Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 14 October 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Dakota 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Rubio[edit]

Please put back my Jesse Rubio article, i am able to provide links to back up my sources. thanks User ID:997668 2:28, 21 October 2006.

I see no indication why this person is any more notable than thousands of other murders. The lack of any incoming links doesn't help its case either. Nominating for Deletion Dgies 05:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Really doesn't appear notable, based on the 226 Google hits I get for the name. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 06:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Matthuxtable 09:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Daveydweeb. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low number of google hits, not anything notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Hello32020 12:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 18:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dgies. Akanksha 03:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if every murderer were documented on Wikipedia, we'd be overrun. This encyclopedia should only have articles about the more unique or very severe cases. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Notability aside, this article doesn't meet standards for bio of living person. The sole reference refers to subject as suspect in murder. There is no reference to claim that he is convicted murderer.Glendoremus 16:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted, 100% non sourced or verifiable, snowballed per mass deletion votes below. — xaosflux Talk 16:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple monkey theory[edit]

Possibly fails WP:NFT. Difficult to verify. ghits: [1] NMChico24 00:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because purple monkey dishwasher. Danny Lilithborne 00:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Only edited by single use accounts. Yomanganitalk 01:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bunch of nonsense. No sources identified. A search on Google shows nothing. Sr13 02:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google doesn't seem to know who "Dr. Michael Kilinger" is, either. Appears to be nonsense. Caknuck 02:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete removing "Dr." from the google search gives a lot more results, none of which are relevent. This one would really need a source if it is to be kept. Resolute 03:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that too. The links all went to some Australian cricket player. Changing the spelling of the last name got more hits, but primarily to genealogical records from 160 years ago. Caknuck 03:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seems nonsensical. --Dennisthe2 03:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 03:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified, fails Ghits, hoax.--Dakota 03:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nonsense/hoax. Seraphimblade 06:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - purple monkey dishwasher. the wub "?!" 11:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the title sorta gives it away, it's complete nonsense. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. Hello32020 12:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Szczur Zosia 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry guys, I went to close this - but kept nodding off half way through the article... *yawn* - will find another sysop slightly more interested in... *yawn* ...this.... *yawn* sorta.... Glennnnn.... zzzzzzzzzzzz 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Sinclair[edit]

nn furnituremaker with a couple of patents. Lankiveil 00:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not much from the google search. Only mirror sites are relevant to topic. Sr13 02:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Holding patents alone shouldn't be a case for notability. Caknuck 02:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's a dead chairmaker. The article does not assert his notability and seriously, he's a dead chairmaker. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - google only brings up wikipedia mirrors --T-rex 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Interesting but fails WP:BIO. Jpe|ob 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are such things as notable furniture makers, but Mr. Sinclair is not among them. --Dhartung | Talk 03:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jpe and nom. Hello32020 12:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. No notability.UberCryxic 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This will still be moved to Corey Beaulieu, however. --Coredesat 07:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Beaulieu (Trivium)[edit]

Article about a person who appears to have no notability outside of the band he's in (Trivium). I abstain on the matter of whether this article should continue to exist. Note to closing admin - If this is kept then it should be at Corey Beaulieu which currently redirects to Trivium, please delete and move as necessary. Valrith 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is nothing about him outside the band Trivium. Delete unless someone expands this article so it fits the notability guideline. Sr13 02:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He's a notable member of a notable band. He gets 24,600 ghits. The thing is, as far as I can tell, neither WP:BIO nor WP:MUSIC address members of bands. If this article is kept, it's going to need some serious NPOVing and expansion . Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing about him that can't be covered in the Trivium article, and the redirect is already in place at the proper name. GassyGuy 05:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge To the article about the band he is in. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge per Sr13 and Micheal. Hello32020 12:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Ultra-Loser P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with UltraLoser. He is a notable member of a notable band. But if the article is kept, it does need expansion.Thomasx5000 (talk • contribs) 7:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gassy. Deizio talk 08:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mukadderat 08:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tho a gruesome article, much of the personal information has no place in the bands article and should be kept in a separate article. Spearhead 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Alpharigel 18:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ultra-Loser. Lousy article, but notable subject. --Marriedtofilm 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very helpful article good stuff
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Banks[edit]

Since it's first AfD several months ago [2], this article hasn't addressed the concerns of the first AfD. People have posted recently some points on the talk page that leads me to believe that there is still an issue with this article's existance and it might not be worthy of an article as a term. The concern is that the article doesn't show proof of this being a wide-used term to describe these areas. It appears as though the group that helped create this article and one newspaper are the only people to ever use this term in the context given in the article. Delete as a non-notable, unverifiable term. Metros232 19:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Whatever it is, it is not some small scam or gated community; it is a pretty much wide-area initiative, and deserves its mention. A brief google search shows notability, even if it is an orchestrated marketing campaign. I see nothing bad in marketing of development of a large community/area. It is not, like, promotion of a mom-pop shop. `'mikka (t) 19:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs major revamping. From discussing this with proponents of the "Inner Banks" term, this is a fairly new term and has yet to catch huge attention like the "Outer Banks". As a result, the exact boundaries of this "region" are very very vauge. I personally do not think it should even come close to Fayetteville, as that would be considered part of the "Coastal Plain". The inner banks article may need to merged into a new article about the Coastal Plain of North Carolina (not just Atlantic Coastal Plain) until its definition can become more widely accepted. --TinMan 18:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- The October 2006 Issue of Business North Carolina magazine [3] is the 25th Anniversary of the renowned magazine. Pages 96 through 107 of this magazine has an article titled Go East and discusses eastern North Carolina in great detail, referring to the region as the Inner Banks 4 times throughout the article. The News & Observer [4], which featured a summer series on the Inner Banks, is the largest newspaper in North Carolina and is considered to be the newspaper of record in the state. North Carolina: The Official 2006 Travel Guide, published by the North Carolina Department of Commerce [5], has an article titled Discover the Inner Banks on page 146. A Google search for Inner Banks in quotation marks produced 24,700 hits today. When I searched Google News for Inner Banks in quotation marks I found 4 articles about the Inner Banks. A couple of other things to keep in mind:

