Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 27 November 29 >

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As proposing editor Delete. I tried to prod the article but an anonymous IP, whom I am guessing is the editor who wrote the article, deleted it and re-wrote it in a very similar manner as before. Person has no google hits, has no articles linking to it, does not cite it's sources and appears to be a hoax or at best self promotion.--Thomas.macmillan 14:16, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:25Z

Hart Gunther

[edit]
Hart_Gunther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
Hart gunther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Hart Gunther -- Seemingly non-notable. Michaelbusch 05:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.





























































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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Coonley School

[edit]
Avery Coonley School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blatant spam, speedy contested. -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 02:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see what's so blatant about the spam. It seems to be a regular school, but it was even designated a historic site. I will change my vote if I see some better arguments for deletion. xxpor yo!|see what i've done 03:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per notable awards added to article with references. Accurizer 03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are 100s of others no more important than this. DGG 03:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. School is notable and has recognisable awards. --Terence Ong (C | R) 08:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, school has won an award and it's designated a historical site. I don't see why that would be spam. The article needs to be formatted and cleaned up, but that's it. -- Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a viable school. If you look at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive, you will notice that over the past two years a 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 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment pointing to a record of "successes" (many of them kept by older, less stringent criteria than what is usually accepted today) is highly misleading. We also didn't worry much about spam or trivial subjects two years ago. Standards change, and in the last several months, there has been, in fact, a large (and fairly successful) movement to delete or redirect school articles that are merely stubs. Neither of the proposed school notability proposed-guidelines (either WP:SCHOOLS or WP:SCHOOLS3 which I favor) has reached consensus. In the absence of specific guidelines, we don't keep everything, we go with more general guidelines, like multiple, independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I can point you to dozens of school articles that were deleted or redirected in the last month alone. That said, this looks like a fairly decent article compared to the typical piece of school-spam (and so I'll vote Weak Keep), but as a general argument, your argument fails completely! Xtifr tälk 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here's a breakdown of every school AfD that originated in November and has already been closed (this is a simple count of closed discussions on the schoolwatch, not including DRV discussions): 29 articles were deleted or deleted and recreated as redirects, 19 were no consensus (and defaulted to keep), and 18 were outright kept. Thus, there's absolutely no consensus whatsoever, and any record that is thought to exist clearly does not. -- Kicking222 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. WilyD 15:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a notable Blue Ribbon School with lots of potential for expansion. --Howrealisreal 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic content. StayinAnon 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we at least agree that it needs a rewrite? It's bragiing about its selectivity! -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. Most articles about elementary schools are deleted. The notability of this school appears to arise from the fact that it is private. Not a very fair basis. Since it is a historice site, the article should be architechtural in nature, as opposed to bragging about how selective it is. Nlsanand 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand HoratioVitero 00:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. Highfructosecornsyrup 00:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on awards. The "designation as a historical site" was performed by the Downers Grove Historical Society, so is not itself an indication of noteworthiness beyond a purely local level. It also appears to have been awarded purely because of the school's centennial. [1] Article does require cleanup, per above, but that is not a reason for deletion. Shimeru 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Shimeru although note that the school building was designed by Frank Loyd Wright which is another claim of notability. JoshuaZ 04:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. I've struck out my above comment. JoshuaZ 04:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple awards and being designated as a historical site make this an open/shut case. Silensor 07:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. Just H 20:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or completly rewrite. It is unquestionably notable on a local level (as are most schools) but notability on a local level is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, otherwise just about every shop on every high street would merit an article. I am not convinced about its notability in the grander scheme of things, although others apparently are. If this is kept, the article needs a complete rewrite to become an encyclopaedia article rather than a brag list. It needs to explain the awards it has received, who from and why it won them. It also needs to explain anything else that makes it more notable than A.N. Other school - there are a lot of successful selective private schools out there, so this alone is not reason enough for an article. Everything must also be backed up by reliable sources. Thryduulf 22:37, 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 keep in some form (those wishing to merge are free to do so as usual). "Confusing" isn't really a case for deletion if it can be corrected by editing. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synekism

[edit]
Synekism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is confusing mass of information Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wintermut3 23:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Edward Soja. Doing so will help the Soja article which could also use some attention. I've identified an article by Soja and a book review about his work that are more recent than anything currently listed at the current Soja article and will update Soja's page with this material. Keesiewonder 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm willing to settle for a merge; this probably wasn't the smartest afd I've submitted. If anyone is willing to complete the merge, I would be glad to withdraw my request (I think I'm allowed to do so in this situation). Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:24, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not For Sale

[edit]

Crystal balling. This uncited article offers no specific release date. Prod was removed by User:Blackjays with no comment. Mikeblas 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems fine to me, and it will probably grow as we grow closer to the release date of the album. I personally have not heard of most of the artists listed in the article, but Rihanna is currently quite a prominent name. I think it should be fine to keep. --Mrmaroon25 00:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. seems to be a confirmed album of a notable artist. Koweja 00:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a confirmed album, and there is no specific release date. However, it does not really make sense to delete an article which will be back up eventually. This is not quite crystal balling since Akon and Kardinal Offishall himself both stated that it will be released early next year. There are also references even though my article is claimed to be uncited (note the subtitle which reads "References"), and they should be taken into account. Blackjays 04:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If these artists have verifiably confirmed the release date, please do add a specific reference because neither reference (in the subtitle which reads "References") contains that information. -- Mikeblas 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, album seems to be confirmed. If there is reliable sources, then it is not crystal ballism. --Terence Ong (C | R) 08:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is referenced and its sources appear to be reliable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. The references on the page at the moment don't confirm the album, and therefore also do not provide a concrete release date. This is pure speculation, then. Or am I missing something? One of the references given is a MySpace page, which is full of copyvio videos and a bunch of other crap, so I didn't spend much time trying to read through it. -- Mikeblas 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, the album is verified and confirmed. RFerreira 02:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to set the record straight (no pun intended), I will admit that there is no actual DATE of release for this album. I agree with Mikeblas, but I dont agree that my article is completely uncited, and I don't see any major crystal balling here. Mike, you ask if you are missing something, and seeing as you didn't spend the time to fully browse the references, I think you were missing something. --Blackjays 12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. What I'm missing is useful references in this article. I keep prying away links to copyvio material. All I'm left with is a painfully bad MySpace page, and I have a hard time considering that as a real reference. If this artist is notable and the release date is certain, then I'd expect reliable references (from Rolling Stone, say; or a hip-hop music magazine) to not be hard to find. As it stands, a search for the artist and the album title on Google [2] gets me less than 260 hits. The only ones with release dates seem to be Wikipedia mirror sites. Is htis article original research, then? Or is it just that this title isn't notable? Or is it just that the title will be notable when it's released, and assuming it is notable now is just crystal balling? The assertions here that the release is "verified and confirmed" don't site anything, either; and those contributors haven't bothered to improve the article. -- Mikeblas 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes it was me, Blackjays, I just didn't sign in at the time of the comments. One thing is for certain, more information will eventually be available for this album as we get closer to the early 2007 release, and this article is staying put (judging by the "keep support"). Blackjays 13:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'd hope that it's not at all certain! WP:CRYSTAL should guide the administrator closing this article, reagardless of the "support" here. Particularly since nobody here asserting that the album is confirmed or verfied has provided a shred of evidence of that confirmation and verification. Not only does WP:CRYSTAL apply, then, but so does WP:V. -- Mikeblas 14:07, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Metti

[edit]
Michael Metti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia has clear and established consensus about candidates for election. Sometimes these rules are flouted (first AfD), but in this case, the candidate not only lost (surprise) garnering less than 2% of the vote, he also fails WP:BIO Eusebeus 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merely getting on the ballot, and getting stomped, is not, in itself, notable. Fan-1967 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - losing four statewide elections, the last with less than one vote in 70, doesn't establish sufficient notability. Now if it were four Presidential elections, that might be a different story. There was nothing else in the article even hinting at meeting WP:BIO. B.Wind 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If four isn't enough - how many statewide elections must one lose to be notable??  ;) Garrie 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Mindmatrix 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in Poralas

[edit]
List of television stations in Poralas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as nom. Article has a nice title ansd that's certainly a rarity in these cases, but its content doesn't match. It's basically just some grouping of TV stations based on one person's own Wikipedia:original research. Intentionally or otherwise, it makes the biased (and lkely inaccurate) assertion that these are the standard channels and numbers through the area. It really just looks like something a kid wrote. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:07, 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 all —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-29 04:15Z

Changing Homes FC

[edit]
Changing Homes FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amateur Sunday league club. Chick Bowen 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've prodded the individual players for whom articles were created. Chick Bowen 01:18, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hogan

[edit]

Not Notable crazyeddie 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep and Wikify This person was the District Attorney of New York, New York. Sure, the article needs a little formatting, but the District Attorney position of a major city is pretty important, don't you think? Diez2 01:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heck if I know. I'm mainly listing this to get an opinion poll. I looked over the criteria for biographical notability. For me, Frank Hogan flunks the 100 year test - I don't particularly care who the DA of NYC was a hundred years ago, and I doubt if people a 100 years from now will care that much either. (Unless they are really into civic history.) But I realize that Your Mileage May Vary, hence the reason for the AfD process. crazyeddie 01:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same position as Crazy. Seems like an unimportant position to me, but what you consider important differs from person to person. John Smith's 09:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
john smith, seriously get a hobby and leave the guy alone. stop trolling his articles, i seriously doubt that you care about the issue either way and are just being petty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care about past US presidents either, but that doesn't make them non-notable. Deletion should be based on objective criteria, not someone's own opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 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 speedily deleted by Gurch. MER-C 04:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad chamoun

[edit]
Ahmad chamoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No notability and no verification. We can't have a Wikipedia article on every doctor in the world without establishing how that person stands out. Besides, it fails WP:BIO. Diez2 01:30, 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 06:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asbed

[edit]
Asbed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should belong in Wikidictionary. A tag was already here proposing a move to the Wikidictionary, and the article itself should be deleted from Wikipedia. Diez2 01:36, 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 06:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Zygyroyd

[edit]
Dan Zygyroyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to be a wrestler, but the only reference there doesn't seem to prove the subject's notability. Peter O. (Talk) 01:39, 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 redirected to Slayer (Buffyverse) per one-person majority but (unlike the deletion) this is not binding. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Slayer

[edit]
The Slayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another article about a perhaps obscure wrestler. Peter O. (Talk) 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... What does a wrestler have to do with Buffy?? My brain hurts, as it where would you put it in the Buffy article?? We can't put it in the trivia section as we don't know that this wrestler is named after her... Spawn Man 08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said anything about a merge, silly! :) Xtifr tälk 12:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my mistake... :) Spawn Man 22:44, 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 You asked for speedy, you got a speedy. Tawker 05:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh beef

[edit]
Oh beef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable and unreferenced neologism, disputed prod. Seraphimblade 01:44, 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 06:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artista

[edit]
Artista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No notability and no verification. This is a group of cartoonists that did what? The world may never know. Also, there is no sources to verify this article, so it should be deleted. Diez2 01:46, 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; notability on Wikipedia requires independent non-trivial third-party sources ("this number is big" is not sufficient), and none have been presented. This AfD does not prejudice against recreation with reference to such sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InfoStor magazine

[edit]
InfoStor magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-22 21:35Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some info to the article. It has 39,000 subscribers, which is high for a relatively specialized industry magazine of this sort. It is reachable by at least 3 different online newsletter services. There are about 120,000 links in Google to articles or product reviews published there. It has been published continuously since 1997, rather long for such a publication. I would be a little absurd for a technically-oriented encyclopedia like WP not to carry it, because some of those voting thought it was about furniture. As now revised it is not self-promoting. There's a difference between commercial spam , and real notable commercial products. DGG 07:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Delete. No assertions of notability whatsoever. Not even one reliable, third-party source. -- Satori Son 04:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) While I strongly disagree with DGG's assertion that Wikipedia is a "technically-oriented encyclopedia", this article does now have a minimum assertion of notability. It still needs better third-party references, but it looks like they do exist as well. -- Satori Son 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — There are no assertions of notability, and there isn't even a statistic of how many readers read this magazine. "More can be found at website name" smacks of advertising as well. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep 39,000 subscribers qualifies as notable in my opinion. Needs citation. Scienter 14:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A small town has 39,000 readers. Now a magazine in my country has over 1 mill readers, yet on here even that would seem as NN... As Kungming said, it smacks of advertising... Spawn Man 08:04, 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; notability on Wikipedia requires independent non-trivial third-party sources ("this number is big" is not sufficient), and none have been presented. This AfD does not prejudice against recreation with reference to such sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storage Magazine

[edit]
Storage Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Storage Magazine, a storage magazine. Nominating this to be fair to InfoStor magazine (AfD discussion). —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-22 21:36Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:55, 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. (For those who are wondering, notable enough for one Wikipedia is indeed notable enough for all.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ata Demirer

[edit]
Ata Demirer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Completely and utterly fails WP:BIO. Hmm, his best known role was on the TV show ATV Turkey. The show's article itself is a stub, and gets very few hits on Google. Delete. Diez2 01:58, 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 Speedily deleted as {{db-bio}} as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 05:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mitchell (illustrator)

[edit]
Peter Mitchell (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable artist. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:01, 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 06:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aly & AJ videography

[edit]
Aly & AJ videography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure how this is even an article. At the very least violates WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. -- eo 02:04, 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 for the article to die. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live Or Die

[edit]
Live Or Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deprodded so sending here. While there are lots of reports that 50 cent is working on a new album, the only thing I can find on a working title is this Ireland Online article, and the reports listed on Google news all describe an album featuring Motown style stuff. Tubezone 02:11, 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 06:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish revenge

[edit]
Turkish revenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN neologism/ancient movie quote. ghits: [4] NMChico24 02:10, 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, with no-one claiming that Utcursch's research isn't sufficient to show notability (Diez2's claim isn't consistent with the number and breadth of sources cited). --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian School of Business

[edit]
Asian School of Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:SCHOOL. Does not meet any of the requirements of WP:SCHOOL, and does not mention any history of the school. This should be deleted. Diez2 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Go back and look. He cited eight articles. None of which were the school's website. 4 were from newspapers in India, and one was from Yahoo news. The others were from various news sources. None were the school's website. Wouldn't this be multiple sources? 67.162.212.254 01:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- please review the speedy keep criteria- the nominator has not withdrawn the vote, there have been delete votes, the nomination is not clear vandalism, it is in the correct process, the nominator is not banned, and the article is neither a guideline nor linked to by the main page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This really isn't a "school", it's an unaccredited business college and that's a messy area. Counting the clippings isn't the only way to make a judgement. This new college only has 100(?) students and there's a concern about advertising this business for its ambitions, not its achievements. I looked at the press coverage and I wasn't convinced by it at first glance - it's launch publicity, it's uncritical, and it's not in-depth; though I accept that they include bylined items in serious newspapers. If we imagine the college closing today, would it be worth an encyclopedia article on any grounds?? (except comprehensive coverage of all business colleges in India!) Would it be notable in the enduring record of the field? --Mereda 08:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason I've not voted Keep yet. If it is accredited or recognized, I will vote Keep, but there is no indication of that. News coverage is mostly due to NRIs supporting the college. utcursch | talk 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the college has generated verifiable sources for itself, what difference does it make if it's an accredited school or not? Unaccredited schools make news too, and unaccredited schools can be notable too. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability or remarkability provided in the article or in a cursory search for information on the subject. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep especially per utcursch's top-notch research. I have no idea what the accreditation regime is like in India, but the fact that a school is accredited does not make it notable, and the fact that a school is not accredited does not make it non-notable. Simply put, there is no Wikipedia policy that determines notability based on accreditation. The sources are independent, verifiable and from reliable sources in full compliance with WP:V and WP:RS, all of which establish notability under either WP:SCHOOL or WP:CORP. Alansohn 04:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep almost full keep. The sources all seem to be more about what the school will be when built and don't have much in the way of detail. However, since the school is sourced in a wide geographic area and has enough data to write a decent size stub, I'm inclined to keep. (and if anyone cares, I think it passes criterion 1 of WP:SCHOOLS3). JoshuaZ 04:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mereda[12] and User:Alansohn[13] fixed it. 220.227.179.4 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is my view. CraigMonroe 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If anyone recognises my name from other school afds, they'd be stunned by my suggestion it be kept but this one actually deserves to be included. It needs many things added to it to make it an encyclopedia article and not an advertising run, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but all that said I think any (attempt at a) world class post-graduate school of management built for $3.6m in a developing country is notable. India has a veritable tsunami of schools of cautious notability outside of India but I don't think this is an example due to the hubub it caused. It's unaccredited but I imagine a lot of Indian schools don't have the same accreditation standards as schools in developed countries and generally across the world business colleges are less likely to be accredited then other similar institutions. Per a couple of comments by people about it being ambitious rather than established, I agree, but it's VERY ambitious. Consider if a plan was afoot and the groundwork laid for a 2000 storey tower made out of diamonds in Australia, it's not established rather ambitious, but boy is it ambitious! Therefore it'd be worthy of an article. I think this is the same sort of thing.•Elomis• 23:07, 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 speedily redirected. AFD is not the place to discuss mergers and once material is merged the history of the source article needs to be retained to comply with the GFDL. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student desk

[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. I merged it already into desk, but I have doubts if it should really be there either. Delete. Yankee Rajput 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A student desk is a stupid idea for an article. I have an old school desk, but I am niether a student nor am I at school. Therefore it looks like other desks. So what is a student desk? A desk for study? Do we need a study table or study chair too? Delete, & merge any, and I mean if any, info into desk. Spawn Man 02:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)comment[reply]
  • Redirect - I don't think "merge and delete" is an option. The contribution history needs to be preserved. That said, the information is completely unsourced and a little arcane. shotwell 02:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a distinct article of furniture sold to a distinctive market--'Desk" otherwise means office desk. It is so distinctive that people buy them as conversation pieces, a/c 3 comments up. DGG 03:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, close discussion. AfD is not a forum for discussing article mergers. That said, this brief and unsourced content seems to fit well on Desk. If it grows and is sourced, it can be spin off again. Otherwise, much of the content should probably be deleted as OR. Sandstein 05:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what's the difference from a normal desk and a student desk? Isn't it more or less the same than any other desks? As a student, we use a normal desk, not some special type of desk. --Terence Ong (C | R) 08:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Escritoirecruft.--Folantin 09:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. When material is merged, the edit history of the source material needs to be retained to be GFDL compliant. Deleting the article would mean there'd be no paper trace to find out who originally wrote the material which is key for verifiability and accountability. - Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 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. —Doug Bell talk 09:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbe Land

[edit]
Abbe Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable local politician. Fails to meet WP:BIO, specifically "Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.", as Ms. Land has held no statewide job. Additionally, "Mayor" of West Hollywood is a non-elected position, rotating through elected city council members. JRP 02:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin closing this AFD: This article previously passed a WP:PROD and was deleted, then recreated. If this passes AFD, please restore the original history of the article. (The re-creator did not follow the prod-undelete process, just recreated from a cache.) JRP 02:46, 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: only one editor making genuine arguments for keeping in this AfD, though not being very specific. There are two NME reviews documented here, and NME is undoubtedly a notable music publication. However, the article as it stands relies on nothing more than the subject's family to assert notability, and there's clear consensus here that that isn't sufficient. If anyone is able to create an article which asserts and verifies the subject's notability independently, more than the current two-sentence stub, then this deletion doesn't prejudice against that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Islam

[edit]
Muhammad Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject hasn't done anything notable to be included in wiki Rarechords (talk · contribs)

Comment I finished the afd nom that Rarechords started. See this note on my talk page for a little background. I'll abstain from making a recommendation on this. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment I should've provided a link to the original afd for Yoriyos. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete dittoTvoz 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my "delete" vote; apparently he has has some press and might fit "notability" requirement after all - I am researching this now. Name he records under is "Yoriyos". Request that you hold off on deletion.Tvoz 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Screw you nerds. Yoriyos has an official website and album. Yes, he is Yusuf Islam's offspring, but as long as fictional Star Wars characters are deemed acceptable enough to warrant their own pages, Yoriyos should be allowed to stay. Incredible Jake 02:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for that language Jake. Delete it. end of.
        • **** **** **** ****

