be too difficult to find. There have to be published strategy guides, official documentation, etc. That'd take care of verification. As for "not a game guide", just removing any content that is "how-to" would work. Crystallina 03:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis that this is easily recoverable. The article indeed needs cleanup, but there is nothing to differentiate it from the above examples. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are pretty notable games, and a list seems like a good way to handle these characters. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- As per all. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 18:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of Yoshi series bosses is pretty good. May need some clean-up, though. I agree with Crystallina that soursed would be hard to find. Otherwise, I say keep. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It seems like a good article, but I agree it needs cleanup.--SUIT 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crystallina. --- RockMFR 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a difference between cruft and a good source of information in a particular field. This article is the latter. --Gray Porpoise 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this isn't a useless article. Also does not violate WP:ISNOT. --SonicChao talk 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not entirely game guide-ish or fancruft, many of the bosses in the Yoshi series have become notable characters.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Altohugh I'm probably getting voted off the island here, this lsit is just taken from the boss's main articles. Also, it is unreferenced & a blatant fan-cruft situation. I created an article from the biggest selling game ever, & it gets deleted. just as much time was spent on my article, yet it gets deleted. So, taking the principles from that situation & applying them here, this article would be deleted. So that's what I'm sticking to. Thanks, Spawn Man 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely original research listcruft. Easily accomadated with an external link to a game guide website. NeoFreak 04:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no sources have been provided and there's no indication they will be. Just because they shouldn't be difficult to find doesn't mean that anyone will have the inclination or motivation to do so.--Kchase T 23:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep a useful list with narrow scope. Verifiable. — brighterorange (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The characters listed here do play a large role in the Yoshi series games, but most have relatively little or no background info that can be cited off of the internet. Most info, if noted, has to do with battle information; the only real attainable information about these characters. Although some entries are written poorly, I believe this list contains truthful and useful information. Dflocks80 00:37, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SIMEONE[edit]

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

Questionable based on WP:BAND. ∴ here…♠ 00:25, 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 Delete (G10). Attack page + nonsense.--Húsönd 01:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Wallace[edit]

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

I doubt this person's notability. A lot of trivia and the picture looks terrible. Peter O. (Talk) 00:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, looks like an attack page to me. Demiurge 00:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete falls under the category of "who cares". Danny Lilithborne 00:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Looks like a prank, no corroboration, and even if true person is not notable in competitive eating.--T. Anthony 01:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a strange article. They could've at least cropped the picture. Can't find anything notable here. --Oakshade 01:22, 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. Dakota 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of noteworthy raves[edit]

POV listcruft, completely unsourced. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have asked some users that contributed to the discussion to make this article to contribute to this Afd. Rex the first talk | contribs 00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per what Mailer Diablo said. Notable raves...hahaha.--Agent Aquamarine 01:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess a crowd of over 3 million doesnt make a rave notable... *cough* Love Parade *cough*.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced original research, despite assisting in creation. Sad to see it go, but can't justify a keep. ∴ here…♠ 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there were guidelines put in place to restrict this to multi-year events or one off events of extremely large notability. Deleting this means this content will just get readded a bazillion times by various anonymous users in the Rave article... which is why we spun this list off to begin with.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alkivar. bbx 08:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but what part of unsourced and POV do you not understand? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd like to keep it, but without sources, Zoe is right, this is totally POV. It needs some kind of objective criterion of inclusion and then sourcing for what is included.--Kchase T 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV. WMMartin 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmanageable, mention 5 or so within the rave article, and don't worry about the rest --T-rex 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It needs sources explaining the notability of these raves, not just links to their respective sites. Black-Velvet 04:55, 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 speedied, A7 Opabinia regalis 06:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shonen-Ai Kudasai[edit]

Webcomic hosted on the free webhost Comic Genesis, so you can assume its non notable and non popular anyway (like a geocities or angelfire site). In this case, the assumptions are true. Hahnchen 01:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete tag with A7? already tagged! James086 Talk | Contribs 05:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it, see my comment. MER-C 05:41, 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 No consensus ViridaeTalk 09:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden Codak[edit]

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

This non notable website can be found here. Absolutely no claim of notability for this webcomic and an Alexa rank of 350,000. [1] Hahnchen 01:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no assertion of notability. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, may be speediable. MER-C 05:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This comic is known and revered throughout the online sequential art appreciation community. elftor 07:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC) — elftor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete, as per proposer and Mailer diablo -- The Anome 17:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. agreed with elftor, this comic is fairly well-known and appreciated. AceGT09
  • Keep!!. How can one person just say, "This isn't notable..."; maybe not to YOU but to other people it could be extremely notable. For instance, me. Any and all art deserves it's own article... AC 14:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability, no references provided, googling provides no useful information beyond its existince. -- Whpq 16:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I considered voting delete despite having heard of it several times, but poking around beyond Google alone I found some interesting stuff which the rest of you may or may not want to consider:
I'll be the first to admit that I'm a new user (I have fewer than 100 edits) so if this information is useless or inappropriate, feel free to ignore it. --Ozy 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to delete. See below.[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, no reputable third party sources. Wkipedia has standards for accuracy and reliability (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV) that keep us from writing about everything we like on the internet. -- Dragonfiend 06:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Had not known about this comic prior to today, found through link from online community scans_daily. Perhaps not famous enough to be noticed by a particularly large crowd; however, I believe this will change in the near future. Taste varies, but I would be willing to deem this notable enough to keep (ubiquity is no accountant for excellence, and merit despite obscurity has kept many authors in encyclopedias despite the fact that their works were little known). My argument is threefold:
    • 1) I believe DC to be of sufficient quality (it is unusual, and unusually good) to merit its entry into Wikipedia,
    • 2) regardless of my opinion, my own investigation (based in a large part on the comments above) lead me to believe that DC (regardless of its quality or the lack thereof) will attain some familiarity with a significant section of the public. I would argue at the least that it's attained a status of sorts among more famous webcomic artists.
    • 3) I feel that the case for deletion has only been made on the grounds of its obscurity. If the article is lacking quality, let it be rewritten. But singularity has enough of a claim here to keep it. I find the "non-notable" assertion to be just that, an assertion, and specious at that. I realize that my points may be mere opinion too, but it requires something beyond facile claims of "not notable" to undo somebody else's handiwork.
-- jasonrhode 01:29 CST 11/28/2006
  • Delete High quality, very interesting style and subject matter, I'm a big fan, yet there's not enough in the way of verifiable source material out there to write an encyclopedia article on it. Mind you I say that about 50-65% of things we do have articles on. Sockatume 07:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Exactly as per jasonrhode above. Obscurity is not the same as non-notability. The comic is very well-known within webcomic circles. dougalg 15:56, 28 November 2006 (NST)
    • Comment, right, there are plenty of obscure topics which are notable. That is the idea that, per Wikipedia:Notability, "A subject is notable if it has been documented in multiple, non-trivial, independent, published sources" applies to many obscure topics such as some cult films, obscure bands, and webcomics. But it doesn't apply to evetyone, or to this one, as the article has no references at all, let alone to multiple non-trivial independent publishes sources. Notability is not "I've heard of it" or "me and my firnds have heard of it" or "Websites I visit talk about this." Think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that requires sources at least as good as a junior high school research paper. We do not have the sources here to cover this form a neutral point of view without using original research. -- Dragonfiend 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is just a comment on the incredibly trivial links presented above. We should not be pandering to the webcomic community, I can think of a bunch of unsigned bands which have picked up more attention and exposure than this has. Plenty are featured on XFM, which is a heck of a lot more notable than popular than the publications you mention. I know of a hell of a lot of Half-Life mods that have been deleted, one could argue that Sweet Half-Life and Azure Sheep were well-known within the Half-Life community, but so what, everything is notable to some community, it's meaningless. - hahnchen 23:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - i think as long as there's a category on this site about "Defunct United States soccer clubs" then it's really kind of a double standard to take this down cause it's too obscure or whatever.have you seen what passes as "notable" around here? seriously i think a somewhat popular webcomic deserves an article if the Markov strategy, Wisconsin Highway 182 and Frank Defays gets one without arguement. also, a webcomic is different from half-life. see, not everyone plays half-life, but everyone who sees this site has internet, and thus can see the comic, so it's a bit more relevant even if obscure.AceGT09
    • It's evidently not a popular website though is it. As popular as Genmay? Final Fantasy Shrine? Soompi? Everyone has the internet, they can see generic flash games too. Doesn't mean they should have articles, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a directory of every webcomic to have existed. - hahnchen 01:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • you're not really saying anything there, you have no real basis that it's not a popular website beyond alexa ratings. There is alot of information on wikipedia about sub-cultures, and webcomics are getting to be a notable sub-culture. Dresden Codak is notable in that sub-culture. i see reason enough to not delete.AceGT09
        • Delete - On the grounds of this argument I'm changing my vote. We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not so much about knowledge per se as it is about thoroughness, utility, and verifiability. If it was about knowledge first, citing sources wouldn't be necessary. --Ozy 03:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Vote withdrawn.[reply]
  • Keep - on the grounds that all arguments in favour of deletion have so far been pedantic and trivial. --camille-martine
    • Comment - Pedantic/trivial arguments for deleting a given article outweigh pedantic/trivial arguments for keeping it. --Ozy 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability whatsoever. 72.75.153.114 03:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Dresden Codak was featured in Seed Magazine's 'Daily Zeitgeist' on 9/15/06[2]; it was reviewed on the podcast, The Gigcast, (#60) in October, 2006[3]. As mentioned below, it is a featured link on notable website A Lesson is Learned but the Damage is Irreversible. Additionally, Alexa rankings are neither authoritative nor entirely accurate, and as such are "not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites"[4]. KingNewbs 13:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I'm changing my vote again. In light of this evidence, I would like to make the claim that the argument for keeping is no longer either pedantic or trivial. Appreciate your work, Newbs. --ozy` talk 20:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per KingNewbs, and the wishy-washy ozy`. Black-Velvet 05:00, 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 speedy deleted per criterion A7 ({{db-web}}) and the note at the bottom (G7). Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet omega[edit]

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

Non notable RPG. The official site (www.freewebs.com/planetomega) has 591 hits as of this nomination, and a "coming soon" sign. The official forum (planetomega.proboards101.com/index.cgi) has 10 members. The article even has a section titled Characters (So far, feel free to add yours on). Article creator, AzNwAr3oR (talk · contribs), only contributed to this page, and shares the same name as the brains of the whole deal admin of the forums, makes the websites, and the wiki pages. No assertion of notability. Prod removed twice[5][6] without comment. - ReyBrujo 01:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article has already been deleted once[7], but it can't be considered recreation as it was a one-line article. -- ReyBrujo 01:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. - Mig (Talk) 01:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Completely non-notable and unknown, vanity... hell, the site is on freewebs and its forum is on proboards. -- Kicking222 02:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete and salt I temporarily forgot about {{db-web}}. The article asserts no notability at all; in fact, it pretty much asserts a complete lack of notability. I shall tag. -- Kicking222 02:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it completley, please. I'm the head admin for that RP, and it doesn't need to be here
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kianto[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion/redirect to Ilmari Kianto Fails WP:V. Can't find reliable source for this on google which mainly brings up wikipedia mirrors and amateur sites No relevant hits on google books[8]. Yes, there's an entry on Encyclopedia Mythica, but that's not a reliable source. One unverifiable, opaque possible source on google scholar[9].

For 2 other afds for 4+ year olda rticles on mythological figures created by the same editor which created this one see:

My guess is that the article creator may have been misled by Encyclopedia Mythica Bwithh 02:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Bwithh 01:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, i added that tag - I'm a bit concerned about possible reliance on Encyclopedia Mythica for the lists of gods and heroes etc.Bwithh 04:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Encyclopedia Mythica article is here. It's eight words long and barely constitutes a source at all, much less a reliable one. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 09:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure what notability criteria for gods should be, but I'm pretty sure this one would fail it (even if it is real). JulesH 18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GOD. Actually delete unless sourced like the other two. ~ trialsanderrors 19:06, 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 redirect to Taliban Movement#Life under Taliban government. Editors remain free to merge additional content, if sourced, from the history to that location. Sandstein 15:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life under Taliban rule[edit]

Life under Taliban rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy-tagged as POV and unsourced. The subject itself doesn't seem unworthy of an article, though this particular article is a naked list with no sources and little content (sounds like it was compiled from someone's memory of what they saw on TV). If it's going to exist at all, it should be better written with credible sources, as it's otherwise a magnet for POV speculation. Opabinia regalis 02:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is probably the best option, although sourced information (and it can't be too hard to find sources on at least some of this) could be easily merged into an article on the Taliban or a larger History of Afghanistan page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but I agree with the above. The article desperately needs better sourcing and probably a new name. This is probably viable merge fodder as well. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Taliban Movement Taliban Movement#Life under Taliban government per below. There is a section called Life under Taliban government in the well sourced Taliban article (that article has 22 references). This is needless duplication, POV, and some parts (like the part about opium) contradict the main article. If the section gets too large it can be split off to a separate article later. Tubezone 03:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self: Check possible redirect locations for duplicate information before making helpful suggestions [end note]. That definitely seems like a viable way to do things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:24, 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 merge to EuroTrip, which I have done. Sandstein 15:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty Doesn't Know[edit]

Scotty Doesn't Know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Song is not notable enough for its own article. -Nv8200p talk 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to EuroTrip. A joke song from an extraordinarily unmemorable movie. No need for its own article. Wavy G 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to EuroTrip per above. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Wavy G, it's worth a section in Eurotrip but not an article of it's own. James086 Talk | Contribs 05:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See previous AfD. --Rory096 05:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to EuroTrip, not independently notable but should be mentioned as part of the movie. Seraphimblade 10:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per the above. ← ANAS Talk? 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before, this is it's second AfD. It's a notable song on its own. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While this is true, the previous result was no consensus, not a keep, so nothing wrong with putting it back after some time's elapsed. Seraphimblade 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. Since nothing's changed, however...it's still a noteworthy song on its own. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. How is the song notable? The article makes to claims to notability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been frustratingly unable to find any reliable sources to confirm notability. However, I have found several blog entries, [10] [11] [12], indicating they charted (Pop 100 for July 2006, #53; 2005 ringtones, #19) and were also one of the first independent bands to chart in the age of downloadable music. Billboard's search engine will confirm they charted, though not which position.--Kchase T 05:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect. While I've contributed to this article over time, it really isn't notable on it's own — not that anybody's been able to show by way of WP:RS, that is. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separately per Badlydrawnjeff.--Kchase T 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mutterings. You can't vote twice THOR -- the other editors don't appreciate your eccentricities like I do. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe the song made its way onto a few charts upon being relesed --T-rex 19:20, 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 11:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Positively Dark[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; their only albums are released over the Internet for free, and they don't have enough external coverage - no All Music entry, etc. Crystallina 03:26, 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 close per popular demand. Further discussion about this specific mall and malls in general may be needed, but that doesn't need to happen here. I've also been bold and merged into Chatswood, New South Wales, but this should not be considered a result of this discussion. JYolkowski // talk 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Chatswood[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable shopping mall, has no reliable sources or indications of notability per WP:CORP. --Elonka 04:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close please, can we have some centralised discussion about shopping centres before nominating any more? Andjam 05:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close I agree with Andjam. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per everything else. It should be deleted, but piecewise deletion is always a bad idea. -Amarkov blahedits 06:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, Andjam is right on this one. No endorsment of delete/keep yet. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, centralized discussion may be found at WP:CORP, which this seems to fail. Seraphimblade 07:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save: There are Westfield articles for all other Westfields in Australia, I think this one should be kept. I'm sure there could be more that could be added to this article that would make this article more notable. --Whats new? 09:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. MER-C 11:39, 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 close per popular demand. JYolkowski // talk 16:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Belconnen[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping mall, with no references affirming notability per WP:CORP --Elonka 04:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close please, can we have some centralised discussion about shopping centres before nominating any more? Andjam 05:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per Andjam. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, Andjam is right on this one. No endorsment of delete/keep yet. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Merge per WP:LOCAL. Wikipedia's basic notability criteria are obvious and simple, there's no sign of any reliable external sources. Discuss and come up with some guidelines for malls if you want (and I'll be happy to provide my input), but in the mean time, we go with the guidelines we have, and there are none that support keeping this article. Switch to keep if verifiable, reliable secondary sources are provided that have non-trivial coverage of this mall. That's really the only guideline we need! Xtifr tälk 09:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save: This article should be saved. There are credible external links and this article is up to scratch with other Westfield articles. --Whats new? 09:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a parking area list, a toilet map and a general map do not constitute non-trivial coverage by reliable external sources! And as for the other Westfield articles, perhaps they should be nominated and deleted as well. Xtifr tälk 10:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion why this would pass WP:CORP. Seraphimblade 10:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per above; and because the nom is indiscriminately nominating shopping centres for deletion without checking their notability, on the basis alone of having no references - if that were the case most articles in WP would have to be deleted. That's why we have a "references" tag; AfDs are not the way to go. This is one of the biggest shopping centres in the ACT too, so failing this, and there are a few notable references listed in the article (apart from the external links), Keep. JROBBO 11:50, 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. Opabinia regalis 00:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOWRES[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 04:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete unless any sort of notability is asserted. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in this dead-end article indicates notability, except possibility their nationality and their style. But even then, I don't see it passing WP:MUSIC. B.Wind 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still does not meet WP:MUSIC requirements.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:52, 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 speedied, attack page. Opabinia regalis 05:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cons of Star Wars Combine[edit]

General attack page written by an irate member of an online SW community...only one edit to WP. Article text is entirely unsourced and violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPA Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 04:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete essay. Danny Lilithborne 05:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above as an attack page and containing unsourced and potentially libellous BLP stuff. So tagged. MER-C 05:24, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven and Hell (band)[edit]

Heaven and Hell (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"If all goes well, Heaven and Hell should be hitting the road in early 2007"... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nothing but rumours. MER-C 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until all does go well and something more concrete comes of it all. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remove the speculation - supergroups are inherently notable enough to merit Wikipedia articles per WP:MUSIC. B.Wind 10:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure (yet). (See below.) Unlike most crystal ball articles, this one seems fairly well referenced. The first listed exception to the crystal ball policy says, "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", then it may deserve an article. This one is certainly notable, so the question then becomes, is it almost certain to take place? That's a fuzzy question. (How almost is almost?) Given that this much better referenced than the average crystal-ball article, I'd like to take some time to investigate before making a final judgement, and I recommend that others study the references to see whether they feel this is "almost certain" before jumping to a conclusion. At least one reference (the one on Tony Iommi's site) seems quite certain this will happen, and I'd expect the participants to know better than anyone. Xtifr tälk 10:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done some editing - much of the speculation was in the formation announcement (which I have now italicised). The rumors have been downplayed somewhat. While the reference to a proposed 2007 tour is crystal ballish, the announcement of the (re)formation is the noteworthy - and pertinent - event. Now that the article is a stub, I hope that it will suffice for the purpose of the AfD. B.Wind 10:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick Google News search came up with a number of references to the reunion, including this one [13] in a major US-based daily newspaper. The "crystal ball" clause in WP:NOT begins with: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. This isn't unverifiable, nor is it speculation. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this was as unlikely as some of you seem to think, the news would not have been posted on the websites of the three definitely involved. The same announcement appears on the sites of Tony Iommi, Dio and Geezer Butler. If that is not confirmation enough for you, what more do you want? Three official announcements from the official sites of those involved? This reunion (which is quite definitely going to happen) is certainly noteworth enough to be granted its own page on Wikipedia. If this sort of 'what if' mentality was kept for all articles pertaining things in the future, shouldn't they all be deleted, just incase?
  • Keep. There are sources from reliable sources such as Associated Press shown on Google News [14] confirming this. It is clearly a notable group with notable members. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.
  • Weak keep (superceding "Not Sure" comment above). I honestly still think it's marginal. The reunion will surely be notable if it does take place, but so far all we really have is an expression of desire by the potential participants. Desires, especially among such a small group, can easily change (and indeed, there's been at least one substitution in the planned line-up already). But the expressions of desire seem fairly firm, and it has been picked up and reported by secondary sources (which addresses any verifiability issues). This might be notable (due to secondary coverage) even if it never takes place, which is why I said "keep", but it also might not, which is why I said "weak". Xtifr tälk 01:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the album of the same title until there's an actual announcement of a tour or album, and add something about it to Butler, Dio, and Iommi's articles if it's not there already. It's not really notable until it actually happens.
  • Keep - Notable collaboration with plenty of cites. - Chadbryant 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Citations are valid. Should it not happen then maybe do the "delete and re-direct" thing. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:23, 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. Opabinia regalis 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8mm Fuzz[edit]

8mm Fuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


NN band. humblefool® 05:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn band. Kukini 05:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 05:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Also seems to be a glowing review. CattleGirl talk | e@ | review me! 09:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC; article reads like promotional material, too. B.Wind 10:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The band has been featured in a major Boston publication on several occasions in one year (as cited), and is in rotation on a Boston radio station. They are not a national act, but a very popular local act. And I disagree that there is a slant to this article; if you feel strongly that there is, feel free to edit it out. Either way, it meets the minimum requirements for a musical act to be in Wikipedia (see #5) so there is no reason to delete it. Psilosybical® 09:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Keep The order of the rules changed; Now #1 applies. It meets the criteria about being in multiple non-trivial published works, whatever the number happens to be on whatever given day.PsilosybicalPsilosybical® 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Psilosybical. Meets criterion 5.--Kchase T 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)I must have been smoking crack when I wrote that before. I meant criterion eleven, about rotation, but that's only for national rotation. Delete, fails WP:MUSIC.--Kchase T 19:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Arrrggghh! OK. 'Keep again. Same reasoning, multiple non-trivial published works.--Kchase T 00:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On balance, Delete as seems to fail WP:MUSIC. WMMartin 17:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable in any way, shape, or off-key note. Chris Buckey 05:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets the criteria for multiple non-trivial published works. The Boston Herald and The Weekly Dig are obviously notable periodicals with high circulation.Whiskeyheart 00:59, 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 no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 15:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G. Bakthavathsalam[edit]

G. Bakthavathsalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreferenced resume, therefore having serious pov issues from the very outset and coming into conflict with Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Notability and verifiability are questionable, with only 1880 ghits on the surname itself. Plus we aren't told what his first name is. Contested prod. MER-C 05:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete almost qualifies for CSD:G11. It sounds too much like a resume and therefore conflict of interest is present. Plus the notability issue. James086 Talk | Contribs 05:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral due to issues raised below, I'm reluctant because of the POV issues, if they get cleared up (or someone promises to do so) then Keep because he appears to have notibility. James086Talk | Contribs 06:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Moving to neutral after the points raised below. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the prose of this article seems to be very similar to User:Kgashok who initially created the article. Speaking of which, that user page could stand some attention as well. User pages don't seem like the place for quiz results. wtfunkymonkey 06:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The userpage isn't that easy an MFD candidate, since one of the arguments used when nominating myspace pages on Wikipedia is that the user has very little or no encyclopedic contributions. Plus the user's last edit was 21 days ago - it needs to be two or three times that to be deletable. MER-C 12:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kgashok is most probably G. Bakht's brother. Please refer to [15].Bakaman Bakatalk 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very, very glowing reviews, there, also non-notable. CattleGirl talk | e@ | review me! 09:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Lots of south Indian bios dont have first names (see P. Chidambaram). And he earned the Padma Shri award. I added links to the article to assert notability, a bad quality article does not necessarily warrant deletion.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a volunteer to get rid of this resume crap, then? The article, in it's current form, is unacceptable due to WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. I'd recommend a deletion and then a verified stub can be written. MER-C 03:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. .Bakaman Bakatalk 17:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - this is just the man's resume. I am sure he is very successful but wp is not a resume service. meshach 18:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep I would like to tell few facts. I am afraid that the person who nominated has committed a lot of blunders
  1. Many south Indians do not have first names. The G stands for the first letter of his father.
  2. Bakthavathsalam is not a surname
  3. Verifiability is established by [16]
  4. He is notable per the award.  Doctor Bruno  19:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's not an average doctor. This physician gets regular media coverage at a national level, he's founded an eye hospital, and IMO he's one of the pioneers bringing Indian healthcare up to world standards. It needs cleaning up but he's certainly a reasonable addition to Category:Indian doctors. There should probably be a separate article too on K G Hospital. Mereda 11:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep- This doctor is vey popular in South India. I had read a lot about him in many Medical journals. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Padma Shri = notable. Hornplease 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Appears to be notable and verifiable (Do a g-search for "G. Bakthavathsalam"). Article does need a rewrite, but that's not enough reason to delete. Kathy A. 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I just did some cleanup to the article, and made it look as neutral and factual as possible. Also, google search

count does not determine how famous an Indian is :-).