  • Marketing a region, whether it is for travel and tourism or to attract businesses, is done in virtually every state in the nation and in many nations around the world. Virtually every one of these regions are included on Wikipedia. Including 5 from Metros232's home state of Maryland, 10 regions in North Carolina other than the Inner Banks, and 14 in Virginia. There are literally hundreds of regions in the U.S. listed on Wikipedia List of regions of the United States. If Inner Banks should be deleted because it is seen as marketing, there are literally hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that are likewise deserving of deletion. Just because someone in Maryland has never heard of a region in North Carolina does not mean that that geographical location does not exist.
  • Mbmariogc3s posted a message on the Inner Banks discussion page about an Inner Banks Parkway as proposed by Ron Toppin and even offers a link to Mr. Toppin's webpage. It should be noted that Mr. Toppin is running for Public Office, using the Inner Banks brand to promote his personal agenda, and using the Inner Banks brand to market his own website. Please feel free to look into this for yourself: [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. I mention this only because Metros232 mentions above that some comments have been posted on the discussion page that "leads me to believe that there is still an issue with this article's existance [sic] and it might not be worthy of an article as a term." The comments made by this user, Mbmariogc3s, are the only ones that I see that argue the Inner Banks is not what it is described in this entry. Take note that Mr. Toppin has a personal agenda as he is running for public office in a jurisdiction that includes parts of the Inner Banks and all of the Outer Banks. Kevin R Mills 14:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC) — Kmills (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. This term has not achieved sufficient widespread usage to warrant an article here. In fact, I believe the term was created recently by the Foundation of Renewal for Eastern North Carolina as part of a fairly sophisticated public relations and marketing campaign, a component of which involves securing an article on Wikipedia. Mr. Mills alleges "A Google search for Inner Banks in quotation marks produced 24,700 hits today." That is patently false. To insinuate that those all refer to this region is false. If one continues to the last page of the Google search results, it is easily confirmed that this term receives only 688 GHits, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with this "region" of South North Carolina. The firm that Mr. Mills works for may eventually succeed in establishing this as a commonly used term, but they should not be allowed to use Wikipedia to do so. Come back when it meets the requirements of WP:V, WP:ADS, and WP:NEO. --Satori Son 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, that's still not how google works. It shows the unique hits among the first 1000, and you can't get more than 1000 hits by google for anything. By that count, Wikipedia only gets 789 google hits and should be deleted. - Bobet 10:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for getting hung up on Googling and obfuscating my main point. I am not arguing that this article should be deleted because it only gets 688 unique Google hits. I was trying to say, albeit clumsily, that it should be deleted because virtually none of those 688 unique Google hits that can be accessed have anything to do with North Carolina (so saying this "region" of NC gets 24,700 hits is false). This term is simply not widely used as specifically referring to a geographic region of NC, and that's why we can't find reliable, third-party sources to verify it in this context. --Satori Son 06:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the worst, this should be re-directed to whatever other names this region of North Carolina might have. Note, that's North Carolina, not South. FrozenPurpleCube 03:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as posible advertising and non-notable. Also, it must be noted that many of the ghits one gets for this term will be referring to other "inner banks" - when you google this term with "north carolina" and "-wikipedia", you only get 877 hits. It appears that the term is used, but not widely enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    People rarely type out North Carolina. gets 17000 hits, the ones in the first page of 100 hits seem to be about the same thing. Someone please use something other than google as a deletion reason. - Bobet 10:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless it can be shown to be a place in a third party listing, all I can find it the developers speal. HighInBC 18:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or merge and redirect to As this link can confirm, the area highlighted by the map in the article itself is largely coterminous with the North Carolina Coastal Plain; which IS a recognized geographic area (the above link is from the North Carolina State Library, not some tourism board or marketing firm). Honestly, speaking as a local North Carolinian, the whole Inner Banks thing smacks of jealousy that the Outer Banks (a REAL region) receives most of the good tourism. Everyone still calls this area the Coastal Plain however. Until reading this article, I had never heard the term "Inner Banks". --Jayron32 06:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As another fellow North Carolinian, I agree with Jayron32. I've never heard of the "Inner Banks" until I saw the WP article. It should be renamed Coastal Plain (North Carolina) or something like that and reorganized and reformatted to reflect the more popular and more official name. It is basically a subregion of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and can probably use its own article. A paragraph or so can be devoted to the "Inner Banks" name. --TinMan 04:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even it is a marketing ploy, it is a visible (i.e., notable) ploy and the name sounds catchy. Mukadderat 08:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not somewhere to market catchy names. /Blaxthos 13:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Seems worthy of an article per the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Delete every article on Wikipedia referring to a region As I've said before, Marketing a region, whether it is for travel and tourism or to attract businesses, is done in virtually every state in the nation and in many nations around the world. Virtually every one of these regions are included on Wikipedia. Including 5 from Maryland, 10 regions in North Carolina other than the Inner Banks, and 14 in Virginia. These are all nothing more than marketing ploys. There are literally hundreds of regions in the U.S. listed on Wikipedia, see List of regions of the United States. If Inner Banks should be deleted because it is seen as marketing, there are literally hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that are likewise deserving of deletion. Kevin R Mills 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is now a two page article in the Sunday Tampa Tribune about the Inner Banks of North Carolina written by Willie Drye, a writter for National Geographic News and author of Storm of the Century: The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935. Mr. Drye has also written articles about Hurricanes Floyd and Katrina. Kevin R Mills 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with merging this article with the Coastal Plain article, as suggested above, is that the Atlantic Coastal Plain is an area that reaches from New England to Alabama. This does not describe a region of North Carolina, it describes a region of ten different states. If this article should be renamed Coastal Plain of North Carolina, there are dozens of other regions on Wikipedia that should be renamed Coastal Plain of Fill in the Blank. Why have a Grand Strand of South Carolina, a Hampton Roads of Virginia, a First Coast or Gold Coast of Florida, a Colonial Coast of Georgia, or an Eastern Shore of Maryland? Why not merge all of these regions into the Coastal Plain article? All of these regions are in the Coastal Plain, after all. Kevin R Mills 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • replyBecause all of those regions have their names and borders clearly defined in the historical record going back for a LONG time. The term Inner Banks is a Neologism, and does not belong as the title of an article. --Jayron32 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: And even if one or two of those do not meet standards, it is no great surprise to anyone here that there are other articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted as well. Unless they have survived an AfD review, their existence is not illustrative of any precedental value. --Satori Son 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up This is a marketing term, and it is possible to have an encyclopedic article on a marketing term. But the intro should describe it as a marketing term in an encyclopedic voice, not describe the area in an advertising voice. I think all the list sections should go away. Here is a (shorter, potentially still a stub), but I think reasonably well written article on a marketing term for a region in Maine: Maine Highlands. Compare the first paragraph of the two articles. The second paragraph of the Maine Highlands article doesn't appear to be relevant to this article, as there is no evidence of a historical usage for the term Inner Banks. GRBerry 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep revised vote. I struck-through my above vote. Upon further consideration, the article should be kept and renamed to Coastal Plain (North Carolina). The region is a clearly defined region and known officially and locally as such. Check out the NC State Library link above. The only real problem is the neologism "Inner Banks" which is NOT well established. The name "Coastal Plain" IS... --Jayron32 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above. Smeelgova 04:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • The Coastal Plain and the Inner Banks are two different things. The Coastal Plain is defined by geography, the geography of several states, while the Inner Banks is a regional identity. The Triangle (North Carolina) is in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. The Piedmont is the geographical region of the state, while The Triangle (North Carolina) is a regional identity that several communities have agreed to join for marketing purposes to attract business and tourism.
    • With respect to Jayron32's comment that "all of those regions have their names and borders clearly defined in the historical record going back for a LONG time." The Hampton Roads of Virginia was branded for marketing purposes with the founding of the Hampton Roads Partnership on May 15, 1996 [11].
    • The nonprofit organization that is working to brand the region as the Inner Banks is doing so for very important reasons. The region is three times the size of the state of New Jersey. If this region were to be removed from the rest of North Carolina and made the 51st state, it would be the poorest state in the nation. Ten of the 20 poorest counties in the United States are found in this region. Economically, the region is still in the 19th Century, having been traditionally dependent on agriculture and manufacturing. Many of these jobs have moved overseas as a result of internationals agreements such as NAFTA. This region has no clear identity outside of the region. Other users on Wikipedia who hail from North Carolina are not sure what to call it. The suggestion to rename this article the Coastal Plain (North Carolina) is proof of this. The purpose of having a regional identity is to set it apart from other areas. The Coastal Plain reaches across at least 10 different states, so it makes no sense to call this region the Coastal Plain (North Carolina) not only because it fails to set it apart from other areas, but because the Coastal Plain and the Inner Banks are two different areas on a map (while the Inner Banks is mostly located in the Coastal Plain, there are some counties, such as Warren County, North Carolina, that are actually located in the Piedmont region of North Carolina).
      • Jayron32, as someone who lives in Raleigh, you, of all people, should understand the power that branding can have on a local economy. People from all around the world know what you are talking about when you mention the Triangle. While you enjoy the benefits of having an internationally known regional identity, some of the poorest places in this nation are just a few miles away. But then again, if anyone should have the right to argue that this region should not have a clearly distinct regional identity, it should be you. You do, after all, along with everyone else who lives west of I-95, subsidize the poverty here with your tax dollars. Kevin R Mills 14:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. With all due respect, Mr. Mills, no one is criticizing your motives or the good marketing work you guys are doing. We're simply saying that Wikipedia is not a marketing tool; it is an encyclopedia of notable subjects. This article will be welcome here once you and your team succeed in achieving widespread use and notability for this term. Thank you, Satori Son 14:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • With all due respect to you sir, there are literally thousands of articles on this website that can be deemed as marketing. Whether it is marketing a brand, such as the hundreds of regions in the US that have articles (such as Hampton Roads and The Triangle of North Carolina), marketing a television series (such as VH1's Flavor of Love), marketing an entertainer (such as Britany Spears and her albums, like B in the Mix: The Remixes, which, technically, could be seen as a means of marketing a product), and promoting political groups (such as MoveOn). I might add that all of these terms have come into popular use within the last 10 years. Yet they all have articles on Wikipedia and they all deal with a marketable concept or marketable product. With regards to whether or not this term is a neologism or not, in THIS region, the term Inner Banks has been used to refer to North Carolina's second coast for many years (the Outer Banks being the other coast of North Carolina). Much in the same way that Hampton Roads was used for years to describe a geographical area - a body of water in this example - but is now (since 1996) used as a tool for marketing. It is extremely interesting to see how much attention people are paying to whether or not this term (the Inner Banks) is a neologism when Wikipedia has other articles that are clearly neologisms and that do a great deal more harm to the credibility of this Internet encyclopedia (see Dirty Sanchez) Kevin R Mills 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The "If X then Y" arguement will get you NOWHERE. This article is being judged on its own merit and not on that of other articles on WikiPedia. If you have a problem with another article, put it up for AfD and see what happens. But don't bring up this article in reference to any other. Simply make a case based on the merits of the article in question. The question here is not whether it is marketing. It may be, it may not be. Who cares. The question is does the article meet the primary notability criterion: Does it get significant coverage in multiple, non-trivial sources as a primary focus of the writing. This region DEFINATELY does. So the information is worthy of keeping. The second question is is this the best name for this article? According to the map in the article, and the descriptions of the region, including one right here in the AfD, the region is more than a subset of the North Carolina Coastal Plain (again, check out the link from the official State Library), it is COTERMINOUS with that region (that is, it is identical to it). Thus, it is a renaming of a region with an established historical record and boundaries, not merely a division of that region. The Triangle is a subdivision of the Piedmont, not a renaming of the whole region. The older name is more established in the literature and the historical record, so the article, while it should be kept, should be renamed. Yes, a "coastal plain" is a generic geographic term. Yes the "Atlantic Coastal Plain" is a larger region. But within the context of North Carolina geography, the Coastal Plain has a very specific meaning: It doesn't mean Delaware or Florida. It means the area defined by this article. SO keep the article, and rename it to fit what the established record is. Redirect Inner Banks to it. You can even expand the article to explain the marketing strategy, and the origin of the term. That would be fine. But to imply that the region is BETTER known as, or MORE PROPERLY known as the Inner Banks is currently not verified by the established documentation. The established documentation points to the name Coastal Plain. --Jayron32 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion on this issue (i.e., questioning its notibility, despite having articles in the Boston Globe, Tampa Tribune [12], The North Carolina Travel Guide for 2006, and having an entire summer series dedicated to it in the News & Observer[13]), when Wikipedia has articles on things like Dirty Sanchez, is the reason for Wikipedia's soon to be rival that is being launched by Larry Sanger, one of the founders of Wikipedia [14]. Jayron32, you say you're from Raleigh but you've never heard of the Inner Banks. Ever think about picking up a local newspaper? The News & Observer is published in Raleigh, after all [15]. It is virtually impossible to go anywhere in North Carolina and not hear people talk about the issue of development along North Carolina's second coast, or what we who live here call the Inner Banks Kevin R Mills 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply If you read all of my comments, you can see I changed my opinion. The REGION being described is a coherant region. The NAME of the region is a new name for an old region. Until it recieves more coverage, what we should do is rename the article, redirect "inner banks" to thge newly named article, and rewrite the article (with sources) to indicate the alternative name. For example for how this works, see what typing Kings County, New York turns up. That name is a LESSER USED name for what is Brooklyn. The two designations are COTERMINOUS, and thus redundant. We don't need two articles where one will do. I posit that while Inner Banks is a valid name for the region, it does NOT describe a region different than the North Carolina Coastal Plain, and thus while ALL of the information in the article should be kept, we should name the article with the MORE WIDELY RECOGNIZED name. If you are positing that the Inner Banks is somehow different than the North Carolina Coastal Plain, then PROVIDE SOURCES that indicate so, and show how it is a different region. The article AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN does not give evidence to that point. Oh, and you keep bringing up other articles that should be deleted. If you want another article's deletion, please Nominate that article for deletion. The existance of another deletable article has NO BEARING on the status of this article. --Jayron32 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fakaza[edit]