See Amazon for Album shortly available

"Bury My Heart Wounded Knee" http://www.yoriyos.com/

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Pontchartrain

[edit]
Hotel Pontchartrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is being considered for deletion because RaccoonFox is stealing quotes directly from Emporis.com, not rewording them, and not even citing his source, despite being asked to multiple times. Criticalthinker 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio from Emporis.com. B.Wind 02:57, 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: as is common with fictional characters, no consensus, particularly due to the confusion over exactly what fictional works the characters are limited to (apparently not just a computer game). --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan and Pikel Bouldershoulder

[edit]
Ivan and Pikel Bouldershoulder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Minor characters in a computer game. Wikipedia is neither a game guide nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Unreferenced and unwikified. Contested prod. MER-C 02:51, 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. You can make a mention of it on the school district, though. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briarwood Elementary School

[edit]
Briarwood Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a list of redlinks, and presumably none of them actually merit articles. Nominating for deletion per WP:NOT an employee directory, and even if this were expanded into an actual article about the elementary school, the subject of the article would not be notable. Principal Schoolswatter 03:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) — Principal Schoolswatter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Au petit hotel

[edit]
Au petit hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an orphaned article that has no notability. All I can get from this is that the Au Petit Hotel is owned by someone and built at sometime. This fails WP:LOCAL. Diez2 03:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RealClimate

[edit]
RealClimate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable blog ad with all references only pointing to the blog itself. --timecop 03:25, 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 - if this article can be deleted following a coherent nomination based on a lack of third-party reliable sources to base an article upon, then this isn't that nomination; and this AfD does not prejudice against such a nomination in the future. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online self-service

[edit]

source.Obina 21:56, 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 speedyed. xxpor yo!|see what i've done 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty01

[edit]
Casualty01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disputed Speedy, delete per WP:BIO-- xxpor yo!|see what i've done 03:30, 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 06:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff videography

[edit]
Hilary Duff videography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another pop music videography page which barely constitutes an encyclopedia article. In addition, filled with YouTube links. See also deletion discussion for Aly & AJ videography. -- eo 03:29, 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. --Coredesat 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, No

[edit]
Sadly, No (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable political blogshite. No references except to itself and other blogs. Does not fit any kind of notability criteria. Sadly, not notable. --timecop 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Wikipedia:Notability gives the guideline (with WP:WEB being the specific one for online material). Said guideline states that "notability is not subjective," which rings false to me, but its point is that it's not based on "I like it," but rather "It satisfies X, Y, and Z" (which can be found in WP:WEB). Properly sourced and written, Sadly, No! might be a valuable entry to Wikipedia. But right now it needs work to prove itself. In some sense it's kind of a shame that blogs need to go through such effort to prove themselves, so much so that the source text can be as much reference as explanation (in order to deflect random annoying AfDs). But, considering the arcane and novel nature of blogs, it's necessary in order to have a consistent policy all around. And Sadly, No! doesn't seem to meet it. Calbaer 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - Do Not Delete It is very important in the case of political blogs to be able to find third-party information on the people involved and the history of the blog. If we begin to pick and choose which political blog "qualifies" for a Wikipedia entry, we'd better be very careful about the political philosophies of the people recomending deletion. Why delete the Sadly,No entry and not, say, the Little Green Footballs entry? Where would it stop? Where should it stop? 70.89.67.161 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Then you go to the said blog and click 'about' link. Ego-inflating 'about this blog' cruft can and should be kept local to the blog, and not in wikipedia. And LGF is big enough to be annoying and kept on wikipedia, where as Sadly, no is not. --timecop 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - There are notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability and WP:WEB. I personally think they're a bit too strict on blogs (versus, say, minor manga characters), but the Sadly, No! article really needs to have some sourcing as to its notability, and, frankly, it needs to be better-written. Right now, the article is poorly written and the blog comes off as some small humor blog that derives its humor and alleged notability off of starting "blog dust-ups" with more well-known blogs. It still might be notable — maybe it's the Ali G of the blogosphere — but, from the entry, I just can't see how. Calbaer 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sadly, No! is a blog fairly frequently linked to by "top tier" blogs like Atrios, and is certainly a moderate-traffic player in the left-wing, um, blogosphere. The article information could use sourcing, and if that means sourcing it to their "About" page, well, that would be a start. Cromis 02:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - An "about" page is not a reliable source. Links to media coverage, awarding organizations, news stories, well-established webpages/blogs, etc. are the kind of things I'd be looking for. (The last of these is not considered by some to establish notability, but I think that a blog being consistently mentioned — not merely linked to — by several top blogs is a pretty good indication of notability.) Calbaer 02:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Well, yeah, the sourcing is problematic. To me the notability is fairly clear - dozens of links from Atrios over at least 2 years, plenty of links from other sites; if you follow Atrios, you can't help but be familiar with it. It's a B-level political blog, of which there are many, but that doesn't make them all irrelevant or identical, any more than, say, local newspaper columnists. On the other hand, if there's nothing both interesting & verifiably sourced you can say about it, then notability doesn't matter so much. The problem I have is with comments indicating that it's obviously not notable because ... it's a blog? They don't know anything about it? They don't like it? Those aren't grounds for non-notability. Cromis 64.142.81.56 21:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - As for as I can tell, people aren't saying it's not notable because it's a blog, rather that it's a nonnotable blog. Not everyone has to fully explain their opinion on the topic in order to share their judgment. Calbaer 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Timecop, the user who instituted this whole discussion, is waging a self-declared war on blogs; this is not a debate about the merits of this particular blog more than an attempt by an individual to impose his own standards on Wikipedia. Simply look around this site-- there are articles on minor anime characters, yet a blog with its own community and some political relevance (and it should be noted that I don't visit this site particularly often myself) doesn't warrant it's own page? It's completely arbitrary and contradictory. 61.132.71.55
    • Comment - Sadly, your whole comment is a personal attack, is based on a logical fallacy and does not discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the article in question. In my opinion, the admin that will close this discussion should not consider you vote. - Femmina 10:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I don't think it's a personal attack; either timecop is declaring "the war on blogs" or he has an elaborate satire claiming the same. That doesn't mean that Sadly, No! should be kept, but it does mean that we need to be very skeptical about his/her motives and arguments. Calbaer 19:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Datablogging

[edit]
Datablogging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable concept. The only google hits are related to the reger.com company which apparaently 'created' this 'thing' and other similar blogspam / wikispam that they have published about it. no thanks. Deletion reason: spam, advertisement, non-notable. timecop 03:36, 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 - consensus is fairly clear that the mentions in reliable sources are trivial, and getting 3% in an election doesn't give any other grounds for notability. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey

[edit]
Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural. Deprodded. Concern was notability. - crz crztalk 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I rather think the most notable aspect of the subject is her blog, one of the entries from it having gained a pretty good amount of attention. Also, her name brings up 121,000 Google hits, which feels like a lot to me. --Maxamegalon2000 06:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Be careful of the Google bias. Most of those google hits are blog entries about her and blog entries about other blog entries about her — no sign of any reliable sources. Demiurge 12:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Be careful yourself of what constitutes a reliable source. A blog post may not be a reliable source for information about Passey, but citing that blog post is a reliable source for the fact that there have been blog posts about her. As WP:BIO states, the definition of "published work" is left deliberately broad, and the literally dozens of bloggers who have published material pertaining to Passey ought to establish notability. VoiceOfReason 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO & Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. Eusebeus 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is definitely NN. This article is essentially a defamation of the subject with almost no encyclopedic information. Scienter 14:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the author I take some offense at the claim that the article is "essentially a defamation"; as written there was no defamatory intent and I was careful to adhere to WP:NPOV. Other (mostly anonymous) editors added defamatory information, which has been removed. Wikipedia:Candidates and elections is a proposed guideline. As for WP:BIO, it's easy to find multiple non-trivial published works of which she is the subject; if nothing else there have been dozens of commentaries written about the blog post detailed in the "controversy" section. VoiceOfReason 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless reliable sources promised are actually found and cited. Currently no reason to think she'd pass WP:BIO. Change to keep, Toronto Star article covers her pretty thoroughly and establishes notability. Seraphimblade 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems to me that a blog post shouldn't qualify as a non-trivial published work. It's not exactly a very stringent 'publishing' process. Should I be able to open up a bunch of Blogger accounts and make myself notable? SubSeven 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When the blog posts in question are on blogs like Marginal Revolution and written by folks like Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw, does the fact that publishing is done online necessarily make it trivial?
    • Comment Even if you open a bunch of Blogger accounts, you can't make yourself notable, because you're neither multiple sources nor independent of the subject. If, however, thirty bloggers write articles about you, that is a strong indicator of notability. Of course, bad faith would have to be taken into consideration... but there's certainly more than enough evidence to assume good faith on the part of the bloggers who wrote about Passey and believe that they wrote about her because they thought she was notable. VoiceOfReason 01:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I mean that I'd be posing as thirty different people. There is not really anything to prevent this. And even ignoring those kinds of possiblities, I can't accept a blog post as an indicator of notability. Blogs have absolutely no publishing standards (nor should they). Plenty of bloggers are part of circles of friends that regularly talk about each other's exploits. Certainly a few buddies writing about each other can't make them notable to the world. SubSeven 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response I realize that you'd be posing as thirty people. This again goes to the notability criteria being guidelines... not policies, not laws. If your article is up for deletion and you want to claim that you meet the notability criteria because of your mention on thirty different blogs, people could choose to discount that evidence based on suspicion that those thirty different blogs aren't really "multiple" sources, nor really "independent" of the subject. Are you suggesting that that is the case with the multiple blog mentions of Passey? It seems highly unlikely, considering that 1) most of the published works on blogs regarding Passey are hardly complimentary and 2) many of the published works are on well-known, large blogs, which aren't likely to allow themselves to be used as sockpuppets.
As far as blogs having "no publishing standards"... technically, neither do newspapers nor magazines nor any other media outlets. Anybody is free to publish whatever he wants. I can start my own newspaper and put whatever the heck I want in it; it's a free country. But respected blogs, just like respected mainstream media outlets, make an effort not to publish works on non-notable subjects.
Certainly a few buddies writing about each other doesn't establish notability. But just as certainly, a person who is the subject of articles on Kos, Huffington, Malkin, and Powerline is most likely notable, regardless of whether the New York Times deigns to take notice. Discarding blogs entirely as an indicator of notability makes no more sense than automatically accepting any mention on any blog as an indicator of notability. But even so, WP:BIO as it is written today certainly includes blogs; it explicitly excludes other things but not blogs, and it specifically emphasizes that the definition of "published work" is left extremely broad. If you want, you can argue that Passey is not notable, and you can argue that the cited works do not prove notability. But you can't legitimately argue that she doesn't meet the guideline WP:BIO, because she plainly does. VoiceOfReason 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Notable jackass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment - I realize that I'm not disinterested, having invested the time to actually write this article, but I think too many people are kneejerking on WP:BIO. In the first place, WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy. That an article fails a notability guideline would be a reason to consider the article's merit, not an ironclad mandate to delete. Quoting from WP:BIO itself:
This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.
(boldface in original)
In the second place, Passey meets WP:BIO besides. The very first criterion for notability:
  • The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
Okay, so what's a published work? The guideline continues:
  • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries (2) except for the following: (two criteria which do not apply to Passey).
(2): What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
A blog post is surely a published work in some form. And several of the blogs which published articles on Passey are big, well-known blogs with massive readership. Heck, some probably attract more eyeballs than most major newspapers.
Maybe blog posts should be specifically excluded from the category of "published works" in WP:BIO. But as of now, they're not. Passey meets the notability guidelines spelled out in WP:BIO and this article should not be deleted.
I'll add that this article has been the target of repeated vandalism, mostly by anonymous IPs. I'll keep an eye on it and prevent it from happening again. VoiceOfReason 01:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added some stuff with newspaper citations, though I couldn't find anything for the controversy section. --Maxamegalon2000 04:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Excellent additions, which make clear the subject meets WP:BIO even if you don't count blogs as published works. VoiceOfReason 06:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment can you tell us how substantial those newspaper articles are? Do they just mention her name in passing, or are they entirely about JMMP? The headlines don't mention her anyway. I found the Seattle Times article [16], in my opinion it doesn't really count as a substantial reference, because it's primarily not about her — she only gets a few paragraphs. Demiurge 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Neither article is entirely about her, no. But she gets a couple of paragraphs, and the quotes I added. Basically she's given as one of a couple of examples of people with notable blogs. The Seattle Times article is about how blogs can affect politics, and the Toronto Star article is about using blogs to start relationships. She's cited in both as an example of the point about blgos that the article is trying to make. --Maxamegalon2000 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When your only slight claim to fame is the fallout from a hissy fit on your blog, you really aren't important when it comes right down to brass tacks.Chris Buckey 06:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, could you cite the bit about being "really important" when it comes "right down to brass tacks" in WP:BIO or any other guideline or policy? VoiceOfReason 06:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Umm, the bit that says, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I really don't think blog entries making fun of someone's declaration of quality count as "non-trivial". Chris Buckey 18:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment From WP:BIO: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail." It specifically draws the examples of a birth certificate or a single ballot line as trivia. Other examples of trivia: "newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." Published works focused primarily on the subject are not trivial, even if they take the form of blog posts. Even if you disagree, do you think the Toronto Star and Seattle Times are also trivial publications? VoiceOfReason 00:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The citations I added alone make me feel like this one just squeaks by, but I think the Google hits and all of the other blogs that mention her count for something. Maxamegalon2000 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have a syllogism to contribute: 1. I have never had lunch with a notable person. 2. I have had lunch with Jacqueline Passey. 3. Jacqueline Passey is not a notable person. The deletion debate here should center on the major premise of my syllogism, although I suppose we could discuss the minor premise as well :) Philwelch 04:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Borderline because of media mentions, but coverage seems pretty trivial to me. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established by media article / political run. Makgraf 01:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Bgeer 01:29, 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 Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laptopical

[edit]

Non-notable blog/self-advertisement. Not helping you increase your pagerank with wikipedia. timecop 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Linuxaurus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tulkolahten 10:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Wehe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tulkolahten 10:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two voters above have very few contributions. Wehe has been reborn on 16 November 2006 with first contribution after a months then followed by two contributions (one of them this one). User Linuxaurus was born on 29 November and voted in various Deletion debates only. I suspect Linuxaurus for being sockpuppet or single purpose account, I do not believe these two votes are in good faith. Tulkolahten 10:53, 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 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CURURU

[edit]
CURURU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Irrelevant regional blog hosting service. There's already a mention of it on japanese wikipedia, no sense to have a non-english blog host service listed HERE either. Its also non-notable due to the fact that its just a blog hosting service. timecop 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 unfortunately, no consensus. --Coredesat 07:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (2 nomination)

[edit]
Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2nd nom. Unimaginable WP:COI [18] by an Single-purpose account. We cannot reward this. This is a trivial, trivial cow, she don't have a shred of notability outside a very small area. Say no to cow-promotion! - crz crztalk 03:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1st AfD for Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow ending November 16, 2006) --Oakshade 05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest a redirect to CowParade, and add this cow to the cow list on that article. Tubezone 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Featured in MSM here although I wonder if the fact that the Cow has an entry in Wikipedia itself means anything -- Tawker 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Odd Christmas decorations are not notable even if they are written about in a local newspaper. This is nothing more than self promotion on the part of the author. If I dress my garden gnome up and the local newspaper notices, that doesn't make it notable. pschemp | talk 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If not made clear by the nom and previous comments, the owner of Gladys (Jim Lebinski) is the one who is the main contributor to the wiki article (User:James.lebinski), as evidenced by the recent news article. The wiki article has existed for less than 3 weeks. It survived the previous AfD after the author was encouraged to make it more encyclopedic, but as a result the article is now bogged down in minutiae. Katr67 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In light of my previous comment, and per the nom, although I have a soft spot for plastic cows, the mention of the Wikipedia article in the local paper makes me agree this is a serious conflict of interest. Katr67 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking at the first AFD I'm wondering if people realize that verifiability is not actually a criteria for keeping an article. Lots of non-notable things can be verified but that doesn't make them worth of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Its got to be notable first. pschemp | talk 04:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - "Strong" because the 1st AfD, which was decidedly "Keep," ended on November 16th and this is way too short of time to elapse for a 2nd nomination. Regular keep because WP:Verification is established. Interesting/Trivial items are allowed. The coverage is not trivial (i.e. not a directory listing, a mention or store hours), even though the subject is. --Oakshade 05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment regarding the nom's added comment of this article being created by a SPA - First of all, OH REALLY? Thanks for the news, Woodward or Bernstien! Secondly, I've read WP:SPA and I really can't find any WP policy that prohibits or even dissuades members from solely creating and then focusing on one article. It even states, "There is, of course, nothing wrong with single purpose accounts." --Oakshade 05:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. Verifyability in and of itself is *not* a reason to keep an article. Just because a reporter writes an article that verifies your buttocks are hairy and do indeed exist does not make them worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Trivial subject = not notable. "The opposite exists also: things that are interesting without being really important. For example, the Guinness Book of World Records contains, apart from many world records that are "important", several "trivia" world records. So wikipedia will not mention each and every "world record" that is interesting, but only those that are also important." How is this cow important? Don't forget the conflict of interest either, or do you think that's a good thing? pschemp | talk 05:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, agree it's WP:TRIVIA and you seem to agree it's verfied (thanks for the WP:UNCIVIL reference to my buttucks). For conflict of interest, at least five non-creator non-anon editors worked on this article since it's creation a few weeks ago. Now that that's said, pschemp, keep it civil --Oakshade 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was a generic your. Nothing to do with your personal buttocks. Simply an example to point out ridiculousness. It wasn't uncivil at all. If I had meant it to be uncivil I would have said something like, "Now lets take the example of Oakshade's hairy ass...but I didn't because that would be uncivil. pschemp | talk 06:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trivial subject is not the same as not notable. They can be. What you should've said was Trivial subject != notable (Trivial subject does not equal notable). - Mgm|(talk) 10:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It doesn't appear to me as if anything about the article's changed. That leaves the COI issue. COI is not necessarily a reason for deletion, though. Verifiability, NPOV/encyclopedic tone, and "no original research" are all met. The article could probably use some cleanup, but that's also not a reason for deletion. That leaves self-promotion. I notice that the author of the article the nominator of this AfD cited is also the author of one of the article's sources, though, and that that earlier article was written in 2003, meaning this author knew of the piece and its artist long before the article existed. It seems possible to me that Mr. Spinelli took an interest on his own, so I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt in this case. I also think it's a bit soon to renominate the article, but I suppose the new information is a decent reason. Shimeru 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well researched, well documented article on a road side folk art attraction. New Jersey has its Lucy the Elephant and there is Elsie the Cow, an ad campaign. I disagree that triviality is equal to non-notability. The "hairy ass" analogy doesn't fit. There is no more information beyond the single sentence about a "hairy ass" but this article is more than a single sentence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEep if only because if you can't wait at least a month before resubmitting an AfD, I can't believe you are making this proposal fairly. FrozenPurpleCube 06:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bzzt. That's not a valid reason to keep. Besides, it was nominated by a different person. No one here has yet proven this cow is notable in the wider world. pschemp | talk 06:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it is a valid reason to keep, since you'll see people remove nominations all the time upon realizing that the situation has been recently discussed. Furthermeore, that it is a different person is also irrelevent, since in this case, there's no apparent ignorance of the prior deletion issue. Ergo, I stand by my keep. FrozenPurpleCube 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- while this renomination appears to come from another editor, the arguments remain the same -- verifiability and notability. It appears, now, to be verified; notability is not something that happens overnight. If this nomination were six months after the "keep", I could understand and accept that it failed. Two or three weeks does not, of itself, give the opportunity for the Outside World to declare its interest. If the decision is to delete, then I reiterate my earlier suggestion, that the text be ported to the author's User-page, so that it can be archived, rather than being dematierialised without warning. -- Simon Cursitor 08:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aside from notability and verifiability, does it bother anyone else that the cow's owner wrote a Wikipedia article about said cow, and was then featured in a seasonal newspaper article (which was to be expected as the cow has some local notability) where he said "Just look up Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow" on Wikipedia? I don't think Wikipedia has to take itself so seriously that we can't include a little regional folk art here and there, but I feel like we are being used for self-promotion. As far as I can tell, the only reason Gladys will become notable is because she has an article on WP. Isn't that some sort of logical fallacy or circular-something-or-other, possibly phrased in Latin? :) I think the cow keeper means well, but the promotion angle bothers me a lot. As the nom said, we're not here to promote cows. Katr67 08:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All but one of the outside articles written about his subject came before this article was created. As Wikipeidia is not a crystal ball, I don't think anyone, including the original author, could've predicted another outside article written on this subject and that it would include info about the WP entry. The reporter of the recent article actually wrote about this subject before in April. As always, we assume good faith of not only the editors, but even the reporters of the reliable sources. --Oakshade 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AUTHOR ABSTAINS Morning Katr67 - I can understand how you might feel that there is a COI in my having referenced the article, however, there is nothing further from the truth. there is no commerical interest for me in this art, it is not connected to any business venture, and there is no value in self-promotion here, other than shating the information itself.