Let me site an example here. Every kid in the Indian state of Kerala starts studying their language with a mention about Thunchath Ezhuthachan, who is the father of Malayalam Language. That maps to around 30,000,000 Keralites who knows this name. And the number of Google search results I get for same is this: "Results 1 - 10 of about 411 for thunchath ezhuthachan. (0.21 seconds)"

Simynazareth 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)simynazareth[reply]

  • Keep: I'm satisfied by my own Google search that this person is notable enough within his society. James084 17:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With apologies to others, it looks to me too much like someone's CV. Not, in my view, notably different from many other medical people who've set up clinics and who are not included in here. Being good at your job is not per se notable. I realise I'm taking a hard line here, but I don't feel comfortable with this article as it stands. Show us more precise and clearly differentiated notability, and I'll change my mind. WMMartin 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A badly written article is not a criteria for deletion. It is a criteria for rewrite. He has not just set a "Clinic" Just because some one is not included here it does not mean that another person with similar credentials should not have an article (like just because one article exists, it is not a criteria for another keep). Notability is a subjective phenomenon and hence no can can PROVE notability (unlike verifiability which can be "shown"). Please read the links or do a search yourself. Media coverage in India is vastly different from Media Coverage in Western World. One Google Hit for a personality in India is equivalent to 100 Google Hits in Western world due to the language factor, different fonts used by vernacular newspapers and the simple fact that not all media in India have a web presence listing their articles  Doctor Bruno  12:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Statisfies WP:BIO per media coverage. If it looks too much like a CV, that means it needs to be re-worked, not deleted. --Oakshade 23:47, 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 per WP:CSD#A7. Agreed that this doesn't even assert notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LU Cinema[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG -Nv8200p talk 05:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment any reason not to add Bailrigg_FM and Scan (newspaper) into this AfD of LUSU-cruft? wtfunkymonkey 06:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -what separates this from any other cinema? CattleGirl talk | e@ | review me! 09:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable student society, fails WP:ORG. These are not notable by default per consensus. Best case merge to LUSU. This one doesn't even assert notability. Tagged as such (CSD A7). Ohconfucius 05:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN student society. It will, however, be sad to lose such encyclopaedic gems as "1998 - Installation of long-awaited fridge for refreshments.". TerriersFan 13:18, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aoife Mulholland[edit]

Subject, a candidate on a reality TV show, has only sung a few songs, and therefore doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Article has no refs. 262 Google hits. --Rory096 05:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom nn-notable.--John Lake 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete losing game show contestants are not notable by ample precedent, and no evidence of notability as a musician provided. Xtifr tälk 10:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the competition article due to failure of MUSIC guideline. Erechtheus 05:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xtifr.--Dakota 05:51, 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. If there is sourced content that people would like to merge back, although I don't see much, the text is available on request. Sandstein 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape community[edit]

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

Standard arguments for deleting video game stuff, pretty much. Cruft, and issues with verifiability of the material. There was a previous AfD, but the arguments seemed to be mostly "The main article is going to be too long", which I don't really think is a good reason to keep anything. In the interest of full disclosure, there was this, too, but it was such a mess I don't really think it matters. Amarkov blahedits 05:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 05:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm tempted to say that this should be an invalid nomination, as you don't actually cite any reason for deletion. To the point of this being cruft; In my opinion the article largely remains clear of that allegation per Portal:RuneScape/Fancruftguide. The article isn't particularly well-referenced but that should be taken to the talk page, and not necessarily used as your sole reason to AfD it.
    To me it seems that the article survived the first AfD not because if it was merged to the main article it would be too long, but because it was created from the article, in the first place, for that reason. If it was a suggested split of passable content that had already survived in the main article, and was deemed by some editors to be worthy of merging back, why isn't it capable of surviving on it's own?
  • Delete per User:Bwithh-- wtfunkymonkey 06:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't everyone love it if "no good reason for deletion" was a criterion for invalidating a nomination? Anyway, you misunderstood my point, I think. I have no issue with the fact that it happens to not be sourced now, I simply do not think that it can be sourced, ever. Besides, it was split from the main article simply because it was too long. I doubt a discussion of removing the content entirely ever came up then. -Amarkov blahedits 06:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but "no good reason for deletion" is a valid criteria for invalidating a nomination. There is a very clear guide and criteria for an AfD, if you can't come up with a reason for the nom then the nom itself is invalid. wtfunkymonkey 06:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it isn't. Many, many, bad articles would be kept if someone who didn't like the nominator's argument could make it invalid. Now, if you can show that I somehow made this nomination in bad faith, or that I don't understand what AfD is for, that's another matter. -Amarkov blahedits 06:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I'm not entirely sure how it avoids being fancruft due to a guide made by involved parties (which I make no claim not to be, by the way). -Amarkov blahedits 06:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this is cruft - as my understanding of cruft is that it usually involves excessive fanboy levels of attention to specific obscure detail. No, the problem with this article is that it is purely generic. Even if referenced with verifiable sources, this article has no encyclopedic notability as its content could be about any one of hundreds or even thousands of online game communities (just need to switch the specific names). Multi-national player base? In-game jargon? Chat forums? Censorship of player communications deemed inappropriate? Moderators with different levels and powers? Fan websites? Players moaning about things being unfair? Nothing special about any of this. Bwithh 07:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - Now see, this would be a more appropriate argument than the one provided by the nominator -- wtfunkymonkey 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh (disagree with nom) Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 13:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Come on. An article about a mildly popular MMORPG's community? You can't get much less verifiable than that. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there is a little bit of reliable commentary out there. Here, for example. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Merge back into RuneScape - it was only split to keep the length down to satisfy the folks at PR/GA; some remarks on the community are necessary and encyclopedic, and there's plenty of space in the main article now that we've been through it with a hedgetrimmer/machinegun. We may just have to concede to going over that 35kB limit. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We were trying to keep it under 35K? Wow, that's... low. -Amarkov blahedits 15:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Damn, is it 35? Or something else? Can't remember. >_< CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Article size; part of the Manual of Style, asks for a limit of around 32-35. That's what it is. I know it seems small, but that's the beauty of HTML. I once managed to fit an entire website (albeit a rubbish one I made in GCSE IT) on a single 1.44Mb disk. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's outdated, seeing as the mentioned warning now doesn't show up until around 50. Regardless, I think a large part of this should be cut out, so it shouldn't add that much. -Amarkov blahedits 16:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 20:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:45 26/11/2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge with the main article. Article size should not be a concern in this case (size should never be a factor when debating whether or not content is included). --- RockMFR 00:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then delete - Merge any usable information back into Runescape & then the article outright... Spawn Man 00:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. I don't think anything about Runescape should have an article, its all fancruft, see this list -- Coasttocoast 04:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... okay... you go do that. -Amarkov blahedits 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ya, can you say 9th most popular page in all of wikipedia??? Try to get that through Afd then! → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lol? I played Runescape too, problably more than you have, but you can't keep an article just becuase you like the game. All this runescapecruft shouldn't be on Wikipedia.--Coasttocoast 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've probably played Runescape more than both of you, and I'm a member of the Wikiproject, too. I don't know exactly what point I meant to make there, but whatever. -Amarkov blahedits 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I do think Runescape itself is encyclopedically notable- certainly more than most online multiplayer games. Very popular (with an astonishingly highly edited (or vandalized) wikipedia page[17]and the Wall Street Journal wrote about it as if it was England's MySpace. I tried playing it once but I don't have the attention span. Beats World of Warcraft any day though. Bwithh 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft.--Richard 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not fancruft at all - it is encyclopedic remarks upon an online community. But as Bwithh says; there isn't enough here that aren't generic MMO characteristics to justify a separate article anymore. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete; There is some important info here that should be added to the main RuneScape article, although I agree that parts of it are not important to the article. If those parts were removed, it'd be too short anyway. Mamyles 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete or expand. Currently, it's too generic to have its own article, and all the information there could be easily merged. However, there's much more that we could add that's not generic or fancruft; this could make it into an article worth keeping. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 22:18, 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 keep Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 08:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spetsnaz (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable fails WP:BAND few Ghits with Wikipedia top of the list, their website [18] is down, very low Alexa rank [19] Amazon.com nothing [20]. The word Spetsnaz is also a Russian word for special forces or training and generates a lot more traffic so as not to confuse.--John Lake 05:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC) John Lake 05:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up and bow to my fellow editors Nomination withdrawn please close.--John Lake 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - well-known exponents of the EBM scene in Europe, I've heard their music plenty of times in the UK and Australia. Note there is also an article on the French Wikipedia, and the band is mentioned in the Electronic body music article. Regarding WP:BAND, seems to meets item 4, more than two albums on their Swedish label (SubSpace Communications) who also release major EBM act Covenant. Their German label Out of Line Music, also have Combichrist and Icon of Coil on their roster. Mentioned frequently in Release Magazine (Sweden) and Re:Gen magazine (USA). And finally, regarding Google hits, I get 100,000 for "spetsnaz band" and 88,400 for "spetsnaz ebm" - if you're going to cite low Ghits as "evidence" of non-notability, please include a link to your search so that others can verify your assertion. --Canley 08:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghits without quotes [21], with quotes [22] 1-10 of about 46 for "Spetsnaz band". I googled their website [23] WP:WEB
on Alexa not the band itself and got 1,964,573.--John Lake 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can I also just point out that your Amazon search was flawed? You searched for "Spetsnaz band" which returns no results. If you search for "Spetsnaz" in the Music category, you get 4 results: [24]. Re: the broken website and low Alexa rank, please remember this is WP:BAND not WP:WEB. --Canley 19:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, verifiable. Tulkolahten 17:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with less than 46 Ghits in quotes and an Alexa rank over a million they don't seem to notable to me, also their first listed track in the article is a demo.--Dakota 05:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry, I hate it when people like me keep butting in to AfD discussions after they've had their say, but this nomination is a set of highly flawed searches. Why would a reference in, say, a magazine say "Spetsnaz band" like that? That's what quotes in Google mean - searching for that exact phrase. Without the quotes I got 100,000 hits. And as I said to the nominator: the Alexa rank of the band's website means nothing... this is WP:BAND notability, not WP:WEB notability - this is not an article about the band's website!--Canley 06:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the number of Ghits but Wikipedia is the top one. Their Alexa traffic rank is low at over a million.--Dakota 06:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are definitely not a relevant deletion criterion, there are hundreds of articles with a few hits only but very notable. You cannot say this is not notable because Google hasn't indexed it yet. Tulkolahten 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghits are used for notability on Afd very often.--John Lake 23:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well known representative of their genre. Canley makes some very valid arguments.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:50, 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 speedy delete as copyvio. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal sounds in foreign languages[edit]

Animal sounds in foreign languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indiscriminate list of foreign words. No actual encyclopedic content. Only one link from another mainspace article and it's not particularly relevant there. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, certainly not one of other languages.. -Anþony (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it includes animal sounds in English as well. Perhaps Animal sounds around the world. -Emiellaiendiay 06:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it has the potential to become an encyclopedic article. At the moment it's only a list, but certainly it can become an article; the linguistic and cultural significance can be discussed. I'll agree it needs work. However, the fact that the article does not yet include the aforemention information is no reason to delete it; instead, it's reason to discuss what the article needs in order to be an appropriate article for Wikipedia, and to work on including it. -Emiellaiendiay 06:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Emiellaiendiay (or Move, if title is not appropriate). Definitely useful information. Article may need work, but that's another issue. Wavy G 07:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and Improve - The name may not be alltogether incorrect as it is found on en.wikipedia.org, however a name change could be appropriate as per Emiellaiendiay. A grid rather than a list would be well suited. I'd hold off on a delete vote for the time being, with improvment this could be a worthy article. wtfunkymonkey 07:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete. It possibly has a place in Wikitionary but it's a silly page for an encyclopedia. --Sugaar 08:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopaedic. It's more spellings of animal sounds than the actual sounds anyway, but yes, definite delete here. CattleGirl talk | e@ | review me! 09:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete What's with all the keep votes? This is blatant unverifiable, originally researched listcruft, and these aren't even words, they're sounds like "chirp chirp" or "gnägg". Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 09:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it is actually sourced (from a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University no less [25]), but all the info appears to be user-contributed over the Internet [26]. Suggested move to Animal sounds in human languages because "foreign" isn't appropriate (this is the Wikipedia in the English language, not the Wikipedia for citizens of English speaking countries only) and it includes English words anyway. Demiurge 10:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, I did not see that. It appears most of the article is a blatent copy violation. See [27] and Animal sounds in foreign languages#Bee, where English is listed as "bzzz" even though I think most people would say "buzz". The page has a clear copyright notice: Copyright © 1996-2000 Catherine N. Ball. I will nominate for speedy delete. -Anþony (talk) 11:34, 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. Dakota 06:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth chicken[edit]

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

This is an article about a non-notable mascot for tooth decay fighting. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. -- THLCCD 06:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Appears to be an obscure and unsuccessful ripoff of the tooth fairy. Google books hits for "tooth chicken" which are not false positives = 0. Google books hits for "tooth fairy" = 5,390 Bwithh 07:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per nom. One sentence on an obscure health department website does not establish notability.--Hatch68 07:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The books referred to in the article do exist, Amazon Canada has 2 copies of the Goldsmith book listed. Whether they're notable or not is another question. I'm a bit skeptical about the "Pennsylvania Dutch myth" story, too, that I can't seem to find anything on. Tubezone 08:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The book's publisher is a division of Guideposts, which is a Christian publishing charity. Whilst it isn't a vanity press, as I expected it would be when I started digging, I don't expect their editorial standards to be particularly high; they're not working to the commercial realities that most publishers are. JulesH 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'd probably vote to keep this if anyone could come up with reliable sources that this really is a Pennsylvania Dutch folklore tradition. I grew up about an hour away from Lancaster and read a lot of Amish literature (as research for the article on The Budget) and don't recall hearing anything of the kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Even after reading this article, still have no idea what it's about....Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 20:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Tulkolahten 17:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need this. --Oakshade 06:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Junk. WMMartin 18:03, 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 per discoveries made mid-way throughout this discussion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Johnson[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. I suspect it is a vanity page, based on previous edits. Cybergoth 06:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - there's an assertion of notability on the Talk page in that she won a junior title of some description. I don't know anything about gymnastics, so where that particular title sits (if it can be verified) is going to be a factor in all of this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's come verification on that [28]. --Oakshade 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So the US Classic (which seems to be the name it's given in that source) is a national title? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm no expert in gymnastics, but I don't see how it's anything less than national. [29] --Oakshade 06:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You could well be right, but I get the feeling that gymnastics is one of those sports with masses of titles on offer, often with pretty grandiose names. I'll see if there's a WikiProject on it whose help we could enlist here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ghits seem to be unrelated. Possible verifiability concerns. MER-C 08:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, winning national junior titles does not constitute notability. "She has a good chance of going to the Beijing Olympics", well Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Punkmorten 11:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Simply being a contender for something can impart somr level of notability, e.g. contenders for boxing titles etc. Herostratus 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, although the average contender for a boxing title is notable as a high-ranking sportsperson in their chosen field. A contender for an Olympic team in a given event might be as well, but they also might just be someone who has a bright future assuming they don't break something at training tomorrow. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Jayden54 14:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after reading the Sport Illustrated article (which already demonstrates notability) it appears she's more notable than I originally though, so I'm changing my vote to keep. The article needs some expansion though to add a bit more information about her. Jayden54 16:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. If she makes the 2008 team, I am sure WP will welcome the entry. Montco 16:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Keep for now, but if she doesn't make the Olympic team, then she is just another "could have been" and should be edeleted at that time. Montco 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Won the 2006 USA Junior National Champion and contender for the Beijing Olympics. --Oakshade 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to Strong Keep after seeing the new Sports Illustrated article below. --Oakshade 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It explains how she outscored the senior division winner, and was therefore ranked 1st in the nation for women's elite gymnastics. A post above was skeptical about the competition. It is the national title competition for the USA.

  • Keep - Strong keep, actually, even though I hadn't heard of her until I read this AfD. US national junior champ in her sport, coverage of her success in a dedicated Sports Illustrated article, and a medal prospect in the upcoming Olympics. Notable enough for me. --DeLarge 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well, I change my mind too, based on the above. - Cybergoth 17:06, 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 ViridaeTalk 09:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Spirit according to Pentecostals[edit]

Holy Spirit according to Pentecostals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been marked to be merged to Holy Spirit for almost a year, and it's not too hard to see why it's been left that way. Holy Spirit already has a short section on Pentecostalism's views on the subject, and I can't see what this article adds. Combined with POV issues, and the fact that the article is written as an essay toward other Christians, I'm not sure what value there is in merging instead of deleting. theProject 06:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this just seems to be a sermon pasted into an article. Wikipedia is not a publisher os origional thoughts or sermons. meshach 18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agreee with nominator. Radagast83 04:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:NOT, etc. NeoFreak 04:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can envision an article breaking out of the Holy Spirit article that explores the understandings and practices of the Pentecostal movement (given that the Holy Spirit in doctrine and practice feature so large in Pentecostalism), but the current article is not an encyclopedic article. Unless someone wants to take up the cause of fixing it immediately, delete it. Such an article (i.e. encyclopedic) could always be added later.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 14:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - redirect to Holy Spirit --T-rex 19:24, 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 SPEEDY DELETE (A7 - Web Content). TigerShark 08:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Barlament[edit]

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

This article appears to exist only to promote a webpage comicbook. Cybergoth 07:09, 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 keep. DS 17:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Scent from a Strange Mountain[edit]

Author requests deletion Winick88 07:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7, although I cant think of any reason why this should be deleted wtfunkymonkey 07:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sorry, but multiple people have worked on the article, so it's inappropriate to either A) claim to be the author or B) request deletion, especially since what seems to be going on is a simple edit dispute. The place to look is dispute resolution, not AfD. Xtifr tälk 10:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CSD#G7 requires that the page "was mistakenly created." I don't believe that it was. ForDorothy 10:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep absolutely no reason why this should be deleted. Inappropriate nom. ViridaeTalk 11:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Obviously highly notable, as it was a Pulitzer Prize winner. G7 doesn't apply because a dozen people have edited the article. Absolutely no reason given for deletion besides an invalid one. -- Kicking222 13:11, 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 no consensus, default to keep. Whether or not to remove the biographical information for which no sources are provided is an editorial decision. Sandstein 16:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Dunin[edit]