Apparently a Hebrew slang term. Can't find any reliable sources to verify it's meaning or how much common use it has, so it fails WP:NEO. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic combatant[edit]

No Google hits and no sources, possible WP:HOAX. jd || talk || 00:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unnotable bio, vanity or a hoax. --Alex (Talk) 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sr13 02:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be nonsense. Main author deleted the first speedy deletion nom, and vandalized Franz Kafka with similar nonsense. Caknuck 03:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense. Would a speedy-G7 apply here since the author, who was the only actual contributor to that point, blanked the article before the AfD was added? [17]. Resolute 03:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: nonsense WP:HOAX Jpe|ob 03:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but on two grounds - if not the fact that it is poorly written and the subject is non notable, then delete because (at least, to me) it sounds like an autobio written third person - and badly, at that. --Dennisthe2 03:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insane rant. Danny Lilithborne 04:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hello32020 12:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't trust this at all. ReverendG 21:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lord of Illusions 01:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Levin[edit]

Man's article was first nominated in January, and deleted per WP:NN. Man died, article was recreated, possibly as a memorial, and nominated a second time. Debate was speedy closed per WP:SNOW and because the majority of votes at the time were keeps, after running for less than a day. Third nomination, hopefully this time there will be less bias when people here comment on this. The man died, and nothing has changed since January. Anybody with enough knowledge can start up an IRC network, in my opinion founding one doesn't make a person notable or worthy of their own article; and in most situations dying doesn't increase a person's notability. jd || talk || 01:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Notability has been established as founder of an IRC network with significant >30k users. Prior judgement of non-notability was dismissed in last review because the consensus was built upon the inappropriate evidence of the self-effacing judgement of the person the article refers to. --Buridan 01:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per the simply overwhelming consensus on the previous nomination. I am not seeing anything having changed since that was closed as a WP:SNOW speedy keep. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he founded freenode, that's notable enough... --Alex (Talk) 02:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The Freenode network is a great resource for open source projects. The man worked hard to make it an inspiring place, to me he belongs on wikipedia. Jared Evans 86.14.27.179 02:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing administrator or member. This is an IP so ... yeah. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep in mind also that this is how people start in wikipedia... their first edit is usually something they care about.--Buridan 14:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Freenode is not simply an IRC network, it is an IRC network with the intention of fostering open source projects. It is successful as networks go, and Rob was at the helm of that success. Since January, Rob isn't around minimizing his importance out of a sense of humility. Rob was notable among IRC network communities. It occurs to me that we're seeing a pattern forming here of AfD's being started and failing, and so repeating, being shopped for new voters. --vmarks 02:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing administration of member, this AFD keep vote is the only edit of the above user. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normally, I would tend to agree that founding an IRC network is not notable. However, the IRC network founded, Freenode, stands apart from the thousands of other IRC networks, in that it is the chosen gathering place for those involved in Internet and Information Technology related projects, including Open Source Projects, Linux, Wikipedia, WikiNews, 'Blogging, and many more related disiplines. Freenode was established to give groups a common meeting place to discuss, share and grow ideas that affect us all as Internet and IT users, both professional and the casual home user.

One precedent for inclusion of places pointing to a special interest group is in the Hollywood Wikipedia article, which contains a rather large list of Hollywood Landmarks and interesting spots. Freenode is no less a landmark to those involved in Internet and IT projects, much in the same way as several references in the Hollywood article to Musso & Frank's Grill, a favorite hangout of Hollywood celebrities, and Gower Gulch, a street intersection where aspiring cowboy actors would hang out, in hopes of being "discovered".

Freenode is the "Gower Gulch" or Schwab's of the Internet community, and Rob Levin, as founder, holds a place of distinction in creating an IRC network which serves a unique purpose beyond that of other IRC networks.

Virtually all special interest groups, political, religious, or social, has a place that is held in respect as their place of origin or of significance to their organization. Freenode is no less a place as any other, created to bring together people for purposes of furthering ideas relevant to the progress of society as a whole.

Another such example is Tun Tavern, the birthplace of the U.S. Marine Corps. I can cite many others of all descriptions. Should the Rob Levin article be removed, I would then request that every other article pointing to a place, or an article referencing the founder of any place synonomous with any other special interest group then be placed for deletion. Chatmag

To the closing administrator or member, the above user only has 10 contribs. 9 of them to talk pages. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. That he created Freenode is pretty notable, IMHO. --Dennisthe2 03:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Freenode is an exceptional community, and both its founding and founder is notable. JD, can you stop your petulant VFD campaign, please? Just because your first deletion went through on the nod because no-one noticed doesn't mean it should stand for all time. Kevin Marks 03:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Just because you don't know who Lilo was before he died, that doesn't mean that nobody else does. I knew of him before he started Freenode, and I was pleased that he was running Freenode. Frankly, JD, I have no idea who you are, nor why you really want to delete lilo's article, but would you please CUT IT OUT? RussNelson 03:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please refrain from personal attacks against the nominator, and assume good faith? --Slowking Man 09:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way is imploring someone to stop trying to delete articles which have obvious public interest a 'personal attack'? I'm not a fan of article deletion, much less three time article deletion. The first one passed because nobody noticed (which is a serious problem with article deletion -- basically, if you don't want articles to be deleted, you MUST watch them), the second nomination was immediately squashed, and the third doesn't have wheels. Stop deleting reasonable articles! It's wrong! If you want to have fun deleting articles, go delete an article nobody cares about. There's plenty of those. RussNelson 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was at least some reason for discussion, as shown on Talk:Rob Levin, and on the previous AfD page. Also, the previous AfD, though showing a large number of keep votes (24, including weak keep) against a small number of delete or merge/redirect votes (5), was closed early, so it could be worthwhile to listen to the debate. Also, please remember that stating your point here is probably the most beneficial way to voice your opinion: please see WP:POINT. Dougk 20:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Levin and Freenode have been mentioned in many sources, and he is most certainly notable. Seraphimblade 06:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you perhaps add citations to some of these sources, or provide the sources on my Talk page? This article, as well as Freenode, are pretty sparse in the references department, and I'd love to improve that. --Slowking Man 09:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a memorial, this is a biographical article about a notable person connected to the open source movement. Yamaguchi先生 11:01, 15 October 2006
  • Keep, anybody can start a restaurant, but not everyone is Ray Kroc. He's got the press coverage of his life to pass WP:BIO, so why not? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article was only recreated because he died (I was on #wikipedia when we recreated it), being the creator of freenode is notable enough. Shadow1 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think too that creation of world largest Free and Open Source IRC network is very notable. And as founder, lilo was/is huge part of it! Solarius 17:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only is freenode unique amongst IRC networks, but I would go as far as saying deleting this article is in the same boat as AfDing Jimmy Wales, to a certain extent. —Xyrael / 18:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree. Wales has been featured in numerous reliable publications in multiple countries, has been interviewed many times, and is president and founder of the corporation which controls one of the most popular and well-known Web sites. He is also coauthor of a published academic paper. Not to disparage Levin, whose dedication I certainly admired (I even had the pleasure of chatting privately with him on a couple occasions), but Wales is much, much higher up on the notability scale. --Slowking Man 09:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's a good point. I agree that jwales is indeed more notable, but I would put them both in the same category as people like Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds - all four of these are working for freedom of information. I leave my !vote as a Keep, but I would say that it's definately not a strong one, as I understand that I may appear a little biased - as a freenode volunteer, I would never close this AfD even if I had not made a comment in it. Thank you for your thoughts. —Xyrael / 18:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xyrael. Akanksha 03:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep (Please see below for reason to change the vote, the old reasoning is left here for the record.) per jd, very little has changed (other than the recent death), and however saddening it may be, it doesn't necessarily justify his own wikipedia page. The problem I see is there is very little chance of this growing beyond much of a stub page, with basic facts of his life, and the one major accomplishment of founding the Open Projects Network / Freenode. That is why I would strongly suggest merging/redirecting to the Freenode/PDPC articles, detailing his contributions there. While I would agree that his influence was profound, I'm just afraid there's very little content which can be added to make this deserving of its own article. While I can see his influence now as being significant, I'm not sure that it would stand the test of becoming a part of the historical record in the field, per WP:BIO. If someone can prove me wrong by adding biographical information with citations, by all means, please do so! This would make the difference between a delete and a keep for me. Dougk 04:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid i've not seen the policy that defines the 'deserving of its own article', could you point that out? Neither have i really seen a policy about size of articles beyond the obvious, 'there is no content here'. --Buridan 12:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference here was to some not formally accepted tests for notability in biographies: the expandability ("will this ever be more than a stub?") and 100-year test ("will anyone without a direct connection find the article useful?"). While I'd agree that 100 years is a bit far-fetched in this case, I have problems visualizing long-term notability. The main clause from the accepted policy is "[those] who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." That would be what I would contest. Again, if someone has evidence which may contradict me, by all means—please show it. I knew and worked with Rob Levin on Freenode staff, and considering he even stated that an article about himself was not notable (see first AfD), the not uncommon (although tragic) bicycle accident leading to his death in itself does not give notability (not that this is necessarily what people are contesting). Also, yes, I have read comments below, although I will comment on them there. Dougk 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, updated vote thanks to some relavent information being brought to my attention. I appreciate it! Dougk 20:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What has changed from the first deletion is that people understand that the Rob_Levin article is under attack. RussNelson 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to fight the prevailing wisdom here, but I'm not seeing any real evidence of the subject's notability. There appear to be no reliable sources from which to draw information for the article. Most of the comments above seem to base their claims of notability on subjective criteria—"Levin is notable because he started a FLOSS IRC network" and such—which I think is an unfortunate example of Wikipedia's systemic bias. Unless I'm mistaken, we don't have article(s) about the founder(s) of DALnet, IRCnet, or EFnet (which according to the article is the present incarnation of the original IRC network), although those networks have existed for much longer than Freenode and have an order of magnitude more users. An article about the now-deceased founder of an IRC network dedicated to, say, collectibles would probably be summarily speedy deleted or merged into an article about the network. In addition, the article was deleted in its initial AfD with the approval of Levin himself, who stated he did not believe himself to be notable enough for Wikipedia, and only recreated following his death. My recommendation would be to redirect the article to Freenode and incorporate information about Levin into that article (which could use a great deal of improvement itself, but that's another matter). --Slowking Man 09:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed the merits of Rob's self-effacement of the first afd before and they were dismissed at that time in the last afd. We also extensively discussed the merger question and it was dismissed on several grounds. That wikipedia is lacking representations of notable people, such as the other major irc network founders, is not evidence that it should keep them out or delete them. There is no reason to delete this one either or to merge it. It stands as a question of whether he is notable or not and whether there are verified facts, there are verified facts and notability has been established. Is he as notable as Jimbo, does he pass the notability test in WP:Bio, yes.--Buridan 14:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree on some points here: I didn't see necessarily how the "merits of Rob's self-effacement" were dismissed (other than the AfD being closed)—there simply wasn't a lot of discussion on the topic, as I wasn't aware of the "several grounds" for dismissing the merger idea. Perhaps you can shine some light on the subject? I don't think the past AfD being closed is sufficient grounds to completely dismiss all arguments for the delete, but perhaps another way to look at it is at he time, the reasons to keep outweighed the reasons to delete. Dougk 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Time is an important factor here, I agree. I can see an AFD on this article in maybe 3-5 years, once the facts of history have become pretty stable, perhaps in 3 years no one will know who lilo was, however, in the present, things are still current, freenode is still running, and his other efforts are likely still being documented. as for the merger debate that was on the article talk page, jimbo perhaps put it succinctly in regards to time on that page. --Buridan 18:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see what you mean... I hope time wouldn't be a factor, though I agree that it could cause this article to be re-evaluated. Jimbo's comments do sum up the argument pretty well, since it does establish some idea of notability (at least, given this context), and that a merger of the articles would seem out of place. To me, it seems a precarious balance, although in this instance, I think you have indeed shown that the keep vote is justified. However, I would recommend leaving the vote open for the full term, so that this doesn't happen again immediately after the vote—it looks like the last AfD was perhaps closed too early, while there was still some debate. Again, as Buridan has pointed out, it is noteworthy to read through Talk:Rob Levin—there is discussion relevant to this issue on that page which is not included in the previous AfD pages. Dougk 20:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, still, and if the article can't be made to grow at all, merge to PDPC/freenode articles. I'm not buying the "just a memorial" thing; the guy has at least some minor claims to fame, aside of just being dead. And "we don't have articles on other IRC net founders" is not an issue, in my opinion... assuming that the founder was well known among the network users, and lilo was well known among Freenode users. (Really, I don't really even pay attention to who runs the IRC networks, but lilo stuck in mind.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The guy was at best fringe notable, and wanted the article deleted, so it was done. To recreate it in death seems rather...low. Rebecca 01:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that seems to be a strange interpretation of events, but it hinges on whether you know well enough to know that what he said, is what he meant. I don't make that claim, so i make the judgement only on wikipedia standards. if you do, please share more.--Buridan 02:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can understand somewhat what Rebecca is saying (though I won't speak for her)—I find myself sitting almost smack in the middle... on one side, he did make rather significant contributions founding the first open-source/free-software-centric IRC network (others have since split from the original project)... but still, there is the fact that he originally wished to have the article deleted. Also, outside of Freenode, there aren't any major contributions that I am aware of. I don't think the issue necessarily rests on the issue "Was his contribution to Freenode notable?" but rather, "Was his life notable as a whole?" -- and to me, at least, it's a very difficult decision to make. Dougk 04:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments made above, it would be nice if we had similar articles for founders of other large networks; I see a definite historic importance here. RFerreira 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many comments made above, but also because he stands to be an important representation of open source cultural values that may prove valuable later; as such, retaining this stub seems reasonable. Chris Messina 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Freenode is a landmark IRC network and one of the few networks not full of botnets and script kiddies. It is as central to the world of IT as Slashdot or Sourceforge. Rob single-handedly maneuvered his network into this position. While it may be written a bit as a memorial, he is no less a significant player in the world of IT and FOSS.
To the person closing this discussion: Previous comment was added by Matir (Talk Contributions). -Dougk 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, no assertion of importance. Deizio talk 08:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edil A.S.V[edit]