    The only reason I commented on the article was to note its existence ion anticipation of the significant public interest that a front page article generates. You'uu note that I said "you can find the history of the artwork on wikipedia" - which is a perfectly legitimate thing to say wihout even a hint of a COI - a refernce to a reliable source of veruified information on a notable piece of art, not a commercial shill.

    One other idea - shouldn't the fifth fromt ( yet another....) page article in a huge newspaper be enought to pass notability?

    Final thought - I've revealed my identity through my sign in name - had I something to hide or a COI - I could have selected a pseudonym and none of the previous comments would even be possible. There is no COI and nothing to hide.

    BTW - Tony Spinelli from the post did in fact aggressively pursue the article - he pursued me for it, which means it passed the review of his editors and the rest of the publishers at the post.

    This is more than a christmas display guys - I'll edit the details to better conform today.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.lebinski (talk • contribs) 2006-11-28 12:52:49

  • Conditional Keep, notable art is not only displayed in museums. If the article can be cleaned up to relevant parts it should be kept. Rough 14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that notable art can be found outside of museums. It's also worth recalling that non-notable art can also be found outside of museums, and it may in fact have found, in this, its poster child. Eusebeus 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Type until you are blue in the face, the subject of this article is not notable. One local newspaper does not a famous cow make. Scienter 14:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scienter's Argument is legitimate, but factually inaccurate - therefore potentially invalid

    Media coverage for this work of art includes:

    The Connecticut Post ( more than five times - including 3 front page placements)

    The Fairfield Citizen ( three times, including one fronty page placement

    The Monroe Courier ( 1X)

    Cablevision channel 12 news

    Part of Scienter's arcument is based on the trivial nature of The Connecticut Post. is the largest circulating paper in South Western CT - and as such doesn't meet the "local" mnimization offered.

    The very nature of this coverage - mutliple reporters, multiple years, multiple photographers defies the "non-notability argument" — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.lebinski (talk • contribs) 2006-11-28 14:47:02

    • I'm still waiting for evidence that this cow is notable *outside* its home region. Why should the rest of the world care? I don't see *any*. pschemp | talk 16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were right on one point: more than one media outlet has "covered" this fake cow statute. I'm not going to engage in an argument on whether or not the Connecticut Post is a local media outlet, especially since we appear to be on the same page. If some choose to consider South Western CT as a large enough coverage area to be considered a national or even regional outlet, so be it. I don't think this articifial cow, covered in different types of paint can possibly be considered "notable." Stretch, twist, and bend the definition of notability until it snaps, at the end of the day the inclusion of the cow article won't break Wikipedia, inclusion just calls the legitimacy of WP into question. I understand how this would seem notable to someone living in the area perhaps.Scienter 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think this articifial cow, covered in different types of paint can possibly be considered "notable." — You are making a subjective judgement, not applying notability criteria. Notability is not subjective. You've had several sources cited. The only proper counterargument is to challenge any of those sources that are autobiographical, that are not in fact in-depth articles about the subject at hand, or that have not been fact checked. Your personal subjective estimations of notability are not valid couterarguments. Uncle G 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting concept of a "notability threshold by distance/global scale of notability" - From what I read that notion really isn't supported in wiki policy - seems like the consensus is that the notability test already is passed - multiple non trivial mentions exist, and wiki policy doesn't to my knowlegde address a minimum grographic scale of impact. Can you provide a reference to policy guidance that says "how" notable something must be by geographic disstance? If not, I'd suggest that you defer to the consensus on the apparently resolved notability issue.--James.lebinski 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a close one for me. I am concerned by the potential self-promotion, particularly that I understand that the author of the article is also the artist painting the cow. Additionally, there are, what, hundreds of these plastic cows? (There's one in the University of Chicago Law School cafeteria, for example.) I don't see how this particular plastic cow is more notable than all the other cows. On the other hand there is media coverage - but media coverage of a plastic cow is still...you know, media coverage of a plastic cow. Still, I'm not a fan of a new AfD right after the old one closed - though the old one was pretty "messy," for lack of a better word, so I maybe can see some justification there. On balance it's probably the WP:Auto concerns that swing my vote. Cute cow, though. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts. --TheOtherBob 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every artist has to self promote himself, else they just cease to be notable. Therefore our measure of notability is not the degree of self-promotion but the sources referenced. If there are sources that call it art we have to note that and if sources call it notable we also have to take that into account. If we go after our impressions we should not try to make a encyclopedia. Rough 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, just as every company needs to advertise - but not on Wikipedia. I don't at all mind that the artist self-promotes in the media (I'd think he was crazy if he didn't), nor does it matter how much they self-promote. It's self-promotion through Wikipedia that concerns me. A large part of that is the belief that if something is notable, someone not connected with it will eventually write an article about it - and vice versa.--TheOtherBob 20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Got your point, and I agree that it is bad style to write about one's own work... but does not reduce notability - if the subject is notable and sorry to say, noted art is always notable ... no matter who notes Rough 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Bob -The POV of the article is on the work, which is the one and only subject of this article. The article itself makes no mention of the artist. The published articles do identify the creator, but that's a byproduct.

    You might be surprised to note that each of the cow parade cows to which you refer are indiviudually notable works of art by other reputable artitsts - selling in some cases for hundreds of thousands at charity auctions.

    This work has noting to do with the cow parade, which makes it especially unique, and when coupled with the ongoing nature of the piece, it becomes especially notable.

    The notability issue appears to have at least some consensus leaning towards "notable". Perhaps the number of people aware of the sculpoture who are currently arguiing its notability may be a proof point in itself.

    The COI piece is open for debate - but per Wiki policy ( I think) is not a reason for deletion in and of itself = especially in the very grey area of communicating facts about a notable work that has no commercial or other finnancial links.--James.lebinski 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I take your point about the artist not being mentioned in the article. However, I think that is exactly backwards and points out the WP:Auto problem. An article about a piece of art should mention the artist. But this article has a hard time discussing the artist, because it's written by the artist - that's where WP:COI comes into play. Is WP:COI a reason to delete? No - but it's a strong argument against notability, and that's why I'm on the deletion side. --TheOtherBob 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand what a single purpose account is my friend? Are you stating that my contribution is limited to this article - if so that is inaccurate. I have authored another wholly unrelated article on IT, and have begun to create wildlilfe related content to add to the American Woodcock, Ring Necked Duck, and Green Winged Teal articles, specifically regarding their flight behaviors

    I think your edit may have been made because ( as a new user) I received come advice to add this a copy of this article to my user page as a protection against deletion and followed some cut and paste instructions provived by another wiki-zen

    Would you please take one of the follwing two actions:

    1) Educate me further on the SPA ? or how to fix my user page

    OR

    2) Withdraw the comment

     — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.lebinski (talk • contribs) 2006-11-28 17:44:33
  • Delete per my Barry Bonds rule of Hall of Fame worthiness. If A = actual ability and D = performance improvement through deception then A + D = observed performance, but A − D = yardstick for Hof worthiness. This one is Mario Mendoza on 'roids. ~ trialsanderrors 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are implying that there has some deception in the sources or content the state your case plainly and lets debate that further. Othewise I think that the use of the term approaches WP:UNCIVIL in what has been a pretty civil fact based policy/opinion discussion (prevous personal grooming references aside). Otherwise, could you clarify because I just don't get the sports metaphors.--James.lebinski 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:COI, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:NOT a picture gallery, etc. The simple test is, was the article created to improve Wikipedia or was Wikipedia used to increase exposure for the subject. With the scraps of coverage provided as sources this is a clear-cut case. ~ trialsanderrors 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great debate trials. I wonder about your definitions however. Assuming we're not debating the veracity of the coverage - What exactly is a scrap of coverage? How many more media mentions are necessary over what time period to assume substance in your definition? How many more individuals must view the work or the published reviews? On the surface your characterization could be seen as terribly subjective.
        From an obhective measure - the exposure of this art will not substantially increase with wikipedia listing - only the encyclopedic documentation of it will- which does improve wikipedia - bedause its virtual nature is the very thing that allows this breadth of topic to be covered in way not possible in paper based media (ok thats an opinion) . However, in this case, more than three years of pre-wiki notability, almost a dozen articles in three pubklications by more than five individual journalists, TV coverage, and award winning appearances appear to factually contradict your characterization.
        I've read the POV/weight reference and find no policy based merit in citing that - what specific language did you intenbd to apply? I beleive all published points of view are readily presented.--James.lebinski 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course there is more to say trials. Quotes are often paraphrases, but this one is in fact accurate. There is an article on Wikipedia ( for the time being anyhow) it comprehensively documents the history of the work, and the existense of this article was notable to the reporter covering the item. Kind of a mirror in a mirror problem isn't it. The wikipedia article exists, it is mentioned as such and persons interested in a more detailed encyclopedic review of the subject can locate such content. Perceiving COI is at least understandable even though none exists, but regardless of that point policy and other commenst have already established that COI is not in itself a criteria for deletion.
  • Keep This folk art or performance art work has demonstrated notability by virtue of numerous newspaper articles and TV coverage over a 3 year period. Its notability is better established than the vast majority of pop culture subjects which have Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia editors are absolutely not the final arbiters of what is or is not art: for them to give their opinion of the work is original research per se.Do the self proclaimed art experts also want to delete Christo and Jeanne-Claude because a structure with fabric wrapped around it is not art? The article cites multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources as to the notability of the work. Edison 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. We just went through this. It is locally notable and of small encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Also mostly WP:OR. Resons to keep are unfounded, just because something is verified then it by no means follows that we should include it. --T-rex 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep as per Edison. Don't keep only the popular culture genres you are familiar with. DGG 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unlikely as it may seem, it's sourced and apparently received press. Seraphimblade 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very close call here. It is well sourced (albeit that all links seem to be to the same source), and it seems to be notable on the local level (WP:LOCAL), but I hesitate to endorse a keep for a handful of troubling reasons.
  1. This article is practically orphaned. Take away the user pages and the links related to deletion, and that would leave one disambiguation article (Gladys) and one redirect (Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow). As is often mentioned around here, orphan articles are usually orphaned for a reason.
  2. Not only does the article exhibit a WP:COI for the author, it is promotional in nature. There is not one word about reaction or reception of the "performance art" at any of the venues that were mentioned in the article (except for one "honorable mention") - this almost is written in a journalistic diary style and not in the style of an encyclopedia (it is almost written from the viewpoint of the cow). Thus it is not a stretch of imagination to call the article an advert for Gladys.
  3. There are far too many pictures in the "article" - Wikipedia is not your own private photo host... and regardless of the outcome of the AfD, the Photo Gallery must be removed.
  4. I am also leery of one local newspaper "supplying" all of the references for this supposedly-significant piece of art (the last "reference," the Monroe Courier article makes no mention of it whatsoever). I would put it on a par with a local newspaper mentioning a particular family having a six-toed cat that plays table tennis... unless there is an independent source demonstrating more than the ability of getting a little promotion in a single local newspaper, I feel compelled to urge delete as a NN advertisement. B.Wind 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well done.

I'm new to wiki so perhaps others can enlighten me on the importance of the orphan scenario.

Two mentions of the reaction exist - in the form of two awards in consecutive years, not just one. One was 'best appearing float" the other honorable mention

I'm hard pressed to see how the content or tone is promotional. Ask yourself :If I wasn;t honest enough to identify myself as the primary contributor would you feel the same way. I argue that the historical narrative of the work is unbiased. Style help would be graetfully received as edits though.

The sources referenced contain plenty of verifiable quotes on the reation to the art. Perhaps another editor would like to dig up the news articles to add those to the article????????? Maybe that would even be a way out of the COI jeopardy ( which we've established is not a reason for delietion I think?)

I think one picture per work is about right to present the image, glad to have other editors delete those that are unwotrhy. Question If picasso painted cows, which of subset his works would you propose wasn't worthy of a picture in wikipedia ( ok that's just stupid - but my point is valid nonetheless)???

I've added another reference from two more newspapers ( I could use some help formatting, and I still need to dig up the photo credit/author from the courier) in the refernces section - so I'll ask a similar question to the one before just what number of published references are needed and from how many sources?

You may wish to re-red the courier article - the presence of the art at a charity benefit haunted house is mentioned. I'll grant you thatis is a brief mention.

Lastly - from what authoritative source are you attributing the label "local" to the Post?--James.lebinski 12:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Some people were born to paint cows, others have cow painting thrust upon them--James.lebinski 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that you are not remotly comparable to picasso. This is a painted cow, and "a charity benefit haunted house" is a sign of non-notablity if there ever was one --T-rex 03:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • T-rex, My apologies in advance.

You've done well to paraphrase my self deprecating humor for the layman. When I wrote "Ok that's just stupid" after the picasso comment a lot of ordinary people wouldn't have gotten the joke.

Now onto the ntability topic. As Uncle G writes, notabiilty dioes not lie within the realm of opinion, youir, mine or anyones. This article clearly passes each of the notablity standards set in the policy and as such, your challenge to notability must be a depate of the policy and the facts here. My argument remains that this meets the definition of notability. Your job must now be to offer affirmative proof that it does not.

On two side notes

1) That charity benefit was attended by more than 2000 individuals ver three days, generating more than a on of non-perishable foods for a shelter. It's been going on for years and also has multiple media refernces - Someone mught just want to write a wiki on that as well, because iot arguably passes the wiki notability test too.

If you were truly born to delete cows you better hurry, because I just got an e-mail from a national publication seeking to follow up on Gladys. Soon the magic number of references from reliable sources will be even more overwhelming. --James.lebinski 12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso didn't do what you do because Picasso was a notable artist. You are neither noteable nor an artist. --Descendall 03:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that you are once again confusing verifiability with notability. I have appeared in local newspapers. I've also been on Fox News and National Public Radio. My existence is completely verifiable. However, I'm simply not notable. Neither is your lawn ornament. Don't construct a straw man here: no one doubts the existence of this plastic cow. It simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Descendall 04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's enough information that meets our content policies here, so the information should be kept. Either keep and cleanup (e.g. we really don't need that many photographs) or pare down a bit and merge with Fairfield, Connecticut; either of those outcomes is fine with me. P.S. The references list three different newspapers, not just one. JYolkowski // talk 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have a garden gnome. I'm sure I can do something extraordinary to it and get it featured in a local newspaper. Don't let Wikipedia be abused for marketing in this way, I beg of you! Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Samsara,

You may wish to see the previous debate on the "local" reference to the publication, as well as to note that there are many articles, and many publications over many years. Perhaps then you could offer facts to supoprt the "local" opinion.

You may also with to review uncle g's treatise on notability.

Further, the fact that you agree that this is extraordonary art is counter to your argument, and the fact that your nome is not yet notable is one indicator that said condition is not a given.

Finally, (and especially since yo must assume good faith per wiki policy) just what do you think is being marketed here?--James.lebinski 12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof you can give that you won't be turning Ms Gladys into money in the longer term. Then we'll all be waking up to the fact that you used that Wikipedia entry to gain coverage in the local press, and the local press articles to cement the status of notability in Wikipedia. Where did I say it was art? I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. And feel free to assume bad faith, I don't mind. But no, I don't think it's art. Just because my garden shed is painted, doesn't make it art. And my gnome is not notable because I haven't tried to promote it. Because I don't care. About the contents of Wikipedia, I do care. Finally, I don't share your sense of worship for Uncle G and prefer to use my own judgement. The purpose of AfDs is not that one person puts forth a notion and the rest follow like sheep. The purpose is to get a variety of opinions and find a consensus. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry you are too late to have original garden gnome art, there was a group in Northern France called The Garden Gnome Liberation Army who- besides kidnapping gnomes out of gardens camouflaged them, I think after them all garden gnome art is trivial (smirk) Rough 14:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wonderful Samasa!

Lets examine the discusuon thread a bit further, but I'd prefer to stay within a fact/policy based disciussion - which can reduce the level of emoition involned. Aplogies for any ruffled feathers to date.

1) Can you support your claim that The Post is "local" and implication that therefore the coverage was insignificant

Here's my fact based argument from http://www.medianewsgroup.com/mngi/newsgroups/connpost.html

"The Connecticut Post is located in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and publishes a morning newspaper seven days a week and is distributed primarily in Fairfield County, the most affluent county in the United States. The Connecticut Post also publishes the Westport News, Fairfield Citizen-News, Darien New-Review, and the Norwalk Citizen-News, weekly newspapers, known as the Brooks Newspaper Group, distributed in Fairfield County and surrounding areas.

Daily Circulation: 77,469 Sunday Circulation: 89,306"

Fact: More thah 75 thousand people at a time have seen this art and articles aboiut it on the front page of this periodical ( and others) in several articles over many years

2) The good faith policy reference was to my contribution, not your dissent. I already assume your good faith in challenging this contribution, and I respect it - oitherwise I'd be crazy to spend such energy refuting it, and I may just be crazy anyhow. In short, I think that according to wiki-policy you must assume my good faith in making this contributiion, and therefor not consider what you think might happen in the future. On the top of that presumption you have my testimony in this AFD that I am actying in good faithe with significant content to back that up.

3) The facts do not support your argument that the wikipedia article is used to draw media attention. All but one of the published references were months or years before the creation of the enty. The press had noticed the topic long before this content was wiki-d. The order of events goes new and media coverage ( and lots of it) then wiki article. Not the reverse.

4) I accept that you do not consider this art and apologize for implying that you did. we now have agreement on a point that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and not a criteria for deletion in any event. Personal opinions just don't count per policy though. Compliance with notability does.

5) Uncle G's well wrtitten comments ( ok thats opinion) that accurately portray notability (ditto) was the reference here, not the contributor. His position, per wiki policy is that the subject passes notability - again I invite you to present a fact based counter argument that combinbes your judgement with wiki-policy.

Have a wiki-day!--James.lebinski 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that you do not consider this art and apologize for implying that you did. we now have agreement on a point that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and not a criteria for deletion in any event. I thought it was all important a moment ago. Your views change very quickly. Maybe they will change to conclude that this article merits deletion. I invite you to present a fact based counter argument. Non-notability has no references. [19] Finally, as has been mentioned before, this article uses the Wikipedia article to establish notability. I hope the circularity of this has occurred to you. Have a nice day. "Samasa" (talk • contribs) 01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well done Samsara. A perfectly excuted Esquive, but your are in line for the factual version of a Carton noir, especially for returning the favor of putting words in my mouth.

To the fact-cave yet again...the other bobs advice notwithstanding......

A fact based counter argument is as follows:

The language reads exactly as pasted. However, the notabiilty point was not conceded, nor did the position change. Read a bit more carefully, the senstence means that anyones subjective agreement that this work can be called art is simultaneously a subject of disagrement, which can never be resolved ( de gustibus) and most importantly a topic of irrelevance to the AFD. The fact is, whether you or I think this is art is of no consequence to the discussion nor is it a reason to delete per wiki policy. That viewpoint has not changed one bit.

To be honest, You've stumped me on the second part. I followed the link and still have no idea what your non-notabilty refernce is, but if you'll explain in non-wiki magic links, I'll try to answer.