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

Non-notable bio; uncited, entirely Original Research, contributed by the apparent grand-daughter of the subject. This does not mean that the subject might not have been a good or interesting person; he just wasn't notable/noted in any particular field for a contribution meriting recognition in an encyclopedia. One's ancestry may be important to oneself, but it's generally frowned upon to use Wikipedia for self-promotion of a biographical sort.-LeflymanTalk 07:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unverifiable, check ghits. MER-C 08:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless subject's notability as a medal recipient can be established. Only source listed is simply a list of medal winners-shows that he got it, but little else. Seraphimblade 08:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless someone can come up with some reliable sources, Delete as unverifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Sarah. Consider this stricken if WP:RS is fufilled and therefore notability established. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, no reliable sources, and COI, as it was created by Elonka Dunin. -- Kicking222 13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP all "Medal of Honor" recipients pass WP:BIO criteria, so the Polish equivalent should as well. A legitimate verifiable Source is provided (there are about 5 other sites you can verify this information with, they are all pay sites due to publishing rights). I'm really sick of people listing shit for deletion because Elonka created it... the fucking person is NOTABLE... revenge listings are against policy.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two questions:
      1. Where is the medal of honor thing in WP:BIO? I can't find it.
        • Neither can I now... it used to contain something to the effect of "recipients of awards with small numbers of members" things like Presidential Medal of Freedom, Medal of Honor, Oscar were listed as examples... but I couldnt find that in the history when I went back through... it did use to be in there!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Isn't notability just a guideline for inclusion? IE, if something fails notability, it isn't included, while if something passes, it can be included provided that it is verifiable? I don't see any independent sources focusing specifically on the topic at hand. (Striking out this comment assuming the sources you mention do exist)--Wafulz 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict)You might try the notability guidelines at WPMILHIST - which, although they are not policy, represent a project consensus on the kinds of military persons who are usually notable (note that this guideline restricts itself to the highest decoration, which I think might be the key here). Usually, however, it is expected that information about the action that won the award be provided, especially if this is a (or the) major grounds for claiming notability.Carom 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While a high-level award bestows notability, this award is able to be given for a wide range of criteria. Assuming notability for a moment - how verifiable is this information given that the references are all primary sources, the author of which is the sole contributor to this article (barring minor contributors - typo patrolling)? Garrie 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — I concur with Alkivar; this is starting to turn into personal attacks against Elonka. Antoni Dunnin is a notable war veteran so I see no reason why we would even consider deleting this. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete This is a sort of okay written article, but on the other hand, I've never heard of this "notable war veteran". Mixed thoughts about this.. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 20:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your having heard of anyone or anything within Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to whether or not it should be included, please restate your !vote in light of an applicable guideline or policy such as WP:V and see the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military project for guidelines on what is considered notable within that framework. RFerreira 22:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep per Alkivar. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the precedent has been that recipients of a country's highest military decoration (e.g. the MoH, VC, HSU, or, in this case, the VM) are de facto notable for receiving it (see also WP:MILHIST#Notability). Kirill Lokshin 20:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with above. I'm for inclusion when practical, and I believe notability hurdle has been passed (at least as far as Mil Hist Project has any say). Plus, coordinator is one of the best arbitors in this arena, and he's for inclusion. I'll stand with Kirill. BusterD 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep per Alkivar, provided the reasons why he got the medal are added. If this is his main claim to notability, it should be described in the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like a vanity bio. It would have been better if the sole contributor had published a book and let someone else decide Antoni was worth writing an article about. All the references are to primary sources, except for one about the daughter of the subject of the article (which is not really relevant to the subject of the article anyway). Garrie 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest some more of you go look at Virtuti Militari. In some aspects it is similar to the [[Medal of Honor] - in other aspects it bears no resembelance, being awarded for the actions of troops under command — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarrieIrons (talk • contribs)
  • keep please does not read like vanity and all medal of honor recipients and equivalents should be included here Yuckfoo 22:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Alkivar. As for a possible relative having created this, it reads typically WP:NPOV and not the blatent vanity alot of us have been exposed to on this website. --Oakshade 22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and try to find some better citations. I'm with Kirill on this one - to include some but not all from different countries seems wrong to me. - xiliquiernTalk 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alkivar and Kirill Lokshin, meets WP:MILITARY#Notability and is presented in a verifiable fashion with neutrally phrased language. To not keep this would be a blatant WP:BIAS toward English speaking recipients of similar awards. RFerreira 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As an FYI, so far as I can tell WP:MILITARY does not have recognised guideline status -- it is a Wikiproject. The bio's sole claim to notability is that at some point, prior to his death at 32, the subject received a Virtuti Militari medal. There is no verifiable source as to why or when such an award was given. In fact, the only reference of such is a Web site list, which itself doesn't source its information -- and lists a dozen Dunins as recipients. How do we even know that this "Antoni Dunin" is the same as the one listed? (Hint: we don't, because it's unverifiable). Further, while the article about the medal claims a comparison to the US Medal of Honor, this appears to be an exaggeration. It may be referred to as "Poland's highest military medal", but there are actually five classes of the award, the last of which has been given out over 4500 10,000 times (since 1939 alone). Compare this to the US Medal of Honor, of which there have fewer than 2000 receipients since the Civil War (during which 1500 were handed out).--LeflymanTalk 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure people are aware of the absence of some convoluted polyguidelinestyleesssay banner from WP:MILHIST; nevertheless, the guidelines on that page represent the consensus of a substantial portion of editors working on military-related topics. How you choose to regard them is, of course, up to you; but I rather doubt that they have less support from the editorial community merely for lack of a banner.
  • (As far as numbers are concerned: so what? The Hero of the Soviet Union was awarded more than 12,000 times, but I doubt anyone is arguing it's somehow less distinguished of an award. Countries that participated in more wars, or had larger military commitments to them, tend to hand out more awards.) Kirill Lokshin 05:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, WP:MILITARY is a Wikiproject, not a WP guideline or policy. Wikiprojects do not trump general WP standards. They are, as pointed out at WP:PROJGUIDE a "social construct" -- they do not set guidelines applicable to the rest of WP, outside of perhaps those particular articles within their participating editors' interest area. In sum, whatever it might say at WP:MILITARY has no bearing on WP:BIO. Likewise, the core points I made have not been addressed: no matter what claim the Virtuti Militari medal might have in the status of Poland's "highest military honors", the 10,000+ recipients of the Class 5 "Silver" medal are simply not notable within the English language Wikipedia. The medal is much closer to the Army's Distinguished Service Cross, which while certainly an honor, is hardly a qualification for Wikipedia. Finally, no one has a verified source that this Antoni Dunin is the actual receipient of this single medal-- again, the sole reference is an unsourced Web site list. Apart from this claim of an award, what else is notable about this individual who died at 32 years of age?--LeflymanTalk 07:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This actually raises a very interesting issue - I would wholeheartly support making WP:MILITARY#Notability an official notability guideline, and I think we need to do this ASAP. That it is not yet is confusing as shown above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recipients of a country's highest military award are blatantly notable, whether awarded for personal gallantry or for leadership. Is it logical to delete people like this and keep Z list celebrities just because they have acres of tabloid rubbish written about them and live in the computer age? It certainly seems to be if you're a deletionist and worship at the shrine of the great god Googlehits. I despair sometimes! -- Necrothesp 00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to neutral here. I, possibly wrongly, assumed that this officer had been awarded one of the higher grades of the decoration. Rereading the description, I think that probably only the top four classes are automatically notable and the fifth is not (although recipients may be on a case-by-case basis) - this is in line with my own policy on British decorations that only holders of the VC and GC are automatically notable, plus those who have won one of the next highest awards twice or any other award (or combination) three times. We therefore need to know which class of the Virtuti Militari this officer received. -- Necrothesp 11:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recipient of Virtuti Militari is a pretty good claim to notability. However, the nominator's concerns need to be addressed. As it stands, it may fail WP:COI; all but one of the reference links are WP:SELF, so it's pretty much WP:OR, and thus unverified. Ohconfucius 05:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article doesn't even state why he received the medal, nor give any references except one referring mostly to the subject's daughter's engagement. If it was that notable, his relative surely would have put it in the article. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per Kirill Lokshin. Since he's the Mil Hist head, I think he'd know about what's considered notable for a mil hist subject. WP:Music decides about bands, Mil Hist decides on soldiers... Spawn Man 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep That he won the medal indicates notability. That we can confirm he won the medal also claims so. However, all unreferenced biographical information in the article needs to be removed and the article needs to then be tagged as a stub and tagged for expansion. As Virtuti Militari medal winner, he merits an article. However, we need to be able to verify other information before we can add it. The information needs to be verified by existing in other, external sources. The Detroit Free Press article is intriguing, but it is not specifically linked to any facts in the article; if we could do so it would help a great deal. --Jayron32 04:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep as per Kirill Lokshin's suggestion of improvment of article on military decoration.--Dryzen 18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This debate reminds me of the recent AfD debate here, which was also an article apparently created by someone doing genealogical research. While these editors have every right to be proud of the sacrifices of their forebears, in both cases the only claim to notability for our purposes was military service; practically everything else in both articles was original genealogical research or tangential padding. Ancestor cruft is a trickle now; it will likely be a flood in the future. Prepare accordingly. —Kevin 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The difference is that not everyone's ancestor has won their country's top military honour! Most of them can therefore be speedied as completely non-notable. -- Necrothesp 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It would be nice if that were true, but as the other debate showed, the notability guidelines can become fuzzy in individual cases. Canny genealogists should usually be able to avoid speedy deletion by turning a traditionally non-notable biography into one that at least makes a weak case for notability. In this article, for example, someone has created an article where normally there would be a one-line entry in something like "List of the 10,000 people who have won the Virtuti Militari". That's fine—it's an important honor, let's have articles on all 10,000 people. Other genealogists, however, undoubtedly feel that their ancestor's achievements are of similar (i.e., 1 in 10,000) distinction. This is just the tip of the genealogy iceberg, I tell ya. —Kevin 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I think you're being unnecessarily pessimistic. I have myself speedy deleted at least two genealogical articles about gentlemen with worthy but not especially notable war service. If someone just does their job, however competently, has not held a senior position and has not received any recognised state reward then they meet speedy deletion criteria without needing to be AfDed. -- Necrothesp 01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I hope you're right. Meanwhile, I would encourage others to write and apply notability guidelines in such a way as to screen out genealogy cruft, and to strictly adhere to WP:NOR and WP:Verify whenever they catch a whiff of genealogy. Obviously you and others here are already on the case; keep up the good work. —Kevin 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on "highest military decoration" argument. Will this open the floodgates to 10,000 articles about Polish military heroes? Probably not, but if it did, I wouldn't see that as a problem. JamesMLane t c 11:07, 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 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Baddiley[edit]

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

A newsreader at an early stage of his career for a radio station with single-digit ratings is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Its just a job. dramatic 07:24, 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 no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 16:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodryg Dunin[edit]

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

Non-notable bio; uncited, entirely Original Research, contributed by the apparent great-grand-daughter of the subject. This does not mean that the subject might not have been a good or interesting person; he just wasn't notable/noted in any particular field for a contribution meriting recognition in an encyclopedia. One's ancestry may be important to oneself, but it's generally frowned upon to use Wikipedia for self-promotion of a biographical sort. LeflymanTalk 07:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - verifiability concerns, check ghits. MER-C 08:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. If you add -Elonka, you get 17 distinct hits and most of them look like Wiki mirrors anyway. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, unless someone can come up with some reliable sources. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy That's apparently what they did with this page on the Polish Wikipedia. The author (Elonka Dunin) apparently has been spreading copies her family tree around the web quite a bit. I thought Rodryg might get an automatic inclusion as a count, but apparently in Poland being a count is roughly as notable as being a Kentucky colonel, and he and his family are not on the list of Polish magnates. He did get an article in the Polski Słownika Biograficzny,(see this list) for what it's worth. I don't doubt other references could be drummed up by the author, the question to me is notability. Weak keep Looks like notability has been established sufficiently, if not strongly. Tubezone 11:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Sarah. Consider this stricken if WP:RS is fufilled and therefore notability established. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and please do not userfy this or similar material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though I'll agree that there's very little Google-able information, there are multiple references in Polish (which are listed in the References section). For example, it's easy enough to doublecheck that Rodryg Dunin is listed in the Polish Biographical Dictionary (Polski Slownik Biograficzny), which affirms notability. A transcript of the original Polish can be seen at Talk:Rodryg Dunin. --Elonka 19:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I can't see why we would delete this, article makes a claim to notability. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he is notable for the Polski Slownik Biograficzny, who are we to argue otherwise?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please if it is notable enough for polski słownik it is also notable enough for an encyclopedia not limited by paper Yuckfoo 22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's be clear here: according to its article, there are over 25,000 names in the 42 volumes of the "Polish Biographical Dictionary." That to me doesn't raise it to the notability requirements of WP:BIO for the English Wikipedia; for the Polish WP, sure. However, Wikipedia is not a "Who's Who" directory of geneological entries, nor is it a memorial to our deceased ancestors.--LeflymanTalk 02:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of notability, it's a vanity bio using the contributors own work as primary references. This same contributor relentlessly demands secondary references on articles she deems unworthy and nominates for deletion so she should hold herself to the same standard (or stop being so relentless in demanding every article be fully referenced from secondary / tertiary sources)Garrie 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undecided. Did the same contributor write the Polish Biographical Dictionary as well? RFerreira 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To my knowledge, the entry in the Polish Biographical Dictionary was written in 1928, about 30 years before I was born. --Elonka 23:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he is notable enough for the Polski słownik biograficzny, the Polish equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography, he is notable enough for Wikipedia. But anything based on oral family tradition and not verifiable through published sources should really be removed for the time being (until it has been published in a journal article or some other citable publication). Once that has been done, neither notability nor verifiability seems to be in question. Upp◦land 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland ... it certainly needs cleanup to only verifiable information... but I believe the notability criteria is passed.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: same, but stronger, concerns as for Antonin. Added to that, this article is pretty blatantly un-NPOV. My inclination is to delete, but will hold my vote for now. Ohconfucius 05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove unverified facts until we can specifically link them to sources. We have sources to use, but we have no way to link the sources to specific facts. If the facts asserted are linked via inline citations, we can keep them. There may be a COI problem here, but that is a cleanup problem, not a deletion one. This person seems notable enough by the references listed at the end of the article. --Jayron32 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I disagree with Leflyman's view that someone might be notable enough for the Polish WP but not the English WP. English-speaking readers might want to know about notable Poles. This article has no interwiki link, though. The editors working on the Polish-language Wikipedia would be better placed to evaluate the Polski Slownik Biograficzny listing and other issues. If the Polish WP has an article, this should be an automatic Keep; if not, I'm undecided. JamesMLane t c 11:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is one encyclopedia page in the Polish Wikipedia re the Dunin family that mentions Rodryg Dunin, other info on him in the PL WP apparently is on Elonka's userpage. I would note that while the Polish Wikipedians are very active (more articles than the Spanish version), they still only have about 1/6th the number of articles of the English version, it may just be a case where they haven't drilled far enough down the stack of articles that need to be written to get to Rodryg yet. Also, apparently Elonka doesn't write in Polish ;-) That reminds me, I'm thirsty for a frosty bottle of piwo. Tubezone 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With notable historic figures that aren't exactly George Washington, I assume there will be zero ghits and am surprised people use the google test on them. The print references cited above and in the article satisfy the "non-trivial published works" clause of WP:BIO. Notable in Poland does not mean non-notable for an English language encyclopedia. --Oakshade 22:34, 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. DS 17:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpesh Sharma[edit]

Entirely written by User:Kalpesh Sharma. I could find only one reliable link[30] that doesn't indicate any notability. Talk:Kalpesh Sharma has been edited by a single ip user (59.95.198.207) who has signed the posts as different people from different cities. The page contains blabber about significance of the subject. 59.95.198.207 has been blocked for repeatedly blanking/removing content from the article on Ankit Fadia. User:Shriganesh is a possible sockpuppet of User:Kalpesh Sharma (uploaded Image:Portfolio.JPG, Kalpesh Sharma's "Portfolio"), and has been vandalizing the article on Ankit Fadia (see Special:Contributions/Shriganesh. Also note that User:Kalpesh Sharma's first edit[31] was vandalism at Ankit Fadia. utcursch | talk 07:36, 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 keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of George W. Bush[edit]

Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a WP:POVFORK of George W. Bush in which information is cherry picked and placed in this article with a bias. As it is criticism it is never going to be possible to achieve WP:NPOV. Criticism should be covered in the main article, presented in an NPOV way, not in a POVFORK such as this.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I made a minor formatting fix to the nomination.Raven1977 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Criticism of Bush has been a major issue in his presidency and thus warrants an article. It is important and possible to provide the article a NPOV.--Wadeperson (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge Material is relevant, but splitting off criticism into separate articles is not warranted. Some of the material can be merged into the Presidency of George W. Bush article and/or relevant sub-articles all while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. I noticed that a criticism of Obama article has been deleted twice as a POV fork. Happyme22 (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge The nominator has used the same "argument" for deletion as I have on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin. To use a further argument I have also used on the VVP article, and this is in the context of the VVP, but is also relevant to this article...As people are now saying that Criticism of... articles should have both positive and negative points mentioned, isn't this still just a POVFORK? Think about it, take, Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy. This does not belong in a criticism article but in Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy, which has its own article Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Domestic_policy should be in a section of Vladimir Putin called Domestic policy, and perhaps have its own article Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin. (something that I am currently working on ideas for). ALL of these issues should be covered in their separate sections which do or don't currently exist, not in a POVFORK; by ensuring that the information is included in the relevant sections of the main article (which I will attest to, all information in this article is present in Vladimir Putin), this is the only way that coherence can be achieved and further WP:NPOV. This goes not only for this article, but it is my opinion on ALL criticism of articles. Additionally, and unfortunately, these criticism articles are not written in the context of academic criticism (which by definition covers all sides), but in the context of basic criticism, they are not meant to be NPOV. Once relevant material is merged into relevant articles, it should be deleted. --Russavia Dialogue 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia, please stop misrepresenting wikipedia guidelines, as I wrote in the other AfD, WP:POVFORK states: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."
Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit. travb (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not misrepresenting anything. Common sense would tell one that negative criticisms (which is all that these articles are in the first place) are best dealt with in the main article and/or other subsidiary articles. But of course, if we want to keep this project amateurish, then sure, let's create negative criticisms of everything. We can start absolute crap such as Criticism of Australia, Criticism of United Airlines, Criticism of Star Wars, Criticism of the PlayStation 3, Criticism of the Washington Post, Criticism of Queen Elizabeth and Criticism of cats (the dog lovers would like to work on that one I am sure). You may be an inclusionist, but at some point common sense should prevail, and I ask mind you not to misrepresent my position again...I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. --Russavia Dialogue 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Keep, but maybe a rename might be in order. To say that the man has received a large amount of criticism in his tenure would be an understatement. Far too much than can be adequately covered in his own article without bloating it to excess. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What could an article full of negative views and criticisms be renamed to? I've proposed that the material be merged into the Presidency of George W. Bush article and/or relevant sub-articles all while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. I've worked on the main Bush article, and it deals prety well with criticisms of the president; nothing from this criticism article should be moved into the main article, rather we should create a better, fairer picture of President Bush by placing the positives right next to the negatives and not lump the bad into a POV fork, which this is. An Obama article regarding crticisms has been deleted twice as a POV fork and rightly so. The same applies here. Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I don't know. I'm not sure if "criticism" is a good way of putting it, but I'm not sure what ELSE it could be. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is one of the most criticized U.S. presidents, both domestically and internationally, and the encyclopedic and well referenced criticisms would overwhelm the Bush article. Edison (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read my response to the comment right above yours regarding WEIGHT and the main Bush article. Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to comment on this: to say that he is one of the most criticized presidents is not a fact. You have to consider that criticism of a sitting president is going to be intense. The huge surge in the size of the internet as a whole, and a general increase of media and opinion outlets means that much more criticism of anyone is available to each member of the public. The fact that you've seen more criticisms of Bush does not mean that he has genuinely been more criticised than any other president, the huge increase of information sharing since he took office just means more of it has reached you. For example, I'm sure that Lincoln was just as controversial, but the average citizen would see only criticism in the form of an editorial in the local newspaper and word of mouth. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a very strong keep, as the best way of keeping the main article under control. Probably we do need a general discussion of this type of article; it is not necessarily a POV fork. I think a reasonable degree of forking by what I wll cll "aspect" is necessary on the really major controbersial topics to keep the articles coherent. Both this and Putin count, as such, for similar reasons: as I said there, otherwise this would overbalance the rest of the article. for historical figures, it is possible to integrate this--see the article on Stalin for a good example--but for contemporary ones this is the best we are likely to manage. DGG (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, whether the subject is historical or contemporary, there is no reason that all articles should not follow the Stalin article example, because that is how one would expect it to read in a professional publication, such as an encyclopaedia. All it takes is for us all to wake up to the fact of what it is that we are trying to build here; we don't see other publications doing things such as this, and it is these types of things which makes WP look like a wannabe and amateurish. --Russavia Dialogue 06:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Presidency of George W. Bush as a focus upon criticism is inherently not NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can never be anything but a POV fork. Jtrainor (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a "Public perception" or "Presidency" article... yes, Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president because of Iraq and the subprime mortgage crisis. He also has the highest approval rating of any president, after 9/11. It's a WEIGHT issue to be so negative when he does hold a record for being viewed that positively. Sceptre (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that 3 of the 15 Criticism articles (all 15 still on wikipedia) which were nominated for deletion were nominated by Sceptre were closed the same day Speedy Keep, WP:SNOW and WP:POINT, another was closed "Snowball Keep, Everyone voted to keep" (Scientology controversies) travb (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As per WP:POVFORK:
    "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."
    Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit
    Further, criticism articles are common, and are not considered POVforks, they are WP:Split articles, such as Criticism of Vladimir Putin, Criticism of Tony Blair around 100 more:
I could go on, google list 152 wikipedia pages,[32] but I think the point has been adequately made.
Of the 15 Criticism articles which have been put up for deletion, only one was deleted, and it was recreated two years later (linux). The overwhelming majority of AfDs were closed keep (12), and 1/3 (5) where closed speedy keep.
Not only does policy support such criticism articles, but the overwhelming consensus (15 out of 15 articles up for deletion in the past are still on wikipedia) is to keep such articles.
travb (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If editors are going to cite universally accepted policy and guidelines which they expect other editors to follow WP:POVFORK, then it is reasonable to show that articles such as this one are also universally accepted.
You state that each case is different, yet in the next sentence you use the Obama deletion as an example to bolster your viewpoint. You can't have it both ways.
The Obama speedy deletions are covered more on the this article's talk page.
travb (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not about integration with the main article or whether criticism articles should remain separate or not. The need for subarticles is based on the amount of information to be communicated. Bush has certainly generated enough fodder for an appropriate subarticle. That it's not complimentary is not an issue, witness Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, one of the sorriest examples of bashing (U.S. more evil than Stalin at his worst) which editors defend to the proverbial death. PetersV       TALK 21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Criticism of George Bush is a fact, not a point of view. Encyclopedias record facts, they do not need to endorse them. Duh. In any case, deleting the page would not change his reputation as probably the worst President since Warren Harding, if not even further back. It's strange that someone would even try to get this deleted. Wikidea 13:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: there are plenty of other venues (articles) to refer criticisms. Any criticisms or praises of an individual should be in the prose with the relevant topic, i.e. Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Having a collection of criticism seems to be about as unencyclopedic as it gets, because it serves with no balance or context. Also, consider this: how long would an article titled Praise of George W. Bush last? I think a lot of editors may be losing objectivity and voting based on thier political views. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a valid issue from his presidency. Many other criticisms article exist, so why shouldn't this one? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Many other criticism articles exist. this one is too big to merge into the main article. We should strive to give info to the reader.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:POINT nomination by a person unhappy with the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin. There is no real reason offered in the nomination. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 23:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I agree with WP:POINT, you will see that nominator is User:Muscovite99, who voted (may as well not allude that these AfD's are anything but a vote, because common sense is thrown out the window all too often) keep based upon the existence of the very same article that he has now nominated whilst that AfD was running its course. But seeing as there are plenty of merge and delete votes, there is no reason to not let this run its course also, and hopefully some common sense will prevail. --Russavia Dialogue 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I'll point out -- again -- that the idea that "criticism is inherently POV" is wrong, both by common sense and by Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, it's obvious to anybody who has been paying attention to world affair that criticism of Bush is a very large topic with considerable notability, with no lack of WP:RS in sight. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to deny that my nomination had been encouraged by Russavia's nomination that he has referred to. But there is a great actual difference between the two articles. Putin's criticism ought, in rights, be named "Allegations about criminal activity of Putin's regime" as most of the "criticism" is in fact just that; whereas Bush's is essentially partisan (party political) bluster and posturing, which is the integral part of any proper democracy's political life. Apart from that, a healthy discussion was generated and broadened, i think.Muscovite99 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Vladimir Putin eats babies for breakfast? We've got a reliable source that says he doesn't eat babies for breakfast, which given that denial there must be accusations out there that he does eat babies for breakfast? As evidenced by Putinism, you only are interested in presenting the most grotesque image possible, at least you have the decency on that article to admit that you don't even allude to maintaining any degree of POV. But funny is that your argument just now in regards to Bush is exactly the same as with Putin - the Putin criticism article is also partisan; i.e. those who are opposed to Putin...where is the 85% Russian POV in that article? By the way, Sergey Viktorovich sends his regards. --Russavia Dialogue 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of criminal activity of Putin's regime is the most minor of transgressions, that's merely about money. It's the rewriting of history taught throughout Russia, strong-arm tactics with the former republics and near abroad seeking to reimpose Russian hegemony, et al. that are an issue. "Criticism" of Putin, "criticism" of Bush are both totally valid as worthy encyclopedic topics.
   Using syllogisms such as Putin "eats babies for breakfast" to advance arguments with charges of grotesqueness and indecency is nothing but a collection of red herrings.
   If you wish to address what is "grotesque" then perhaps you'd like to suggest to Putin he adopt a more critical view of the Soviet past. PetersV       TALK 02:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not about Putin vs. Bush. It's about facts. Solar Apex (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killa Wali[edit]

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

NN rapper. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 08:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 08:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BAND. Though I'm all about the Earl Campbell throwback, the subject's album gets all of 3 ghits (WP & MySpace). Nothing on AMG for artist or album. Caknuck 08:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also, "The label released his debut album, Texas Screwed Young (2003-2004) which had sold over 2 copies" (emphasis mine). This almost borders on a non-assertion of notability. MER-C 08:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:06, 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 11:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Math Education in the Untited States[edit]

Criticism of Math Education in the Untited States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Well, if the author of this article is American, it looks like we have sufficient grounds for an article titled "Criticism of Spelling Education in the United States". All humour aside, I'm serious about getting POV forks off Wikipedia. This is a fairly simple one; orphaned, POV, and reads like an essay. Recommendation to delete. theProject 08:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 08:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article had potential, but the author hasn't touched (or anything else on WP) it for two months. Unless someone wants to dedicate the time to expand/complete/rework it, then it needs to go. Caknuck 08:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost all education on all subjects is criticised by someone somewhere. orphaned POV fork - Peripitus (Talk) 10:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Seem abandoned, almost in mid-thought. B.Wind 10:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads as a short and unfinished POV essay.--Anthony.bradbury 17:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this was Essaypedia, then maybe, but read nomination. The RSJ 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Caknuck. --- RockMFR 00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per above, but maybe some sourced info can be put in mathematics education? --Howrealisreal 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tulkolahten 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Dakota 06:02, 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 CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Flip Side[edit]

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

Non-notable webcomic, likely WP:COI issues. Danny Lilithborne 09:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if it's "non-notable" several people care about the webcomic and are wondering about its whereabouts and still want to read the comics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaracudaAgent (talk • contribs)

The author wants it to be kept so that he can have a database of his work on WikiPedia. He commented that if it gets noticed more he may continue the series and that's what we've wanted for the series.