Completely unnotable computer games blogger, written in an unencyclopedic tone by the subject. - Hahnchen 01:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "XtremeGamer.com" doesn't exist, and the subject's blog at IGN only contains 31 posts dating back to March 2006. Appears to fail WP:NN. Caknuck 03:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Resolute 03:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom (WP:NOT). Jpe|ob 05:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a notable individual. Games reviewers need to achieve exceptional fame to be really notable here, but Edil doesn't appear to have done so. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 06:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 06:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 07:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a non-notable blogger, and if it is written by the subject then it is a vanity article and can be tagged as such (A7 I think it is) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hello32020 12:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a weasel-worded, non-notable vanity page and advert. The Kinslayer 13:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is widely believed that Islay doesn't like it when people write about themselves in the third person and use weasel words. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Freaking ridiculous.UberCryxic 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon hunting[edit]

Original Research unverified rubbish and confusion unsalvageable, nonencyclopedic amateurish and possible hoax Fecal Matters 01:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For reference, since AFD is not a vote, you shouldn't add your own as if it were. It's not a problem, so much, but it will be discounted by the closing administrator - so it's best not to add your own !vote in the first place. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is usually considered a "delete" unless otherwise stated. However, if an editor wants to reinforce their nomination that's OK too... as you say, the closing admin will decide. Deizio talk 08:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No verifiability. Sr13 02:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to be verifiable and may be a hoax. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 06:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verifiable Matthuxtable 09:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, and not entirely believable, which is making me think it's a hoax (WP:HOAX) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per comment of article creator in talk page, " I lost my footnotes and bibliography somehow, so I cannot cite each assertion accurately." If you find them, you could recreate the article or add some comments to an article on hunting or medieval hunting, since I found much of the material interesting.Edison 20:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are cited. ReverendG 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per aboves. Deizio talk 08:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR and reads like an end of term paper, with gross factual errors in the English tradition section. Shame though because some of it is quite good. Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A lot of the material on this page looks fairly accurate; but such text as may be salvageable would be better added to royal forest or medieval hunting. Now, hunting Anglo-Saxons might be great sport. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please see WP:V. Either source this shit or get rid of it. Harthacanute3 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The description of hunting law in England after the Norman conquest appears to be correct. The other material is plausible, but the article clearly needs references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, db-bio. Deizio talk 08:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rafe Steinhauer[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and is probably something along the lines of WP:VAIN mixed with WP:HOAX. IceCreamAntisocial 01:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 02:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roscoe G. Dickinson[edit]

Was an advisor to a famous Nobel Prize winner (Linus Pauling). I'm not sure if Dickinson is notable enough to have an article. I'll let the community decide. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawing Nomination I've changed my mind; I think this article could be merged with Linus Pauling, and as such I withdraw my nomination. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snoutwood (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian suicide attacks[edit]

The article is nothing more than a list of lists. It could also be construed as being POV. It sets out "criteria used for these lists", which erroneously suggests some sort of universal acceptance of the definitions used therein. Martin 02:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is Strong Keep. This is very important because it was added to Arab Israeli conflict template for example [18]. Instead of having to link to 3 different lists which will seem more POV if anything. It's important to have different lists because of the huge number of events, but it's also important to have this disambiguation page . I can't begin to understand how it could be construed as being POV. I'll assume WP:AGF and assume that this nomination was made by mistake. List of lists is exactly what this should be and it doesn't have any POV in it. Please remove this whole nomination. --It doesn't set out the criteria anymore, which was written exactly that way in all 3 articles so it didn't suggest anything, but I removed it. Now it's compltelely neutral. Nomination should be speedily removed... obviously it's a disambguition for 3 differnet palestinian lists and it's important to have. Amoruso 02:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, any terrorism related article has the potential to be regarded as POV by somone, so I don't see how you find it so unbelievable. The edits you made are an improvement however. I appreciate that you're only trying to organise information in the best way possible, but I'm not sure if this is it. A list of lists seems a rather awkward way to go about things. This list is not a list of Palestinian suicide attacks, but a list of lists of Palestinian suicide attacks. Does this list do anything that Category:Suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn't? I just feel it adds no encyclopaedic value. Martin 02:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it strange you say it's POV and mention the word terrorism which was never used here. The category is a category and this is a list - we want people to see the entire list together and not different events. Category suicide bombing can contain events that aren't even suicide bombings but reactions to bombings and so on. This is simply a disambiguation link to the 3 lists, because else a redirect will be misleading to only ONE of them. Basically, it's a smarter redirect. I don't see how this can be problematic in any sort. You also didn't bring any arguments against this - you're saying it's redundant because there's a related category ? That doesn't make too much sense IMO and definitely not a reason for deletion. Amoruso 02:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, going by WP:LISTV, I think the use of categories vs. lists is a valid concern: "lists which consist solely of links and nothing else are liable to speedy deletion under criterion A3". And as I'm sure you're aware, terrorism was mentioned in your original draft of the article. Regardless, I've been thinking about it, and perhaps a Palestinian suicide attacks (disambiguation) article, or something of that nature, would be a better choice? If it's intended to be a disambiguation page, then let's not be ambiguous. :) Martin 02:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorism was not mentioned but a link to an article called terorrism... I don't mind name changes to the article. I also wouldn't mind a Category:Lists of palestinian suicide attacks which will contain these 3 lists ! Amoruso 02:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol...there are some people less charitable than myself who might view that as content forking, but that's another matter. Anyhow, have a think about my suggestions. If you want a disambiguation page, then it's probably better to just create one, rather than mess around with lists and such. That way, if someone searches for "Palestinian suicide attacks" (or whatever), they get a page saying "Palestinian suicide attacks could refer to...". The page could then also link to other appropriate articles about suicide bombings, etc. Martin 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just do what you think is best and then we'll see if it's good enough. I don't know if the page can be moved now. Amoruso 08:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
now that's really strange thought. I showed how useful this is in the israeli palestinian template, definitely not cruft. Amoruso 08:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:CRUFT page suggests otherwise, lists of lists are called listcruft, would go better as a category instead, maybe Category:Palestinian suicide attacks? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep. I see the cruft argument but I believe this has a valid purpose and is, importantly, in use as a navigational aid. I don't see the argument against defining the scope (attacks against civilians vs. attacks against the Israeli military is fairly straightforward and broadly accepted) since that helps keep the list from becoming POV (and editors often argue on AFD for defining the scope of an article down). The list could conceivably include suicide attacks by groups other than Hamas, Fatah, and IJ, but I don't know if there are any that have been so attributed. This isn't a list of lists, it's a single list with three logical subarticles. Now, if there's any improvement that could be made, I would actually reverse merge the relatively brief content of the Al-Aqsa and PIJ lists into this one and keep only Hamas separate. But they're separate, probably, so they can be articles in the categories for those groups. Really, it's not as if Hamas, AAMB and PIJ are all fighting separate wars (although they are fighting separately within the same war, to clarify the distinction). --Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure if the criteria are correct or not, but an article of that title (or a similar one) is legitimate, IMO. Deet 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a navigational article, for convenience. Deletion criteria (notability, verifiability, NPOV, etc) are simply inapplicable here: it may be deleted only if almost all listed lists become deleted or merged. Then it may be deleted on the basis of redundancy. Mukadderat 09:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A list containing only links is liable for speedy deletion. This should be a disambiguation page, not a list. Martin 15:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Deetdeet and Mukadderat, although a disambiguation page would be as useful.Noroton 00:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Amoruso above. Smeelgova 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, db-website. Deizio talk 08:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Jesus[edit]