Finally, You are factually correct in that a single, and most recent of more than 7 properly referenced non-trivial independent news articles contains a quote from me that mentions the existence of the wiki-article. If you follow the date math it goes like this: First comes more than 6 notable referemces, then a wiki-article, then yet another news article in which the wiki-article was mentioned as a minor point. The genesis of the most recent news article was not the wiki-article - you'll find date-stamped proof of the pre-existing intent of the reporter to cover the story in the first AFD. The cause was instead the previous notability of the work from three years of coverage, more directly it was a follow up to the "moving" piece six months later. Moreover even if you stike that article from the record - the notability test is still passed. Add in the good faith policy, coupled with the fact that others tell me coi ( however unfounded) is not a reason for deletion and there is no case. Again, Notability was met years before the publication of the most recent article.

Sorry about the typo on your ID - thats merely my fingers betraying me. Have a Phrases d'armes & wiki night!--James.lebinski 02:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

Comment Actually, it was not properly closed the first time. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing new to add. TheRingess 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for reasons outlined in the first AfD. Also, nominator is using faulty logic - there can't be a COI because cows can't type.For the humor-impaired, that's a joke, but still keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meta Comment This debate is going pretty well, but I would encourage the author / cow-owner to avoid treating the article as something that he owns. That's probably coming up as a problem here because of the conflict of interest concerns that we've already gone over. But remember that we're all here to discuss - and some people (ok, me) find it mildly problematic when one person responds to and challenges every comment they disagree with. It's tempting, and hard to avoid when you feel like it's your article (or your cow) being talked about - but it really does (a) make it look like you're taking ownership, and (b) discourage discussion. Just a suggestion - and like all suggestions it may be, well, you know, cow-poop - so feel free to take or leave it.--TheOtherBob 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Media coverage in and of itself does not make something notable, only verifiable. Everything written about in a local paper is *not* inherently notable because it appeared there. I'm still waiting for someone to lay out clearly why this thing is notable. Can anyone give an arguement other than "because it was in the local paper?" pschemp | talk 17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If media coverage is the barometer put forth by all of our notability guidelines, and media coverage isn't the barometer you would like to use regarding the notability of this subject, what do you propose instead? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Media coverage is only an indicator, an adjunct in determining notability, but it isn't the *only* thing that confers notability on a topic. So far, it has been the *only* argument for notability. That isn't enough to prove notability. There's an article in my local paper today about a local plumber who helps old people with plumbing problems. He is verified, but being mentioned by the press alone does not make him notable. What actually makes this cow notable? (and more than *just* verified - no one is arguing that the cow isn't verified.) Verification is only one part of notability. It isn't the whole story. pschemp | talk 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This one is pretty academic PSchemp, and I believe that you are incorrect. The primary notability policy is explicit, and im my opinion is contrary to your assertion, applying the policy to the coverage of this topic is exactly the thing that has objectively determined notability:

For the record:

...a topic is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. CHECK

What constitutes "published works" is intentionally broad and includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, published reports by consumer watchdog organizations and government agencies. Many Newspapaer Articles in differemt papers - Check

The independence qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works directly from the subject, its creators, its authors, or its inventors (as applicable). Many Authors/Reporters/Photographers, All from Independent sources, Check

Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and how directly it addresses the subject. Multiple articles, in depth written discussions, Check

For the other Bob - your poiints weigh heavy on me in terms of not wanting to stifle legitimate discussion and avoiding the whole "own" thing. However, the notability psotion being argured is just plain inaccurate here. I'm a wiki-user of only a few days, and I've foundd the fact based content to back up the notability position rather easily.

Seems to me that seems to me that a more experienced user could process the data just as objectively and probably more efficiently to arrive at a policy conclusion.

Meeting the primary criteria is in fact, accorfing to policy the *only* argument needed

Regards and I'll try to stay silent from now on,--James.lebinski 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment THREE newspapers does not equal "many". SO a reporter at one of them has a soft spot for your cow. That still isn't "many". I think you are using Wikipedia as an advertisement to further your own cow and the fact that people here think that kind of use of our encyclopedia is acceptable is disgusting. pschemp | talk 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most people would include "three" in the "MULTIPLE" catagory (that's alot more newspapers writing about this than alot of subjects on WP). There are actually at least 7 different articles on this subject with at least 7 different reporters cited. --Oakshade 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry otherbob, I can't stay out of the fray - fact wise anyhow. Pschemp - its actually four newspapers. Based on previously established notability i'll offer that that the only furthering of the art is when it is carried back to the workshop to create the next piece. Gladys is art - not an empire! Wiki is the right place for the article Proof point: a free vanity website could be instantly created, and not subject to peer review, nor notability, nor any wiki rules. You'll note that none has ever existed, and that the ONLY references on the web are the idependent sources themselves. Better that way I think.--James.lebinski 03:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this obviously self-promotional article. Especially bad -- the fact that wikipedia actually uses the phrase "mooving." Way, way too campy. Bonus points: not even close to a decent peice of art. --Descendall 08:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to go this way for now. It is written about in 3 local papers. So we have multiple sources. That means it is not OR and is verifiable. Now, the question is are these sources non-tivial? I'm not convinced that they are. But given the recent vote, I'm willing to let this stay for now. Having said that, additional sources would make this an easier call. Also given the dates and detail, one wonders where all of this data came from. Was all of it from those seven or so newspaper articles? The pictures show that the cow does exist with several paint jobs. One other point for keeping. The fact that this cow is repainted so often may make it unique which would be notable in and of itself. Vegaswikian 01:04, 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. Dakota 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella V

[edit]
Isabella V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It didn't become any more notable since 2003, and now with the 'moved' site officially dead, no point in keeping this. Also it was a hoax after all. timecop 04:00, 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 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008

[edit]
WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pure speculation. "It has not been officially announced yet," according to the article. This was prodded, but deprodded without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 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 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robbins Well

[edit]
Robbins Well (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:CORP, pure advertising, not notable. ViridaeTalk 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. --Coredesat 07:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upper_Mississippi_Baseball_League

[edit]
Upper_Mississippi_Baseball_League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is definitive of the problem Wikipedia has been working hard to avoid. Aside from a Tripod Website This article has no notability. In the Sports world Wikipedia is becoming a joke. This League appears to be no more than an elborate hoax which has been allowed to go on for two years on Wikipedia. There is no mention (and never has there been any mention) of this league outside of blogs, Wikipedia amd Wiki mirrors. Their website (which no longer exists was hosted on Tripod and gave no information on the league's Front Office structure or contact information. Aside from inconsistencies in the website, there is no mention of any of their teams in known media outlets. There is not and never hasbeen mention on Our Sports Central, which is the definitive minor league sports news website, and the league's teams do not have websites. Please delete this hoax before it further tarnishes the credibility of Wikipedia. MJHankel 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are team pages for this league article, incidentally they are not even stubs as is:

Comment for anybody that wants to see it here is the Google cached version of the leagues website Click here
  • Weak neutral It was a tough find, and I was expecting to vote delete on this one, especially as a crystalball article, but check this article out which independantly confirms the league and one of its teams (albeit weakly). Also, check out this site which makes the claim that the league may be a hoax. Confused? There's more. this site seems to hint that the league and ANOTHER of its teams does indeed exist. I am uncertain how to vote on this. I am willing to listen to arguements in both directions, and change my vote accordingly. If this is a hoax, it is elaborate, and extends well beyond wikipedia. Maybe a BJAODN article if it is a hoax? Not sure what to do with this... --Jayron32 05:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I knew of the first article you stated, and the article is a mere example of how much Wikipeida is taken seriously, and should not be taken lightly. Basically that article was about names of teams, Columnists tend to gleen info for an opinion based article, often not taking the time to verify info. Also As it is this article was started in 2005 by, what appears to be, an annonymous user. Most people take things as true when they have stuck around for that long. The thing of it is, look at past edits to the article people have pointed out that this is not credibal. This article continually changes its facts. Its former website never was updated with any information whatsoever. Wikipedia actually had more info on this league than the League website itself. Look at the logo, it looks like something a kid made on mspaint. It would not be hard to make a legitimate looking fake basball league logo, they did not even do that. I live in Gary, Indiana Which is directly next to both East Chicago and Merrillville. No newspaper ever even hinted at a new league and two teams for the region. Think logically about it there are professional Baseball Teams in Gary, Joliet, and Rockford. New Rookie teams in the same city or area would be a terrible business concept. At first I hoped that this was true, but as time went on it became painfully obvious that it was not. No Newspapers have spoken of this League. And that "City Town Info Website" you listed is a common website that makes articles about multiple locations, simply taking info that they found to make any city look good. Facts are not always taken into account. --MJHankel 10:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just must say, this article is exactly what used to be joked about Wikipedia, People stated that due to the fact that anyone can edit it is not credible. Much has been done to change this fact but this article has just slipped by. Its own Tripod website is gone now. If this league returns again in the future (legitimately) than we should add it, but as of now it is just an elaborate hoax, I have asked on independent minor league baseball forums and no one has heard of it. They all agree it makes no sense and is just not real. It is definitely a BJAODN but nothing more. --MJHankel 10:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know but it is a perfect example of the problem. Getting rid of even one article helps. --MJHankel 18:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyOtaku

[edit]
MyOtaku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable wapanese blog site. 46 unique google hits. timecop 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Someone else pointed that to me on irc as well. Sorry, I'm not up to date on current Japano/animu/scatphilia. :P --timecop 03:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - It was a joke, and the guy on IRC was probably pulling your chain as well =p. Both are sort of detrimental terms, I was just joking about how there's two words for the exact same thing with the exact same connotations. "wapanese" is used more in mainstream usage, with places like 4chan and Something Awful preferring the "weeaboo" term. They're both hilarious words. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:42, 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 - Proto's comment sums it up nicely. Yomanganitalk 12:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Auckland waterfront vs. Eden Park debate

[edit]

This page serves no purpose and there is already nearly identical information at 2011 Rugby World Cup. Furthermore, the sole author continually reverts redirects and merge suggestions as if he (she?) has made this his (her?) pet article. --Jemiller226 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you say this can't exist, we may as well get rid of this: 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy. --SilvaStorm
Why? Are you saying there is identical information in another article? If so, which one? --Canley 05:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't add speedy deletion tags to this AfD discussion because you disagree with it. No sane admin is going to delete this page anyway. You need to let the AfD run its course. Also, don't remove the AfD notice from the article. --Canley 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has a history of this sort of thing. Check his user talk and mine, just barely stopping short of personal attacks to try to save this article. I'd report him, but frankly I just can't be bothered. --Jemiller226 07:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying the information was already included in another article, and judging by the article up for afd, doesnt need its own. ViridaeTalk 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there is nothing to merge (as mentioned in the nomination). This is also an unlikely search term and so a redirect is probobly unecessary. ViridaeTalk 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because it's completely a different issue whose information isn't already covered elsewhere? If you'd notice, the article for the DVD in question redirects to the article you keep citing, inexplicably, as a reason to keep your article. Therefore there is only one article with the pertinent information, and you've identified it. In this AfD case, there's already an article with all the relevant information and as a result this article is redundant. This is not difficult to understand. Normally I do my best to assume good faith, but your history here (and, frankly, on Lostpedia) make this extremely difficult. I'd suggest you stop attacking me on the talk pages for this article and for my user account, by the way. This isn't personal, never was, and never will be. I even helped out one of your Lost episode articles when I came across it in the stub list, or at least I tried to help it, but I see it's been deleted, too, for the same reasons this one is up for discussion. --Jemiller226 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so there are two articles that have this information already and would both be more likely search strings than the AfD'd article? I think that just serves as even more evidence that this is a redundant article. --Jemiller226 23:46, 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 no consensus. --Coredesat 07:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters and Critics

[edit]
Monsters and Critics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable spam/media site. 48 unique google hits, some from wikipedia itself. does not establish any kind of notability. timecop 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I wouldn't count any blog being on google news as a serious source. Of course, that's just me. I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but since there's never ORIGINAL content on blogs and just copy/paste from REAL news sources, I don't understand why googlenews would want to pick them up. --timecop 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groupcast

[edit]
Groupcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

wikipedia is not a dictionary. incidentally, this isn't a word, either. delete. non-notable concept, with some blogspam links increasing pagerank. timecop 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. --Coredesat 07:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Indymedia

[edit]
Brisbane Indymedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural nomination. Contested prod of an obvious attack page. Article contains no references, and is written in highly biased language. Recommend speedy deletion. --Elonka 05:06, 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 per WP:CSD#A7. --Coredesat 07:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamber Coalition

[edit]
Hamber Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Internet forum. Prod was removed. Fails WP:WEB. --- RockMFR 05:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really find this site interesting and I may join the forum too. User:Tankrat 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure Meh its ok. User:Bearabob 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know the forum thingy but the page is fun to read User:Thomas Smyth 04:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users above have not edited this AfD. I have repaired the above comments due to a spa changing them. MER-C 06:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MonkeyFilter

[edit]
MonkeyFilter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"MF is a collaborative or community weblog, where members post links to online content, such as websites or articles, which either amuse or provoke discussion"... so are thousands other contentless blogs with spam and google ads. 75k alexa, a ton of google hits thanks to continuous spamming of other sites, but hey, its easy to tell after the first page there are no relevant results. Delete as non-notable blog site. timecop 05:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--RWR8189 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Borderline speedy. MER-C 06:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment(s). Let me correct some misinformation. Monkeyfilter has no google ads, nor any advertisements of any kind. Monkeyfilter does not "spam other sites", unless you consider linking to web-sites to be spamming. Monkeyfilter's google pagerank cannot be altered by Wikipedia because all external links from WP are set to rel=nofollow. Monkeyfilter is not contentless, unless you consider comments and discussion to be non-content, in which case MetaFilter is also contentless.

    Now some counterpoints. First, MonkeyFilter has been through VfD in 2004, as you can read in Talk:MonkeyFilter. The consensus then was near-unanimous keep. Because of the age of the article, it does not qualify for speedy delete. About notability, MonkeyFilter passes the Google test. It and MetaChat are currently the largest MetaFilter clone sites (clone in the sense of software), including non-trivial overlapping communities, but the three sites have very different foci. Needless to say, being a clone is not a sufficient rationale for deletion: take 2ch and 4chan, for example. A better deletion reason might have been that Monkeyfilter fails to meet WP:WEB, but WP:WEB is only a guideline, and MonkeyFilter is both a website and a community. I can make a case that Monkeyfilter meets WP:ORG and should therefore not be deleted, but I won't because WP:ORG is not yet a guideline. Different editors will have different standards of notability for web-based communities: some, such as the nominator, may think most most blogs are non-notable; others, such as the commentators on the previous VfD, will point out that the size of the Monkeyfilter community is large enough to be notable.

    One remedy instead of outright deletion is to merge MonkeyFilter into MetaFilter, This will, of course, have to be brokered with the editors of the latter article, who may not agree to the merge.

    Note:I am not "voting" because AfD is not a vote, I am a member of MonkeyFilter (as I have disclosed on my user page), and I have edited the article in question. I have also grown to suspect over time that AFD debates have essentially arbitrary outcomes. Lur 10:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • — Lur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Fair points that you make, but consider that we have a raft of policies and guidelines as well as common sense to help us make a decision. Hence, the judicious use of WP:WEB and other notability guidelines which this fails. It may look like "Delete per nom" is mindless cant, but in many cases, the issue is clearcut and well elaborated in the nomination. Which is the case here. Viz: Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do keep in mind that several claims in the nom are outright false, as I have indicated in my first paragraph above. Therefore a delete "per nom" is a perpetuation of falsehoods. Note further that the possibility of not meeting WP:WEB was not part of the nom, and indeed was a point I raised. Lur 15:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the nomination doesn't state fails WP:WEB directly, it instead addresses those aspects of the guideline within WP:WEB that are germane here, so smae thing as I read it. Eusebeus 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to demonstrate that this web site satisfies the WP:WEB criteria, then all that you need to do is cite sources to demonstrate that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are from sources independent from the web site. Please cite sources. Uncle G 19:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Your minds are made up, as is plain from the fact that not one of you has bothered to read my comment carefully. I don't care to be your dancing monkey and MoFi does not need Wikipedia's grudging acknowledgement. Lur 19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whatever. pages about linktraps like this one are spam and should be deleted. non-notable. - Femmina 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepI might wish it weren;t notable, but it is.
It is correct thatdecisions depend upon who chooses to answer, which is a good thing on article talk pages where only the interested contribute, but really stupid for things like this. DGG 22:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not cite any sources; no hits on Google News; one hit apiece on Books and Scholar, but the book does not even list MonkeyFilter in the index and the article in Scholar is on p2p filesharing, so it is unlikely it discusses MonkeyFilter (a site that does not feature filesharing) much. JChap2007 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and commentary, especially noting User:Lur's overdramatic commentary. Please forgive my low tolerance of dramaqueenery. --Dennisthe2 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Interesting that you have a low tolerance for dramaqueenery, but apparently a high tolerance for outright lies being used a justification for deleting an entry. Wikipedia may not be a directory for blogs, but it's going to be awfully stupid for an internet resource not to highlight internet sites which have particular character, history or is of particular interest.
      —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.3 (talk • contribs) .
      • Comment - then it might interest you to note that Wikipedia is not for things that are "interesting", because "interesting" is highly subjective where as notable, according to Wikipedia policy, is not. Further, if the AfD is "outright lies", then you need to demonstrate that it is indeed, and/or repair the article, and/or contact an admin. My vote stands as delete. --Dennisthe2 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dennisthe2. Montco 05:10, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glog

[edit]
Glog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not only is this a 'confusing' article (which by itself isnt a criteria for deletion), but its a blatant spamvertisement by gloto.com about um, something, which doenst quite make sense. Non-notable/spam. delete. timecop 05:21, 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 06:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2004, exit polls

[edit]
United States presidential election, 2004, exit polls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous VfD

I tried to go through and remove original research and unverifiable claims from the article and realized that I would have to delete everything. This article cites no reliable sources and I just don't think it can be fixed, so it must be deleted. RWR8189 05:27, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted w/ pleasure. Tawker 05:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No More Spin

[edit]
No More Spin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Oh wow, you've gotta be kidding. 100% non-notable blog hosted @ blogspot. Article contains nothing but spam. Delete, if not speedy delete. timecop 05:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: Speedily deleted by Nihonjoe as "blatant advert". - Mike Rosoft 09:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StockWrap Express Charts

[edit]

Contested speedy, looks like possible NN software but would prefer some more opinions. Tawker 05:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • you have created a page for TA software as per Technical Analysis Software, and have contested every software placed on this page? what is the point of a TA software page if you cannot place software on this page? it makes not sense. have requested assistance for rewrite of the article yet no help has been offered. As per guidelines offered by Kuru Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it. Its free software for TA users? How is it not notable? Feel free to edit article as you deem appropriate but deletion is unfair - Stockwrap 28 November 2006, 12:14am
    • also i refer to Merchant of Venice (computer program) by Brick Thrower - who is a notable java programmer and the program is written in java. Furthermore, I see no evidence that this meets proposed guidelines either under Critera- Stockwrap 28 November 2006, 12:24am
The spam comment is more about conflicts of interest, i.e. you should not be promoting stuff that you wrote. That's why it's blatant and unsalvagable spam. And the technical analysis software is for notable pieces of software. You have not demonstrated why this software is notable. MER-C 08:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, inclusion is not an indicator of notability. I've prodded the article in question. MER-C 08:56, 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. W.marsh 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regnum Online

[edit]