We are not doing this for publicity, we are doing this because Wikipedia is a valuable database and he wants it here so that he can have his work be remembered. Not necessarily for publicity. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BaracudaAgent (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comment You're contradicting yourself. "having his work be remembered publicly" is the definition of publicity (the definition in the article says "managing the public's perception of a subject", and getting it noticed more is modify the public perception). ColourBurst 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a free public database or webhost! And is certainly not a tool to get noticed! (That's called "spamming".) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! And the author's wishes are immaterial. If he wants a database of his work, he should set up his own database or find a free public database, and not abuse Wikipedia for storing inappropriate material! There's always MySpace or the Internet Archive. Xtifr tälk 10:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - there is no assertion of notability. This borders on speedy deletion territory. B.Wind 09:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfication to a user page (subpages are OK) is not an option because it then becomes speedily deletable spam. MER-C 12:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom and per supporters clear admission that these articles were not created with the intent of improving Wikipedia, but were intended as promotional material. Do not userfy, as there is no indication that this topic will ever be encyclopedia-worthy, and user-space is not provided as a free public database; it is provided to help improve Wikipedia! Xtifr tälk 10:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The text of the article, insofar as it relates to the author's views,--Anthony.bradbury 18:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC) does not appear wholly to agree with the supporting views expressed here. But clearly non-notable promotional material.[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, no verified information from third-party reputable sources, Wikipedia is not an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 21:02, 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 11:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agilista[edit]

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

Non-notable term, unreferenced and possibly original research. MartinDK 09:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's not enough information about the term to make it beyond a stub. Even if is a common and noteworthy term (which is doubtful), it could be covered in Agile software development in one sentence. -Anþony (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism. No other articles link to this one (one userpage, one redirect with a hyphenated form of the neologism, and two from the AfD are all that link to it). B.Wind 11:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn neologism, 504 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 12:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jayden54 14:38, 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 11:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car insurance in Ireland[edit]

Car insurance in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am sending this back to AfD. Nothing is being done to improve this. Just empty promises of improvement. It is clearly original research and I fail to see how this qualifies as encyclopedia material. An essay for school maybe... but not an article in an encyclopedia. MartinDK 09:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, since it feels as though something could be done if someone who knew enough about the topic took to it. That said, the fact that they haven't (even though there's been a bumpy AfD history) would suggest that knowledge and wherewithal aren't found in combination. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article hasn't improved at all since it was first nominated for AfD. -Anþony (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the first AfD — there is room for an informative, well-sourced encyclopaedia article on the subject of car insurance in Ireland but this is not it and, looking at the history, it's not going to be it any time soon. Delete. Demiurge 10:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scrape clean and start anew. I can see the topic as part of a larger article comparing vehicle insurance with various countries, but the one that is presented here seems to have hit a dead end. Time to put this version out of its misery. B.Wind 11:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Car insurance ireland for an earlier debate that was closed as no consenssus. The second nomination was closed as keep as being premature so soon after the first. After two months of no improvement, I am more convinced than ever that this is simply original research that should be deleted. And thanks to Martin for getting around to nominating this before I got around to it. Eluchil404 20:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 20:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whole bunch of nothing. Yankee Rajput 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too much OR. WMMartin 18:07, 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 Redirect to 5 Takes. Agent 86 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Schirm[edit]

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

WP:N, no information that isn't already in the main 5 Takes article, other than someone trying to promote his MySpace. ⇔ EntChickie 10:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already merged and redirect - crz crztalk 14:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has not been redirected. The article is still there and the history shows no signs of the title ever being a redirect. Are you thinking of something else. --65.95.17.168 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the 5 Takes article, because this article offers nothing more. Jayden54 14:37, 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 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Patankar[edit]

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

Orphaned article. No sign of notability. Some of the Google results that seem to establish notability are actually Wikipedia mirrors[33]. Being a part of Kalyanji Anandji's "Little Wonders" doesn't make one notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to hear from an editor from India on this regarding notability of this person on the subcontinent, but until I do, I must rely upon the limited access to information about the subject... which points to lacking in notability and failing WP:MUSIC. For the time being, weak delete. B.Wind 11:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am from India (nominator). utcursch | talk 11:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I shall defer to you on this matter. Delete. B.Wind 11:46, 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 11:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Feminism Political Party of the United States of America[edit]

National Feminism Political Party of the United States of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tagged for notability since June 27, 2006. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article consists of a list of officers - all one of them. Party only two years old and barely registers on Dogpile, let alone Google. Virtually no media coverage. Last two lines are copyvio from their website. Strong delete. B.Wind 11:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, their website claims to have run four candidates in the recent midterms:
  1. Veronica Hambacker: no mention of the NFPP on her website, appears to be a Democrat [34]
  2. Carol Gay: another Democrat; no mention of the NFPP on her list of endorsements
  3. Florice Hoffman: yet another Democrat [35]; doesn't mention any endorsement [36]
  4. Dan Rodriguez Schlorff : Green Party [37]. (He does mention their endorsement though [38])
So it looks like these are not NFPP candidates, the NFPP just endorsed them (and the NFPP is not sufficiently notable for even these not-particularly high-profile candidates to mention the endorsement on their website). Delete as unverifiable and not notable. Demiurge 11:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and no sources at all. Jayden54 14:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above. Unverified and apparently highly non-notable. -- Kicking222 15:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above. As a UK resident, I am happy to state that the claim in the article of representation here is nonsense. I would have said b*llsh*t, but that's probably non-wikipaedic.--Anthony.bradbury 18:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is not verified with independent and reliable sources.-- danntm T C 21:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nope. Get rid of it. Yankee Rajput 03:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This party is not listed as a political party at Politics1.com, which lists some pretty obscure parties. Furthermore, not only does the NFPP not have almost a million registered voters, I don't even believe that they claim to have almost a million registered voters, since that could easily be proven false. As Ballot Access News indicates, there is no party other than the Democrats and Republicans with even half a million registered voters in the USA, and the NFPP doesn't even show up among the significant minor parties. --Metropolitan90 03:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn notable, unverified.--Dakota 06:05, 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 for copyvio; redirect to Habbo Hotel. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-27 07:28Z

Habbox[edit]

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

Page about a non-notable website that reads like an advert for the site J2thawiki 11:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an advert for the site, it is a history of the most popular website based on Habbo Hotel. Mastablastauk 11:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC) — Mastablastauk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Wikipedia has the follow as regards notability for websites (from Wikipedia:Notability (web):

Web-specific content[1] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[2] except for the following:
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[3]
      • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
  2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[4]
  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.[5]

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

Which of the above criteria applies to the Habbox site? --J2thawiki 11:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

An article about this has been added to the page.

--Mastablastauk 11:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to copyright concerns and non-notability. As for the keep !vote which cited WP:WEB above, this fails point 1 because the mention, as opposed to the required mentions, is trivial and no evidence is asserted to meet points 2 and 3. MER-C 12:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Jayden54 14:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Habbo Hotel and merge. Habbox is too small a subset of the whole Habbo Hotel community to warrent a whole artice. meshach 18:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--LewstherinII wrote:

"I feel this should be deleted. The article mainly advertises the site itself, it is not in any way very historical and is simply a fansite for a business owned by Sulake.

I would like to point out this: Habbox is not even recognised by Sulake as an Official Website. That is, the site it is a fansite of, Habbo Hotel, has not included Habbox on it's Habbo Hotel Official Fansite list. As the images of Habbo Furni on Habbox belong to Sulake, which hasn't recognised it as an official fansite, putting this on Wikipedia is bad idea.

I may be new to the Wiki community but I will say this. This article is an advertisement for a fansite that was not accepted by Sulake Ltd as a proper fansite, it is an unimportant and trivial topic ('Habbox') with trivial media references, and using this article may cause copyright concerns.

This has no real relevance, scientific or otherwise, as an informative article nor do people need to be informed of what is, in essence, a fansite for something else. That site that it is a fansite for (Habbo Hotel) has an Official List of fansites, with information about every fansite. And if Habbox doesn't feature there, than it is not recognised by the company and therefore was chosen not to be advertised by the company!

Habbo Hotel Official Fansite list, is found here - http://www.habbo.co.uk/community/fansites/fansitesgeneral.html Note, Habbox is not amoung them.

In summary, this article has no real relevance and unfortunately no real right to be here, it's just an advertisement really and not informative for a relevant topic. Should be deleted." - LewstherinII 4:45PM AEST

  • Speedy delete and so tagged. This is spam of the very worst sort, with most of the text C&P directly from the Habbox website. It also attempts to circumvent deletion debate by tagging on claims of notability (press reviews), which unfortunately for the author do not protect from speedy deletion. In fact, it is only one press review, the principal subject of which is Habbo, and we have to look very carefully indeed to find the mention of Habbox. Ohconfucius 06:06, 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. The headcount isn't unequivocal, but the issues of WP:V problems and lack of substantial media coverage have not been adequately addressed by those preferring to keep the article, if at all. Sandstein 16:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strafford Club[edit]

Nom for deletion on basis of lack of notability. Pages on student clubs are routinely created on WP, it would seem, and just as routinely deleted - for good reason. Clubs and societies should only have WP articles if otherwise notable - which this one isn't. Otherwise, we are just providing free web hosting services and creating a misleading impression of notability.--SandyDancer 11:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and by the looks of it those non-wiki google hits aren't all about this club... there seems to be several Strafford Clubs --SandyDancer 12:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - If there is several then it makes this article more notable, perhaps we could include information about the others. I think it certainly is notable when one of the sources listed, and, yes, there are sources, is The Daily Telegraph.--Couter-revolutionary 13:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I don't agree that a few non-notable student clubs become, if aggregated, notable. --SandyDancer 14:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to agree with a lot. Please list why it is not notable, this article has existed for a while now and no one else has raised doubt as to its notoriety before. The article defends itslef through the fact that national newspapers have sourced it and many notable firgures belong to it.--Couter-revolutionary 14:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not let others comment and see what the outcome is? This is a student club. No assertion whatsoever is made that it is notable in the article, and there is a major issue with verifiability. --SandyDancer 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a non notable student club. There are not really any claims to notability in the article, so this could be speedied. But normal process is fine too. Obina 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have said why it is notable. No one is saying why it is not, other than stating that it is not. Just because you do not want it to be notable does not make it so. Couter-revolutionary 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely impossible to say why something is NOT notable. Think about it! Emeraude 15:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is possible...one could say something such as, being quoted in The Daily Telegraph as a Monarchist Dining Club is a clear example of why they are not notable &c. Of course that is a sarcastic example, I am telling you why this Club is notbale and find it hard to see why you disagree? I think some users find it hard to believe a Club supporting the Monarchy is notable, perhaps if they were a Marxist Dining Club with numerous Comrades as members you wouldn't be so quick to question it...--Couter-revolutionary 15:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires judgement as all the AFD discussions show. Not all editors agree. For a club, my judgement is driven by the guidelines - multiple non trivial 3rd party sources.Obina 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. And, for the record, I would probably urge to delete the Marxist Dining Club as well, unless there were multiple non-trivial references from reliable sources stating its importance. -- Kicking222 15:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is The Daily Telegraph a trivial reference?--Couter-revolutionary 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is clearly trivial - the Tunnocks Caramel Cream Wafer Appreciation Society and the Ultimate Frisbee Club, also student clubs at St Andrews University, are also mentioned. The article isn't about this club - it is about the university and makes passing, tongue-in-cheek mentions of clubs Prince William might have considered joining when he enrolled at it. Are you seriously suggesting that this makes the club notable? Do you seriously contend this club is notable? If so why?--SandyDancer 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that Thomas Wentworth, after whom the club is named, is notable does not make the club notable.And repeated edits by User:Couter-revolutionary (is that how you meant to spell it?) do not change this fact.--Anthony.bradbury 18:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no edits to this article other than to correct links. Please do not imply I am doctoring the information.--Couter-revolutionary 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Righto, here is why it is notable:
It has many notable honourary members (see the article)
It is supported (financially and otherwide) by the Constitutional Monarchy Association
It has been in existence since 1993, it is not as if someone founded it yesterday and decided to write an article for it.
It is one of numerous Strafford Clubs, this adds to it notariety as they exist in other universities
It is a monarchist group with a high total membership at a major UK university.
I do hope that's enough to get you all started--Couter-revolutionary 18:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is 30 members really a "high total membership"? I won't bother shooting down the other points you made (none of which necessarily indicate notability), but thought it worth pointing out that one of them was factually inadequate. --SandyDancer 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has more than 30 members, there are 30 resident members, and also honourary and old members, who apparently attend. I know, for a fact, although I was not in attendance, that their 10th anniversary dinner had 48 in attendance. I have seen a photograph to prove this.--Couter-revolutionary 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48 isn't a high membership either. --SandyDancer 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48 people attending the dinner of a student society seems high to me..It is famous within St. Andrews too, so I've been told; I presume that's why the DT knows they exist!--Couter-revolutionary 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph article also mentioned several other clubs - and that passing reference is literally the only reference you have been able to find in a third-party source. --SandyDancer 21:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about:
[39] and
[40]. Did you bother to look for other external sources?--Couter-revolutionary 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well clearly you didn't until prompted to do so by this debate, did you? And then all you have come up with are two references which couldn't be more trival and passing if you'd tried. I only found the single mention of the club in those two articles by using a word search. The articles aren't about the club - they contain no information about it other than that it is "all male". All they demonstrate is that the club exists - existence and being connected with monarchism are not sufficient to warrant a wikipedia article. --SandyDancer 23:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What it shows is the Club is notbale enough for newspapers to merit mentioning it, even if it is in passing. One wonders how many references are made that aren't on the internet!--Couter-revolutionary 11:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article makes definite assertions of notibility. Can these be referenced? The "honorary members" would make the article notable, however, have these honorary memberships been accepted by the recipients? Encise 23:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]
Although I am not a member of the Club, in any form, and am not directly acquainted with it even I know, for a fact, that these honourary memberships have been accepted, they were given as a result of those personages having addressed the Club.--Couter-revolutionary 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not feel that by having notable honorary members would necessarily make any association notable, regardless of whether the nominee accepted or not. These hon memberships are meant to confer an honour upon the member to which it is granted, and the connection in the other direction is considerably weaker. The person would not have volunatarily joined the association. Furthermore, it is common practice of student political associations to have sitting members of parliament as their hon members, which does not stop consensus from deleting the former as not-notable. Ohconfucius 06:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a notable university society that has existed for over a decade, has mentions in the national press and has wide recognition and standing within the university. The Strafford is just as notable as most of the oxford student societies deemed important enough to have articles. An Edwardian Sunday 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the category of Oxford student societies on Wikipedia. If you think any of those fail the notability criteria, like the Strafford Club does, please nominate them for deletion too. However voting to keep this one because there are other culprits out there isn't justified. --SandyDancer 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read them all, but the ones I have I do not think fail notability criteria. The notability guidelines will often leave room for interpretation where there is none to cover specific entities (as there are, for example, for musicians). There isn't to my knowledge any particular policy regarding societies from top universities and there's a profusion of information on them, particularly in the case of those from the Ivy League in the US, that your own take on a set of guidelines isn't in line with the de facto consensus elsewhere on wikipedia. This club is, I believe, sufficiently prominent within the University, sufficiently well-known (and well-connected) outside of it, mentioned independently by the national press and involving (or having involved) a number of very public figures that it satisfies the current guidelines as I have read them. Furthermore, the article is written in an appropriate and encyclopaedic manner and couldn't be considered vanity. I found it quite interesting, and should not want to deny other readers the information it contains by, what seems to me, a rather rash case of deletionism. An Edwardian Sunday 15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been referred to in passing in press articles, alongside other clubs that don't have articles. The fact they've appointed people honorary members and those people haven't written them a letter back and rudely refused doesn't denote notability. You assertion that the society is well known in the university simply isn't verified. As for the content of the article, half of it doesn't relate to the club and is a duplication of content of another article. --SandyDancer 15:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the media mentions I've seen of it (e.g. this article from the Scotsman) refer to it solely alongside the Kate Kennedy Club, which most certainly does have an article. And your assertion that the honorary members of the society exist merely because they 'haven't written them a letter back and rudely refused' is also completely unverified hypothesis. Now, here we come to a plain case of differing philosophy: you would simply delete the article now and let it be lost to wikipedia; I would keep it and give editors a chance to demonstrate and verify in what capacity honorary members are connected with the club - and, once this has been done, then discuss notability if there is still an issue. By all means add unverifiability tags to statements that should have them - the point of these tags is to encourage editors to add sources and avoid exactly this kind of discussion. You cannot simply create a hypothesis and use it to argue for the removal of what is, for all you can know, not shown to be non-notable. The fact that public figures do have some connection with this club should mean that we should be encouraging contributors to give more details on these connections, with references, not hastily deletionise an otherwise legitimate article on a whim. An Edwardian Sunday 16:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the duration of the AFD process offers a window for verification and assertion of notability. At least one user has attempted to undertake this but has not offered convincing arguments or sources to back them up. The article has been in existence for some time, it is hardly a brand new stub. This isn't a hasty deletion - if I'd wanted that, I would have gone for speedy deletion - as one user pointed out I could have plausibly done so. --SandyDancer 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you were to survey every single statement on wikipedia, I'd be surprised if half a precent of them are verified and sourced. Whilst articles with careful citations are of course much better and easier to work with, the fact remains that the majority of editors, for whatever reasons, tend not to do so. This does not necessarily mean that the information they provide should be removed - if it did, we'd have to delete most of wikipedia. The {{source}} tag exists for this purpose. One of the great strengths of this medium is that such sources can be later ammended when flagged as such. Now, your whole argument for deletion rests on information neither of us have. That being so, I find the case for keeping the article and allowing more people to contribute, expand and source it far more compelling than relying on your own personal revelation of supposed non-notability. The AFD process can indeed provide a window for assessing verifiability or notability, but not both in a case where one is being theorised to rely on the other. If we, for the sake of argument, were to all agree that this club is notable, then there would not be a question of verifiability. The only 'unverified' aspects of the article relevant here seem to revolve around the role played by the various notable people associated with in, in an attempt to judge whether it is sufficient that their notability should somehow rub off on the club; if notability weren't an issue, I don't believe there would be a case for deletion on the grounds of non-verifiability. Hence the whole precept upon which your argument rests is one of pure conjecture. For me to theorise the contrary would hold as much or as little water as your own theory. You have offered no sources yourself to clarify what your argument for non-notability rests on. I find not deleting an otherwise encyclopaeadic article on the grounds of an unproven conjecture a pretty convincing argument myself. An Edwardian Sunday 17:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One sentence in the Telegraph counts as a passing reference, and is inadequate notability on which to hang an article about a small college club. Edison 19:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have not read the discussion, it is mentioned in numerous other newspaper articles too.--Couter-revolutionary 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couter-Revolutionary, that is a very misleading statement. You have searched the entire internet and found two other articles that make entirely passing references to this club. Hardly evidence of notability, and they do nothing for verifiability which is even more important. --SandyDancer 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not searched "the entire internet", thank you very much.--Couter-revolutionary 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you use Google, you search (more or less) the entire internet. That is what a good search engine does. So, yes, you did search the entire internet. --SandyDancer 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As academic as this argument is, I only viewed the first, perhaps five, pages of the Google search.--Couter-revolutionary 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll save you the bother. If you search "Strafford Club" St Andrews, and exclude Wikipedia and its mirrors you are only left with two pages of hits - see here --SandyDancer 23:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There are 42 hits on the Google page! Although I would still be hesitant to argue, as you both appear to have accepted, that newspaper articles are the sole judge of notability.

I have been following your arguments and as an old member of this club can help:

1. This club is a well known feature of St Andrews, both the town and the University. The Club is known to major national institutions as well as students from Universities around the country. It is a major part of University life and carries on a tradition of similar clubs at the University of St Andrews and elsewhere.

2. 30 members a year at a University equates to about 160 overall since the early 90s. It is not larger because numbers are capped and there are strict entry criteria. None the less, having few members is not necessarily a bar to notability. There are continually growing membership numbers and considerable old member involvement (including Annual London meetings). Unlike many student societies, members are expected to take an active part in the Club or resign.

3. Private Clubs are often not keen to release details and finding a club that does should be encouraged. Privacy may also play a part in the limited press coverage.

4. The page does name several Hon. members and I have been to meetings where most of those mentioned (and others who are not) have attended. Applicants are always present when they are made members, so all listed will have attended and know what the Club is about.

5. The information on Wentworth on this page is written in the context of his relevance to this and other Strafford Clubs. It is not a repeat of another page.

6. This is a small but growing club. It has links to other areas of interest such as other Strafford Clubs, Wentworth, Monarchy, student societies, the Hon. Members and Constitutional Monarchy Association. I believe that the pages are of genuine interest and unlike some student societies they go far beyond mere vanity.