Non-notable webcomic with little or no recognition outside the political blogosphere. Andrew Levine 02:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sr13 02:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Less a webcomic than a series of captions. Caknuck 03:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see quite a bit of Republican Jesus when digging through the political trenches, but the character hasn't reached a level of notability sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Consequentially 03:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a single page on blogger just isn't notable --T-rex 03:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a short article with hardly any incoming links, required cleanup for a while. The character/comics haven't reached a level of notability per Consequentially above. Matthuxtable 09:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Webcomic hosted at blogspat.com, nowhere near notable. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blogcruft. ReverendG 21:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trebor 10:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Brice and The Indigo Belly Dance Company[edit]

I think Brice fails WP:BIO and there is no evidence for the notability of her business. --Peta 23:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentNeeds more verifiable references for notability. But the video from the Regis show was AMAZING!.Edison 21:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:BAND, and any number of WP:GROUPs. CORP and BAND don't exactly apply, but there should be some analogue of notability to apply. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no verifiable notability. Themindset 04:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just added international press links: a London Sunday Times Magazine review of Rachel Brice and the Bellydance Superstars and Japan Times interview with Rachel Brice. Jon Silpayamanant 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 02:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I'm relisting it, I'm also going to comment: Keep The Indigo Belly Dance Company now references have been added and merge Rachel Brice to it as she is not notable outside the dance company. Yomanganitalk 02:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think both Rachel and her group pass WP:BAND or soon will - they have a US tour scheduled, and Rachel will be appearing in Australia. It looks like someone put up a bunch of text from Rachel's website on her page - might be a copyvio, someone should check that. The group's page could use a lot of improvement. --Brianyoumans 05:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep sufficent media attention, and has published DVDs. Her Tribal Fusion DVD has a very respectable 3,701 sales rank at Amazon, higher than many major Hollywood movies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after added references. ~|Mukadderat
  • Keep both following changes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, no assertion of significance / importance. Deizio talk 08:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight-evil.com[edit]

Non notable website. Prod removed without a specific comment about notability.[19] No Alexa ranking, forum with just over 1,000 members. Hasn't been featured in magazines or other notable media. I was going to prod2 the article when noticed the prod was removed. Article is mostly made of vanity (member list, administrators, etc). -- ReyBrujo 02:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sr13 02:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I stated in the prod, Alexa rank of no data. 15 unique Google hits and a link search returns just two hits to nothing of significance [20]. Oh and thanks for the afd Rey--was out.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Jpe|ob 03:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable unto itself. Now, if Stephen King got involved, maybe we'd have something. --Dennisthe2 03:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. - Richfife 04:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Matthuxtable 09:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Forumcruft. the wub "?!" 12:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having no Alexa rank at all is pretty much the official seal of non-notability for websites. And what the hell makes forum people think that lists of admins, active members, banned members, etc are appropriate for an encyclopedia? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan. --Metropolitan90 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ReverendG 21:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hopefully the WP:V concerns can be addressed. Deizio talk 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Geneva Theological Seminary[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited school. I get 544 yahoo hits including wikipedia and mirrors. Could be a great school or could be a diploma mill, either way it lacks WP:V and notability. Arbusto 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article does not explain its importance.--Andrew c 01:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vectro 02:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Arbusto. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Emeraude 10:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a college, it is notable. Even unaccredited diploma mills can be notableEdison 16:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is its a school or a diploma mill? WP:V is a serious issue. Arbusto 05:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the footnote to that section is mentions accreditation as well as WP:V. This article lacks both. Arbusto 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you take 'the government's' the word as truth, yes. "Id est," if the Departmnet of Education's say so is determines if something is acccredited. Benn Newman 23:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great so you're using this as a political statement. 1) The United States Department of Education DOES NOT accredite schools; it is done through private organizations elected by schools. 2) This articles lacks WP:V if its a school. Accreditation is the WP:V of schools other than press articles, etc. 3) What makes this notable? Arbusto 00:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any problem with verifying this since a rapid check brought up enough press coverage in the Gazette and Christianity Today to confirm its info. It also figures prominently on our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Thus per the list guideline, we should maintain the article. --JJay 00:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some links for your claims. I saw an ad in Christianity Today for the school (no mention of it in any article). I typed in "Gazette and New Geneva Theological Seminary" and got nothing of value. Fails notability. Also I would like you to deal with the admin. concerns of you disputing my afds before carrying on. Arbusto 04:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't bother clicking on links in your "rapid check"? Arbusto 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not "disputing your" Afds whatever that means. I believe wikipedia should have articles on all institutions of higher learning worldwide, particularly when they are already included on lists at wikipedia. I would respectfully suggest that you not nominate articles for deletion if you can not tolerate differing viewpoints. As for your request for links, the publications I named were among the initial hits in google. Regarding your last comment, WP:CIV is a link you should immediately review. --JJay 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any links to support your "rapid check" that you claim "brought up enough press coverage"? Arbusto 05:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you enter in a false reference? That article you cited does not mention New Geneva[21], which explains why you didn't give any link[22]. The Gazette article you cited (October 2, 1998) is NOT online, try searching the name, date, and title[23]. That's why you didn't link to the article. I can't find anything about this place at lexis-nexis.com nor can I even confirm the source. Is that the best you can do an offline local news source from 8 years ago (that of course assuming you provide a valid link for it-as you said above you found it on google)? Arbusto 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The references provided are real [24]. As stated in my first message, they confirm everything in the article. Do not make accusations and personal attacks without basis. Please review WP:AGF and WP:CIV. --JJay 00:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIV can be tiresome but you are only encouraging it by claiming a quick check proves notability without providing any proof.
HOW ARE YOU USING THIS AS A REFERENCE FOR NOTABILITY? THIS IS REALLY A MENTION OF GENEVA (that applies to your claim that there is "enough press coverage")?

The New Geneva Theological Seminary, Colorado Springs, Colorado, has named Dominic Aquila as its president. Aquila was instrumental in establishing the Colorado Springs campus of Knox Theological Seminary (now New Geneva) in 1993.[25]

Is that the best you can do to justify another keep vote in one of my afds? Arbusto 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you reread my initial comment above. Otherwise, your continued violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIV is starting to become tiresome. --JJay 00:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does that prove notability? Also please provide the "many" links to support your "rapid check" that you claim "brought up enough press coverage". Or this is just another afd you've disrupted. Arbusto 02:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have said nothing about many links. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I would urge you, though, to redact your claims that the school was not verifiable as well as your false statements regarding the references. And for the last time, please review WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Your last comment is a violation of all three. --JJay 03:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to AGF, "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." This just another afd that you involved yourself in to make a point and attack me in when you contribute nothing to the discussion. I again ask where are the links that you found that "brought up enough press coverage". Arbusto 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have attacked you nowhere on this page. It makes no difference to me who nominates articles on AfD. I will say that your continued attacks, attempts to personalize this discussion, hostility to opposing viewpoints and general uncivil tone is completely uncalled for. I won't respond anymore to this type of behavior here. --JJay 03:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply those links you claimed to have. The other issues should be dealt with here. Arbusto 03:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing administrator. I have added two valid references (Christianity Today, Colorado Springs gazette articles) that address the nominator's stated concerns regarding WP:V. The nominator has repeatedly removed the references from the article [26], [27], [28], [29] while inserting fact tags. See talk page for further details [30]. This is an unacceptable way of managing a deletion nomination. --JJay 17:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the links you claimed to have to verify that content? Arbusto 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Arbusto 03:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This appears to be a legitimate seminary for Presbyterian ministers. According to a story here the president was elected the moderator for the next national conclave - a fairly big deal. I see various faculty associated with the university appearing online. They may not be an accredited university, but since they are only producing ministers, they probably don't care. We list high schools and elementary schools, why not a seminary? Brianyoumans 05:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are asserting we should keep an article about this seminary because the current seimnary president once served as the "moderator of the 34th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America"? Is that what you are saying? For claims on the president belong at that afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Aquila.
The link you provide proves notablity how? The only mention of New Geneva is:

Aquila, the president of New Geneva Theological Seminary in Colorado Springs, Colorado, has served on a number of committees in the PCA, including the Covenant College Board and Mission to the World. He has preached and taught in Jamaica, Mexico, Canada, Ivory Coast, Kenya, England, Korea, Grenada, Ukraine, Trinidad, Myanmar, Spain and Morocco.[31]