Procedural, contested speedy Tawker 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete Fails Web guidelines, no assertion of notability, no substantiating Ghits. Withdrawing vote. Eusebeus 14:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong, Speedy Delete - Fails all web guidelines, no independant third party coverage, article seems to go into way too much detail, not to mention being a poster child for WP:NOT an instruction manual/game guide (just look at combat section to see what I mean) The article also smacks of crystal balling with a couple of sections stating 'Information on this cannot be disclosed at this timre.' See below for new thinking. The Kinslayer 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 15:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added several coverage articles about the game at the External links section. Please check them out.
    • I'm afraid none are valid sources AFAIK, due to the fact they are mere databases with no limitations on who can list themselves on it. We need actual genuine non-trivial media coverage. (And the article is still appalling anyway.) The Kinslayer 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry to disagree, but between the spanish sources there are 2 newspapers (La Razón and Infobae) and a television news coverage (Telenoche). The article may need cleanup or to get shorter, but instead of deleting it, it may need collaborations. Jcpetruzza 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's covered by Larazon, which appears to be a high-end general news site (whether they have a print edition I don't know), a video segment on Channel 13, which appears to be a local news channel (maybe its national), as well as more game-oriented media. That sounds like WP:WEB to me, or getting pretty close to it at any rate. The game is new, so more coverage is likely. Somebody put a lot of work into the article, I'm not convinced that the subject is sufficiently lacking in notability to just toss that. Herostratus 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have greatly reduced the article, reducing unnecessary detail, abandoning it's former manual and crystal ball style. Next time I post a new article I'll be sure to add sources at the very beginning to avoid these kind of issues. Though it angered me at first, I admit this whole discussion helped me improve my style. I hope the article is not deleted. Thanks for both positive and negative criticism. I still think improvements should be proposed in the discussion page before inserting a speedy deletion notice. Jcpetruzza 17:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OK, from what I could gather from bad translations of the spanish, it does indeed seem notable, so I've changed to a keep (and the article is much better now!) The Kinslayer 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems to be fairly well-written and formatted, and has just about enough reliable sources to pass WEB. Time should provide a few more. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Seems notable enough to pass WP:WEB. Just because someone hasn't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't notable. While mainly a Latin game, I still feel this needs to stay. guitarhero777777 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per commentary, and contra to nom. --Dennisthe2 04:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Coredesat. MER-C 08:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonprofit Blog Exchange

[edit]
Nonprofit Blog Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While a great concept, totally non-notable. Just another blog, spamming itself up with pagerank, alexa ranking in the 2millions, a couple pages of google hits, followed by irrelevant spam that 'emily' seems to be inserting on every blog in existence. nice try! timecop 05:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree, looks like a not-yet-notable. Delete for now. Sockatume 05:40, 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 06:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microcasting

[edit]
Microcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this isn't a word, either. Actually, microcasting is a plastic mold creation method, but these newfangled blogger types want to reinvent new words all the time. non-notable concept, never heard of outside wikipedia, 1st google hit IS this wikipedia article, delete. The 'definition' is "A MicroCast is a specific form of podcast wherein the content of each piece is wholly separate from the next". What? timecop 05:44, 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. --Coredesat 08:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T.C. Congi

[edit]
T.C. Congi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

this appears to be a pure vanity page written by its own subject. Aaronbrick 05:59, 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. Copysan was the only one to seriously argue against it, and they addressed mostly the notability of the technology, not of this company. Sandstein 21:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping-O-Matic

[edit]
Ping-O-Matic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Ping-O-Matic is a service to update different search engines that your blog has updated." Yeah, right. Surprisingly high Alexa rank in 4200's, probably due to link incest/spam, since the company seems to be exactly in that kind of business. However, still non-notable enough concept. Spamming search engines with blogs is hardly new (or notable). timecop 06:06, 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 1500000 = 0000000, i.e. delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1500000 (number)

[edit]

1500000 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Before creating a new article and plenty of prior discussion. Article was prodded (by somebody else), but the author removed the PROD notice. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:BIO requires multiple independent non-trivial sources. One isn't multiple, and the source is not non-trivial. --Coredesat 07:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esti Ginzborg

[edit]

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

Strong Delete -- completely non-notable. Lisa Irwin 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep article is a mess, but could be cleaned up with additions from this entry from FMD which contains a bunch of information about her. Its only one source, but it is independant, and marginally non-trivial. Still, IMHO it pushes her over the threshhold barely. Thus this is a weak keep. If other references can be found, even better. --Jayron32 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

Delete FMD features thousands of models and IMO is not enough to establish notability. On a personal note, I think she is quite distinctive and has potential, but that's just my POV. If she makes it to Vogue's cover I'll gladly change my vote . Stammer 11:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works of Pope Benedict XVI

[edit]

listcruft. wikipedia is not a amazon.com Cuwques 07:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) — Cuwques (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note the comment by Copysan below. The article on Pope Benedict XVI is already 79kb long as it is. Take this into consideration before you consider a merge. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant nonsense. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Abdulle

[edit]
Khalid Abdulle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clearly a joke Matthew_hk tc 07:23, 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 06:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends references in other television series

[edit]
Friends references in other television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ogirinal research, GFDL vio from Friends, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Frueiwg 07:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC) — Frueiwg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends worldwide broadcast

[edit]
Friends worldwide broadcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends broadcast details Frueiwg 07:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC) — Frueiwg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Nihonjoe. MER-C 09:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janey c.

[edit]
Janey c. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet WP:BIO, nonnotable subject, article makes no claims to notability Copysan 08:30, 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 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shiny Diamonds

[edit]
The Shiny Diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band. 97 GHits, and they all seem to be myspace or other self-promotion. According to their entry on "New Music Canada Artist", they haven't even released a single single or album. Article created by spa (purports to be the vocalist of the band). yandman 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, borderline speedy. MER-C 08:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 14:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Scienter 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My name is Tim the mute and I am the lead singer for the shiny diamonds. Although it was my account this was written on, I didn't personally write the entry. I did however author the new music canada page and I did forget to post our albums on it. We have three albums and a few singles, while they didn't recieve much play across Canada, they were still featured on singles and compilations and the like. I can assure you we are indeed a real band and we are just as "notable" or relevant as anything else on this website. Now in the name of sharing information on the worlds only universal medium, please do not delete this article.

I wasn't even aware that we were being considered for deletion until a newspaper contacted me about it this morning. Anyways, thank you for your time. -Tim

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IS3

[edit]
IS3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another Spyware spammer of late. I cannot find proof of the award the product has supposedly won; in any event, most media coverage of the company seems to be trivial and thus I think it fails WP:CORP Daniel Case 08:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - They've had some reviews for one of their products, STOPzilla which deserves its own article, but there is nothing notable about the company itself. I can't find any awards, reviews or news articles at all, so it fails WP:CORP and maybe even WP:COI if I look at the main contributor of the article. Jayden54 12:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searching for "IS3" gives a lot of hits for unrelated things; I did find this review when searching for "Stopzilla" though. Their CNET page doesn't say anything about an award; in fact, it seems CNET haven't even reviewed it yet. The STOPzilla page should also be considered for deletion. Demiurge 12:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This article's subject matter is not notable. The only evidence of notability is unsourced and cannot be found when searching for it. Scienter 15:11, 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 06:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Carrasco

[edit]

Appears to be self-advertising. Chanheigeorge 09:04, 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 06:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Versluys

[edit]
Karen Versluys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unverifiable or Possible hoax. Search results in 23 unique Ghits, many of which wiki pr mirrors. Hits also for namesake, student at Dalhousie University. The entry was created by single purpose account Gunthervanluten. The author lifted one entire paragraph from another website, and there have been a few vandalism edits too: the exchanges which took place on the articles talk page strongly hint to me that someone is having a bit of fun at wikipedia's expense. Delete Ohconfucius 09:17, 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 06:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Pony

[edit]
Cake Pony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable webcomic: fails the Web content notability guidelines. Author's only edits are to this article and related pages (images, and adding it to List of webcomics). The only internal links to it are from the aforementioned list and article request lists.

Additionally, the article as it is now is full of original research. --Slowking Man 09:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created in response to other wiki's such as the "wikifur" and "encyclopedia dramatica" creating false and possibly slanderous comments about this webcomic.To the contrary of other descriptions about this comic on the internet, this article is an objective description available from a primary source, ie the creator of the webcomic this article refers to. It is my hope that this article is not deleted as it contains valuable and factual information about a popular internet meme. If I have not properly cited myself while using 3rd person language as required by wiki rules, than I would be glad to edit the article rather than see it deleted. Slorpthegillman 11:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Andrew Klein of Cake Pony[reply]

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a webhost. Additionally, material contributed by the author(s) of a work violates our policy prohibiting original research and our guidelines on conflicts of interest and autobiographies. --Slowking Man 12:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 12:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow (data storage)

[edit]

This has already been tagged {{hoax}}, and no verification of the technology has been made. By itself, it is clearly not notable as a hoax (or contentious technological claim, such as Steorn, and would only achieve notability through verification Princess Tiswas (t/c) 10:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Ars Technica has also debunked this technology, so it's almost certain a hoax, but it's been all over the news in the past few days, so it's quite notable, even though it's not real. Does Wikipedia allow articles about hoaxes or not? Jayden54 12:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, with coverage on techworld[21][22], arstechnica, the Reg, this seems to be verifiable (as a hoax, obviously). Notability is still debatable, this doesn't seem to have attracted much attention outside the tech news websites. Articles in the Deccan Herald, The Hindu and Arab News. Demiurge 12:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and suggest revisiting the issue in maybe 6 months or a year and decide then if this was a memorable and notable hoax or just a tiny blip on the midia radar for a couple days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - It may be useful to keep this simply as a good example of vaporware. Unless a solid analysis of this technology can be verified then it is simply an article about a hoax. Wikipedia does allow articles about hoaxes if they are notable. This "technology" has been covered by several tech media outlets so it can be argued that it is a notable hoax.
  • Keep. Covered by multiple publications. Articles about notable hoaxes are allowed as long as they are clearly labelled as such. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - let's keep it for now as it's very notable at the moment, and in six months we can also look at this article again and see if it's still worthy. Jayden54 09:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In case anyone cares, I've done a little cleanup. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be a hoax, but it's a notable hoax. PianoSpleen 09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, my name is Suhail Rehman and i am a student of the college in which the technology was developed. I have edited the page to include details of the reason why the news reports were blown out of proportion. Also i will search the newspaper archives for citations asap. Please do not delete this page as it is an actual technology in development even if its claims were blown out of proportion.- Suhail Rehman, [email protected], 11/30/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.232.117.163 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 30 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox file manager

[edit]

Anon 88.149.168.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has expressed doubts about the validity of this term and asked for its deletion, calling it a "hoax" and arguing it is not an established term anywhere. Rather than "hoax", a better term for what he means would probably be "non-notable and unverified neologism". Procedural nomination, no vote from me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your assistance, Fut.Perf. My reasons for asking for deletion are the following:
    • Googling for "orthodox file manager" (with quotes) yelds a measly 305 results.
    • The term is never mentioned in the Jargon file, the most notable and comprehensive hacker slang dictionary.
    • The term "orthodox" is not even mentioned in the web site of GNU Midnight Commander, probably the most notable example of Norton Commander clone in use nowadays.
    • So, my opinion is that this entry looks like an attempt by somebody to use Wikipedia either to add authority to his own neologism, or to add "orthodoxy" to their file managers of choice. --88.149.168.128 11:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly not a well-recognised term - seems to be coined by this website. I would guess most people would call these "norton commander clones" - that term gets far more google hits. Either move or delete. Googling for "Orthodox file manager" -wikipedia -Bezroukov gets only 400 hits. Morwen - Talk 10:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Quite a lot of other articles (such as ZIP (file format), GNOME_Commander and 7-Zip) link to this article, which might indicate some notability, so I'm not really sure this is a made-up term. Any thoughts? Jayden54 12:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge with file manager. From a (superficial) search through Google articles, it seems that the neologism was coined and propagated by SoftPanorama/Bezroukov, but it caught up to a certain extent. I'm undecided whether the term should be used in Wikipedia; IMO it functions a bit better than "Commander clone" or "Commander-like file manager", but then file manager is fairly empty and could better serve as a summary article than this "neo-logistic" one. Duja► 14:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep or move. It is both obvious that the class of file managers described in the article exists & it is a notable collection of file managers (and the term is preferable to "Norton Commander-style file manager" or similar alternatives). There have been no strong arguments for deletion & the strongest objections come from an anonymous user. The term has been used by the developers of Krusader and other popular file managers, as well as in news articles. There is a dmoz sub-category "orthodox" under "file managers." While a google search for 'orthodox "file manager"' does produce false positives, a quick survey of some of the first hits (from 13,200 total) suggest that some people call these "orthodox twin-pane file managers" or "orthodox two-panel file managers" or other permutations of 2/two/twin/dual pane/panel. Another semi-popular alternative is "orthodox or NC-style file manager." --Karnesky 15:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would "orthodox file manager" (305 Google hits) be preferrable to "Commander style file manager" (15000 Google hits) ? What does "orthodox" mean? That's complete nonsense. So I'll say that the only "orthodox" file manager is the Macintosh Finder. Go ahead and contradict me. --88.149.168.128 16:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a discussion for DELETING the article & was prompted by your comments. Now you are arguing to move (rename) the article. As such, I think this should be speedily closed as keep & talk of a page move should go onto the discussion page. --Karnesky 17:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not arguing it should be moved. I'm arguing it should be deleted.--88.149.168.128 18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So why'd you ask about "Commander style file manager?" I'll treat that question as if it was sincere. As AoR notes, it is a clumsier term. It also promotes a particular piece of software over others. As for your other challenge, you have pointed out multiple pages that use "orthodox" to refer to a class of file managers resembling NC/mc/emelfm/krusader/etc. Playing the same google game shows only four hits for "'macintosh finder' 'orthodox file manager'" and none of the hits claims the finder is an OFM. --Karnesky 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I never asked for the entry to be moved to "Commander style file manager". I'm asking you why you are saying that a term which yelds 305 Google hits should be preferred to a term which yelds 15000 Google hits. Moreover, seeing as the number of Google hits evidently doesn't matter in your view, the fact that a Google search for "macintosh finder" "orthodox file manager" yelds only 4 hits shouldn't constitute a valid objection to my (clearly fictional) point that the Macintosh Finder is the only orthodox file manager in the world.--88.149.168.128 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • How about the coherent content of pages? It was easy to see that none of those four pages referred to Finder as an OFM. It is straight forward to see that most of the thousands of pages which mention orthodox file managers are describing the same thing. --Karnesky 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Firstly, "orthodox file manager" doesn't return "thousands" of pages. It returns a LOW number of pages, which means that the phrase is not wide-spread and it's used mainly by its proponent(s). As for the fact that no one is referring to the Finder as an "orthodox file manager", that's probably due to the fact that I didn't put up a web page calling the Finder "orthodox", nor did I make up a Wikipedia entry for "orthodox file manager" where I say that the Mac Finder is the only orthodox file manager.--88.149.166.153 09:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Seen and used the term before ever seeing it on wp or wp-sourced sites, all other collective terms for this group of file managers are even more clumsy. Ace of Risk 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Ace of Risk. --Gwern (contribs) 21:10 28 November 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep per Karnesky — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. If need be, move the term later. --Arny 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Number of Google results does not necessarily show anything and neologisms are not necessarily bad. Moreover, it is used and this article is useful - it helped me understand the term when I came accross it. Much ado about nothing. I 'd like to add that a good cyclopedia tells you about things that have 300 google hits, including neologisms. Why wikipedia it when we can google it ? The Ubik 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that if I coin the phrase "kazoo-playing file manager" and somehow get it to spread to less than 2000 web pages, I am welcome to write a Wikipedia entry about it? Interesting...--88.149.166.153 10:37, 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 06:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Erickson

[edit]
Jon Erickson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject is a real writer of possible notabiliy (though some of the few backlinks seem to concern another Jon Erickson), but the article contains no verifiable biographic information at all. Prod contested by User:Jandrewbz, the only substantial contributor to the article. From his original version I removed a "controversy" section with the content

Erickson's name was tagged in Sharpie marker on the window of his ex-residence, the Bottom of the Hill House. To this day, the culprit remains a mystery. There are no suspects.

which even if true would hardly be something of encyclopaedic importance. The whole thing smells of either a strange hoax or an attempt at an attack page, possibly aimed at another Jo(h)n Erickson than the one who wrote Hacking: The Art of Exploitation. This makes the accuracy of two only remaining bits of (unsourced, unverifiable) information by the same editor extremely suspect. Without them (and arguably also with them), the article is not even stub-class and should be deleted until actual sourced biographical information about Jon Erickson surfaces. Henning Makholm 11:02, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquity

[edit]
Ubiquity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

dictionary definition, even sites a dictionary Vicarious 11:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, already at Wiktionary. MER-C 11:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per MER-C, and this article offers nothing more than a definition and usage of the term. Jayden54 12:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to omnipresence, where the two concepts are distinguished. While the article I read is more than a "dictionary definition", the additional parts are some kind of marketing gibberish that strikes me as beneath notice. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MER-C. Wikitionary is enough: "Ubiquity" shouldn't be ubiquitous. --Howrealisreal 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MER-C. Danny Lilithborne 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MasterA113 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just an everyday user so maybe I am not smart enough about this, but I don't see why wikipedia should not also be a dictionary any more than why my cell phone should not also be a calculator. Maybe wikipedia would have been bad if it was too much of a dictionary at first, but now that there is so much content it doesnt make any sense to exclude abstract terms. In fact, foreign users may not know whether a term is abstract or not and may not know whether to go to wiktionary or wikipedia. Why make them choose? I have started using wikipedia a lot more lately. Part of the appeal is that whenever I wonder what something objectively is, I can just go to wikipedia. I did that for this word and found you plan to delete it. Sure, there is another site, there is wiktionary, but everyday people like one stop shopping. Every word has a definition, a history, some famous thematic uses, etc. Even if the latter may take a long time to be noted, it should still be included. Wikipedia should answer the question "What is ________?" By finding excuses to send people to other sites for a common 5-10% of queries wikipedia makes itself less convenient. Many wikipedia entries like steel, hammer, music, and dog will be in dictionaries too. Why exclude definitions? Should google start blocking searches that include the word definition so that people can go to some other site too? Maybe barnes and noble should stop selling dictionaries and focus on being a book store. A few definitions in wikipedia might not fit the five year plan, but to the common user, unconcerned with ideology, they can only provide an additional benefit. - Marc
    • everyday people like one stop shopping. — Then they should use one of the several almalgamation services such as answers.com that cater to such people.

      Every word has a definition, a history, some famous thematic uses, etc. — And documenting all that, for all words of all languages, as well as providing translations, pronunciations, inflections, usage notes, synonyms, antonyms, related words, and others, is the ambitious goal of Wiktionary. It is not the goal of this project. The goal of this project is to be an encyclopaedia. Its articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that the words denote. So show by citing sources that discuss the subject that an encyclopaedia article can be had, that will not be a perpetual stub (unexpandable perpetual stubs being deletable per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy), on the concept of ubiquity.