7. These pages have been around for a bit of time and are clearly looked at and have been evolved. By all means please use the information above to edit the pages and make them more relevant. Deleting them would remove an interesting article and damage the freedom of information that Wikipedia is supposed to stand up for. 19:06, 30th November 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.132.225 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per original nom. WMMartin 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - it's certainly a very notable club within the University and town, and outside of this, the Chancellor and Honorary Members make it notable. If this were to go, there'd be adequate reason to remove the Bullingdon Club article and more besides. M0RHI | Talk to me 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The Bullingdon Club has had several press articles written about it. The Strafford Club, seemingly, has never enjoyed such attention: it appears it has never received anything other than a couple of passing references in articles about something else related to St Andrews university.
The assertion that this club is notable in the university in town isn't a verified one, and in any case probably (in fact certainly) wouldn't meet Wikipedia's criteria on notability or verifiability.
I'd point out to those drawn to this page out of membership or affection for the club - these deletion debates aren't head counts (and even if they were, this article would still be deleted by the looks of it). You have to justify why the article meets Wikipedia's standards and therefore should be kept. This one clearly doesn't make the cut. --SandyDancer 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is we have no idea of proving what's been written about the Strafford Club, just because it isn't on the internet doesn't mean it hasn't been done. We need to remember this danger. And can I point out also to those wanting to delete this article due to a dislike of the Club and its aims that this is not a head count. It all works both ways.--Couter-revolutionary 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion of notability has been verified by every writer on this page who has visited St Andrews or has been at the University. If you look at the Google search pages the Strafford Club is mentioned in numerous contexts throughout University life, also making it clearly verifiable. It is also true to say that the internet is not the only basis for veritably or notability, the club itself has produced publications which are unavailable on the internet. As I pointed earlier the club is known to a wider audience outside St Andrews, including a number of prominent members and national organisations, besides being part of a wider network of undergraduate dining clubs, many of whom refuse to release any information.
  • KEEP Have a look at the links for the named members, very unusual and prominent for a student society. Sandy Dancer appears to have campaigned against Wiki sites regarding Monarchy. Is this an argument about notability or content? If Sandy Dancer is Republican then it would be logical that the article would appear non-notable to him/her. Not the same conclusion that many others would come to. This looks like an attempt to supress freedom of expression, all veiws should be allowed to be heard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.132.225 (talk • contribs)
Presumably this user isn't aware of the convention of signing and ought not be penalised as such. What they are saying is valuable all the same.--Couter-revolutionary 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I'm not a regular techie on Wikipedia, I only get involved when I really think it matters. I do strongly feel that this article is of sufficient interest to keep, I like to see people standing up for their opinions, no matter how crazy or tongue in cheek. I hope that you will find my earlier argument logical. 4.50pm, 1st December 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.132.225 (talk • contribs)
I realised, and quite agree with what you say.--Couter-revolutionary 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You quite agree with an argument based entirely on disregard for Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability and notability? You agree that consistently not signing comments in a vain attempt to try and influence a debate by appearing to be more than one person? This same anon IP has already posted several times above as the edit history shows. And the speculation about my motives is nonsense. I am not a "republican", I have no strong view either way - hardly an issue in my life. I do however oppose relentless pro-monarchist POV pushing of the kind you favour however. User:Couter-revolutionary, User:Edwardian Sunday and this anon. IP (213.86.132.225) are the only people not to opt for delete here. However, by posting multiple times you may create the impression of a lack of consensus. I hope the admin who closes this debate bears that in mind. --SandyDancer 11:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because users are not overly enthusiastic contributers it doesn't mean what they say here is not of note. Stop trying to rule this page like a Junta. The user with the IP address has stated that they did not know of the convention to sign a contribution. What they say is valuable and should be taken not of. If he were to have said he wanted this article deleted would you ask it to be disregarded as he had not signed the contribution, I think not. I have not contacted any one else to support my views this page, I hope user Sandydancer has not either. Yes, I do have point to view, and yes you did trick me into displaying it on my Talk page. It still doesn't influence my editing, you maybe are influenced by your PoV, some of us aren't.--Couter-revolutionary 12:52, 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. W.marsh 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"sprock"[edit]

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

From the, now removed prod: Non-notable, Googletest: 681 for "sprock anastacia", most saying 'she affectionately refers to her music as "sprock"'. She invented the word, no record of anyone else using it. Article has only one contributor, the article and its contributor both only have one edit, and the article is incorrectly titled. -- RHaworth 12:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What exactly is wrong with this article give suggestions instead of criticism. No one will help to make it better, evryone is saying it's bad with out giving reasons, this is unfair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.110.31 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the whole of this article is already or can be covered by the Anastacia article, where we can already read "The popstar created a sound called Sprock, a fusion of soulfull singing, catchy pop tunes and rock instruments never before used in her albums before." So 'sprock' is perhaps worth a wikidictionary listing, but that's all. The article, if it stays, also needs major spelling/grammar correction. Delete Emeraude 13:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Whpq 13:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Anastacia article rather than delete it, and create a new wiktionary listing (if it's not already there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onur h (talk • contribs)
  • It should be kept and the grammar and spelling should be corrected, it is an important article, and more information would make it better. "KEEP" User:Conor Moroney
    • For some strange reason everyone is against this article, I see nothing wrong with it(ok the grammars a bit off but that can be fixed!)It should be kept, all thes snobs on wiki are ruining everything,
    • The article should stay, in my opinion. I do feel it is rather bare and some pictures and a tad bit more info is needed, but that does mean if should be gotten rid of
    • More info, more accuracy. Keep the bloomin' thing
    • Well from where I'm standing more folk want it to stay so this debate should be closed so we can improve on this artcle
  • Delete per nom and emeraude, also as unsourced. Maybe redirect sprock to Anastacia. Sandstein 23:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this malformed article, and merge/redirect sprock to Anastacia per Sandstein. Danny Lilithborne 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Anastacia (after moving/deleting "sprock" to sprock) until we get some solid sources on the use of "sprock" by other singers. --- RockMFR 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article claims the existence of a genre, and provides a backstory thereto, of music without sources or verification.-- danntm T C 01:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I've moved "sprock" to sprock. --- RockMFR 04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NEO, an artist inventing a word to describe their own work, no demonstration of general use. Show me multiple reliable sources talking about this term then I will change my mind. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we get rid of the word genre, then its all fine. Anyway most of you are not fans, thus not knowing the importance ot this article. All you computer geeks have gotten lost in your own self supieiority to realise that this is needed. Believe me it HAS TO BE KEPT KEEP
  • Everything can be verrified go on to Youtube type in Anstacia interviews and you'll see it, go on to www.freakyenough.com and it will verrify, go onto www.anastacia.com and it will verrify. You are wrong KEEP
    • There's no need to go to Youtube to verify it. As I pointed out above, this information is all in the Wikipedia article Anastacia so it can be verified there. But that's the point isn't it: this article offers nothing new and is at best a dicdef. Emeraude 19:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (And I'm a fan.)[reply]
  • But not everything is covered, why she picked this way of singing, what caused her , and how others have copied, there should be a Sprock section in Anastacia but there's not and anytime i ever edited Anastacia and spoke about sprock e.g. when i added that she wanted edge or when i added that it was a mixture of soulfull sining, pop tunes and rock instruments it was removed, someone got rid of my edits, there is only one sentence on sprock in Anastacia so how can all of what i wrote be covered in Anastacia when most of the info isn't even there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.104.119 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 November 2006
  • I put a little thing a the top of Anastacia to merge Sprock , I can't be bothered to argue any more, no one will obviously say they are wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.111.124 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 December 2006
    • Just saw the text was merged by a copy-paste. Almost all of the text repeats content already in the Anastacia article, and the new text doesn't fit well. It will need a lot of pruning. Gimmetrow 15:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well thats why I put it there so the info could be altered and made better, the section is needed as is a biography section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.81.120 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 December 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel Lane[edit]

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

Article about a street of very dubious notability. Delete per Wikipedia is not an index of every street in every town in America and WP:NOTABILITY MartinDK 13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. And I've never heard of "the world famous "Ada's Varity Store"", so that doesn't help to establish any notoriety either. Emeraude 13:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Neither has Google. One hit which happens to be the article itself... MartinDK 13:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 13:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say "redirect Riverside, Connecticut" under WP:LOCAL but that article doesn't exist either. Delete as a not-notable street in a not-notable suburb. Demiurge 13:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and no sources. Jayden54 14:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Per above--SUIT 20:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hackability[edit]

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

This has been transwikied and is too short and too non-notable a term to remain here. Frankly it sounds like a home made word to me. Is used mostly if not entirely on personal websites/blogs of dubious reliability as sources. MartinDK 13:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update It appears to have been removed from the mainspace at Wiktionary too. MartinDK 13:51, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martinp23 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corey L. Galloway[edit]

Corey L. Galloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:BIO. Minor credits only. - crz crztalk 14:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also it appears that the information especially at the bottom of the article could only have come from the guy himself given I can't find any sources to verify it. MartinDK 14:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was written by Julio A. Rodriguez, if you take the time to look in the edit history. Rodriguez links to his resume from his user page, where it claims he is currently enrolled in Pace, suggesting he might have decided to write about alumni from his program. All of the info is indeed verifiable, here. -- Zanimum 14:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the film awards and shows make him sound notable, until you realise that he played only a small, non-creative part in each of them Demiurge 14:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But his current role is as an executive at a multi-national charitable television production company. Within the organization, I'd imagine he's the moderator between creatives and the rest of the execs. At MTV, was creative director during the development and production of cult series like Invader Zim and Clone High. While he's never been "in the trenches", both seem like true accomplishments. -- Zanimum 14:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Laursen[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:V or WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 14:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Jayden54 14:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being Danish I can tell you that this guy is a high school teacher and by the looks of it I would say this is blatant WP:VANITY MartinDK 14:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and MartinDK. shotwell 16:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC
  • Delete per MartinDK. Also therefore WP:DISHONEST, which does not exist, but should. --Anthony.bradbury 18:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Cain/Genesis[edit]

Curse of Cain/Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced and unreferenced statements in an article mainly consisting of hopeless original research. I see nothing that can be salvaged from this article. MartinDK 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to footnote in article. This is not original research (there are a number of academic articles that have this same comparison, including BYU Studies and Dialogue), however, it is a good reference material for a hotly debated topic (see talk page of Curse of Cain. It should be put into a foot note rather than deleted in entirety. (And actually, Mig, there is a similar article at Curse of Ham. Unless there is a space issue, we can come up with at least one citation on this topic. However, I agree that it would be a better footnote in the article than a sub-page. Unfortunately, it was created prior to the current citation systems. -Visorstuff 15:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are free to move it as you please. You should also cite the multiple academic articles you mentioned. Also, you should really not fill the entire article with citations of the Bible. A mere reference to the texts would be much better.MartinDK 15:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think the problem is that the article is nothing but citations of the Bible. What's missing is any encyclopedic content that tells us what to make of this comparison. It would be better to say something like "Author X notes that the LDS version differs from the King James version in the following ways....A, B, C." I suspect that this could be done in the LDS subsection of the Curse of Cain article. --Richard 03:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Richard 03:59, 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. Martinp23 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damage Protection Container Component[edit]

Damage Protection Container Component (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable invention. I get 0 Google hits outside of Wikipedia. Cannot be verified. MartinDK 15:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Keep Perhaps too trivial to drop into Google; may just qualify for wikipedia. I would not argue either way.--Anthony.bradbury 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. If a source can be produced then maybe Merge / Redirect to Containerization. meshach 18:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Wafulz 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:10, 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, needs some cleanup. Tagged as such. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Role[edit]

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

This article was originally deleted through AfD six months ago. A recreation was speedy deleted as CSD G4 several days ago. A DRV consensus overturned, in light of new information, for which, see the DRV. I will break with form here -- this article requires substantial cleanup to avoid WP:COI and "spam" concerns; therefore, I do call for deletion unless a rewrite/cleanup occurs within the debate's span. Xoloz 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete as not notable, but someone please add the references found in the DRV. I would, except I'm too lazy at 7:30 in the morning. -Amarkov blahedits 15:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup. Very notable, and COI isn't a reason for deletion here. Looks spammy, but that can be edited out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up - It seems Mr. Rolè might pass our criteria, but the article absolutely must be cleaned up. Core content policies are non-negotiable. Chris cheese whine 21:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article is stubbed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article has just been undeleted and relisted after a whole debate that lasted a couple of weeks and after several convintions that the subject was of notability according to Wikipedia. I would edit the article myself but it might not be accepted. Can anyone do it. I can provide all the information required. If I get the go ahead to do it myself then I will.Rolemagic 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks in better shape now. Keep cleaned-up version for now. Chris cheese whine 00:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stub as subject meets WP:BIO.B.Wind 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had originally proposed deleton of the article but new information on notability is now available, and indeed it proves he is indeed notable enopugh to have a place on the wiki. Maltesedog 13:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Painful to read, but Keep. Needs spit and polish, though. WMMartin 18:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Maltesedog. DarthVader 22:32, 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 05:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Culture Book Distribution[edit]

Counter Culture Book Distribution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article appears to be self-promotion of a non-notable enterprise and is a stub that has not been expanded for a while. Lucifer 15:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, registering that being a stub is entirely irrelevant to deletion. -Amarkov blahedits 15:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a sentence fragment (?!) does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 03:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:13, 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 delete. Could be mentioned in eBay if a source is found. W.marsh 04:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EBay description scam[edit]

EBay description scam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Essentially OR; there are fewer than a dozen non-Wikipedia ghits for "ebay description scam". Basically, it's describing the "solar powered clothes drier" scam, which hasn't much to do with eBay (and predates it by decades): pay a few bucks for a piece of string. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unverified and unreferenced. Keep it if reliable sources can be found within five days. (aeropagitica) 20:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into eBay - contains valid content - eBay description scams are common, but not notable enough to deserve their own article. 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:37 26/11/2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect per 0L1. --- RockMFR 00:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nomination notes, this isn't even specific to eBay so there's no point merging there. Kimchi.sg 02:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation. Tulkolahten 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful content. –– 30sman 21:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge into eBay. Just H 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful content. Redflagflying 04:15, 3 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 redirect. W.marsh 04:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heck[edit]

Is there any truth to this? If so, does it merit inclusion in Wikipedia? Voortle 15:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, what? Yes, it's truthful, and yes, it merits inclusion. -Amarkov blahedits 15:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry; the word "Heck" is no more than a polite euphemism for "Hell", which arose in the USA mid-west when the use of the word "Hell" was out of the question. Redirect, surely, but not a separate article. The article as an individual entity is nonsense.--Anthony.bradbury 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Anthony.bradbury. --FireV 17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And... is there a reason why polite euphemisms don't get an article? -Amarkov blahedits 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've been here longer than I have. You can tell me about Wiki policy!--Anthony.bradbury 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? -Amarkov blahedits 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Heck" is cruft. It is not notable enough to have it's own article. As Anthony.bradbury said, it's better off as a redirect. --FireV 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell or wherever. Unsourced as to the afterlife concept, fails WP:WINAD for the euphemism. Sandstein 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell, although I think there should be an article detailing common euphemisms such as this one. Danny Lilithborne 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Use of the word is not exactly the same as "hell". Yes, article is truthful. --- RockMFR 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell because it is a polite euphemism, but not a separate afterlife, despite what Dilbert says.-- danntm T C 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell, this is clearly another word for that subject, the subject of a euphemism of hell is not worthy of an article of it's own. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell or transwiki to Wiktionary. Very little of the information is suitable for a merge, unless someone can find some sources for the statements. Agent 86 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The info in this article is not worthy to go to Hell.Edison 20:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell or delete per danntm. -- Victor Lighthill 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where the Hell Is Heck? (title of a BC comic book) Redirect to Hell (and I don't mean Hell, Michigan!). B.Wind 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell or delete.--WaltCip 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Sow the field with Salt to prevent re-creation. Word belongs in Wiktionary, and there should be a sentence about this idea in Dilbert, but the rest is unreferenced original research. WMMartin 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell - fails due to WP:OR, redirect rather then delete, because why not? --T-rex 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit Heck is also a common surname, and at one point (in the possesive Heck's) a department store. The entry should begin with the fact that it is a euphemism for Hell or possibly Purgatory (with links), mention that it is also a common name, and then if need be discuss examples of use. It should *not* state what Heck -is- exactly as there is not a singular, well defined, well accepted usage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.135.194 (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 - Yomanganitalk 01:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensual slavery[edit]

Possible original research; no reliable sources and non-notable or just plain incorrect use of terminology. Whilst it is certainly true that people consensually live full time in the relationships of "master" and "slave", the article claims that "consensual slavery" refers to something distinct to other BDSM terms such as TPE, 24/7 D/s, or Master/slave relationships. In my experience, this is simply not true - people use those terms for when they are living in the roles full time. The author cited BDSM forums as evidence, yet these are people who mainly use the aforementioned terms to describe their relationships.

The article claims a difference as to whether the slave could revoke their consent. Firstly, whilst some people may claim that the slave has given up their right to revoke consent, again there is no evidence that this is related to whether it is called "D/s" or "consensual slavery". Secondly, any such claim is just an illusion, but the author claims it is possible to create legally binding contracts to keep someone in slavery, just so long as you avoid the word slave (see the last paragraph)! But they are unable to cite sources, claiming it's a secret, apart from the example of the US Military.

I have attempted to resolve this in Talk, but things appear to be going nowhere. Perhaps this article could be rewritten to reflect the practice of "consensal slavery" in BDSM factually - but we already have quite a few articles on this already (also see Slave (BDSM)), and I don't think anything is salvageable here. Mdwh 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just browisng the nominations given that I've added to AfD for the first time. Looking at the article and talk page from a posoition of complete ignorance regarding the subject, I think what Mdwh says us well-founded. The lack of civility from the article's creator is unhelpful.Lucifer 16:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am not a citizen of the USA, but my understanding of the 13th amendment of the US Constitution is that it specifically and totally prohibits the ownership of one person by another. A citizen cannot in any way voluntarily give up the rights conferred on him by the constitution, and therefore the article, while it may relate obliquely to consensual practices, is essentially nonsense.--Anthony.bradbury 17:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced POV essay - and by the time it starts talking about 'secret' enforceable slave-contracts, almost certainly complete bollocks. Sam Clark 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a real concept within the BDSM world, but is not notable, as well as most likely illegal, outside of it. Danny Lilithborne 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [[Slave(BVSM) is simply a better page and this page adds nothing additional.
  • Delete as an unverifiable essay, and likely baloney at that.-- danntm T C 01:57, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eye Of Eclipse[edit]

The Eye Of Eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable song. As per WP:SINGLE. Visor 15:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nothing there for merging. B.Wind 03:27, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination)

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 04:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burger sauce[edit]

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

There's nothing particularly notable about a sauce for burgers - I suggest either it's a definition or possible merge candidate (to Condiment?) Princess Tiswas 15:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to condiment. Voortle 16:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you go to condiment, you'll see that there are many specific sauces have articles. FrozenPurpleCube 21:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, although I always thought the sauce used on Big Macs and the like was thousand-island dressing, not a ketchup/mayo mix. Oh well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thousand Island dressing, which is what this is. (I can't tell if Starblind's being sarcastic or not.) Nothing to merge. —Cryptic 18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced and unreferenced; also fails to assert the notability of its subject. Yes, that was a pun - I'll get my coat on the way out. (aeropagitica) 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, there is such a thing as Burger sauce such as Hellman's or Kraft's. I've seen it in stores. It's not just in the UK. Given that this page was just made today, I'm not sure I can go with a delete. Furthermore, considering such things as HP_Sauce also exist as well, sauces for burger, I'm not sure a simple redirect will work either. I think a bit of discussion is needed, but not deletion. So, I'm saying Keep, with discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 21:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. --- RockMFR 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Agent Aquamarine 01:22, 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 deleted, as per WP:V and WP:SNOWBALL, not to mention {{db-nonsense}}. -- The Anome 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thaumaturgic Ascendancy and The 82nd Card[edit]

Thaumaturgic Ascendancy and The 82nd Card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are no verifiable sources, and the band's notability (or notoriety) would appear to be entirely dependant on the claims in the article. Princess Tiswas 16:00, 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 delete, WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splash & Dash[edit]

Splash & Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

worthwhile as this event may be, it does not appear particularly noteworthy Princess Tiswas 15:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even if the first-person material were removed and the author's signature deleted, the article would still fail to assert the notability of its subject, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tulkolahten 23:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is just a poor n00b's attempt to start a page. However I suspect if done properly and given time it will develope into a proper article. And at the very very very least, don't delete it but instead change it to a redirect to aquathlon. Mathmo Talk 19:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Jose Gabriel de Mendez Cortez IX[edit]

Lord Jose Gabriel de Mendez Cortez IX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. It's also not for original research. This article does not belong here; it belongs on the page from which it was copied (Worldroots.com). All of the sources given are genealogy-related. No other sources can be found on Google for this person, or for "King of Celanova" or even "Rey del Celanova". Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 16:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The official reason I'm giving is "unresourced OR". The unofficial reason is "this article was probably written by the 'pretender' himself, who probably suffers from delusions of grandeur". Sorry, but we shouldn't encourage every Tom, Dick or Harry to post articles about how they're really the rightful king of Freedonia. WMMartin 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chris Buckey 18:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Obviously of no relevance to anyone except the "Pretender"'s psychiatrist. DrKiernan 19:08, 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. Agent 86 00:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ponders[edit]

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

Violates both WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. This author isn't notable. Delete GreenJoe 16:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a notable author per WP:BIO. Enough other editors have touched the file since I seconded the prod that I don't have autobiography concerns, but there's still nothing to show she's notable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, upon reconsideration. The cited reviews have satisfied WP:BIO in my eyes. —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Author of two novels with major publishing company (Harper Collins), a Washington Post writer and WP:BIO notability established by at least two reliable sources (the non-written NPR audio interview could be counted as a third). As for the subject having written much of the article, it does appear typically WP:NPOV and has none of the blatant self-aggrandizing we've seen before. --Oakshade 17:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Were either or both of the sources reviews? They seemed to be more interviews about her experiences than reviews of her work. Per WP:BIO, authors need to have been reviewed or won awards to be notable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • responseThey actually appear like profiles. Alot of interviews include write-ups of the subject before the interview section begins. As for your requested reviews, I found some independent reveiws of her books - [41][42] and I see the New York Times reviewed her [43] (registered members can read the full works). --Oakshade 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable-enough author. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 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 delete per CSD G2, G7. AZ t 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Patrick Hannan[edit]

Joseph Patrick Hannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This unreferenced article looks like a resume. Possible vanity page. Cybergoth 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with no prejudice against creating a better article. Resumes are bad. -Amarkov blahedits 16:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep Although it certainly reads as a vanity page there is a minimal assertion of notability.--Anthony.bradbury 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:V -Nv8200p talk 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the author of the article tried to delete/blank it but was reverted by AntiVandalBot - Cybergoth 19:06, 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.--Húsönd 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duka[edit]

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

Neologism? Does this article/stub seem suitable, even if expanded? Cybergoth 16:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:NFT covers this. Demiurge 16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a wholly non-notable neologism made up by two people who actually admit in the article to doing so. Should have been PRODded.--Anthony.bradbury 18:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete duka. Danny Lilithborne 23:49, 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. Martinp23 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lindsay (author)[edit]

Chris Lindsay (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to be an autobiography. After reviewing his website, I question his notabiliy. Cybergoth 16:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The books listed do get a meaningful number of Google hits. But the article needs a major cleanup.--Anthony.bradbury 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure what the meaningful number referred to above is, when I searched for his best-known book (according to the article), I get 22 unique Google hits. And according to Amazon it has a sales rank of 2,591,643 and the cover picture strongly suggests something self-published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. It's a vanity page. -IceCreamAntisocial 00:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear whether or not he meets WP:BIO but the page should be userfied and deleted. It is probably a good-faith mistake to have created the page in the first place. If it is not then we simply cannot tolerate autobiographical entries because of the underlying conflict of interests. Pascal.Tesson 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of all the Amazon listings for Chris Lindsay, most are not ranked by Amazon, and those which are are in the "twilight zone". No sign of any independent reviews. Ohconfucius 06:47, 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, default to keep. Sandstein 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ffred Ffransis[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 17:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems a very clear failure of WP:BIO--Anthony.bradbury 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article fails to assert the notability of its subject, as per WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 20:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ddelete per nom. Ohconfucius 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to slow down in light of this, this (although blogs are not WP reliable sources), this, and this. The problem is that most of the sites referring to him are in Welsh, but it seems that he meets WP:BIO.... Keep. B.Wind 03:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per links cited by B.Wind above, which are distinctly third-person, and extensive and show notability. Also, a google search turns up many potential sources, though they are in welsh. However, there is no requirement that reliable sources can only exist in English. Certain welsh links, such as this one from the BBC and this one from a newspaper "Tivyside Advertiser look like real extensive articles. I cannot read them as to what they are about, but these articles all mention Ffred Ffransis in a frequency that make it seem like he is a central figure in the articles. --Jayron32 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough per links above. Zocky | picture popups 12:32, 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 speedy delete, copyvio. —Cuiviénen 18:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Complexity Theory[edit]

The History of Complexity Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems plagiarized, not wikified Deltopia 17:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hesitant keep This was up for a very short time before it was nominated. The subject is definately notable and I was unable to see where this should have been copied from. Give it some time to be wikified and better sourced. If that doesn't happen then delete it. A few hours is too little time. MartinDK 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I stand corrected as per below. Thanks for pointing that out to me. MartinDK 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio from http://complexity.orcon.net.nz/history.html. shotwell 17:29, 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 no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 17:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips Brooks School[edit]