Are they producing ministers? How many students attend? Is this bigger than a high school? Can you compare it to a high school? Does it have classrooms? Is it ran out of an apartment? Do the teachers have accredited degrees? How many teachers are there? Why isn't it accredited? Etc etc. Without such issues to be judged with WP:V independent from the place itself such as article will be about what it isn't (accredited) and what the group claims to be. That is not how article should be written.
Oh yeah, we don't keep all high schools and elemnetary schools. So that's not a reason to keep. Arbusto 07:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How? You keep voting in these schools afds keep. This is not a vote, this is a discussion. You will not be taken seriously without explaining how it is WP:V. Arbusto 17:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Take a chill pill.Edison 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has references, therefore it meets WP:V. JYolkowski // talk 20:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two "references". One local one from 1998 and one from 2001, which says the name of school president. Does that make it notable? Arbusto 23:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like it has been verifyed, and it's presendent asserts some sort of notiblity. --Rayc 20:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to meet our content policies. An appropriate merge would be perfectly acceptable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bucketsofg 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic unaccredited college, no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources of provable autority. Guy 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Mukadderat 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chuck Pfarrer. - Yomanganitalk 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Ché[edit]

Advertising. Book to be released next year. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -Nv8200p talk 03:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Author Chuck Pfarrer seems to be notable enough due to his military[32] and screenwriting [33] careers. Article should probably be cleaned up & kept as a stub, at least until the book's release. Caknuck 03:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've independently heard of the author. He's notable enough that a forthcoming book qualifies in my opinion. - Richfife 04:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a section in Chuck Pfarrer until the book is released and worthy of its own article. Not advertising as such. Matthuxtable 13:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Keep - not advertising as such. Book due to be released next year so the article will be short until more is known. Author's name seems to sound familiar to me.Matthuxtable 09:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with redirect to Chuck Pfarrer. Not released yet and wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but there's a small chance the title might be searched for. -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not blatant advertising, and I've heard of the author. Tempted to say Delete, as per Crystal Ball, but I think the book is notable enough to have an article. Pursey 09:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Chuck Pfarrer per IslaySolomon. The redir can be broken and the article expanded when/if the book is published and becomes notable in its own right. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Publication of the book is a "scheduled or expected future event", and does not fall under "crystall ball" policy. GregorB 14:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." - A book in the process of being written is not inherently notable. -- IslaySolomon | talk 19:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Pursey P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's advertising Knowing Is Half The Battle 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete Advertising abuse of Wikipedia by single purpose account. Marketing abuse of Wikipedia is unacceptable, with the recent call by the Wikimedia Foundation for more draconian vigilance and policing against corporate spam. Wikipedia should not be allowed to be co-opted into advertising campaigns. Bwithh 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - I was going to stay out of this, having said what I wanted to say on the talk page, but the more I think about this, the more I feel compelled to make a stand and say delete. I've run across these type of articles before, and they are so disingenuous. It is a single purpose account. The creator, on the talk page, says he will not be silenced by the forces of repression of freedom of speech, blah blah blah, but then has only made edits to Chuck Pfarrer articles, and the original article was just a cut and paste of the press release for a book that there is no buzz about. "Is going to be published" and "Is published" are two different things. The author might be notable, but the book is not - hell, it doesn't even exist yet. For all we know, Chuck has only given an outline to the publisher and is now sweating it out in his basement trying to figure out what to write to meet his deadline. This is most definately, unambiguously, crystal ball stuff here.--Nobunaga24 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as crystalballing and advertising. Recreate next year if need be. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mukadderat 09:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I had initially been inclined to agree with User:Caknuck, User:Bwithh makes a much stronger argument. The comments on the talk page certainly don't inspire confidence that this isn't advertising, either. ergot 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creator can always copy and keep the page until the novel comes out, and if prominent then, restore the article. There is more than one fictional account of Che. Why not combine this into an article on that subject?Noroton 00:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, upcoming book from a non-vanity press. It's already up at Random House's webpage, it's happening. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not every random book deserves an article. Alternatively, merge to the author's article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every Random House book certainly does. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We disagree, then. Random House, being one of the largest and most important publishers, certainly carries weight on its own. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also: the book being announced by Random House doesn't mean it's actually been written yet, or that they will actually publish it. Furthermore, the proposed guideline at WP:BK doesn't actually mention the reputation of the publisher, although it notes that a book being self-published is generally indicative of non-notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • As someone who's worked in books on both ends of it, if Random House wasn't planning on publishing this book, it wouldn't be up on their website like this. The proposed book notability guideline isn't very good, as it stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chuck Pfarrer (and smerge) pending publication and reaction. Not much than can be said without looking deep into the forbidden crystal ball. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (nomination made moot). MER-C 05:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hill[edit]

Non-notable article Longhornsg 03:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - Article was a disambiguation page until vandalized. Reverting page to the correct revision. Caknuck 03:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Indeed, this is a case of vandalism, and an illustration of why it's always worth checking the history of a page before nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 03:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as nonsense by DakotaKahn. --NMChico24 03:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footballbat[edit]

Creator claims this is a notable term; I really don't think so, but thought I'd bring it here. See talk page for details. I abstain.-- Fang Aili talk 03:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Google hits point to the usage of "FootballBat" as an online gaming screenname. Caknuck 03:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment above. Caknuck 03:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense, and as Urban Dictionary fodder. I'll place the tag. --Dennisthe2 03:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Friis[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. Maybe vanity. -Nv8200p talk 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love how wikipedians can be so quick to delete without even attempting to make a cursory check. A quick Google search should have told you that the article was more or less accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.15.29 (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. Dakota 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia[edit]

Cool little site, but unfortunately fails WP:WEB by a landslide. Zero reliable sources on google: [Check Google hits]. Was previously CSD'd as A7 (though I have no idea why, as CSD A7 doesn't include sites). Let the debate decide whether to keep once and for all. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, I sort of just assumed its notability since it was linked to from Wikipedia. I noticed it was linked to from there, but not yet created, so I created it. Perhaps if it turns out that the site is non-notable, the link should be removed from Wikipedia.
  • Delete - I tried but I couldn't find any sources other than blogs and digg. (Side note: CSD A7 includes websites now - it was a recent change if I recall correctly. ) Crystallina 04:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the heads-up. It makes cleaning out the crap a lot easier. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 04:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. May be worth mentioning to wikitech-l as an unauthorized remote loader - it doesn't appear to have been mentioned to them yet. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 07:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. On an unrelated note, this thing sucks. I checked one article, and it went to an earlier version, apparently considering the addition of a category to be vandalism. I had it pull up one of my user pages, and it considered a restructuring of content to be vandalism. Nice job, Stablepedia. GassyGuy 09:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe. It considered my addition of a PD-US-Gov image to Atiku Abubakar vandalism. No idea why. ergot 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete - sounds like a nice site but fails WP:WEB. Matthuxtable 13:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. Being totally useless and mooching off Wikipedia are hardly endearing it to me either. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it'll be appropriate in the future, but for now Delete. ReverendG 21:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB; concur with User:IslaySolomon. ergot 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ingoolemo. MER-C 07:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dugas[edit]

Just seems like a run-of-the-mill online poker player and college student. He seems to fail WP:BIO. (Also, the article was created by, apparently, Nick Dugas himself.) Crystallina 04:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete definite vanity if the author was the subject in question. It would've been a good CSD-A7 candidate first up. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 04:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per TJ Spyke. Absolutely nothing in the article claims to be out of the ordinary. --Daniel Olsen 04:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 05:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, pure vanity. If this was biographical it might be appropriate for the author's user page. Seraphimblade 07:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was RESULT: no consensus. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franky Morales[edit]

His most visible award was the Bronze Medal in the X-Games (2001), and the sport has since been dropped from said X-Games, making him not notable enough for Wikipedia. DeMatt 05:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It seems like me may meet one of the criteria at WP:BIO: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in... the highest level in mainly amateur sports". A very weak keep at best. --Daniel Olsen 06:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:BIO in the comment above, which I was just about to cite. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 06:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete doesnt meet WP:BIO, the sport has been dropped and he only came third. Meaningless article. (Therin83 11:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the sport has been dropped doesn't strip his notability.--Húsönd 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. I've added a third-party source. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 00:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That biography listed at EXPN hasn't been updated since 2002 (pre- X-Games VIII)... kind of shows how important it is.DeMatt 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if being an X-Games medallist made him notable, that shouldn't change just because they dropped the sport. Unless they withdrew his medal at the same time. Otherwise, he's just as much of an X-Games medallist as he ever was. Xtifr tälk 09:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not seeing the WP:BIO compliance. The one source is woeful - take this from the Notable: section "His dred locks, gold teeth and the way he wears his pants fastened below his butt, which shows off his boxers, is unique among AIL pros.". As mentioned above the source is well out of date. BlueValour 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuichiro oku[edit]

This has been CSD'd twice due to lack of notability assertion. There has been some progress made towards an acceptable assertion, but I still don't think this one meets WP:BIO. Google tends to agree: [Check Google hits] (|-- UlTiMuS 06:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So do I. Been a lot of little nanostubs relating back to this subject as well. I sense some Google-bombing. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zhangoo 06:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quote: He keeps creating the most unique sound like no other and designing the atmosphere we have never experienced before. It is just differnt (sic). The sweet aroma of puffery. Thanks but delete. -- Hoary 07:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failure of WP:BIO and WP:VAIN (creator is Sixtwo, and the article identifies 6.2 as a pseudonym of Yuichiro oku). --Daniel Olsen 07:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failure of WP:V by making claims of notability so vague that they're impossible to check. If "he composes music and sound design for various media, such as TV commercial, Website, Game, Radio, film, and so forth", then it shouldn't be that difficult to actually e.g. provide examples, now, should it? The continued absence of a single example of a case where this guy has worked on a notable project implies that the wording is deliberately vague because there isn't actually anything impressive to cite. — Haeleth Talk 14:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete-fails WP:BIO twice deleted reposted content also.--Dakota 05:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, not quite there yet. Perhaps later. RFerreira 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and protect the page to prevent recreation. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross of the UnderTaker[edit]

Totally not worthy of its own article: an article on the Undertaker is appropriate, but one on his cross is not, especially since the cross has little significance even inside the world of pro wrestling. (|-- UlTiMuS 07:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wickanprince- Ok I see your piont so possible fusion with the Undertaker Page itself?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 scouting group. (aeropagitica) 10:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krian Scout[edit]