      Maybe barnes and noble should stop selling dictionaries and focus on being a book store. — That isn't analogous, and so is irrelevant. Uncle G 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's a good reason why Wikipedia shouldn't be a dictionary: because we have Wiktionary. Danny Lilithborne 06:38, 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. Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Australia 2007

[edit]
Big Brother Australia 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this is just a tad premature; the only information available at the moment is that there is going to be a seventh season of Big Brother Australia, and that it's happening in 2007. JDtalk 11:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not crystal ball gazing. We have verifiable evidence and high certainty that the show will happen. If you read the guidelines you have referenced, the article does not violate them. eg
  • "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable": It is verifiable. References are in the article.
  • "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place": The event is notable (same as all other BB series) and is almost certain to take place (media releases indicate that it will take place, and auditions are currently underway). -- Barrylb 12:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So true. In the Netherlands the most recent BB edition had something like 300,000 viewers. Any other show would've been cancelled with ratings like this. I'm still waiting... Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Auditions for this show are currently underway that makes it a current event, named for 2007 - when it will go to air. But it has started already. Garrie 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given that auditions are already underway, there is verifiable information available. Big Brother will be on air so that the article will have to be rewritten in six months. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - By the time it would get deleted there will probably be more information, it is a current event and has to start somewhere, after last season this one is likely to be very controversial before it even starts. If it gets deleted it will just have to be rewritten soon anyway. Firelement85 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - More information will come to hand soon, and because auditions have started and that their is a refrence that states this series will air this article should stay. -- Whats new? (Talk) 14:56, 30 November 2006 (AEDST)
  • Keep - apparently Sydney auditions were in November 2006 and Melbourne auditions begin 2 Dec 2006. There's a skeleton of current information on the page, it is referenced, and it is inevitable that this page will be created within the next few months. There's worse pages in WP. Why delete this now when someone will need to reinstate all of what was deleted some time later? Asa01 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster and others. It's verifiable and will just need to be rewritten so lets just keep it. Sarah Ewart 02:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The auditions have started and production has been given the "green light" which makes it a scheduled event. 3rd 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 no consensus. Seems reasonable that relisting would yield such a result anyway. W.marsh 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Hollenberg

[edit]

Weak Delete Unsure on notability. Just H 13:43, 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 06:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Jaganmohanan

[edit]
Suraj Jaganmohanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was created by User:Ganeshkerala in December 2005. This version wikified and tagged for verification by User:Mary Read was about Suraj Jaganmohanan, a "pioneer in poultry farming". In June 2006, User:Bksuraj vandalized the article and his version remained for quite some time until I reverted it. I cannot find any source to prove that this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. Google doesn't result any relevant results. The article claims that he has won "Kozhi Award" ("kazha award" in the first version of the article), but I couldn't find any information about such an award. utcursch | talk 13:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 13:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete His name appears only in Wikipedia. No Google search results or news results. [23]

and [24] . The Kozhi( Chicken) award appears to be a hoax. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:24, 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/merge. If anyone really wants to do the merge, there seems to be a consensus for it here. W.marsh 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lowrider Band

[edit]
Lowrider Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although it may now meet WP:MUSIC, the band really doesn't seem WP:Notable. Also, as it's been speedily deleted 3 times, once under WP:CSD#G11 (and possibly G12); once without a stated reason, but probably {{db-spam}} and {{db-repost}}, and once under WP:CSD#A7. I don't think the A7 or {{db-bio}} problem has been resolved, but, with this much history, the AfD process is probably the way to go. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - I was not aware of the deletion history associated with this page, but shouldn't we be judging the article on its current state, rather than its past incarnations? I would argue that given the significant notability of War, and seeing as this band consists of more original members of War than the band now known as War, making its notability under WP:MUSIC criterion 6 more significant than your average side project, the subject certainly meets WP:NOTE and the other cited policies. The current page is sourced, does not read as advertising, and is not copyright infringement. Other editors may disagree with my assessment, but I remind them to consider only the current version of the page; since the page has been modified enough not to warrant {{db-repost}}, all previous versions should be considered moot in this discussion. —Swpb talk contribs 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or Merge and redirect, per Danny Lilithborne, unless the article is expanded in the course of AfD. —Swpb talk contribs 21:30, 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.--Húsönd 18:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salmony

[edit]
Salmony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is categorised as a Disambiguation page, but it doesn't disambiguate because none of the people listed have articles. Article was originally written by and has been updated by User:Salmony who has contributed to no other articles. Clear COI (writing about self and family) with only external link being to his own personal website. Emeraude 14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparent self-promotion by Michael Salmony. conflict of interest, notability concerns. Sam Clark 20:21, 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 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Bo Hotel

[edit]
Bo Bo Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable. Advertising of nn Hotel. Mariano(t/c) 14:19, 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. --Coredesat 07:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydromap

[edit]
Hydromap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Original research (written in the first person, no less). Formerly prodded with the same reason and deleted, then reposted. -- Merope 14:25, 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.--Húsönd 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMUN

[edit]
OMUN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prod removed, which said: (1) Wikipedia is not a place to announce or organize conferences. (2) No evidence of outside sources/notability. So, delete.

I suggest speedy deletion because I feel the creator of this article is taking advantage of Wikipedia to announce this conference, which is going to take place next week. S/he waited as long as possible (5 days) before removing my prod, and now may be counting on this AfD to last another 5 days before the article is deleted. Pan Dan 14:37, 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 Please send this kind of stuff to CSD, it's db-attack. Tawker 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church Street, Burlington

[edit]

Non-notable location, apparently added as spam-entry by (possible) vandal-only account. No useful content to article. Pawl 14:49, 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. --Coredesat 07:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pihb

[edit]
Pihb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This does not belong in Wikipedia. It belongs on Urban Dictionary. It is hardly a notable phrase. Lumaga 15:39, 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. W.marsh 03:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anima Libera

[edit]
Anima_Libera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced article of dubious accuracy and notability--Edchilvers 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: There are a some references of this song, but: 1- some entries are non encyclopedic; 2- the autor has not wikipages (in en. nor in it.), so probably not enough notable. Cate 18:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only "popular" in a New Jersey prep school (article written by one of the "fans" of the recording at that school, apparently). Orphan article needs to be put out of its misery. B.Wind 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Mindmatrix 17:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Bottle Boys

[edit]
Blue_Bottle_Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm very sorry about this guys, I didn't see the "Fictional article" deletion policy. I want this deleted because it is what it was marked as: A fictional event/personages that I thought some people would find amusing. I now realize that this article in no way contributes to the Wikipedia's purpose: to give provide a factual, user edited database. One again I offer my deepest apologies. I hope to make substantial and meaningful contributions to "The Wiki" in the future. Please delete the Blue Bottle Boys page! P.S. It really is a lot of nonsense in a way. Krazor 19:52, 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. W.marsh 20:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communication accommodation

[edit]
Communication_accommodation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable theory, possible original research?--Edchilvers 21:28, 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 Closing as now listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 November 28/Articles. (aeropagitica) 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Design Center

[edit]
Community_Design_Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Whilst the title of the article states the subject to be the 'Community Design Centre' the piece actually looks to be about soemthing called 'EAST.' It also seems to be a puff piece and is unsourced--Edchilvers 21:30, 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. —Doug Bell talk 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contagious shooting

[edit]
Contagious_shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contagious shooting is a neologism with limited use. It is not yet a common term. Maybe one day in the future, but not today. perfectblue 18:04, 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 (could have been speedied). Proto::type 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da Great Yola

[edit]
Da_Great_Yola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No indication of notability--Edchilvers 21:38, 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. Proto::type 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensional Insight

[edit]
Dimensional_Insight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable company - blatant spam--Edchilvers 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I find it truly interesting that Edchilvers (who can't even spell the word "blatant" correctly, by the way) arrogates the right to decide which companies are notable and which are not. Why does he not then request the deletion of articles about similar companies in the same line of business, such as Applix, Business Objects, Cognos, Hyperion Solutions, MicroStrategy, QlikTech, etc.? Edchilvers must provide some pretty good reasons why these other companies are notable, while a very similar company such as Dimensional Insight is not. Failing that, and unless he is asking to delete all Business intelligence vendors, I must conclude Edchilvers is biased. Pasquale 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there was more information as to why it is a notable company then I would happily change my mind.--Edchilvers 07:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, firstly, you must define "notable company"; secondly, you must explain why and how you have become the single judge of this matter on the Wikipedia, when you don't seem to know much at all about Business intelligence vendors; thirdy, you must explain why you have attacked this company specifically — indeed, to the point of describing information about it as "spam", clearly without any knowledge of fact — but not other companies, such as the ones I have listed above, which operate in the same line of business and produce similar products. As you have not requested the deletion of those other comparable companies, I must conclude that (1) either you have an axe to grind, or (2) if this is simply an unmotivated, random attack, then you are in fact the "spammer" here! Pasquale 15:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why is it notable? Who are its customers-are they notable? Who are its directors-are they notable? How does it compare with others in the field of Business Intelligence? I concede that I was a little hasty in labelling the article as 'spam' and I would like to retract that part of my statement. I am still not convinced that it meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability though--Edchilvers 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. This discussion is about this article. To make an argument for keeping the article, you must cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. Uncle G 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pasquale, assume good faith on the part of Edchilvers. Company is NN. Scienter 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't disagree more. I happen to know this company well and use its products daily. When I created this article, I specifically patterned it on articles about a number of similar companies, which produce and market similar products (e.g.: Applix, Business Objects, Cognos, Hyperion Solutions, MicroStrategy, QlikTech, etc.). Uncle G says: "'If article X then article Y.' is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons." I beg your pardon: What obvious reasons? Quite the contrary, in fact. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I think, is the rule of thumb. The article includes a link to the company's web site (http://www.dimins.com) that provides all the information you need (same as for those other companies). Again, no one can tell me what the "notability" criteria are. If there are indeed such criteria, then they should be enforced for all businesses, not just this one.
      • Rubbish. You've already been told three times what the criteria are, both in this discussion and in notices in the article itself, all of which have linked directly to the criteria to apply and how to demonstrate that they are satisfied. You'll not make a case by arguing as you are continuing to do. Your only way to make a case is to do what I said to do above. So stop making erroneous arguments about some supposed arbitrariness or unfairness of the long-standing criteria that we apply to all companies, and start citing those sources. Uncle G 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Edchilvers seems to be asking for a list of customers and a list of directors. That is what the company's web site is for. If you need more information, you can call the company directly and ask for informational materials, but I don't see how that belongs to the Wikipedia article.
    • (2) Uncle G asks for sources. Again, from what I can see, the company's web site is usually the only source provided in articles about other companies. What other sources do you need? Customer testimonials? They are on the company's web site.
    • (3) Scienter, apparently without any direct knowledge, asserts the company is "NN" and invites me to assume good faith on the part of Edchilvers, when in fact I happen to know quite a bit about Business intelligence software, while, with all due respect, Edchilvers doesn't seem to. I say to Scienter: Please assume my good faith!
    • I am sorry, but this all seems quite preposterous to me. I have been a Wikipedia editor for two and a half years, I have made several thousand contributions, started numerous articles, and have never come across this kind of biased, targeted scrutiny. I strongly urge Edchilvers to withdraw his unmotivated AfD nomination and I strongly urge Uncle G to remove his arbitrary notability warning. Pasquale 20:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not arbitrary. They are the criteria that apply to all company articles. Uncle G 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The companies Pasquale refer to all carry at least one claim of notability. Applix were one of the pioneers of integrated Speadsheet/Word Processing/Graphics office automation suites running on Unix workstations, MicroStrategy created a dot.com which was among the first services to broadcast custom alerts (such as stock price alerts) to wireless devices, and so forth. The article on DI, by contrast, lists no such pioneering developments and is therefore non-notable in it current form--Edchilvers 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: (To echo Edchilvers and expand a bit: Business Objects (company) has about 20 times the number of customers of DI and is publicly traded; Cognos has 3,500 employees and 23,000 customers (versus 1500 for DI); Hyperion Solutions and MicroStrategy are publicly traded (NASDAQ), and QlikTech has 3 times the number of customers. That leaves Applix, which sold office productivity software starting in the 1980s to a wide market, and so has a rich history (one admittedly not well documented in its article, which really should be stubbed). In short, not very good examples, and even if they were, WP:INN would still be citable. John Broughton | Talk 21:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for all the clarifications, but I am still trying to understand what the "notability" threshold is here. John Broughton points out, quite correctly, that Hyperion Solutions and MicroStrategy are publicly traded, while QlikTech, like Dimensional Insight, is not. However, says John Broughton, QlikTech has 3 times the number of customers as Dimensional Insight. Ha-ha! Now I am finally beginning to understand. We are down to the number of customers. In other words, Dimensional Insight will be notable when it has 3 times the number of customers. Is that what you are telling me, John Broughton? I am sorry, but this all sounds like ad-hoc argumentation, i.e. the criteria keep changing as it seems convenient from moment to moment. Pasquale 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is in no way spam. The company website can serve as a source. It passes WP:CORP since a simple google search revealed numerous third-party articles on the company, and/or products.CraigMonroe 21:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn private company. Company's own site does not count as a "source". Also the attacks on Edchilvers and hostility do not help. meshach 06:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Switch to Keep per sopurces being added. meshach 04:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutral An article about a company, where the article contains only information from the company's website, is simply a (pale) reflection of that website. Such a wikipedia article adds absolutely no value, and deleting such an article discourages this practice. Wikipedia is not intended to be a mirror of the Web. If DI becomes much-discussed in the news, or otherwise achieves some objective degree of notability, then an expanded version of the article can be recreated. John Broughton | Talk 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The threshold for notability per WP:CORP is rather low, in my opinion, but the sources that have been added to the article do appear to qualify the company per that policy. So I'm changing my vote to neutral; if I agreed more with the policy, I'd vote "Keep". John Broughton | Talk 01:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral I'm struggling to find anything to support notability under WP:Corp, but I'm not seeing it. I tried a quick google, but don't see anything that would do the trick. If someone can point to citations that show that this corporation does meet the criteria, please do - otherwise it should be deleted. --TheOtherBob 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that Truthbringer's citations (see below) quite get it to a keep - but they might. After reviewing them, I'm entirely on the fence - and so am changing my comment to a neutral one. --TheOtherBob 00:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A Google search brings up at least a handful of notable links (business partner of IBM, Vietnam News piece). It may read like spam now, but it's not beyond repair. Still notable. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What Pasquale does not note here is that he is an employee of Dimensional Insight, posting this article under direction from the VP of Marketing. This is not a reason, in itself, for deletion. --Dyfrgi 06:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the basis for saying he's an employee? I looked at his user page, user talk page, and edit summaries to postings about this company, and couldn't find anything that said that. He says, above, I happen to know this company well and use its products daily, which I took to mean that he was a customer, but if he in fact is an employee then WP:COI applies. So, to repeat so that the question doesn't get lost: what is the basis for your statement? John Broughton | Talk 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I heard this from a friend who was telling me about an employee of Dimensional Insight who had recently posted an article about the company and was defending it against deletion - without mentioning that he's an employee. My friend doesn't actually work there, but he knows someone who does. So, technically my statement is hearsay, but I have no reason to disbelieve it. Really, the article now looks just as good as those of other similar companies, but I thought that Pasquale's association with the company should be known. Dyfrgi 05:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found references and added them to the article, and I feel the references adequately demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Outside sources provide WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Oakshade 00:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having used Dimensional Insight's products, I can say that they compare favorably with those of most competitors. Considering the major mergers in the BI industry in recent years, Dimensional Insight is indeed notable for remaining privately held and maintaining positive growth each year. This baseless attack on an informative and non-offensive entry should be ignored. MahmoudAmadinejad 03:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC) — MahmoudAmadinejad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • (I moved the foregoing down to the bottom of the page.) Welcome to Wikipedia, and please remember to assume good faith. Neither the quality of the product, nor the company's profitability matter for notability. Nor is anyone's nomination of a previously unsourced article about what seemed to be a non-notable company in anyway "baseless" or an "attack." Wikipedia is not a battleground, and AfD is not meant as an affront. Having said that, thanks for your contribution, and, again, welcome.--TheOtherBob 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This debate has clearly stirred a great deal of feeling, which I suppose is understandable. I don't deny that editors have worked very hard to create this article and I can see how they may feel that their efforts are unappreciated. Let me assure you on my own behalf this is not the case. The purpose of an AfD discussion, IMO, is to bring to the attention of other users articles which, in their current form, do not match the Wikipedia notability criteria, articles which require a little bit more information or sourcing in order to make sure that they come up to scratch. Once this has been done (and efforts have certainly been made as regards to this article, although as has been pointed out I am not an expert in this field and cannot say whether it will be enough) there is no reason why the article may not remain on Wikipedia--Edchilvers 16:20, 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. Proto::type 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller at the Threshold

[edit]
Dweller_at_the_Threshold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band--Edchilvers 21:59, 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. Proto::type 11:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit West Records

[edit]
G-Unit_West_Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete- The article here is proven to have no reliable sources and unsourced information. This article was recreated once again by users who formally wrote this once again. I have now redirected this to AFD. I apologize to Metros232 for the error. I got it right this time. LILVOKA 22:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Proto::type 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony Glen

[edit]
Harmony_Glen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is opinionated and reads like and item from a fanzine--Edchilvers 22:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Impact Halo

[edit]
High_Impact_Halo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Frankly, I don't see what this page is needed for. Full of stuff which is pointless to anyone who doesn't get it. Why do we need to know the mods? et al. "the largest" halo site? Source? It appears to be more to advertise the site (it was put as a link on the Halo 2 article) than anything else. David Fuchs 00:04, 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 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional customer experience

[edit]
Intentional_customer_experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable, reads like an advert--Edchilvers 22:24, 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. Proto::type 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeler & Tate Management

[edit]
Keeler_&_Tate_Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable, looks like an advert--Edchilvers 22:31, 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 Nomination withdrawn after article was re-written. utcursch | talk 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Legal Status of Jainism as a Distinct Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An unwikified essay, the bulk of which is copied from other websites. Original research via synthesis. Salad Days 03:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw rewritten. Salad Days 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legalese 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The Analysis of Legal Provisions is based on the judgment dated dated 15th of September, 2000, filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2684/2000, HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN, Appellants: State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Respondent: Vijay Shanti Educational Trust[reply]

Legalese 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 1. http://www.countercurrents.org/hr-patil271106.htm. Please see this link published in the "Counter Currents". This article deals with the two judgments and has comments by a member of the State Minorities Commission and an author of a few books on Jainism.[reply]

2. I am trying to scan my own copy of the Unreported Jugdment of Rajasthan High Court, on which my "analysis" is based, I'll upload it once it is done. Whichever chunk has been "pasted" has been duly referenced. A Supreme Court's judgment would have to be "quoted". Illustration's noted by the Supreme Court could not be "narrated" by me, but it is best to reproduce them verbatim.


Legalese 15:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC) I am aghast. The claim that there could be a "blatant violation of copyright in this article" is completely unfounded.[reply]

I explain the constitution of the whole article as below. The article presently has four sub-headings. 

   * 1 The Recent Legal Debate on Jainism
   * 2 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
   * 3 Criticism of the Supreme Court's Decision in Bal Patil's Case
   * 4 Jainism and Other Religions: Illustrations noted by Supreme Court of India

I'll deal with each one in detail. 

   * 1 The Recent Legal Debate on Jainism

This sub-heading covers the following: >>The Bal Patil Judgment It quotes from the Supreme Court's judgment. Quoting from a Supreme Court jugdment cannot be a violation of copyright.

The rest of the comments have been written by me. Check, by googling, if you can find any websites from which it has been claimed that

>>U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Judgment This para has been written by me. Check by googling if its been copied even a least bit. 

   * 2 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The first para merely quotes the Article 25 of the Constitution of India in original. It is a provision of law, and there is no violation of any copyright in reproducing it.

The second para has been written by me. You can check, by googling it, if it appears anywhere else, it would have name "rishabh sancheti" or the link "legalese" [my wiki name]. 

   * 3 Criticism of the Supreme Court's Decision in Bal Patil's Case

This has been authored completely by me, with the help of certain legal provisions. Again, citing the legal provisions cannot entail any violation of a copyright. The veracity of such legal provisions may be checked at <indiacode.nic.in>, Government of India's official law database, by feeding the name of the Act.

The explanations appearing below each of the Acts have been authored by me. One can verify by googling. 

   * 4 Jainism and Other Religions: Illustrations noted by Supreme Court of India

This fourth part may give an impression on a superficial reading that it is made up of several parts which might be claimed to have been copied. However, I submit with deference that such claim is baseless, and would prove to be so, if any one may be diligent enough to verify. Infact this part is a summary of the illustrations noted by the Supreme Court of India in the UP Shiksha Parishad Judgment, the original link of which has already been given. Click on the link, and it would open a page on the Judis Database of the Government of India, having this judgment. Do a simple CTRL+F to locate these paragraphs there.

As I'v stated above, there could be no copyright violation in quoting from a Court's judgment along with its proper reference. I have not claimed that I have authored this part, the heading itself clearly reads "Illustrations noted by Supreme Court of India". The para numbers in this part are the original para numbers of the Judgment, which has already been mentioned in the beginning of this part.

Now.........how is there any copyright violation?