Phillips Brooks School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Substub on a private preschool, looks like spam Principal Schoolswatter 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC) — Principal Schoolswatter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Nominator's seventh edit at wikipedia. --JJay 01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So? Besides, I suspect otherwise. Shimeru 04:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Sock. The nomination violates the policy, the username is inflamatory etc. There is no justification for using a sock puppet to make AfD nominations. --JJay 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, thanks. There is potentially a very good justification, however. See the sections of that page headed "Segregation and security" and "Keeping heated issues in one small area." If you're going to argue that it's an abusive sock, it would behoove you to provide some evidence, I think (through appropriate channels, not here), rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks. And I don't see the username as inflammatory, for the record. Immature, yes, and probably unwise, but it's not an attack or a slur or any of the other things listed at Wikipedia:Username. Shimeru 05:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no justification at all. It directly violates WP:Sock#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors, which is forbidden. It is not a sanctioned legitimate use for a sock puppet account as spelled out in the policy. Your interpretation is wrong. It's pretty simple, if you want to use sock accounts, use your regular account for AfD noms. The username violates numerous areas of WP:Username. The result is that the debate is tainted, due to the suspicion of double voting. It may also be a banned vandal account within the parameters of Speedy Keep. Based on the number of established editors ready, willing and able to nominate school articles for deletion on a daily basis, we do not have to sanction sock nominations and I am shocked by the constant rush to defend these nominations. And I have launched no ad hominem attacks - I pointed out that this was a new user. You implied it wasn't. --JJay 05:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It is not difficult for editors to detect a contribution pattern in his edits; it's rather easy. And no ad hominem attacks? So you're not alleging bad faith, violation of policy, and now double voting on the nom's part? It might very well be true, mind you, but lacking any evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to assume good faith. In any event, I think this is getting rather tangential, so I will respond no further here. I do, again, encourage you to take the matter up through proper channels if you feel this is a case of sock abuse. Shimeru 05:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A contribution history dating back ten edits is not a real contribution history. I have a right to have an idea who is nominating articles for deletion based on their history - that is explicit in policy. I'm alleging violation of policy (bad faith is irrelevant) and as to double voting, a sock nomination automatically raises the suspicion. How could it not? Furthermore, Wikipedia:Deletion policy mandates discounting sock puppet "votes" in deletion discussions. Why should it be different for nominators? I am not aware who is behind the account - the user in question has declined to respond to messages on his talk page - and am not particulalry concerned with abuse. I am concerned with what I view as an invalid nomination by a new account. --JJay 05:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear to me where there is a reason to speedy keep or to make an AfD invalid simply because an obvious sock was used to make the nomination. I see nothing in the deletion policy or in WP:SOCK that implies it. JoshuaZ 05:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that Principal Schoolswatter is a sockpuppet. Sure there are a limited number of legitimate reasons for sockpuppetry, and I'd love to assume good faith, but creating an ID exclusively for AfDs creates far more opportunity for mischief, and very few sound arguments to justify the practice. That someone is unwilling to put their real contribution history behind a series of AfDs, every single one of which is aimed at a school article, seems to have more than a whiff of bad faith. That no one voting delete has expressed any concern whatsoever with this state of affairs, pooh-poohing any possible issues as merely hypothetical and "tangential" concerns, is at best disappointing. I guess if there are no objections to the practice, maybe I'll create a whole crew of sockpuppets to support my votes. As long as no one minds. Alansohn 06:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, we've already had your school point made with WP:SCHOOLS4. In any event, I don't see why this sort of AfD should be discounted when there is a simple and obvious thing any admin will do - simply treat the nominator as having zero weight in deciding consensus. If there were an ID that did nothing but vote on school articles that user's comments should also be given zero weight. JoshuaZ 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making any points here, but our Unprincipled Flyswatter is. If even one person on the delete side of the fence were to express even the slightest displeasure at the fact that there are sockpuppets pushing your agenda, it would be a strong show of support for fair play in the AfD game. Part of finding a middle ground is recognizing that there are folks on both sides who don't follow the spirit of the process., and not standing by idly or minimizing the offense. And besides, aren't all of these AfDs violations of WP:POINT? Alansohn 07:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stubbiness is irrelevant, age level is irrelevant, and it isn't spam. Your username doesn't help. -Amarkov blahedits 17:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove POV :: Princess Tiswas 18:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a preschool. Daycare centres are rarely notable. Heather 18:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, it's a preschool through grade 5 school. I'll abstain on this because of local connections. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I had read it as, a "preschool-grade", "5 day (per week)" school--I guess that I misunderstood it. It's still just an elementary school, though, and there's no indication that it's a notable one. Heather 23:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it fails WP:SCHOOL and it doesn't seem to be notable at all. Jayden54 20:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to pass WP:SCHOOL because that's only a proposed criteria. The fact that it "doesn't seem" notable to you is also not criteria. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, two points, first- this school actually might pass WP:SCHOOLS. The references given arguably constitute non-trivial sourcing. Now, Highfructose, you should understand that WP:SCHOOLS is a school notability set proposed by the more inclusionist editors so if it isn't sufficient it means a school is really non-notable. JoshuaZ 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No support for its rather weak claim through independent reliable sources is offered. Little content. Article has remained in the same condition since March, so it's not being actively worked on. Only real press I find is a few articles about a proposed expansion that caused some local controversy, but the plans were abandoned and nothing ever came of it. Shimeru 21:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete. Changing my !vote since the article has been expanded and sources have been cited. I still do not believe these sources prove the school sufficiently noteworthy, however. Shimeru 09:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayden54. Kerowyn Leave a note 22:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Obvious Keep. The article cites independent third-party sources. It's generated controversy in its community, as has been noted by a delete-voter (?!). Highfructosecornsyrup 03:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Indeed. That's because "nothing ever came of it," as the rather long blockquote that's now in place in the article shows. Shimeru 09:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written that "something has to come of it" in order for independent third-party media sources to pass WP:V and WP:RS? Highfructosecornsyrup 14:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was? "And then everything went back to the status quo" is not a very good indication to notability, however. Shimeru 18:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although the school is just K-5, the article's creators have taken the trouble to put some info in the article tied to several independent mainstream press articles, and it does make some claims, however weak, to innovative programs. Edison 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears that User:Principal Schoolswatter may be nominating numerous schools for deletion for no clear reason as a "schoolswatter." If you look at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive, you will notice that over the past two years a developing community consensus has emerged favoring keeping articles on bona fide schools for which there is verifiable information available. Also, WP:DP explicitly states that an article being a stub is not, in and of itself, reason for deletion. Finally, at Wikipedia:Schools there is a proposed policy in development--I would suggest we hold off on this (and any other school articles anyone may wish to nominate) until that policy is finalized and adopted, unless there is a policy specifically requiring the deletion of the given school--otherwise, we risk removing content that may turn out to be explicitly acceptable according to a broader community consensus. Kukini 15:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the editor's edits seem to have a clear reason- to nominate non-notable schools for deletion. Furthermore, as I have pointed out to you on multiple AfDs there is no such consensus. Most of the kept schools were kept as "no consensus, defaults to keep" AfDs. Furthermore, in the last month or so successful deletions have become more and more common. JoshuaZ 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete almost a full delete as being non-notable. The only reason for being weak is that a lot of work and research seems to have gone into the article. If someone can find an article to merge it to I'd support that. JoshuaZ 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a school; schools are generally not notable; hence delete. I would like to reiterate JoshuaZ's point above to Kukini that claiming consensus has emerged that schools are inherently notable is simply wrong. No such consensus was ever achieved. In fact, most editors favoured deletion last time we went through this. But the margin of preference was insufficient to establish consensus, and no consensus defaults to keep. You may be on slightly stronger ground to say that more of a consensus has emerged that high schools are notable, although again, opinion remains very divided as well. Eusebeus 10:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in Wikipedia policy/guidelines that says "schools are generally not notable", so please stop repeating this mantra at every AfD. There is no Wikibasis for what you are saying. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am filled with serenity that you don't agree with my basis for arguing to delete, but stating that I am wrong to find schools unnotable and hence wrong to vote delete on that basis is ridiculous. Some will argue that notability is simply not a valid argument for deletion. Others will hotly contest that. Implying that there's some kind of Golden Rule is, in this instance, making the wish father to the thought. Eusebeus 18:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kukini. Lovely article about school. Lots of sources were added. --ForbiddenWord 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This business about a group of admins and teachers having a schism with another school and then starting this one is interesting. The article should elaborate on the schism; that's what gives this school notability. —ptk✰fgs 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Speedy Keep. Not any more "notable" than any other pre-school with a handful of students, but that doesn't matter because "notability" is not policy. That being said, the article passes WP:V with a nice bunch of references and encyclopedic presentation of the school's background, campus and frogs. All schools have a story to be told that serves the interests of a very small portion of our very large range of readers. And all it takes is a bunch of editors willing to do the hard work of building the article in order to further extend wikipedia's coverage. --JJay 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd prefer to see more detailed content, but it is fully sourced with relevant independent articles from reliable verifiable sources. Alansohn 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that this school has received so much media attention tends to demonstrate notability above and beyond most other primary schools. Silensor 06:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pains me to say it, as I'm not a fan of school articles, but this one looks like a Keep to me. Notability has been demonstrated. WMMartin 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 00:44, 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. W.marsh 05:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Podcast with Jay and Jack[edit]

I originally speedily deleted this article as a failure of WP:CSD A7 (article about a person or group of people without an assertion of notability). The author has contacted me to dispute that decision, claiming that this podcast has "been on iTune's Top 100 Podcasts several times, been nominated for several podcasting awards and are subscribed to by thousands of Lost fans" ([44]). I don't believe any of these specifically satisfy our notability guidelines, but I'd be very interested to hear the opinion of the community. Alphachimp 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7. 205.141.247.28 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC) This was my edit, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Otto4711 22:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:WEB; the article fails to assert any notability for the podcast and also fails to mention the URL from which it can be downloaded. (aeropagitica) 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no sources for notability whatsoever. Jayden54 20:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, I did forget sources. I was making this page late last night and did over look placing a Sources Subtitle. I do believe that the site should be kept, but will admit there is much room for improvment. It doesn't meet WP:CSD A7 because it has spent time on iTunes top 100, and I should have mentioned that when i originally created the article. Since then I have added these necessary items to the site.Ganfon 21:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ganfon is asserting that the podcast's time in the iTunes Top 100 and PodcastAlley's top 10 establish the notabilirty of the podcast. First, I don't think that being in the iTunes Top 100 establishes notability. There are, or were, issues with the veracity of the iTunes Top 100. I am not of course suggesting that Ganfon or anyone connected with this particular podcast is gaming the list but the fact that the list can be or could have been at some point gamed fuels my belief that the Top 100 doesn't establish notability. But even if it does, the article doesn't satisfy WP:V because it doesn't have any reliable sources establishing its placement. Second, I don't think PodcastAlley's top ten list establishes notability. Even if it did, a review of the October 2006 listings dosn't show this podcast in the top 300 and it's ranked 26th for November. I'm sure this is a perfectly lovely podcast and the hosts are delightful people, but the thing is simply not notable or verifiable and has no place on Wikipedia. Otto4711 22:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No external sources to back up any claim to notability. Also, any placement in an internet-based popularity rating that changes very quickly is no basis for encyclopedic notability even if sourced. Sandstein 23:21, 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DiMora Motorcar. Luna Santin 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia SLS 2[edit]

Natalia SLS 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable car in development, article tagged for importance for over three months, google returns a lot of press releases and not much else. Otto4711 18:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no references or sources of notability whatsoever. Jayden54 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayden54 and crystal ballism. Shimeru 21:11, 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. I am not compassionate, sorry. Sandstein 17:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory and the hawk[edit]

Gregory and the hawk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 18:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article even says their unsigned. ergot 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jayden54 20:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I think they are widely enough known to keep. Also, they have made two albums... Though the rules do say it would be deleted, sometimes the rules shouldn't be followed and an act of compassion should be made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.156.39 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete at this time. Circumstances may change in the future. Luna Santin 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DiMora Motorcar[edit]

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

Non-notable startup company, article tagged for importance for over three months, google returns a lot of press releases and not much else. Otto4711 18:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. Jayden54 20:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayden54 and crystal ballism. Maybe once the car's in production, but not now. Shimeru 21:10, 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. Luna Santin 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Your Ear[edit]

In Your Ear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No assertion of notability, appears to fail WP:CORP. Prod was removed for ill-founded reasons. shotwell 18:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some references for its notability? What makes this music store different from other music stores? The article doesn't really provide any information on this. Jayden54 21:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of meeting WP:CORP or another notability standard. Sandstein 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. On a side note, I only found this AfD after seeing this revert. Maybe somebody should let Vampyragurl know who Jimbo is...made me laugh. ;-) -- AuburnPilottalk 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Calling JW a vandal is pretty good, though. Chick Bowen 06:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. Really, Jimmy Wales isn't a vandal, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't make bad faith noms (well, not under that username anyways) -- Tawker 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 03:42, 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. Luna Santin 20:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Dreyer[edit]

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

Non-notable local weather person. Fails WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 18:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jayden54 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources, no claim of notability that I can see. Might be speediable, even. Shimeru 21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tulkolahten 23:53, 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. I wouldn't know what to usefully merge, but for those who do, the text is available on request. I think there would be little objection to creating a redirect here, either. Sandstein 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brentwood Elementary School[edit]

Brentwood Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was tagged for speedy as nocontext, made into a redirect, and restored to the form that was originally speedied with no improvement. Unsourced substub on an elementary school of questionable notability. Principal Schoolswatter 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. Jayden54 20:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, practically an empty article aside from the infobox. Directory, unsourced, etc. Would not object in principle to a merge/redirect, though it seems that's already been tried. Shimeru 21:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mead School District. There's barely any other info, anyway. -- Kicking222 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Mead School District, although other than the name of the principal and mascot, there is no content in this article above directory information, so in essence I'm voting Redirect. A search of Google and the Google News Archive did not turn up anything noteworthy about the school. Alansohn 17:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability, remarkability (or even existence) in the article. As Shimeru mentioned above, a redirect is not objectionable but was reverted before. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to the schooldistrict. No claim of notability, no sources. Edison 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No redlinks. "Notability" should be defined differently for elementary schools than for colleges and universities. Kukini 15:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does that mean? The first part "no redlinks" seems like some sort of mantra. Of course there are two ways of dealing with redlinks other than keeping: 1) delinking links and 2) making redirects. So even if we supported your mantra there are ways of handling it. As to your second point that "Notability" should be defined differently for elementary schools than for colleges and universities what precisely do you want? JoshuaZ 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not recall any "mantra." I do feel that any verifiable school should be included. I realize that this is more "inclusionist" than "deletionist" in nature, but it is how I feel. Why do you get upset when another editor does not see this issue the same as you? I am only one vote in many. -Kukini 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Debate and discussion is the purpose of AFD discussions. Not a thing is wrong with engaging other users and causing people to think about their positions, in my opinion. Much of the time both sides come out thinking more clearly about what their opinions are and why they hold them. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • disambiguate per Alan. My only issue is that a google search shows that there are at least three schools of this name, so I would go for considering making this a dab page with the entry for the Mead school to go to the Mead district. On the other hand, does it make sense having a dab to three non-notable schools? I don't know. JoshuaZ 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect/disambig I gotta go with Alan and Joshua on this one... its just not got any info worth keeping.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Eusebeus 10:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mead School District per Kicking222. Silensor 06:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:28, 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. Sandstein 17:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Trophy[edit]

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

Non-notable object of a rivalry between just two schools -Nv8200p talk 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all college football rivalry trophy articles. Information is useful to have on Wikipedia. VegaDark 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The above arguement is a terrible defence All XXXX are notable is not a wikipedia policy for anything. HOWEVER, that aside, this one is notable by being the subject of multiple, reliable, non-trivial, references. See: article in the Madison (WI) Capital Times, and article by College Sports Television and article by Athlonsports.com and article in the Chicago Sun-times and article in the Des Moines Register and article at Sports.yahoo.com. If you need more, dozens can be found at the google search. --Jayron32 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is saying the information is useful a terrible defense? VegaDark 07:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply Two problems. 1) No subject is ever a priori notable merely for belonging to a category. Notability is applied on a case-by-case basis, and it only exists for a subject if MULTIPLE, THIRD PARTY, RELIABLE SOURCES can be used to add NON TRIVIAL information to the article. If such sources do not exist, the subject is non-notable, regardless of what arbitrary category it belongs to. So the arguement All XXXX are notable means nothing and adds nothing to the AfD. What the closing admin needs is evidence that back up this article's notability. 2) Utility is NOT a criteria for keeping an article. The Yellow Pages are VERY useful as well, but I cannot create an article about "Jim's Plumbing" merely because plumbers are useful to know about, and his address is published in the Yellow Pages. --Jayron32 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said to keep the articles because the information was useful to have on wikipedia. Obviously the yellow pages are useful, but it isn't useful to have on wikipedia like I said in my statement. Second of all, the closing admin doesn't "need" anything. This is a discussion on if the article should be deleted or not and anybody can give any or no reason, and the closing admin will decide what comments to use to make the decision. I don't have to cater my reasoning to fit your criteria on what you think should be used or not in a deletion debate. Third, it is obvious that anyone could find sources for this existing, as is the case for all college football rivalry trophies. Reliable sources wasn't mentioned in the nomination as a reason for why this should be delted. Not everything with reliable sources is notable or useful to have on Wikipedia. There are reliable sources that prove I exist, but I am not notable enough for an article. VegaDark 04:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am making an unconditional, public apology. My comments earlier were in bad taste and poor judgement. Your opinion is valued. I value your opinion. I am sorry if I made it seem that I was devaluing your point. I clearly did that. I was clearly wrong. I am sorry. --Jayron32 05:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Accepted. Thank you. VegaDark 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote to keep. I think "non-notable" here is a matter of opinion. -JakeApple 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply Read User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not subjective. Notablity is specifically not about opinion. It is about "can we find information about this subject in reliabel sources to write an article from". Such sources either exist or they don't. If they exist, the subject is notable. The existance of reliable sources from which to add information to an article is not a matter of opinion. --Jayron32 03:39, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach Harbor Patrol[edit]

Long Beach Harbor Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:ORG -Nv8200p talk 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jayden54 19:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Port of Long Beach, unless this article was created because that article is getting too big. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very important law enforcement agency for, amongst other things, being on the front line against terrorism at the 2nd busiest port in the US. (The US Coast Guard finds them notable in this respect - [45]) Enough subject specific information here to warrent a separate article from Port of Long Beach. --Oakshade 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:ORG does not apply to government agencies. Vegaswikian 23:45, 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 merge and redirect all to List of defunct Florida railroads, except those that have sufficient encyclopedic content for a stub. Doing this is left as an exercise to the reader. Sandstein 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Additional note: Will whoever does the merger please also delete the AfD tags and put the {{oldafdfull}} tag on the talk pages? I'm not in the mood for that amount of bureaucracy right now. Thanks. Sandstein 19:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key of the Gulf Railroad and other defunct/never-built Florida railroads[edit]

Key of the Gulf Railroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia doesn't need to have three dozen articles about railroads that never existed or railroads that are defunct when the articles only consist of what Florida law said was necessary to make the railroad come into existence If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following articles, which are similiar:[reply]

  • Merge and redirect all to a single, appropriate article containing information about the history of Florida railroads. Possible exception: Keep any that refer to railroads that had a significant operating history. Newyorkbrad 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to List of defunct Florida railroads. They were probably all redlinked there to begin with. I don't consider the charter information sufficient for a stub on a railroad. At a minimum I would expect information on its construction dates, closure dates, and notable destinations served. If any can be improved beyond substubs they may be kept. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to List of defunct Florida railroads per Dhartung, but do not salt. These articles can hardly qualify as "articles." Just cutting and pasting text from law books is not encylopedic and I'm having a hard time figuring out which ones actually became railroads and which never were completed. If railfans such as myself or others are so inclined, they can re-write the articles properly. --Oakshade 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does a railroad count as defunct if no track was ever laid? It might make more sense to create an article named "List of never-built railroads of Florida" (with a better name than that) and to merge the articles into that. Or, if nothing else, create a separate section in List of defunct Florida railroads per above. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above seems reasonable. Any of them that are longer than 2–3 paragraphs of law text can probably be kept as-is. If further detail can be added about the railways, the articles can be broken out again at that point. As a side-issue, nominating so many articles at one time without prior discussion is generally unhelpful. JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like they're categorized by whether they were built, and, if so, what company they became part of. --NE2 23:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright: The problem with redirects is they aren't really free; they clutter up the namespace with a lot of similar-sounding names that are going to get in the way of the "not knowledgable enough to immediately recognize that these aren't real railroads" searching for real railroads. Mangoe 01:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this if these names are confusingly similar to those of railroads that had an operating history. Otherwise, since redirects aren't in categories, I don't think any user would stumble across one of the redirects unless he or she actually input the name of one of these planned or defunct railroads. I would also inquire whether the user who created these entries has been notified of the AfD as he or she might have a view that could help. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SPUI has been contacted as the author of these articles, but the outlook isn't so good, as it looks like SPUI is frustrated with the project, and might have left. Also, these articles are nearly two years old, so SPUI might not be able to help. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should have checked. I agree that User:SPUI isn't likely to be helpful. I will defer any further comment on redirect-vs.-delete to users more familiar with railroad articles. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is complicated, but that is what happens with bulk nominations. Railroads are funny things, with some operating solely by leased track, and some never laying tracks (indeed, Amtrak didn't own tracks for the first few years of operation). All told, I prefer the Merge and redirect to a unified article that can discuss the Statute in one consolidated location, unless the railroad has a significant operating history after the statute. Of course, if more information becomes available about a particular road, it can always be spun back off from the central article.-- danntm T C 02:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. "Paper railroads" are a not inconsequential part of railroad history. For instance, a specialty work in the field, Thomas T. Taber III's "Railroad Encyclopedia and Atlas of Pennsylvania", lists all of the railroads in the state that were chartered but never built. That said, many of these proposed railroads are not sufficiently documented to provide material for more than a stub. Condensing them into a single list seems reasonable. Choess 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as Choess --Jollyroger 08:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all that don't have sufficient content to be worth an article. DO NOT salt the earth in terms of recreation; if someone can say enough about any of these, verifiably, to make an article, I'm OK with them being articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all as Newyorkbrad. DrKiernan 10:22, 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. Sandstein 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free & Open Source Software in India[edit]

Free & Open Source Software in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural nom. Reprodded. Prod was "FOSS.IN is only a subset of the FOSS scenario in India, very unlike what this page seems to suggest. There exists a full description for FOSS.IN already, and this page must instead contain content that is more wider in its approch." - crz crztalk 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or just redirect to FOSS.IN. That article is far superior. Salad Days 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless expanded to include information about FOSS in India. Redirect to FOSS.IN is not necessary. utcursch | talk 15:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 14:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not redirect to FOSS.IN, please. FOSS.IN is an annual event, not a movement or the community itself. Alternatively, rewrite as an introduction to the FOSS community in India and link to various articles related to this. Achitnis 10:02, 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. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White tuna[edit]