Vanity article about a scout troop no more notable than thousands of others. -- RHaworth 07:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page shall not be deleted because Krian Scout really exists in Malaysia and it's notable and worthy to be posed as an article. Besides, all the information are provable and correct. The page does not contain advertizing in purpose, it's just to share the information with all the people in Malaysia. So i staunchly surport this page to be remained but not be deleted.
Hope the authorities will do much consideration and due deliberation for proper action.
Contact using e-mail is encouraged. ^^
Thank you very much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xk tan (talk • contribs)
  • I have reposed it at wikitree. May I do that? Then, if authorities consider this page as vanity and not notable, then may delete it while do not delete another one at wiki tree.
Hope the authorities will do much consideration and due deliberation for proper action.
Thank you very much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xk tan (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As above, notability. Pursey 10:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classical-Rock Music, John Solo, John Pham[edit]

Classical-Rock Music is a new genre (not "classic rock"); John Solo its pioneer. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-15 07:47Z

Update: adding John Pham —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-15 19:23Z
  • Speedy delete John Solo as there is no assertion of notability. So tagged. As for Classical-Rock Music, delete - you'd think a genre that is known as the article suggests would get more than 449 ghits. MER-C 08:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the user who originally marked Solo's article as a db-bio. He may well have invented a new genre, but until it becomes more well-known (and possibly better-defined), neither it nor its originator are notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect Freddie Mercury, Paul McCartney, Elvis Costello, even Tindersticks, you name a couple of dozen others, may have been "blending classical music with rock and roll music" for quite a long time before this chap came up with the idea, without the need to invent a term for it. Delete both all three articles, the former as OR, the latter two as NN (or unverifiable, possibly hoax: apparently his personal life and whereabouts remain a mystery'). Tonywalton  | Talk 10:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Never Mystic (tc) 21:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; just one look at the picture will tell you why this is a completely unverifiable vanity page. (|-- UlTiMuS 22:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mukadderat 09:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: John Solo and John Pham have been speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 14:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 12:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Daddy[edit]

This is obviously an article about some high school teacher by students Voidxor 07:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no real assertion of notability, nonsense e.g. "the ultimate fighting champion 3 years running dethroned several years ago by Chuck Norris.". Right... So tagged. MER-C 08:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - fails WP:BIO Matthuxtable 09:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I don't think there's really a question here. Article is nonsense. Pursey 10:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Characters_in_Daria#The_Football_Team as a plausible mis-spelling of "Mack Daddy". Tonywalton  | Talk 10:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - entirely non-notable. SergeantBolt (t,c) 12:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anoushey Ashraf[edit]

This has a marginal assertion to notability, but with no sources at all, and none likely possible, with less than 20 non-Wikipedia hits on Google [36], I'm certain this fails WP:BIO. Dmcdevit·t 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: essentially a subjective 'WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information' issue, so no consensus for deletion. Merging/moving can be pursued in the usual way. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Overtimes[edit]

Being tied for the longest game in history makes this game automatically worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. There seems to be no precedent for this, as there are no articles that I can find about the longest games in MLB, NFL, NHL, College basketball etc. The article seems to be mostly trivia which, if relevant, should be merged into other lists or articles. Also, if kept, the current name of the article is inappropriate. Khatru2 08:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exceptionally weak keep. I don't follow College Football half as closely as the professional game, but the longest game in the history of a sport or a league (assuming it can be verified, something which a cursory Google appears to say can be done rapidly) strikes me as relatively notable. But I hate Arkansas and just think they should shut up so I hate them and that's mainly what I'm basing this on....my prejudgment. Even though it's easier for a college game to extend into multi-overtime than a professional one. again my opinion and not fact. That said, the title will need work and it may be a better idea to write up a summary of the other 7-OT game and stick it into this page as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe worthy of being included into the main article for the sport, but not really notable by itself. Pursey 10:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Pursey, at most it warrants being a trivia item on the main page (Therin83 12:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • weak delete baseball and Hockey have them, for pros at least, but this article is pretty bad in its current form. It's barely even coherent. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or as a remote second choice, merge as a trivia item into College football. --Metropolitan90 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into some other football article and replace with redirect. Contains useful encyclopedic content but not a subject on its own. Dgies 18:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect. A record-setting/tying game is something worth noting, but not in its own article. Someone more familiar with the college football circuit could suggest a site to merge to. Consequentially 23:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Arkansas v. Kentucky, 2003 and cleanup. The game itself is definitely notable, and it should be included in Category:Notable college football games. The article simply has a terrible title and needs a rewrite/cleanup. This game gets at least a mention every time a college game goes to two overtimes or more. KrakatoaKatie 13:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of artworks[edit]

This article is a relic from pre-category times. It lists articles on artworks, but does not have a very clear standard of inclusion; it is best described as "some artworks some wikipedians regard as important". I don't really see a future for it: a list of "famous" or "important" artworks will always be POV, and categories are much better at giving an overview of wikipedia's articles. Skarioffszky 09:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Some may find it a useful navigational aid, and I see no harm in leaving it. -- Infrogmation 10:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete Probably better off as "famous" artworks. Can still see some use in it however. Pursey 10:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Pursey to List of notable artworks. The list itself says that's what it is. "List of artworks" is potentially infinite, unmaintainable and potentially POV. Is the picture of a "Burdy" my 5-year-old niece drew for me an "artwork" (yes, but nn however cute it is)? At the other end of the scale how about Equivalent VIII; in the view of some not an artwork at all, but definitely notable (though not on the list)? Renaming the article gives a measure of control over the contents. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Weak Delete" per Pursey. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that a move will solve the problem. Every individual artwork that has a wikipedia article is in some way "notable". But we clearly don't want all of them on this list. So what better standard can we use? Fame, importance, influence etc. all seem rather POV and right now the list is almost random, with eight Bouguereaus and no Masaccio. (I could of course add some of my favourites, but that wouldn't solve anything.) Skarioffszky 10:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming_conventions for why that's not a good idea. Uncle G 11:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As ever, your knowledge of the encyclopædia is enclcylopædic, Uncle G. :-) Tonywalton  | Talk 11:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Skarioffszky. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have categories now. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lists are not categories. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, categories work better. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 00:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys. Maybe this is non-wikipedia of me, but this seems useful for it's purpose. No categories, no way to judge (but that's art for you), just a long list of paintings I might want to click on. I've been surfing the internet for an hour and this suited my purpose (a list of famous paintings) beautifully. Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.119.142 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete too broad, vague, and POV. --musicpvm 12:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed - it obviously isn't a keep in the state it was in when nominated, but discussions are ongoing and don't appear to involve deletion (except perhaps by mutual consensus at a later date). Any of the proposed solutions can be worked out on the talk therefore don't require further involvement in AFD. Yomanganitalk 10:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan theory and Tamils[edit]

Unsalvageable title. Opinion piece based on apparently 19th century notions of an Aryan race (what is an "Aryan theory"?). The actual topic addressed by this essay is treated at Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies). dab (ᛏ) 09:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very confusing and unclear article. Appears to be opinion. Pursey 10:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep already renamed. Addhoc 13:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect view. The article has a few opinion no doubt, but the purpose of the article is to list the impact of Aryans on Tamil Culture.This is different from the other article Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies, in that this examines the impact of Aryan culture on Tamils. Moreover it does not confine itself only to an invasionist scenario. The fact is that different tribes of India, who have different origins intermingled and have produced a composie culture. The effect has been different in different places, and it is not necessarily because of some kind of invasion. --Harishsubramanian 10:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is not clear what you even mean by "Aryans". Language? Culture? Race? This confusion already makes your article idiosyncratic. You do allude to some valid topics, which, guess what, all do already have extensive coverage on Wikipedia (arya, Aryan race, Indo-Aryan migration), I suggest you try to add whatever it is you want to say to one of these. dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term "Aryan" was widely used prior to the second world war by European and Indian historians, the modern equivalent sometimes used is Indoeuropean, which refers to a language and people. The other principal Indian ethnic and language group was Dravidan, which includes Tamil. Ok, this is all something of a simplification and is contested. However, the term "Aryan" does not have neo-nazi overtones in this context. Addhoc 13:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Addhoc.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bharatveer 13:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep

Comment in this regard: Dont confuse this subject with the Aryan invasion or migration theory which is something that happened much prior to an interaction in south India with representaives of Aryan Culture(who you may say have become indigenous to India by then, yet retain the name Aryans)

The word Brahmin is not synonymous with the word Aryan, but the former are seen as the living representatives of Aryan Culture.My earlier title indeed was a mistake, it could have been Indo-Aryan Culture and Tamils(an Indo-Aryan culture can come into existence only a long time after an Aryan migration), and I have therefore changed the title, in acceptance of my mistake. .Thus one cannot separate the two words -Aryan and Brahmin from each other, but one has to understand the difference in the two terms. Aryan Invasion is not the same as Brahminical influence on other cultures, but understanding the latter requires understanding of the former.

I agree this article is confusing for two reasons 1. The article needs improvement and standardisation 2. Readers who find this article similar to Aryan Invasion theory have insufficent knowledge of this whole subject,because they confuse the two aspects. This confusion is fairly widespread and thus it has also been mentioned in the article and the subject will continue to require a reference to Aryan Invasion theory.

I am certain that addressing the first aspect solves the confusion, but this in no way calls for deletion. Such an action will only be based on ignorance and lack of knowledege of different aspects to the term Aryan, Brahmin , Indian and Dravidian, all of which are different and yet subtly interlinked.One thing cannot be mentioned without reffering to the other.

I would like to know how the other article in anyway explains the relationship of Brahminical culture with Tamil Culture.It only talks about the Aryan invasion theory, and does not in anyway deal with 'Brahminical interaction with Tamil Culture', which took place much later than an actual Aryan migration or invasion. I honestly agree that The content may need to be revised but the article should exist beyond any doubt.

This is not intended to be an essay. It seeks to put forward the various theories that have been put forward by scholars and none of the points which have been mentioned are mine. I have mentioned the theories as proposed by scholars such as Koenrad elst, witzel, Neelakantha Shastri, Romila Thapar, periyar and I have also shown all the references and this article is most certainly neutral. These references will comprehensively prove my point.