Legalese 20:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Thanks for your comments @ Isotope, harsh is good as long as it is on the content and not against the person, which thankfully is the case here. I am in appreciation of your approach. I understand that the section on Hindu Personal laws debate appears to be in conflict with the WP:OR policy. However, as I have mentioned above, it is based on a judgment of Rajasthan High Court, which unfortunately is not available on net. If required, and it seems it is pertinent now, I will try my best to give a para-wise reference so as to make it clear that this article is not wholly in defiance of WP:OR. However, I do admit that a bit of it needs to be "cleaned up" by me, so that it strictly conforms to the aforesaid policy. Regarding the other things you pointed out, yes, the debate is recent and if I may say, unfortunate. The debate has actually been generated as a result of a strife between some fundamentalists of either religions. The matter went to the Courts and has been resolved largely. Thus, it gains importance and I felt it important to bring it on wikipedia if any researcher is looking for a point to begin with on the debate. Also, there are several other sources available on the internet which substantiate this article, however I admit that the fault lies on my part not to have referenced in detail. I must also state at the same time that I am only a beginner and am yet to be too well versed with WIKI, I hope thus the formatting errors could be done away with by more experienced users, or else I'll need to put some extra hours on few weekends and understand the whole deal, to do it myself.[reply]

Keep: The topic itself is encyclopaedic, and whatever OR exists can be removed. Hornplease 22:11, 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. Proto::type 11:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Link management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A page which seems to exist solely for the purpose of providing a convenient external link near the end. Salad Days 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link management is a legitimate subject for an article and the external link referencing a patented product relating to it has relevancy because it is a.) a recent patent, b.) indentified as a "new-invention" (rather than a refinement or enhancement of an existing invention) by the patent office and c.) the only patent so far issued in this entire field. There is also pertinent non-commercial, on-topic information in this article, which is far more than you can say about the tens of thousands of pure puffery articles that overflow Wikipedia like visitors in a Roach Motel.

Take a look at Squeezebox network music player for a typical example -- a complete article filled with links pimping a multi-hundred-dollar music player, complete with additions hyping each new product release in the line.

With that as the standard, what is wrong with this overall informative piece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.183.17 (talk • contribs)

comment - Actually, other external links to other products would not be appropriate. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Also note that the product being touted in this article actual refers to Reciprocal link -- Whpq 11:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. It is a legitimate topic and notable and, most importantly, a launching pad for discussion of an important web subject. The fact that it has only one external link today and that is to a company which happens to hold the only patent in the field, does not mean that it can't have 20 external links to both commercial and non-commercial information providers on this subject tomorrow.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekb606 (talk • contribs)

Note - I've put a strkethrough on the keep above. The above text was unsigned, as noted. IP 216.229.183.17 editted the text to add the "keep" in front of the comment. One should not alter other people's comments/votes. -- Whpq 10:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, there ought to be an article on the subject, although this one ain't it. There was a similar article (same name? can't recall) on the subject deleted some months ago. As I understand it, link management comes down to, or at any rate includes, this basic concept: If your web site is xyz.com, and a person types xyz.com/products in his browsers url bar, he should get to your products page. Not to a 404 or a directory listing. I guess there's more to it than that, I dunno. But whatever it is, this article doesn't make clear. And yeah there's a spam link too. But its am actual, if obscure, concept. Herostratus 07:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. it seems like a classic example of a stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.183.17 (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. - Mailer Diablo 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of drawing topics

[edit]
List_of_drawing_topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is unencyclopedic--Edchilvers 22:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Tsai

[edit]
Mary_Tsai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like an autobiography, orphaned article, general lack of notability--Edchilvers 22:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Please note, I did not perform the delete; I'm just closing the listing. →Bobby← 18:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, champion!

[edit]
Yeah, champion! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A completely unreferenced musical group. Salad Days 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete by {{db-band}}. The only very slight assertion of notability is that they're the youngest band in Virginia to release an album, a statement that is both unsourced and almost certainly false. -- Kicking222 17:57, 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 speedied; spam, self-promotion. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L. R. Emerson II

[edit]
L. R. Emerson II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable artist. only a few ghits. Ladybirdintheuk 15:46, 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. W.marsh 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBasic

[edit]
IBasic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable BASIC language derivative. Google gives about 14,000 hits [26]. Article reads as an advert, nothing encyclopedic or notable. Mikeblas 15:59, 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. W.marsh 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astound Broadband

[edit]
Astound Broadband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:SPAM, and reads like an advertisement. It has the company name plus their website link, which =spam. Diez2 16:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard the inclusion of the company's website as evidence of spamming. It is generally helpful to the reader if an article about a company includes relevant external links, including the company's web site. And the article seems to be npov rather than promotional. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:14, 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. W.marsh 04:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Smith (musician)

[edit]
Travis Smith (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable person; vanity page Scoutersig 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note nominator has removed the AfD template from the article. Does that mean that he/she is withdrawing the nomination? If so, it's time to close this puppy. B.Wind 04:41, 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 speedy delete. Note, I didn't perform the actual delete; I'm just closing the listing. →Bobby← 18:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rentalo.com

[edit]
Rentalo.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spam, assumption of 'world's largest online vacation rental company' . Euwetr 16:42, 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 Speedily deleted as a {{db-copyvio}} from the subjects' website. (aeropagitica) 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Johns

[edit]
Kevin Johns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Conflict of interest and copyright violation. The editor admits that he is authoring this article on hehalf of his father which violates WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV criteria. The text in the article was copied directly from www.kevinjohns.net which violates the WP:COPYVIO guideline.

I had originally tagged the article as a speedy but the author contested the tag on notability grounds. The subject seems notable enough but the copyright violation alone should require deletion. LittleOldMe 16:56, 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 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Munk One

[edit]

Non-notable illustrator, WP:COI violation. Was PRODded, the PROD was removed by a newbie who seems to have their own interpretation of how deletions should be performed. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:04, 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. W.marsh 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Carrot Museum

[edit]
World Carrot Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This doesn't meet any WP:WEB criteria, and fails to claim any degree of notability. Two self-referential citations, and one twice removed link to not-notable op-ed. The article is about one man's carrot collating. Has already been prod'd -Tiswas(t/c) 17:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Way (Christina Aguilera song)

[edit]
My Way (Christina Aguilera song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-existent song. Extraordinary Machine 18:01, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt hollis hulsey

[edit]
Matt hollis hulsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Founder of obscure webhosting company, allegedly an actor but with no IMDB credits, Google produces two hits, one referring to an Auburn University student drama production and the other the subject's myspace page. Tried to prod it but it was deleted without discussion by an anon. Russ (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. Ev. move to correct upercase names. Cate 18:40, 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. W.marsh 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of $100 million sports contracts

[edit]

100 million is an entirely arbitrary number, this isn't significant or different from contracts of any other sums in any way. Prod removed after move to "List of" name. Rory096 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hmm, $25 million? No, too small. $350 million? No, much to big. [Gasp] I know!... Okay, this was random and really isn't much of an article at all. Diez2 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I absolutely agree that WP has too many arbitrary lists with little or no sourcing which don't add to the project in anyway. However, the above list is actually well cited with informative notes. As to the choice of $100 million, I really don't see what the big deal is. It's the lowest 9-digit number which seems as good a place as any to start. Furthermore, the relatively few (compared to the total number of pro athletes) individuals who make the list give it a certain notability. I would actually like to see the list expanded to account for foreign athletes who have adjusted contract values of $100mil or more. →Bobby← 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WIkipedia is not a collection of lists -- Tawker 19:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's one major problem with this list. In 5, 10 or 20 years, inflation may make the concept of a "$100 million contract" insignificant, particularly in sports like soccer and baseball that have no salary cap. Caknuck 19:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Absolutely. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Just as we can't predict if something will be notable in the future, we also can't predict something won't be notable in the future. By the same logic you use above, we shouldn't have a List of men who walked on the moon since fifty years from now we may all be walking on the moon. This doesn't really work as a justification. →Bobby← 19:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rename and rework I think the best way to handle this would be to change it to a chronological list of the richest contracts (Timeline of the richest sports contracts maybe?). This would make the list more encyclopedic, less arbitrary and would pass the "100 year test". I'd even support breaking it up by sport, with separate lists for soccer, football, baseball, hockey and basketball. A timeline would work well, because key events (such as lockouts/strikes, the imposition of salary caps and the advent of free agency could also be noted to illustrate their effects on salaries. Also, a timeline format would be condusive to showing benchmarks like league minimum salaries, average salaries and per capita income. Caknuck 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a sourced list with a pretty clear qualifier (a sportsperson contracted for US$ 100 million). If kept, would definitely agree to revisiting when $100,000,000 becomes small change per Caknuck. Also if kept, would like to see expansion to atheletes outside America's two staple sports. -- saberwyn 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's adequate coverage of all sports; if other athletes should be on the list, then by all means, add them. However, I just checked out a few football (soccer) players, such as Beckham, C. Ronaldo, Henry, etc. None of them have contracts that come close (adjusting the euro to USD). -- Kicking222 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep I was on the fence, but Bobby's arguments for keeping the article are much stronger than those for deleting it. The number itself is slightly arbitrary, but if $100M becomes a (comparitively) small figure, the article can be changed to $150M, $200M, or whatever. It is an interesting list, and a sourced one. It is also a list that would not work as a category, and it contains a good amount of extra information. -- Kicking222 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Kickin222, and Bobby. CraigMonroe 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something like List of largest sports contracts and just explain in the lead that the criteria for inclusion is (currently) US$100 million. Recury 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subjects of the list are all notable and themselves and the inclusion criteria are specific. JChap2007 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable, well-organized, I always am glad when we are a resource for information not available in the same format elsewhere. The rename proposal by Recury has merit (and also addresses the looking-forward issue raised by some delete commenters), but should be addressed on the article talkpage, not forced by an AfD. Newyorkbrad 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is the only compilation of its kind on the web and the information is accurate and sourced (thanks Robertbcole). I agree that $100M is arbitrary, but you could also make the same argument for 500 home runs in baseball. Even though 500 home runs is becoming more and more likely, it is still considered very significant. The same is true for a contract worth $100M. Renaming the article to List of largest sports contracts is certainly an option. That way, Timeline of richest sports contracts could also be included in the article (see format of List of highest paid baseball players). Whoppersnapper 02:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agathor

[edit]
Agathor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a fictional character and the description of that episode. There is almost no information here relating to the title itself. Diez2 18:21, 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. —Doug Bell talk 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fur Affinity

[edit]
Fur Affinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't meet WP:WEB, entirely unsourced article about an un-notable website that only an obscure community knows about. SchmuckyTheCat 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Edison 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --humblefool® 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete on the grounds that this is better suited to WikiFur. Schmucky, note that the furry community is notable enough to have an article here on Wikipedia. --Dennisthe2 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Claims to be the most popular website of its type (and, contrary to nom, sources that claim). This is a claim of noteworthiness. Leaving aside the nature of Alexa rankings, the question then becomes whether its type of website is sufficiently noteworthy. I know nothing about "furry art," so I can't really say -- but given the young age of this article (less than a week old), I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. A few Internet searches (I know, I know...) seem to suggest that the website might be sufficiently notable, so I will consider the article a valid stub for now. Would reconsider if article is not at minimum sourced and preferably expanded within the next couple of weeks. Shimeru 07:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An article covering this website was previously submitted for deletion under the title FurAffinity. The result of the discussion was delete.
Speaking as an expert in the field, I can confirm that the site is currently the most popular site for art in the furry fandom. The site will pass 300,000 submissions today, and has a daily input of around 1100 submissions. It has been reliably up for a significant period of time (finally), and has an Alexa ranking of ~23,000 over a three month period. It has separate forums (not notable, but active). The WikiFur article on Fur Affinity has a few further claims.
Having said that, you may feel that it is not an appropriate topic for an article, as there is really not that much that can be said about it that can be sourced with anything that resembles reliability. The closest we really have to an analysis apart from WikiFur would be stuff like this blog rant, and it is already outdated, not covering the recent "pedo cub art" debate (don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue). It is notable within the furry fandom, and should definitely remain as an external link there. You could talk about it in a discussion of art archives within the furry fandom. Other than that, I'm not sure. GreenReaper 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically because it's a recreation of a deleted article. I know I'll get accused of fursecution for this but really, by the name the nominator is a furry, too so I'm not fursecuting. It might be mergeable if someone mentioned where to. The furry fandom article gets rewritten daily so I don't know if that's a good place. Anomo 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fursecution! (they're not a member of Category:Furry Wikipedians :-) The article is rather volatile, but the links section appears relatively stable, except when trolls blank the whole article. GreenReaper 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as creator. The previous article was deleted because it was deemed fancruft and did not state noteworthiness. I have. Note that this article is not finished, as I'm still waiting for the admin of FA to get back to me on what he'd like to add to the article. Blast 11.30.06 1555 (UTC -5)
I have to wonder why you're asking him and not just adding what you think would improve the article. GreenReaper 21:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm a complete noob there, and I don't know anyone else on FA that would be willing to contribute. Blast 11.30.06 1825 (UTC -5)
If it was notable it wouldn't need a member to write an article. SchmuckyTheCat 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And who else would know enough about the site's workings to write about it? You can't exactly be a guest and be knowledgeable, you know (see $_any_art_site). Blast 12.02.06 2133 (UTC -5)
If that's the case, then it's probably not a notable site. Encyclopedias are generally derived from knowledge that is available to a reasonably large number of people. If a reasonably knowledgeable person familiar with the area could not research and write an article about a given topic, then generally speaking it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. While the site founder is entitled to contribute, it should not require their contribution. GreenReaper 04:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that it required the founder to contribute significantly, just anyone who visits the site often enough to figure out the community (therefore making them a de facto member, even if they don't have an account). One cannot write an article about a club without being even an initiate - or, one could, but the article would simply be a stub and remain a stub for its tenure on Wikipedia ; non-members, after all, are the only ones who can contribute, according to "popular opinion". I hope you see the problem with that interpretation of notability?
But then, since I seem the only one who's defending this article, perhaps I should simply let it go. Even if it is a notable site, surely someone else would be here on my side, were I right. And therefore, I cede this debate ; delete this article. Blast 12.03.06 1741 (UTC -5)
Let me make it clear that I don't think that deleting this article is necessarily the optimal solution, but it is in line with Wikipedia current policies and previous deletions. The site has not had media coverage, or much coverage at all outside of private blogs and journals (I did ask the founder and he said there had been a couple of inquiries which he had declined). There is therefore little that can be considered "proven" about it - and Wikipedia prefers to rely on reliable sources. As the site gets older and more popular, it may be that this situation will change. At that point, I suspect an article will be seen as more acceptable. GreenReaper 03:49, 4 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 per CSD A7. Naconkantari 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Real Ale Society

[edit]
Bristol Real Ale Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable student club. Fails WP:ORG. No significant independent coverage here. Delete. BlueValour 18:35, 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. W.marsh 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea-ha

[edit]
Yea-ha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is no evidence that this is a notable drinking game. Google search turns up little. The article does not provide any references. Deli nk 18:53, 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 speedy delete. I didn't do the delete, I'm just closing the listing. →Bobby← 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bum Chins

[edit]
Bum Chins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nonsensical 3R1C 19:24, 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 - Yomanganitalk 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ñhosko Serna

[edit]

Lack of notability and presumably an autobiography of User:Nhosko. I am also nominating following pages for lacking notability and appearing to have a conflict of interest with the same user (Nhosko):

- All-Bran 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Looks as if CSD:A7 would have applied here. James084 19:39, 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 - Yomanganitalk 13:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canary Data Solutions

[edit]

Article on small 5 person software firm, appears to have been created by Software Manager of the company. Not quite advertising spam but lacks notability and 100% positive about company. SimonLyall 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Bader

[edit]
David A. Bader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable person. Associate professor and not particularly distinguished. Most likely created by the subject of the article himself (see [27] [28] [29]). I was considering CSD:A7, but decided against it. -- mattb @ 2006-11-28T19:48Z

  • Delete NN academic, probable COI. Sam Clark 20:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he is regarded as a significant expert in his area by independent sources; he received the IEEE & Sigma Xi 2000 Young Outstanding Engineer Award, the National Science Foundation CAREER Award and he is an IEEE Computer Society Distinguished Speaker (see Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). --All-Bran 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Do you know what those mean? The NSF CAREER award isn't exactly an exclusive club; over 400 of them were awarded last year alone [30]. Shall we create articles on all four hundred 2005 recipients? Or the few thousand spanning the past couple of years? Phrases like "regarded as a significant expert in his area by independent sources" are rather weaselly, even if they do come from some guideline page. I have nothing against the guy, but as far as I can tell there are significant numbers of CS people as distinguished or more distinguished than him. Practically any academic who works and teaches at a research university will garner a big list of rewards (the people I work for certainly do, but I wouldn't consider them notable enough to have pages here). -- mattb @ 2006-11-29T05:16Z
      • Basic requirements for being an IEEE Computer Society speaker: 1. Membership (several thousand people), 2. record of public speaking at conferences and technical meetings (several hundred people), 3. Published papers and books (hundreds of people), 4. Nominated by someone... I don't see this as a great criterion for encyclopedic notability...
      • I couldn't find much information on the Sigma Xi award, but considering that society comprises a membership of about 62k persons, I suspect the aforementioned award is a research grant in the same vein as the NSF CAREER award. I have to ask again, did you do your homework on this? Do you really think reception of research grants is valid criteria by which to gauge the notability of an academic? Or did you just go to Dr. Bader's website, look at his research awards, and assume these constituted notability? -- mattb @ 2006-11-29T05:29Z
  • Keep Notable academic career with impressive awards and a distinguished publication record.Sigma Xi is a scientific honorary society that is not that open to everyone (Hey, I didn't get in!). He is an Associate Prof, but his committee work and research program would be notable enough for an article if he were a full Prof. Anyway, he is tenured pretty quickly. The argument about having to create thousands of articles does not impress. We do npot have to create any of the articles if we don't want to. If someone else wants to, we can see if those individuals also have 75 pubs and the other credentials, then vote on their noms. Out of 1.5 million articles, most of them crufty stubs about bus stops, video game characters, porn actresses or garage bands, a few about academic researchers do not bother me a bit. Edison 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep An NSF career award is harder than getting tenure at a university, these are peer-reviewed grants. 75 publications, which in engineering is extremely notable indeed
"there are a significant number of CS people as notable..." Yes, there probably are, and they all should be in. When the discussions on notability of academics are at the level of asking whether being an asst prof. anywhere is significant, its absurd to keep him out. "Wiki is more selective that the NSF" ;) I'm with Edison. DGG 04:03, 4 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 04:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StarScream

[edit]
StarScream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The person, not the Transformer toy. His only real claim to fame was creating MultiTracker for the PC, which isn't really among the most notable trackers. Contrary to what the article suggests, he wasn't involved with Composer 669 or OctaMED. The external link has no additional information. --Vossanova o< 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Starscream. Danny Lilithborne 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. N.B.: Dan Goldstein may be noteable enough for an article one day; time will tell. But I don't think it would be appropriate for me to have an article on me under the entry Deltopia; it should be under my legal, known name. Having only one entry in Wikipedia and that entry being listed under your alias while your true name is actually known is not a situation that seems in keeping with the tone of an encyclopedia. That is probably not relevant to the AfD discussion, but in a roundabout way, I guess I am saying that if consensus is to keep, please move it as well. Deltopia 01:23, 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. W.marsh 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feurio!