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

Fails WP:V. -Nv8200p talk 18:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, no it doesn't. -Amarkov blahedits 18:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge and redirect to Sushi. Otto4711 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly meets WP:V (I see two good references already), and there's plenty of precedent for articles on specific types of sushi. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second reference is to a post on a foodie message board. Not a good reference. Otto4711 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Windows33 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well now, this is an interesting one. There are certainly lots of fine references, but there may not be many in English. Since I'm not able to find a good discussion of different grades of fish in any of our articles, I think this article deserves a pass. What are really missing are the accompanying articles on other grades of "tuna". At some point in the future, this might be a candidate to be merged with those other grades, but as for now, this is a keep. Dekimasu 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:V and doesn't fit well with a merge to either tuna or sushi. B.Wind 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Japanese Wikipedia says bin-naga maguro(ビンナガマグロ) is Albacore. Black marlin is called shiro kajiki(シロカジキ). Japanese eat them as sushi and sashimi. But sushi restaurants doesn't sell escolar in Japan. Helgo 15:53, 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. Luna Santin 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Milossavlïévitch[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability. This article is most likely an autobiography. Peter O. (Talk) 18:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment http://nadrealan.mojblog.co.yu/ for the notability, if you speak french or serbian. http://www.mensa.org.yu for the notability 2 Autobiography? Every article about artist begins by the life history of the person. So, this article should rather be considered as 'to expand' than 'to delete. Even if it was, why short articles about football players or some unknown actricess are not considered to be "to delete"?? Or i'm wrong, or Wikipedia is all but certainly not a 'free' Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfgh07 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 November 2006
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and doesn't appear to be notable at all. Jayden54 19:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what proofs do you want to be considered as 'notable'? Where do you have searched for, before declare it as 'non notable'? Does this means that all what is situated out of your immediate knowledge can't be NOTABLE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.222.204 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2006

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odal Ambulance Service[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:ORG -Nv8200p talk 19:13, 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, or speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, whichever you prefer. Sandstein 19:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IVAPS[edit]

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

Non-notable company. (Previously deleted on grounds of blatant copyright violation and created again from scratch.) Edcolins 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was tempted to speedy delete this one-liner because it clearly doesn't assert notability, but let's see if the creator of the article can expand it within five days. Kimchi.sg 02:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 03:47, 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, and give a fish each to two users. Sandstein 19:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews University Scottish Nationalist Association[edit]

Delete - This article is unreferenced and does not seem notable as a minor student society. It also seems to be an example of a "vanity article", given its exhaustive list of Executive Members.--Couter-revolutionary 18:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Clean-up - it is the biggest ScotNat society at a major university, and is affiliated to the SNP. It is notable, just as Oxford University Conservative Association is notable. I think the nominator's motives should be considered in the light of this statement on my talk page, I see this as in incidence of WP:POINT being ignored. --SandyDancer 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I was wrong on this, on reflection. It isn't necessary for each and every university branch of a political party - even a major (possibly, in future, ruling one) like the SNP to have a page on WP. This one doesn't seem notable so here's an about face - Delete. Cheers! --SandyDancer 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and give Couter-revolutionary and SandyDancer fish with which they may slap each other on their own time - article is unsourced and a Google search doesn't turn up anything notable (which in and of itself doesn't prove anything, but still). Whether another article exists or not (and that other article is fairly extensively sourced, albeit all from the same newspaper which may be a bit dodgy) is irrelevant to whether this article should exist. If the society is notable, then do the work to source it. Otto4711 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong but my instant reaction was to query why the official branch of the second biggest (possibly soon to be biggest and ruling) political party of a country in that country's leading university could be non-notable. But I accept I may be wrong. Fish and slapping don't come into it. Please be civil... ;-0 --SandyDancer 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are the second biggest whatsit in the whoosy then it shouldn't be any trouble at all to cite all kinds of independent verification of that fact. Please do. Otto4711 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on -- give them the fish, and sell tickets for us all to watch. Seriously, somewhere has to be the #1 NP student support group, adn SNP is the primary Scots political party (as opposed to a branch formation of an English heirarchy) -- Simon Cursitor
It does not say in the article that it is the biggest society of anything. In fact it is described as "the leading Scottish Nationalist society at St Andrews University" suggesting it is one of numerous St. Andrews University scottish nationalist groups. They do not have articles, why should this one?--Couter-revolutionary 15:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's notable and verifiable then it can have an article regardless of whether any other society does or doesn't have one. False argument. Otto4711 16:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for ignoring the main point of my argument, which is not "false". I was pointing out that this article makes no claims to notability, it does not claim to be the largest SNP group, regardless of what other editors have said.--Couter-revolutionary 18:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although there may be a few exceptions, most political party organizations established at particular universities which have gone through AfD have been deleted. Student organizations at a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 03:58, 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. Luna Santin 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Holodomor genocide?[edit]

Was the Holodomor genocide? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A classic fork created by removing an extremely important section from the Holodomor article. I already restored the section back and the fork has no reason to exist. --Irpen 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional delete providing the content is restored to the main Holodomor article. If a subarticle is needed, than we should use encyclopedic titles - and certainly keep a summary of the problem in the main article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to main article. If the vote is to keep, at very least change the title. Canadian-Bacon t c 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already restored at once. --Irpen 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per Canadian-Bacon. —dima/s-ko/ 21:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per no suggestive revisionism. This shouldnt even be in the main article, as Irpen would like us to believe. Truthseeker 85.5 22:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it was put back in the main article. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (assuming content was put back). --- RockMFR 00:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Kuban Cossack 01:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any salvageable information. (I don't know much about the Holodomor so I can't say which facts and viewpoints need to be represented in the main article.) —Psychonaut 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything was merged back at once already. There is nothing left to merge. --Irpen 19:30, 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. Luna Santin 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mailman syndrome[edit]

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

Completely original research. No sources. A mere 23 unique g-hits for this term, most of which have nothing to do with this article. IrishGuy talk 21:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Original Research, completely unverifiable, could be a hoax. Canadian-Bacon t c 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism, something made up in school one day and possible attack page. Henning Makholm 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Smacks of complete bollocks -Markeer 00:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as made up. Most ghits pertain to dogs and mailmen...Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. SliceNYC 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete! It is not bolloks, nor is it an attack page. It is a term used to describe a very frequent occurence in today's society that should be recognized and addressed. Politicians are not the only ones who create language, and Ph. D's are not the only ones who should provide information to the world. Keep mailman syndrome alive on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.220.166 (talk • contribs)
We know politicians aren't the only language creators and not only Ph. D's can provide knowledge. Wikipedia has many pages of cultural phenomena, inventions and the like created by people from all walks of life. However, we have policies, and a big one is verifiability. Articles must have valid, reliable sources to back them up, and this doesn't. The reason why Tesseran and I said Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary is that Urban Dictionary is a place to share terms even if they were of your own creation. Here, we only comment on established lexicon. Hope this helps you understand where we're coming from. SliceNYC 22:54, 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. Apologies to creator for the lost work. Luna Santin 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marriott hotels[edit]

List of Marriott hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not mere collections of external links, a directory, or the yellow pages. Not all of these locations are notable. The United States section is woefully incomplete and has been for months. Some other related pages that may be of concern include List of Hyatt Hotels, List of Sheraton hotels, List of Shangri-La Hotels & Resorts, List of Four Seasons hotels, and List of Radisson Hotels. Khatru2 21:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First off, I created most these articles. While it is true, that Wikipedia is not just a mere collection of external links, a directory of sorts, etc. these articles are more than that. For those interested in this debate, you may also be interested in seeing the List of Air Cadet Squadrons in Canada proposed articles for deletion discussion; which has since been closed with a keep result. I listed the list of Air Cadet Squadrons in Canada for the same reason as Khatru2 has listed this article: it is a list and highlights what Wikipedia is not, at first glance. The list of Air Cadet Squadrons in Canada is similar to the list of hotel properties owned by various hotel chains. They list different properties/squadrons in different geographical regions. Some premises stated by various editors from the List of Air Cadet Squadrons discussion used in support of articles that are lists, like this one, include:
  • "If it's complete then it's a useful enough list for someone who's interested."
  • "...doesn't matter if some of the squadrons [properties] are not notable - the general topic is notable."
  • "...there are things you can do with a single list like this that you can't do nearly as easily with a list split across five or six pages - like identify gaps in the numbering, identify the highest and lowest numbered squadron, count the total number of squadrons, look at the distribution of squadrons across the country, etc"
Would also like to add that these article pages that are lists of various properties would also provide value to the proposed WikiProject Hotels
Luke! 21:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added - Under the Notability guidelines for companies and corporations chains and franchises section, an exception to WP:NOT is inferred, lists such as this one are may be allowed - specifically where it says a, "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative and allowed. Luke! 02:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You say that it is mor ethan a collection of external links or a directory. Can you explain how in this case. Canadian-Bacon t c 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the case because, I have found at least, that there is no one page on Marriott.com or the internet (quick search only) that has a listing of all Marriott properties. Visitors to this article page, can identify international property distribution, property concentrations, properties by country, total number of properties, and other GIS-like activities. This article is appears as the 3rd most relevant search result by Google for the keyword search "List Marriott Hotels", that doesn't aim to sell you a Marriott hotel room.Luke! 22:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That still didn't explain how it isn't a collection of external links or a directory. In fact, your explanation made it sound, exactly like a directory. Canadian-Bacon t c 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, a matter of perspective of use. However, the relationship that I have tried to establish here is that if a List of Air (and Sea) Cadet Squadrons in Canada, which is only national in scope, is able to survive AfD...then how can a List of Marriott Hotels, which is international in scope, not survive an AfD. If WP:NOT is to set the criteria, List of Air Cadet Squadrons in Canada should have been deleted and not been kept. The List of Air Cadet Squadrons and this List of Marriott Hotels are essentially the same - lists of entities spread across a wide geographical region owned/managed by a greater organization, all summed up into a list on one Wikipedia article. If the premises provided in support of the List of Air Cadet Squadrons in Canada managed to result in a keep, then isn't it reasonable to assume that the same would happen for similar lists like this one? Luke! 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crufty, serves as an advertisement. Information can easily be found on Marriott's website. Unencyclopedic in origin. Canadian-Bacon t c 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as CA (half of the VSCA), plus WP:NOT a directory/external link repository (not to mention encyclopædia) and duplicate of Marriott website. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that this information can be found on Marriott's website, like in the List of Air Cadet Squadrons in Canada articles for deletion (which I proposed) discussion the information was readily available through the Cadets Canada external links found on the page itself, yet a keep result arose. What I'm trying to convey here is that while this sort of listing information is readily available externally, by consolidating it, visitors to Wikipedia will find it much more useful that visiting Marriott's website. There is no one page on Marriott.com that has all of Marriott's properties. Luke! 22:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a directory. Listcruft, everything can be found on Marriott's website. I don't see any need for such lists. The Hyatt, Shangri-La, Radisson, Sheraton and Four Seasons hotel lists also can be sent for AFD, basically for the same reason. --Terence Ong (C | R) 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone seeking a hotel room or wanting info about these properties for whatever reason would be better served by consulting the website of the company. Lists such as this are stale and outdated the day they are imported into Wikipedia. Edison 20:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commentwell,not all of the hotels are notable but not all are non-notable...what about the one that hosted a wwe hall of fame induction ceremony?thats definitly notable.so i guess ill say remove non-notable hotel chains and move to:list of notable mariott hotels.

  • Delete As I said before, Wikipedia does not need to replace the Internet, and Marriott will update this list more responsibly and reliably because it is in their interest to provide their product's availability to the public. Wikipedia only works on whether people care enough, and after all this, only somebody who likes Louisiana is committed enough to really care. So off with it's head, I say! 132.162.250.118 02:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the few notable hotels should have articles written them, and listed in Marriott. --humblefool® 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we can safely leave this job to Marriott's marketing department. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 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/withdrawn —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-29 02:54Z

Club International[edit]

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

This article fails to assert the importance of its subject; {{prod}} and {{db}} were both removed without changing the article at all. Article as it is now written meets Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Articles #7. Nothing in the article qualifies it for inclusion in an encyclopedia.Nicer1 21:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw my nomination in favor of the {{notability}} tag now on the article and the information on its talk page if the two editors with the Delete recommendations below agree. I have left requests on both their talk pages.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless it undergoes a major overhaul very soon, I would say delete. Ganfon 21:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (but clean-up) - possibly not the best-selling, but undoubtedly in the top five, of UK top shelf magazines. Has been around for years and was part of every British male's teen years! Certainly notable enough but the article needs expanding. Will try and find time to do it. I notice the nominator of this disposal has only ever made contributions to delete Paul Raymond top shelf magazines like this. Fishy, to say the least.--SandyDancer 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sandy and arguments made at the Club deletion page. NeoFreak 07:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added a reference to the article (why am I working on porn articles?). NeoFreak 11:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a clearly notable mass-market newsstand publication from a major publisher of such magazines. It might be useful to add a figure for audited circulation to this article, to demonstrate this. -- The Anome 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it's tidied up to show sourced notability, and expanded to more than this stub. Simon Cursitor 15:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It does need cleanup as SandyDancer mentioned, but this is not a viable deletion candidate at all. This is a magazine with major distribution. Mangojuicetalk 18:29, 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 hoax = abject nonsense = vandalism. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PFC Unknown[edit]

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

Either utterly non-noteworthy or a hoax. No results on Google (though "PFC Unknown" alone does turn up quite a bit about military burials). Only edits so far have been a POV war. Suspect this is something made up in school on the field one day. Shimeru 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is a real team. All of the information in the article is 100% correct. I hope the way it looks now is better and acceptable. Mihail Krepchev 22:45, 27 November 2006

  • Real, yes (although we only have the above user's word for it). Notable, no. Therefore Delete ChrisTheDude 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete even if existing, an intramural team is not notable for Wikipedia. Word of an intramural football manager. --Angelo 17:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - unverifiable, not notable according to any sane criterion. Qwghlm 19:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per most of the policies and guidelines Wikipedia has... WP:CORP, WP:COI, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT and others. – Elisson • T • C • 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 keep/withdrawn —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-29 02:50Z

Men Only[edit]

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

This article fails to assert the importance of its subject; {{prod}} was removed without changing the article at all. Article as it is now written meets Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Articles #7. Nothing in the article qualifies it for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Nicer1 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing the nomination and have noted my concerns about the article's notability by using the {{notability}} template and elaborating on my concerns on the article's Talk page.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Flagship magazine for one of the big 3 in the UK porn industry. Catchpole 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (but clean-up) - possibly not the best-selling, but undoubtedly in the top five, of UK top shelf magazines. Has been around for years and was part of every British male's teen years! Certainly notable enough but the article needs expanding. Will try and find time to do it. I notice the nominator of this disposal has only ever made contributions to delete Paul Raymond top shelf magazines like this. Fishy, to say the least.--SandyDancer 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, again, not a serious deletion candidate, widely distributed and popular magazine. Mangojuicetalk 18:35, 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 keep/withdrawn —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-29 02:47Z

Club (magazine)[edit]

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

This article fails to assert the importance of its subject; {{prod}} was removed without changing the article at all. Article as it is now written meets Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Articles #7. Nothing in the article qualifies it for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Nicer1 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing the nomination and have noted my concerns about the article's notability by using the {{notability}} template and elaborating on my concerns on the article's Talk page.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this so obviously meets the criteria for speedy deletion as you claim, why did you bring it to AfD? Seems like a pretty major adult magazine, a US version of a well-known British magazine (which you've also nominated). Hmm, I notice you've nominated three "adult" magazines for deletion recently... --Canley 23:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I brought it to AfD because the last {{db}} tag I put on an article was summarily removed without making any changes to the article. Apparently you think I have a problem with adult magazines; you've made a comment on my talk page reminding me that Wikipedia isn't censored. I will respond to that there; however, I think it bears mentioning that nominating a bad article about an adult magazine isn't censorship, it's nominating a bad article. Don't go assigning presumptive motives to others' actions.Nicer1 04:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment OK, thanks for explaining that, and my apologies for presuming any ulterior motive. However, you have to realise that deletion, in particular speedy deletion, is not the solution to your desire for better articles, and should only be used when an article is an unsalvagable mess or blatantly unencylopedic, which these articles are not. You raise some good points below, please add them to the articles' talk pages and let some other editors improve them based on your suggestions rather than trying so hard to have them deleted. --Canley 09:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major pornogrpahic publication that meets WP:N. Needs some more sources but that, alone, isn't justfication for deletion. Tag it and give it some time. Also, in an unrelated field, while wikpeia isn't censored and keeping WP:PORN in mind, some effort to find a less graphic image would be good. NeoFreak 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know how what's in the article meets WP:N. The publication may indeed be notable; however, which of the following points in the article describes the publication as being notable?
  • It's a monthly periodical ?
  • It's a spin-off from another publication ?
  • It has
    • sexually-oriented articles ?
    • video reviews ?
    • pictorials with a variety of content (hardcore, etc.) ?
  • The content of its pictorials used to be different ?
  • It had contract models ?
Nicer1 06:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well one of the criteria for notability for almost anything is it's coverage in a monthly non-trivial publication. By extention you have to consider the publication itself to be notable. Kind of a no brainer. According to this it is one of the top ten adult magazines in the UK and it's publisher posted a 19 milllion pound profit in 1999. NeoFreak 07:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the article is the information that the magazine is covered in a non-trivial publication? Where in the articleis the information about profit and circulation? I'm not arguing that the publication isn't notable; I'm arguing that nothing in the article indicates that it is.75.4.164.13 11:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been added. Anything else? NeoFreak 11:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a clearly notable mass-market newsstand publication from a major publisher of such magazines. It might be useful to add a figure for audited circulation to this article, to demonstrate this. -- The Anome 12:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - clearly notable. When something is self-evidently notable, a clean-up tag may be appropriate, and RFD just looks suspicious when read with the nominator's edit history... See Mary Whitehouse and Lord Longford ;-) --SandyDancer 17:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, not a viable deletion candidate. Mangojuicetalk 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup by citing sources from mainstream coverage where available, and from industrywide publications such as AVN. Notable in its field for decades, read by hundreds of thousands, needs proper claim of notability. Barno 18:51, 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. Luna Santin 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daffodil (performance artists)[edit]

Daffodil (performance artists) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not claim notability and is totally unrefrenced. Dalf | Talk 21:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A dead-end and (virtually) orphaned article. No claim to notability. Delete B.Wind 03:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. James084 20:22, 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. Luna Santin 20:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owl Society[edit]

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

Secret society that's very secret, so much so that almost nothing is known about them. Not verifiable. Note that the source mentioned in the article (which is a dead link) is from the 'Opinion' section of the campus paper, the Daily Pennsylvanian, and its writer outright states "everything [he knows] about the Owls is utterly circumstantial and unproven." Not a reliable source. Seems to be a magnet for nonsense and probable WP:COI. Shimeru 21:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if this society is so secret why does it have an article. After all it wouldn't be secret anymore. Tarret 22:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found a source for it, but if I showed you, I'd have to kill you... ;) Spawn Man 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources, no assertion of importance, and the article makes claims about living people that involve unethical or illegal activities with no supporting evidence. Serpent's Choice 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course we don't know a lot about it, it's a secret. How do we know deleting this article isn't what the Owl People want? 204.193.129.160 11:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When an article talks about felony complaints, you'd expect to see bona fide citations of newspaper articles, and those articles should name individuals. I found that only one of the links worked, and it had nothing about the Owls. I vote for deletion, but would accept re-creation with reliable sources. How do we know that any of this is true? EdJohnston 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic, how do we know it's not true? The Owl Society most likely wants to keep their existence unknown, which is why sources are so hard to find. By deleting this article you're playing right into their hands. 204.193.129.160 12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Too bad. This is an encyclopedia. We don't keep articles that "might be" true if they're unverifiable. Shimeru 19:30, 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 (A7), no credible assertions of notability. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-27 07:36Z

Bobology[edit]

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

I originally tagged it as speedy under A7, however it has been altered since then to assert notability, however dubious. A religion created in 2006 by 5 friends, now claims to have 50,000 adherents. Some related google hits[46], but no real sources, seems like either an online prank or just plain old WP:BOLLOCKS Either way the article is unsourced and appeared to be unverifiable Dina 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable unsourced COI nonsense. Demiurge 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Although the religion may not be a hoax and in fact real, at the moment this article should be deleted under WP:V and WP:N, because it doesn't provide any references for its notability. Jayden54 22:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no words...WP:BOLLOCKS says it all. Canadian-Bacon t c 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:TOO SILLY FOR WORDS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. The article does not have a single link. meshach 00:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a religion growing from nothing to 100,000 members in less than one year would be all over the media if it were true. Delete as obvious falsehood. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Considering everyone names everything silly "Bob", I'm reluctant to believe that this is a genuine article. Delete... Spawn Man 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 As per the discussion, any content can go to the year in Pakistan page. Rather hard to maintain a "current" event listing. Tawker 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani current events[edit]

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

Obvious problems in keeping this current; it hasn't been updated since 2005. No real need for this as an article. Crystallina 22:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as outdated. Merge people/workers if any into our current events portal Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, was going to say move to 2005 in Pakistan, but as it only contains one item about the 2005 earthquake, for which there is already an article, then don't bother. --Canley 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing needs merging. --- RockMFR 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Who decides what is current? Impossible to maintain & looks like nothing is going on there anyway... Spawn Man 02:37, 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. Luna Santin 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deslot[edit]

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

Insufficient context. Also, may be a hoax article, since a Google and Google Scholar search failed to turn up any use of the term. Kerowyn Leave a note 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, an English Google search of the term refeals no non-wiki/mirror links [47] providing the meaning listed in the article. It appears to actually be an automotive term. meshach 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-lete - De-lete (verb) act of deleting rubbish articles. see hoax. Spawn Man 02:35, 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. If anybody needs the information out of here to merge, you need only contact me, and we'll work something out. Luna Santin 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Barker's Equipment[edit]

Travis Barker's Equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreferenced article on an unencyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Khatru2 22:31, 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 redirect to Council of Ministers of Poland, which contains that information in English already. Sandstein 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet of Jarosław Kaczyński[edit]

Cabinet of Jarosław Kaczyński (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is in Polish language. Needs to be translated to English or delete. Visor 22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or redirect to Council of Ministers of Poland. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Tag for translation. Foreign language articles are not automatically deletable. National cabinets are quite notable, as they are the subject of multiple, non-trivial references. Even if those references aren't english, they can be translated and used. This article needs translation, but an article on this subject, and with this content (in english) should exist. --Jayron32 05:15, 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. I'm not extending this AfD as requested by JamesMLane, because the problem is finding sources for WP:CORP-level coverage, which requires no particular technical knowledge. Sandstein 20:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Parts Place[edit]

Auto Parts Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable corporation, no multiple reliable third party coverage of the company per WP:CORP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising. meshach 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, I am not sure what you see in the article as promotional. There are several lines that contain strictly factual information, which can all be verified. Nothing in the article says the company is good in any way or suggests that people should visit the company. I challenge anyone who is reviewing the article to find any assumptions listed. The BBB link was a reference to verify that the company exists and has been in business for the duration of time specified. The format of the article is: 1. Company does this 2. Company sells this; nothing more. Listing a supplier for any company is simply more useful information. It is standard and beneficial to list suppliers for companies. We see supplier info all the time in government agencies, aerospace industry, pharmaceutical companies…etc. In no way does listing a supplier suggest you should buy from them. It is just more useful information to those inquiring about the company. It would be detrimental to Wikipedia and dangerous to society if we passed laws to restrict all supplier information, especially from the industries listed above.