[edit]
Feurio! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lacks notability. See Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations) for my basis in thinking this. Deltopia 19:57, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Aging Research

[edit]
Alliance for Aging Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Okay, this is about an organization devoted to research to improve the elderlys' lives. There are hundreds of organizations like this. How is this one any different? No notability. Diez2 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Proquest shows 143 references to this organization in the medical and health care press from 1988 to the present. They do research to help the aged, they are a non profit, and they are notable. Igf hundreds of others can demonstrate notability, then perhaps they should have articles too. Edison 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Edison. Meets WP:CORP. →Bobby← 20:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I think not notable, but this is also nonverifiable. Those voting keep should please see if there is any verifiable statement of anything made in the article. I typically don't ask for as much as some people here, but this one has absolutely zero. DGG 04:07, 4 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 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcmahon park

[edit]
Mcmahon park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article gives no indication of location or notability. It is also unsourced and biased.--Edchilvers 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless built up with verification and clarity. Kukini 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Originally I thought this was the McMahon Park in Singapore (which is somewhat well known). Then I hopped on google and found that there are lots of parks sharing the name. Whatever the case may be, I've never seen the name spelled as it is here, and that definitely needs to change. →Bobby← 20:27, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R Lynch

[edit]
Michael R Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is unsourced and gives no indication of notability. The phrase "without him thousands of lives are at risk" is entirely POV and unreferenced. Non-notable--Edchilvers 20:10, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Weidner

[edit]
Brian Weidner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

High school band instructor. Doesn't seem to be the subject of any non-trivial independent published sources, only reference claimed for article is "personal interview". Thus article is original research. Delete per WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 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 (copyvio). W.marsh 03:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monalisa (Actress)

[edit]
Monalisa (Actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article needs alot of work if it is going to stay and is also unsourced. Fails WP:BIO?--Edchilvers 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60 Seconds (Webshow)

[edit]
60 Seconds (Webshow) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No external assertion of notability, not everything on YouTube is notable, and seems more like an advert than anything else. Contested prod. Article name get 0 Ghits.Moreschi 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOT. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean "not every funny YouTube video belongs on Wikipedia"? "Every ... does not" means something else. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, thanks MacGyverMagic meshach 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete, This isn't just a video, it's a series, that has over 1700 fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racsan2 (talk • contribs) (second comment from this user, author of the article)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Death Has a Shadow per request from creator. I'm leaving the history intact. —Doug Bell talk 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy Pilot

[edit]
Family Guy Pilot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

substub at best Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 04:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleepers (band)

[edit]
The Sleepers (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment OK, what exactly is going on here? My name is Brian Smith, and I am the manager of The Sleepers, not the imposter that keeps editing and saying he is in the band. I represent the band, and we did not authorize this page, although we would like to keep it as is. The information on the page is what is on the band's webpage, so it is official info. I guess I'm confused as to how this happened and why it happened. The Sleepers had a small page on Wikipedia as of a few weeks ago that didn't cause any problems, and all of a sudden the page changed and was flagged to be deleted. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected]. Again, we have not authorized this other person to speak on behalf of the band.


Non-notable band. The article is horribly written and probably violates WP:COI all across the board. It was previously AfDed in Jan 2005, but the AfD was never closed. Recently, someone prod'ded the article, but it was removed by an anonymous user who claims to be Tony Manno from the band. By the way, most of the article's edits come from User:Anthonymanno1. Danny Lilithborne 20:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment previous AfD was in January 2005. (aeropagitica) 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Sleepers play some lowdown, dirty, Rock N' Roll. Coming from Chicago with one foot in the blues and the other kicking the ass of bands that forgot what Rock N' Roll music is oh yeah that sounds real NPOV! I've been told not to say WP:VANITY so I'll go with WP:COI and an unhealthy amount of WP:SPAM! MartinDK 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a non-notable band - no references for tours, chart positions, notable members, multiple independent references in Journals of Record, reliable sources; WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 21:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge? I am the real Tony Manno of The Sleepers, and I was just informed of this page and the nominations for deletion. My apologies for whomever decided to put up our profile on the page. We are a legitimate band (I happen to think we're a notable one at that!), but apparently someone else believed we should have our own page. That I appreciate, but I apologize for the page creation not going through the proper channels. If someone would like to inform me, though, how I could get a legitimate page up for my band, that would be great. We have international press, a label, we tour, etc. etc. Also, anyone that knows me would know that I don't use "Anthony" as my first name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonymanno1 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - The apparent lacking notability (as demonstrated by above posters) combined with the misleading actions of the article's creator (and presumed subject) make this a pretty easy choice. →Bobby← 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I'm calling possible WP:SPAM on the grounds that the band's publicity manager is getting involved. --Dennisthe2 04:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzroy Xpress

[edit]
Fitzroy Xpress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not appear to be notable. James084 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. A Google search gives multiple independent articles on this band. Kathy A. 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madsen family curse

[edit]
Madsen family curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. This article is unverified/unsourced/unreferenced. A search for Madsen famil curse on Google gives absolutely no hits. No reason for the family or the curse's notability are given. Personally, I suspect this is a piece of the author's family history, and while personally important, is not appropriate material for Wikipedia. Delete. Mak (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" I'm the author, and I'm voting to keep it. I'd like to discuss this as well.

SwedishConqueror 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)SwedishConqueror[reply]

  • Delete Being Danish I have never heard of this before. Sounds like cruft to me. Where are the sources verifying that this is anything else than your own WP:OR Do you have any idea how many people are called "Madsen"???? (hint: it is more than you think!) MartinDK 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to say that I'm gathering some non-Internet sources and so would advise you to wait. I'm going to be placing telephone calls to several historical organizations tomorrow. Thank you.

SwedishConqueror 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)SwedishConqueror[reply]

    • Comment If you wrote it you know the sources already. Do you have any idea how many times I've heard the words "don't delete it, I am finding sources"? If you wrote it you know your sources. Also, what historical organizations? I'd like to know since I actually live in Denmark and happen to know that this article is WP:BOLLOCKS MartinDK 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not one person on the family tree has an article or appears deserving of one, thus even a generic Madsen family article is not worth discussing, and this "curse" is little more than family lore -- assuming it's even true. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - interesting, but zero assertion of notability. What makes this family so special? Also POV. Moreschi 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and reasons given by others. This sure seems to be an unpopular family if so many get murdered. Curse? Well, apart from the fact that such things are not real, what is here that is unusual.. The family lost money in the 1929 stock market crash? Wow! A sailor dies at sea? My goodness!. Someone got killed in a skiing accident? Supernatural! Emeraude 13:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You don't find this even slightly weird? I'm reserving judgement at this time (both on the existence of curses and on this article), but these events are certainly out of the ordinary. After the tenth member of my family was assassinated/mauled by wild giraffes/abducted by aliens/molested by the Queen of France, I too might start to wonder, "You know, maybe there's something to this..."

Of course, debate on whether a curse actually exists cannot possibly be carried out; such a question is far beyond our ability to answer. Debate on whether or not to keep this decidedly interesting article must, of course, proceed.

The number of murders, in particular, strikes me as very odd. It appears, however, that this family had money, and could it not be argued that through their financial dealings they were inevitably to come into contact with those who would wish to harm them? In addition, does that make these murders "assassinations," as the author has said, or something less? Can a four-year-old truly be "assassinated"?

As for the other stuff...I mean, you have to admit that it's a bit creepy. Let me put it to you this way: if it were my Aunt Betsy, I'd be looking behind my back everywhere I went. I mean, the Kennedys (not really known for the tranquility of their lives) have got nothing on these people. I feel bad for them.

Nanaszczebrzeszyn 19:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Nanaszczebrzeszyn[reply]

  • Delete. No sources (except to inflation rates!). I am a Dane living in Denmark and never heard of this family (but know some of the other 69000 [33] Madsen in Denmark). Limited Googling in Danish and English showed nothing relevant. Even if many of these events were sourced, the article would still look like original research without notable sources speaking of a possible curse or similar. PrimeHunter 03:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just did a search on "Heinrich Madsen" in the Danish emmigration database and there is absolutely no record of any Heinrich Madsen with or without family. What happened to those phonecalls he was going to make and that we had to wait for? MartinDK 07:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find this whole thing to be highly improbable. It would be virtually impossible for all of these events to happen within one family, and, being as I am a skeptic of supernatural phenomena, I just don't buy it. How could one group of people attract this much misfortune? It's just not feasible. Unless the author can provide strong sources, I will vote to delete. PROVIDE YOUR SOURCES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, IF YOU HAVE ANY.

Liz1848 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)User:Liz1848[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Society and Secondary Society

[edit]
Primary Society and Secondary Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is about relatively new (Taoist?) theory. From the looks of it, only one person has done work on it, which makes sense seeing as it was developed last year. Nothing via Google. A lack of independent sources means it's unverifiable and inherently non-neutral. Wafulz 21:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable theory. Precisely two google hits for full phrase in inverted commas: one is the WP article, the other has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Appears to be spam for the single referenced text. Sam Clark 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I can not tell whether a Taoist theory is notable, so I would not deleteDGG 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is quite profound in places but ultimately reaches the familiar conclusion that Eastern societies are less individualistic than Western societies. I'm not sure how useful the primary/secondary society dichotomy is given that human instinct and genetic predisposition presumably form the basis for secondary society just as they form the basis of primary society. Regardless, there is no indication that the book on which it is based warrants the extensive analysis given in the article. I can't imagine that wikipedia is the place for reviews of non-notable books. Allon Fambrizzi 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Delete. An article that expounds a novel theory by You-Sheng Li, has as its only sources a website and a text by You-Sheng Li, and was written by You-Sheng Li (talk · contribs)? Coming up with the Wikipedia policy alphabet soup that applies in cases like this is left as an exercise to the reader. Sandstein 21:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saif Energy Ltd

[edit]
Saif Energy Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable company. Plenty of google hits, but most of them belong to the company's website. No google news results [34] at all. Delete this page as company is still a start up and having no mention at all in the media Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these articles for deletion because they are related directly to Saif energy ltd, and are non notable and having very few google results.

Delete as per nom. Article is mostly written in future tense ("is eagerly looking forward", "The company will operate ", etc) so a large element of notability via crystal ball. Also, User:Jawadrox has no edits apart from these 3 articles. Emeraude 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can still do that when the page is deleted, by writing a verifiable article about a notable company. Right now, the articles are neither. And existance isn't an argument for keeping, vanity articles about some random school kid get deleted all the time. MER-C 03:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of villainous stock characters

[edit]
List of villainous stock characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems like original research. Uncited, messy and trivial. The JPStalk to me 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment - I did find an intereting list under "Types of Villians" here. It appears from a blog, but at least it's not an unknown concept. Another essay here. --Oakshade 03:35, 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. W.marsh 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Josh & Billy

[edit]
Evil Josh & Billy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable web cartoon. humblefool® 21:29, 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 keep. Article was in a vandalized form when nominated. →Bobby← 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keir

[edit]
Keir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rubish Archipoeta 21:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I have reverted the page to a version prior to the vandalism. Please check a page's history to enure there is no vandalism before nominating an article that appears to be rubbish. -- Whpq 21:46, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil laugh

[edit]
Evil laugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mwahahahaha was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-14. The result of the discussion was "keep after rename to evil laugh". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwahahahaha.

This article has no substance outside of original research and opinions. I personally like it, but it is not appropriate to Wikipedia Slavlin 21:40, 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. W.marsh 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awradio

[edit]
Awradio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disputed prod. Fails WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. Diez2 21:51, 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. W.marsh 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facial analysis

[edit]
Facial analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been transwikid to Wiktionary. James084 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article was deleted from Wiktionary after the transwiki. --- RockMFR 06:23, 4 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 AND CLEAN UP. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roguelike

[edit]

Article is entirely original reasearch, including definition/description of the genre, "family tree", appraisals of "roguelike" games. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't dispute that this article is pretty much full of OR, but so are most articles on Wikipedia. Give the editors some time to cite sources and clean it up. It's a valid topic, look at how many articles link to it! — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm honestly surprised that this article has no sources; it's a well-known genre to gamers, particularly old-schoolers (I'm talking pre-2600). It should be marked for cleanup, not deleted. Danny Lilithborne 22:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable genre of games. Original research can be removed without deleting the article. That ADOM, Angband and Nethack are generally considered roguelikes shouldn't be too hard to verify. The definition has probably been the subject of many flamewars in rec.games.roguelike.misc and rec.games.roguelike.development, but the description in the article seems to be pretty accurately describing what is thought in these groups. Kusma (討論) 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may not be directly sourcd, but there are sources. This article is not entirely OR, and presenting it as such is disengenuous. If there are sections you are concerned about, deal with then. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is a real concept, with websites, forums, and newsgroups. That means keep. FrozenPurpleCube 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well defined game genre. Just pull in some references to the term from the external links and it should be set. --Vossanova o< 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well defined, well established gaming genre. Is a very established open source community. Most of the references would be to fan/developer websites and newsgroups as discussed above. Garrie 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENTThis proposal totally ignores the section Roguelike#Sources which is a comprehensive enough list of online sources which could easily be used to recreate the article. I have additionally added a link to the Roguelike Development FAQ, which again, thoroughly discusses the key points of the article but from the point of view of informing developers of a game.Garrie 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Just to be fair, I added that information after the AfD was proposed, once it came to my attention that sources were lacking. I don't think this was a good AfD, but the proposer didn't miss that section. FrozenPurpleCube 04:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your adding the section, by the way. Now those sources need to be integrated as citations. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to withdraw your nomination now, it might be worth considering. I doubt any argument for deletion will appear. FrozenPurpleCube 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that citations be provided inline, it is a stylistic issue. If you think otherwise please provide me a link to the relevant policy - not guideline.Garrie 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As I have told you on my talk page, the WP:CITEMOS gives three appropriate styles for citations: All of them use in-line citations. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:15, 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. Proto::type 10:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Gaming

[edit]
Major League Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like an ad. I'd say delete. Bigtop 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep, notable and easily cleanable Valoem talk 22:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though right now it does sort of read like an ad. Needs some editing. RampageouS 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close Very clearly passes WP:CORP. AfD is the place to discuss deletions, not article cleanups. -- Kicking222 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just cleaned the article massively. Valoem talk 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, all or most of the sources can be found at www.mlgpro.com. Second of all, yes, we need to stick to MLG's history more, that is a big problem that needs to be fixed. So, in order to fix this problem, we need to make SUBPAGES that thoroughly explain the most successful and popular pros and teams over the course of MLG's history. I have started some of that to minimize some of the irrelevance. Check out the Star Wars wikipage and tell me how long the article would be if they included all the subpages' within subpages' within subpages' articles in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) (article author)
    • Response I strongly disagree that there should be subpages for the individual gamers who play MLG. None of them meet WP:BIO. User:Arrashju has created numerous articles on gamers, all of which have been speedily deleted (except for the 8 year old who was on 60 Minutes). Further, this user's only contributions have been articles about MLG and edits to other articles (such as Sport) promoting MLG. NawlinWiki 12:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Don't assume every article is not going to be like the one I made on LiL Poison. When I add MLG to the sports section I am stating the facts. I am not trying to promote MLG, I am just trying to have a place to show ignorant folks what MLG is about. Also, every last one of the links I made to certain players meet more than one specific of this requirement: This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambriel

[edit]
Ambriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was a challenged speedy delete. It is completely non-notable and lacks context. Also, the sources could be questionable, but it also might me true. Anyway, this article should be deleted. Diez2 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is mentioned on a graphic design site [35] along with about 400 other fictional angels. Any lists of 400 made up (and non notable) names do not need to be on wikipedia at all even on one page - this certainly does not need it's own page. be on the look out editors.Obina 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is an irrelevant reference - there are plenty of references that are based on a belief in the existence of this angel; the question is whether Wikipedia is the right forum to judge whether these exist (and as I say below I am not qualified to decide but am willing to bow to the views of editors who are qualified to pronounce on the existence of specific angels). TerriersFan 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whether angels are 'made up' is a concept that I am not qualified to comment on, not having ever met one. However, unless Category:Angels is to be deleted this one is perfectly verifiable, see Google hits [36]. Ambriel has plenty of references. If we are to eliminate anything not provable. e.g. God etc that's fine but if not then this one has 'multiple non-trivial mentions'. I have added some qualifying words; if these are not enough then add content to achieve NPOV rather than delete. TerriersFan 21:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a traditional theophoric name with well-documented astrological associations. It appears in books such as the Seventh Book of Moses. If there were well-defined notability guidelines for this kind of thing, it would meet them. -- Shunpiker 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You have given more information than this stub (or that I teased out of google). Helpful. But since the article says little, I'd still suggest a delete or redirect until someone can provide a NPOV article with references. Perhaps a page on "angels from Seventh Book of Moses" would be better. Obina 01:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe websites cited are not reliable sources and actually omit some well known angels. Find better references. Edison 00:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for the source - Ambriel is mentioned in communication and protection and I have added it to the article. I have stubbed the article since I agree it needs expansion.
  • Sorry, you're wildly mis-interpreting what these policies mean... the policy on verification says quite clearly "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." What we're looking for is a reliable source that says "Here is the main view of what this thing is." That's the "undue weight" part of the bias guideline (a.k.a neutral point of view.) If there are not substantial, serious, independant sources for this we can't be sure that we're not giving too much credibility to what one fringe source says. The fortune city version is just something someone whacked on the internet, it doesn't have any provenance. - 152.91.9.144 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil albino

[edit]
Evil albino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A sorry mess of an article that has no sources, is mostly original research (including several anime characters placed there simply because they have white hair), and contradicts itself at several points. There's a proposal to merge this into albino bias, but seeing as how the article makes no sense, I think it should just be scrapped. Danny Lilithborne 22:10, 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 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney_Ford

[edit]
Courtney_Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nothing but a vanity puff piece L0b0t 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Vanity puff, does not establish notability or importance of subject. L0b0t 22:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies. Vanity is perjoritive now? That's just silly. L0b0t 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is it's often misleading. Often articles are created by a friend, family member, associate or employee, not the subject themselves. "Conflict of interest" is a more generic term that applies anytime the article is created by someone with a personal interest. Fan-1967 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, vanity implies something about the value of the article itself, whereas conflict of interest merely strongly disapproves of certain user behaviors. A COI article may be rehabbed with NPOV, but a vanity article is usually unsalvageable because of notability failures. Nor do I think "vanity" is yet "rude" although it somewhat trips WP:BITE. Anyway, delete. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Lea

[edit]

This one needs confirmation, but according to comments I've received from someone who says she lives there, "The Village of West Lea" is in fact the Westlea housing estate in Seaham. If this is confirmed, it falls below the notability level for an article. Google isn't being very helpful, using both spellings interchangeably and giving no definite indication of whether it's an estate or a village. It's possible, of course, thatthere are two separate places, but unless an actual village can be confirmed, this should go. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 17:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egan Junior High School

[edit]

No indication of notability. Looking, I can find no non-trivial reliable outside coverage of this school. (Originally prodded, but better go the AfD route since it was prodded and de-prodded a few months ago.) Pan Dan 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be redirected without deleting anything. In fact, verified material can be merged if you do that. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on significant awards: Los Altos Town Crier indicates Egan Junior High School was named #1 top junior high school in the state for three years in a row. --Howrealisreal 02:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and you get the award for finding a source. Thank you. I'm still not convinced the article should be kept on that basis though, as it's a local write-up and there's not much there to build a Wikipedia article on. Pan Dan 14:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional (weak) Keep if properly sourced. Article's depth is fairly impressive, though it's in need of some cleanup. California Distinguished School and performing at Disneyland aren't terribly noteworthy per Kicking222, but being ranked first in the state for three years running is an indication of at least regional noteworthiness, provided that multiple independent reliable sources can be found to back that. (I note that Howrealisreal has already found one, a good start.) Shimeru 07:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Don't you mean "major reduction" instead of "some cleanup"? I agree that the article is very detailed, but 90% of those details are either unverifiable or non-notable (i.e. they're likely published nowhere or only on the school's website). The major exception is the blurb on Ardis Egan, which if properly sourced should be in an article on the man perhaps but not the school. Take out all the stuff that doesn't belong, and we'd be left with a directory entry. Pan Dan 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes. But I usually find "cleanup" or "some cleanup" adequately covers those concerns for AfD purposes. I'd perform the cleanup myself, but I don't want to make that sort of large-scale edit to the article while it's up for AfD, given my vote (since I have no sources to add). Shimeru 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs). - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep per Shimeru- the evidence at hand is not strong enough to convince me of this school's notability, but what is available makes me think that it can be shown to be. If not sourced, then merge or redirect. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — There are no solid sources listed for this article and for all I know this lengthy work is pure fabrication. So I can't lean toward keep on this. — RJH (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs). *Mystic* 23:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A thorough, well-written article that desperately needs to have more sources provided. Would benefit greatly from some attention from more knowledgeable Wikipedians. Alansohn 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Shimeru and Alan. Also note that the school website has a lot of high quality pictures, so if someone has time they may want to find out if any of them can released under the GFDL which would suit the article nicely. (I may be betraying my deletionist roots by letting that influence my opinion on the article) JoshuaZ 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. This junior high school has been repeatedly ranked #1 in the state of California for three years in a row. Silensor 07:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::type 10:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admit One

[edit]
Admit One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable defunct music venue that catered to bands that themselves didn't meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. --Jemiller226 01:12, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_28&oldid=1116878316"