You made the claim that “The next 2 links are both self-generated articles which anyone can write and publish about themselves”. This is a gross assumption; one that can be made for virtually any publication found. If a news company reviews another site and is pleased, they are most likely going to write positive things about them. You are also assuming the company has such power over the site who decided to publish the article. Regardless of an article’s origin, it still has to be important enough for others to publish it. I could only imagine the world if we starting shutting companies and people out based on our assumptions. .

  • There is no gross assumption here. Both articles were published on PRweb which is a paid press release organization that takes company provided material and distributes it over the internet to its affiliates. Both articles list HIGH PERFORMANCE PROSE as the author or provider. This is a PR firm that lists Auto Parts Place as one of its clients, so these articles are not exactly "independent" reviews by a news company. So either your company or your advertising firm wrote these articles. The articles read like advertisements for Auto Parts Place and are sent out as RSS feeds to thousands of websites that subscribe to these feeds. Usually dozens may publish a company's press release, with the only criteria that its relevant to an industry the publication addresses. None of the websites where these articles were published wrote these articles and they published them verbatim. These articles neither qualify as criteria for Notability within WP nor as a valid, independent assessment of your organization. As such, they should not be used as a citation Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) nor linked because of the non neutral status of the content WP:NPOV. There is also further comments regarding other items discussed here on Talk:Auto Parts Place. Calltech 23:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a double standard being applied here. I have added more external links but no one has addressed the fact that the following sites have only *one* external link which is pointing to *themselves*.

…and the list goes on

A completely different standard of notability is being applied to this company. We have seen a few of the companies above plastered all over TV because of their huge advertising budgets. In the old days search engines catered to companies who could buy their way in and in the end they lost. One of the reasons Google emerged as a leader was because they cared more about useful information as opposed to marketing budgets. This is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Let’s not delete a company with a major online presence because they don’t have enough national commercials.

This company was listed under the category “Auto Parts Retailers”. This is exactly what it is. If this article is deleted based on notability, I would hope that the other companies with less of an online presence and 0 external links verifying their notability be re-evaluated and removed. However, I don’t believe that this would benefit those using Wikipedia, especially those looking for information about Auto Parts Retailers. --Auto Parts for Brains 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Remember Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and is not for advertising. Unfortunatley using that Strawman Argument against other articles to defend your position to keep Auto Parts Place on wikipedia, does not change the fact that it fails WP:CORP. Hu12 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree - two wrongs don't make a right. Some of those articles are also about non-notable companies and they also need to be AfD's. That's grounds for deleting them too - not grounds for keeping this article. SteveBaker 13:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Yahoo! search for "Auto Parts Place" -wikipedia yields 15,000+ hits (Google, for some reason, "only" 12,000+). Some are generic references to an auto parts place but most appear to mean this company. I don't understand the argument that this is advertising. No one will find this article except by entering the company name or following a link. It's not being shoved at anyone. JamesMLane t c 09:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The reason you see so many hits is because you ask someone "Say where did you get that fancy exhaust tip?" and the answer is "I forget, some kind of auto parts place." - of the handful of hits I checked, the majority were not about this specific company. SteveBaker 13:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin. When the AfD was started, this article hadn't been listed in the WikiProject Automobiles. I've put a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Articles to invite the WikiProject's members to give their opinions here. (I don't even own a car, so what do I know.) I suggest that this AfD be kept open for a while beyond the fifth day, to accommodate participation by the presumed experts on our automotive coverage. JamesMLane t c 10:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think the company is non-notable - which is grounds for deletion. SteveBaker 13:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an inclusion guideline, WP:CORP is. WP:COI also appears to apply. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CORP issues. If it is sourced w/ external links I am open to keeping however -- Tawker 07:41, 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 speedy delete this is some guy in school making up a longish prose to promote himself. The team is some school team and he didn't even spell his name correctly in the title. :-) Kimchi.sg 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junweii[edit]

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

Tagged speedy bio, but it does assert notability, of a sort. Text is an unencyclopedic mess, and it seems the team he plays for isn't a professional one and doesn't have its own article either, indicating lack of notability. But I don't know the first thing about what makes a footballer notable, other than Beckham, so here it is. Opabinia regalis 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an amateur player of moderate skill. I agree that it's hard to tell exactly what the go is, but he doesn't play in the top-flight and doesn't appear to be notable as a result. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 23:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Vanity article, created by the subject (Junweii15 (talk · contribs)). -Anþony (talk) 01:12, 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 (you know where you can shove it but we don't provide the instructions) Yomanganitalk 01:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal stretching[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide nor is it a dictionary. Nothing within this article is actually referenced and the bunch of external links at the bottom are not valid citations so I say delete this and salt the earth. SamKinney 23:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This does not seem to meet any specific criteria for deletion. Kukini 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Changing my vote. Kukini 03:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but note that not meeting specific criteria is not a reason to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkov (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Tulkolahten 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mig (Talk) 23:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable; the relevant references given are from someone's wiki and a blog--neither of which would likely be a reliable source. Heather 00:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Has general unsourced POV statements like "Mainly used by homosexuals" etc. Gross to say the least anyway... Spawn Man 02:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I think this is an actual practice and I assume it could be referenced properly. Everyking 06:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Everyking. Anal stretching is not at all "unverifiable," the article just isn't in a good state with regards to WP:V. It would be easier to fix it from the starting point that exists there now than to start over. Mangojuicetalk 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How to article. Edison 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom probably already covered in Butt plug and then salt.--John Lake 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incoherent, or something... --AAA! (AAAA • AAAAAAAA) 01:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Goatse perhaps? Chris Buckey 05:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a howto nor is it a place for dicdefs -- Tawker 07:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Anus (insert punchline here). Just H 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is a legitimate concept that needs to be referenced {Re: Delete: How to article If it's a how-to article then it should be amended, not deleted | Re: Delete: as unverifiable -- is not a case for deletion, unless you're saying that anal-stretching is unverifiable in general, i.e. that no such thing exists | Re: Delete: Has general unsourced POV statements -- is also not grounds for deletion [See: Amend comments]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfwoolf (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 unambiguous keep. Luna Santin 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fecal vomiting[edit]

Can someone please explain how this has managed to survive over a year here on Wikipedia? No sources save for a weak one-off reference to a single South Park episode and a link to "poopreport.com" ??? Send this back from whence it came and do not merge or redirect. SamKinney 23:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete unsourced, unverifiable. Tulkolahten 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zzuuzz --Mig (Talk) 02:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add this reference [48] -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wkipedia is not for things made up on south park meshach 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Did you notice that the term has been around since at least 1925? -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zzuuzz. This is, oddly enough, a real medical condition. --- RockMFR 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zzuuzz. Kukini 02:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This was even featured on the medical drama "House" one episode even. It's not uncommon, but the South Park section would no doubt be offputting & is nearly as big as the rest of the article... Spawn Man 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are your sources that confirm this is not uncommon? SamKinney 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I have a good fecal vomit every night if I'm stressed by editors asking me for sources. Clears the sinus really well ya know... Spawn Man 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zzuuzz. Wow. Learn something new every day. Shudder. NeoFreak 04:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People need to know that this does happen, however rare it is. Imagine an abnormally large obstruction in your large intestine, eg. cancer or constipation. The brownie has already been produced by the time it finds that the road is blocked off and if it can't get past the obstruction, then it has no other way to go but up. Scott Gall 07:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete South Park as a source of medical info and a 1925 article do not satisfy the need for reliable references. Edison 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • South Park is irrelevant now. The source is medical article. Why do you think medical archive is not reliable reference please ? Tulkolahten 20:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy poop on a stick! Keep and expand. More sourcing is definitely needed. B.Wind 03:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove the trivial South Park reference. This serious medical condition has little to do with the cartoon reference. RFerreira 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather to keep article as it is before the AfD conclusion. It's better for other voters. Tulkolahten 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rare, unpleasant, and real. WMMartin 18:31, 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, although the headcount says otherwise. While the sexual practice seems to be real, the problem is that, except for the one work on 19th-century horsetrading, no reliable sources are on offer for any of this content (my Google Books search comes up empty), so WP:NOR/WP:V must take precedence. I suppose that a very summary merge of the bare facts to Anal masturbation and to some article on horsetrading would also be accepted by most of the contributors here, so if the proposals made here aren't enough, the original text is available on request. Sandstein 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Figging[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT for sexual practices made up in school one day. The 1913 Webster Dictionary "reference", if you can call it that, is completed unrelated. The factual accuracy of this article has been disputed for months because no sources exist to support it. Where are the reliable citations for this? If there are none this needs to go. Delete. SamKinney 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For background on this see the talk page. This was brought to my attention when it was mentioned on a forum I frequent as an example of unusual sexual deviance with an interesting history. As with other finds on Wikipedia you take it less as a definitive source but more as a springboard to your research. To that end I did some further looking around and found:
    1. This is a genuine sexual practice
    2. The history/etymology is utterly unsupported and the references/links don't support the statements made. I have queried them and asked for sources and these haven't been forthcoming.
  • This left me with an unresolved quandry should I:
    1. Put it up for deletion?
    2. Remove nearly all of the article leaving a paragraph explanation. As Wikipedia isn't a dictionary it would probably go up for deletion anyway.
  • As it has been put up for deletion I am still unsure about the best way to progress. I don't really feel it warrants an entry for itself but might favour a merge with something like Anal masturbation (possibly in some section on the use of irritants) or it could just be deleted and if someone wants to add something on it there then they can. Ideally being put up for deletion will get someone moving to provide authoritative and independent sources so I'll withhold my vote for the moment. (Emperor 00:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge with Anal masturbation. Kukini 02:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a vote. What verifiable information would you suggest merging to Anal masturbation, specifically? SamKinney 04:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its certainly an option I was considering. Something like: "Irritants are sometimes used in anal masturbation to heighten the experience. This can include the use of items like chilli powder and, in particular, ginger. The latter practice is called 'figging' and may have its origins in the horse trade ((fact)). As well as being inserted in the anus, prepared 'fingers' of ginger can be inserted into the vagina or urethra". That is pretty much all the relevant information - I suspect such things probably need a mention in that entry but that is pretty much all that can be proved so a separate entry seems unnecessary. (Emperor 14:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Actually, merge is a valid vote. I disagree with merging it, but it is legitimate to do so. Sam, you had your say, let others express themselves without trying to counter every single persons comment, okay? Doing so, besides being incivil, harms your own credibility. Atom 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • SamKinney was saying that this discussion is not a vote, and that therefore some rationale for a bare opinion that the article be merged is important. Xe is also not being incivil by engaging other editors in discussion, and you are wrong to criticize xem for attempting to have the very discussions that AFD is for. Uncle G 15:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I'm unsure on what to vote here. The article seems legit, however, it also seems unlegit & the external links don't really reveal or source anything. So i don't really know here... Sorry, Spawn Man 02:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are found. Kimchi.sg 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the article needs references, as do 1000 Wikipedia articles. Figging is of course very real, I have done it many times and I know many, many people who play with it from time to time. Figging has been around for centuries since the Victorian period or before, and is not a neologism. Here are some sites that discuss it, not all are appropriate for references.
http://www.figging.com/
http://www.msmargaretdavis.com/Figging.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=figging, http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/adult_confirm?_done=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups-beta.google.com%2Fgroup%2Ffigging
Your initial assertion (that it is "a sexual practice made up in school") is incorrect, so your argument fails.Atom 03:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No original research please. The sources you have cited include: figging.com, msmargaretdavis.com, urbandictionary.com, and Usenet newsgroups of all things, none of them are up to our standards for reliable sources and that goes double for Google groups. SamKinney 04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is the discussion page, not the article. They are not in the article -- because they don't meet Wikipedia standards for references. As I said in starting my sentence, the article does indeed need reliable references. But that is not sufficient reason to delete the article. My point in giving those references was in an attempt to assure people who are dubious that it even exists that indeed the case here is that someone needs to find good references (not a reason for deletion) rather than it being something that is made up, or not real (a good reason for deletion). BTW, use of references in talk pages does not require meeting WP:V. In articles, WP:V must be met, and WP:NOR is something entirely different. Atom 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this certainly goes further than 'made up in school one day' - the practice does exist and people do call it this. However, information in Wikipedia needs to be sourced, and I know of no wholly reliable sources for this at this time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google book search turns up a reference to this in the horse-dealer sense: The Management and Treatment of the Horse in the Stable, Field, and on the Road, William Procter (1883): '... what they term "figging" them, that is, by forcing ginger up the anus ...' Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, search Google Books for "figging horse" and you'll find pages of references from the 19th Century about the practise when used on horses. I thus vote a tentative Keep, although I would like to see more references for this as a sexual practise, not just a horse-dealing practise. Seaching for "figging bdsm" returns one result in Italian that appears relevant (book from 2002) but (a) I don't know Italian, and (b) the book is only limited previewable on Google Books not including the relevant page. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice no sources have been found and it's been a long time, plus this debate has led to more research that has, again, failed. If reliable sources are found, the article could be recreated, but there's only so far I think we can let eventualism go, and we've reached that point here. Mangojuicetalk 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the books, mentioned above and on the talk page, one of which is cited in the article? Uncle G 15:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not adequately referenced. Edison 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Anal masturbation using something like the paragraph I gave above. I am slightly concerned that it isn't in my main references like Cassell's Dictionary of Slang but it does appear to be a genuine sexual practice (the links aren't good references for history/etymology but they do prove it takes place). However, not every combination and permutation of people putting a range of items in a variety of orifices needs its own entry here. Docking is in Cassell's but warrants a section in a larger entry. [49] On the other hand Felching has crossed over into popular culture and appears to deserve its own entry. Obviously deleting the current entry and inserting the above paragraph into anal masturbation would have the same effect I just don't want to prejudice that insertion by removing the material from the main entry "with prejudice." (Emperor 14:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as complete bollocks. The word "anus" is pretty much a guarantor of unverifiability in any article about a suposed sexual practice of this nature. Fails WP:NFT, WP:V and likely some other policies as well. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scads of findable references to it as a historical practice of unscrupulous horse-dealers make it more than 'made up in school one day', I think. I suspect someone in the BDSM community in the last 5-10 years happened to read some old book in which it was mentioned, thought 'That sounds like a wicked idea' and publicized it. I do suspect that claims that it's a long-standing sexual practise are complete bollocks, however; the only reference to it in a sexual context I could find in a dead-tree source was in 2002. This might make it simply too much of a neologism to be in Wikipedia, of course, and insufficiently referenced, but there's no need to accuse contributors of making it up. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have heard of this, though didn't know this name. Better references, please. WMMartin 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.


MORONIC. wikipedia is not for censorship and this is not an unknown practice by any means. maybe you aren't canadian enough or something. someone just has some stupid censorship crusade, go back to your christian democratic union.74.104.16.79 11:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find persons who post pictures of their penis on wikipedia to be slightly more moronic, bucko.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I spent a while reviewing all of the comments and claims made on both sides. Ultimately, I think the arguments slightly favor keep, but there is enough weight to the delete arguments to prevent me from closing this as a keep. —Doug Bell talk 08:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darken[edit]

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

Nominated for deleation per WP:NOT and WP:V —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobagal (talk • contribs). — Bobagal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete Non-notable webcomic, per WP:WEB. --SunStar Net 00:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain why you believe Darken fails the third critera of WP:WEB: 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. -Anþony (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:WEB, distributed non-trivially through Keenspot, a notable online publisher. -Anþony (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed, per WP:WEB, Keenspot's very well known and most other Keenspot webcomics have not had an issue keeping their wikipedia articles, neither should this one. - HartM, 14:40, November 27 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Sunstar.--Agent Aquamarine 01:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB. I do not agree that Keenspot is a "site which is well known" for the purposes of WP:WEB. For starters, the article Keenspot itself does not meet WP:WEB because it makes no claim to notability and has no links to third-party coverage. In this state, it certainly can't confer notability to subsidiary content. Sandstein 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an argument for deleting Keenspot, not Darken. Darken meets WP:WEB even if Keenspot doesn't. Keenspot is clearly well-known with daily visitors in the millions[50]. -Anþony (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it's an argument for deleting both. "Well known" in WP:WEB must at the least mean "notable", because it would make no sense for something to be considered notable for the sole fact that it is being distributed by something that is not itself notable. Keenspot is not (apparently) notable, so Darken isn't notable just because Keenspot carries it. Also, there's a difference between "well known" and "visited a lot". Porn sites are also visited a lot. This doesn't make every porn image on them notable. Sandstein 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have a couple of arguments to make:
          1. WP:WEB does say well-known, not notable. (I would claim that Keenspot is notable, but one argument at a time, see below.) To me, that implies that the bar is lower. It is possible for something to be well known and yet never received an award or warranted comment in other publications. I won't stress this too much because it comes close to wikilawyering, I think.
          2. For the purposes of this AfD, I think it we should assume Keenspot is notable simply because it has an article. That it hasn't successfully been deleted yet implies a consensus that Keenspot is notable. The proper course is to nominate Keenspot for AfD first, then decide this issue. I notice you've already prod'd Keenspot, which is odd considering that I clearly object. I'll remember WP:AGF if you remember WP:POINT.
          3. The nominator is a single purpose account, whose only contributions have been to nominate Darken for AfD. That doesn't invalidate the AfD, but it does make his motives suspect. -Anþony (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have begun chronicling evidence of Keenspot's notability at Talk:Keenspot#Keenspot notability. If Keenspot's notability is established, then, as a simple consequence of WP:WEB, Darken is undeniably notable and deserving of a "keep" recommendation. -Anþony (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does no meet our content policies. Seems to be all original research as there is no third-party coverage by nontrivial reputable sources. Wikipedia is not an internet guide. Not that the WP:WEB guideline could ever be stretched to circumvent the official policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT, but Keenspot is definitely not a generally well-known publisher. Dragonfiend 06:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I wouldn't normally be so adamant about keeping an article on a webcomic, but I'm amazed by this repeated and outright denial of the facts. Aside from prominent articles in a major US newspaper and the publishers trade magazine, Keenspot has its own chapter in The History Of Webcomics (ISBN 0976804395). I've collected plenty of evidence at Talk:Keenspot#Keenspot notability; if anyone has a serious doubt about Keenspot's notability, I ask you to address that evidence directly.
    • Admittedly, Darken does need work. Marmaduke isn't so hot either. This effort would be better spent identifying specific problems with the article that could be fixed in a constructive way. –  Anþony  talk  07:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you care to retract your accusation of "repeated and outright denial of the facts"? That's way over the top. I don't think I typed that Keenspot wasn't "notable." Maybe my eyes are decieving me, but I'm fairly certain that I typed that it was not a generally well-known publisher. I'm not sure why you're being so adamant that people address your tangent about the sources you've found for the Keenspot article, when you've neglected to address the nominator's original point that this article does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Note in particular that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (Also, as far as your Keenspot sources go, you do know that "The History Of Webcomics" is written by a former Keenspot artist, right? So it's not that surprising that he spent a whole chapter writing about it?) -- Dragonfiend 07:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right. In my frustration, I used language that was not appropriate and I do apologize. I still don't see how anyone could claim that Keenspot isn't notable or well-known. Even accepting that the book might not be a completely independent source, Publishers Weekly and the San Francisco chronicle have both run pieces on Keenspot and its founders. Doesn't that hold any water? How can I prove that Keenspot is "well-known"? You seem to admit that it's notable. We have objective tests for notability which Keenspot easily passes. There are none for being "well-known", which makes it pretty easy to disregard any evidence I should bring to bear. That is what frustrates me.
        • I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Advice on improving Darken to address the concerns you've raised in a constructive effort to improve the article. Fiction articles rely on the fiction itself to source plot summaries and character descriptions all the time. WP:V does include an exception for self-published sources for articles about the author when the claims are not contentious. Though that admittedly does not directly relate to articles about fiction works, I see a clear parallel supported by the common Wikipedia practice in writing about fictional works. –  Anþony  talk  08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:WAF seems to imply that citing the fiction itself is not necessarily a bad thing, only that it tends toward original research and a skewed perspective. If Darken is guilty of either, that can be fixed. Discussion at WP:V talk confirmed that works of fiction for which a copy is readily available are verifiable. –  Anþony  talk  09:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I expect at least one independent source -- beyond the numerous scenester blogs / web-comic indexes. Listing on Keenspot is important, based on WP:WEB #3, but the current article still fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. ∴ here…♠ 08:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still would like an accepted media reference beyond Keenspot. The talkaboutcomics interview is not enough. WP:WAF does a nice job of describing things that belong in articles of this sort, write a few cited paragraphs about one of these: the design; the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative; its popularity among the general public; its sales figures (for commercial offerings); its reception by critics; a critical analysis of the subject; the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. ∴ here…♠ 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:WEB and previous statements, as I believe Keenspot itself is notable (and have made a note of such on Keenspot's talk page about some possible examples in favor of its notability), and that this notability does in fact apply to its member comics, too. As a business, there's a standard applied to get into Keenspot that generally means its member comics are also going to be known to a fair number of people already, a standard I think is high enough for recognition here. I also question the insistence for verifiability - on what information, specifically? Darken's wiki page makes no claims on its pageviews or other statistics that traditionally are considered to need extra sourcing. Is it just a matter of having to go through and cite specific pages of the comic where mentioned events happened? I'm not being snarky, I'm seriously curious if that things happened in the comic and can be pointed to on the site are enough or not. Nerrin 09:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Keenspot is both notable and well-known, it's notability extends to all of it's member comics as per Anþony. If that isn't enough, Keenspot is a category, surely the items within the category should be considered notable? Darken is a work of fiction, and the only verifiability that should be required is referencing the fiction itself (such as citing the website, or citing pages which events occurred). Unless there is something in the article that talks about something that is outside of the content of the fiction, then no verifiability beyond the website itself should be required. If there is anything in the article that is outside of the content of the fiction, then those details should be addressed, not the article itself. Admittedly, the article should be written in a more Out-of-Universe approach, but that is an argument for improvement, not deletion.--NicholaiDaedalus 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) — NicholaiDaedalus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete this article is completely unsourced, and no reliable sources have been identified from which the facts in the article may be substantiated, because as far as can be seen from a quick review there is no reliable source which gives details critique of this comic. If such sources do exist, feel free to cite them in the article, but right now it is an unambiguous delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V should not be a factor when the article cites the fiction itself as per AnÞony's and My previous comments, and doing so does not create a WP:NOR violation as long as inferences and analysis is not included in the article. If there is no citations, then someone needs to just pop them in. If there is any original reasearch, then remove anything and everything in the article that isn't a description of the fiction's content. Would you delete the article on Final Fantasy if someone wrote in that FFVIII had the best opening sequence? It's in violation of WP:NOR isn't it? No you wouldn't, you would delete that comment and leave the rest of the article in tact. Again, these are arguments for improvement, not deletion.--NicholaiDaedalus 20:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not think something should be deleted simply because it isn't Virgin Records or a top band. This site was made to be an Encyclopedia, was it not? The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to put as much information as possible. Now, I am not saying that Darken is a bad, non notable comic. Creator Komiyan is very notable in the webcomic community. The only argument I am seeing here for deletion is that Keenspot is not notable, that's an argument for the deletion of KeenSpot, not Darken. Plus, in the webcomic community, everyone has heard of Keenspot. In fact, I think it is the most notable. I may be biased because I'm a reader of Darken, but I see no evidence here other than it's hosted by Keenspot to delete it. -Paralda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.250.206.182 (talk • contribs).
  • Strong Keep, as it is notable, and the article is very well written. Sharkface217 03:39, 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.
  1. ^ Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.
  2. ^ Examples:
  3. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  4. ^ Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies or Webby Awards. See Category:Awards for more. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.
  5. ^ Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_26&oldid=1116878305"