--Harishsubramanian 08:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, I agree that in principle there can be an article about Dravidians and Hinduism. It's just that your essay does very little to address the topic. We can move it to an acceptable title and slap it with a cleanup tag, sure. But who will clean it up? And who will add material that isn't already covered elsewhere? Until useful material is added, it can be kept as a {{R with possibilities}}. dab (ᛏ) 08:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • in its present state, I think the article has some potential. I invested 20 minutes in cleaning it up and tagging the worst bits. I would withdraw this AfD, but insist on merging the article into existing ones, unless' the people voting keep are prepared to invest time in cleaning up and adding value. dab (ᛏ) 08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dbachmann, if you have nominated an article for deletion you should NOT be moving the article without discussion. Could I suggest you move it back? Thanks, Addhoc 09:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean, "without discussion"? I am discussing. "Brahminical culture" is fine with me. It was me who had to turn the redlink into a redirect to Brahminism (so, once again, don't just complain, help fixing things). Now Brahminism says that the term is outdated and was used in the 19th century equivalent with Hinduism. My entire point is that the article is written (and extremely badly at that) from a 19th century perspective, add the "Brahminism" to the confused notion of "Aryan", so if you insist there is anything salvageable here, just try and turn it into something presentable in contemporary terms. dab (ᛏ) 17:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Hinduism, the term Aryan is still in current usage [37]. There is some debate regarding the term, however there is a viewpoint that not using the description would constitute a posthumous victory for nazism. Similarly, there is debate about the swastika, which for example is used in the Hinduism template. To use Brahmanism for Hinduism would be completely inappropriate, however to use the term to describe a specific aspect of indoeuropean culture is again current usage [38]. Finally, thanks for fixing the link. Addhoc 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Hinduism, Sanskrit arya is used, which article I kindly ask you to review. This isn't just about Nazism, it is about accuracy. The term "Aryan" for Indo-Iranian is obsolete. The term "Aryan" for Indo-Aryan, as it is intended here, is inaccurate. If you could just use "Indo-Aryan" if you refer to the sociolinguistic group, things would be so much easier. The term "Aryan" is still in the compound, as you will note, it is just a matter of specifying a subgroup of the group formerly, and confusingly, known as "Aryans", and now properly called "Indo-Iranians". This has no direct connection with Hinduism, however, and discussing the term as used in Hinduism, you should link to arya. While there is no dichotomy "Tamils vs. arya" (Tamil brahmins can obviously be considered arya), there is a dichotomy Tamils vs. Indo-Aryans, linguistically. We have a set of beutiful articles that are explain this in detail, and the reason I put this on AfD is that both title and article were completely unaware of the first thing about this terminology. You can read it all up on Wikipedia, already. Now that it transpires that this article could be about Sanskritization of Dravidian peoples, or about Tamil separatism in Indian politics, it of course addresses a valid topic. So yes, we can move the article from the broken title, and replace the broken text with actual English containing actual encyclopedic infomation, but how exactly this is different from deletion isn't quite clear to me. dab (ᛏ) 19:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think we're getting somewhere - I agree with virtually everything you have said about how scholars classify languages. However, what I'm saying is that Aryan [39] and Brahmanism [40] are current usage, not in the field of linguistics, but in discussion of religion and politics within India. Addhoc 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but there is a lot of confusion, because the terms are so similar or identical. Your link also uses "Aryan" in the socio-linguistic sense, not the arya=noble one, even if it talks about Hinduism, and with "these Aryan" refers to what we properly call Indo-Aryans. See Aryan. And Harishsubramanian is apparently also a classical victim of such confusion. Dravidians aren't [Indo-]Aryans, in the socio-linguistic sense. But they may of course be arya ("noble" in the Hindu sense, viz., if they follow Hindu doctrine and what not). The article, talking about "Aryan theory" and "Aryans" vs. Dravidians was obviously intending the socio-linguistic terms, but was caught up in confusion about the religious term. Now this article is about Brahminism and Tamils So how is its topic different from Tamil brahmins? Yet again, we see that it should be merged with an existing article. If it isn't about obstruse racial theories (anymore), merge it to an article on whatever it wants to be about. Also note that we are missing Tamil separatism, that might bear creation and a quick writeup, since it seems to be central to the topic at hand. dab (ᛏ) 19:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, regarding Tamil separatism that could possibly be redirected to Tamil Eelam. The article does use the term Indo-Aryan, however I would suggest the link provided isn't an isolated example. My understanding is that Tamil Brahmins only live in Tamil Nadu not Tamil Eelam, consequently the subject of this article is somewhat wider. Regarding a proposed merge, I guess in the context of this discussion heading towards keep that could be discussed after the AfD is closed. Addhoc 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tamil separatism should redirect to Tamil nationalism - it has historically existed both in TN and Sri Lanka. Also, there is a small Tamil Brahmin community (mostly Tamil Iyers) in the Jaffna peninsula. -- Arvind 10:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is once again some misunderstanding here,

Dravidians and Hinduism is once again a wrong topic.

Hinduism just like the word paganism is an umbrella of faiths. Moreover brahminism is not the same as Hinduism nor Hinduism an exclusive Indo-Aryan faith. Nor is brahminism always denoting religion - take for instance a most certainly brahminic atheistic tradition - that of charvakas. A sect, if at there is one such contemporary faith,which is completely dravidian without any external influence, can still be hinduism. There is a lot of debate on what is hinduism and what is not, and that's a completly different topic. So I am moving back this, until a more appropriate title can be suggested, in this case Brahminism and Tamils,which is not the same as Aryan,nor is it exactly the same as Hinduism.

--Harishsubramanian 09:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you. Addhoc 09:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but go and look at Brahminism, and see above. Also, just as Hinduism isn't exclusively Indo-Aryan, so is "Brahminism", see Tamil brahmins, and also the very article under discussion (if you can make sense of the broken text). dab (ᛏ) 17:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that the article brahminism has a POV attached. In scholarly circles brahminical culture is seen as a living sample of Indo-Aryan culture,although it is most definately Indic being influenced by other indian culture as well.Yes brahmins are almost always hindus, but the way they practice hinduism is not the same as others practice it and thats where the term 'brahminical culture' comes into place.so in a brahmin's ideology hinduism is brahminism. for instance brahmins cremate the dead, excepting those who have left rituals completely-sanyasis in north which is influenced more by brahmin culture, creamation is very common. in places like tamilnadu even people who have a respectable position in caste heirarchy bury the dead, and without the ellaborate rituals of brahmins. it is most certain that brahminical culture is influenced by the other practices of hinduism and even jainism and buddhism, but then there is this distinctiveness.so i am not sure how controversial the word brahminism is, but brahminical culture- which represents the culture in which brahmins are the priests of the community is very much a reality. there are other aspects to hinduism and many hindus, especially the low caste do not either perform the brahmin rituals nor do they refer to brahmin priests, but may still worship gods considered as part of hindu pantheon. so brahminical culture is considered by scholars as the offspring of indo-aryan thought,and the vedic culture and writings of brahmins is the main reference which is used to study Indo-Aryan culture. Without these writings, there is no point of reference at all.it is not that there are no other castes which can be classified as indo-aryan but we are ab;e to obtain information about the life of aryans in india, mostly from brahmin writings.

hinduism in any case is too vague, and for all we know even core hindu beliefs which is now propagated by brahmin works such as reincarnation(including in non humans) may have its origin in other cultures of india and thus in that sense their claim to hinduism could be greater. some also believe that vedic culture is more oriented to montheism. so in ancient times, dravidians may have been more hindu than brahmins before being influenced by their culture. all these points which i have specified are part of scholarly debate and continue to this date.

--Harishsubramanian 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The article is in an awful state, largely due to incompetent editing (and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense – it's just a fact that this, like some other South Asia articles, has been written by persons who do not understand encyclopedic norms, and are not sufficiently proficient in the English language to write decent copy) BUT the subject is highly important and should be covered. However, I would prefer Dravidians and Hinduism, which currently redirects to this page as the title, and have this page redirect there, since that is the general area we need an article on – the present title is absurdly specific to deserve a Wikipedia article, not to mention somewhat ORy. mgekelly 08:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment -- at this point, the debate is about reasonably moving/merging and rewriting/cleaning up, so that I am happy to withdraw my deletion request in favour of that. dab (ᛏ) 10:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grazien[edit]

To quote Grazien is a fictional e-fed character handled by Paul Waterworth under the name ‘Grazien’ (a person who pretends to be an e-wrestler, thus none notable vanity. Englishrose 10:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Pursey 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Addhoc 12:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Matthuxtable 13:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ugh. We need a speedy criteria for e-feds. Resolute 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Englishrose. Akanksha 04:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and destroy the internet. Deizio talk 08:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Swire e-mail[edit]

Seems unencyclopedic to me. Interesting, yes, encyclopedic, no. kingboyk 10:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable Internet meme. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete naughty email that got leaked. Neither of the participants are notable or famous, and there were no particularly interesting or significant consequences (according to the links, they didn't even get sacked). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Tonywalton. I consider it notable, considering how many times I've heard about it and how many other similar articles are on Wikipedia. Pursey 12:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with Pursey - it was a widely reported event in international media.
  • Weak keep possibly should be merged with similar instances into a better overall article on the internet and work place, however not so bad that it should just be deleted. Addhoc 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment merge and redir to Internet meme, perhaps? Tonywalton  | Talk 12:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an Internet meme per above. Matthuxtable 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to quote the first article linked "There is perhaps no better-known example of workplace Internet abuse than the Claire Swire email case." Top in its field, recieved plenty of press coverage, perfect topic for wikipedia. We're not paper here, we can write about silly things. (not to say we don't have standards, but this meets them) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pursey. Possibly support the merge with Internet meme, but perhaps this is a bit more notable than the others? -postglock 15:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree wholeheartedly with Night Gyr, but it would be better linked, or part of, and article on "workplace internet issues" or similar. Doesn't seem to be a suitable article however.
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an attempt at an authoritative encyclopedia (paper or not-paper, this is the primary fundamental point of wikipedia) - it is not a news report database and it is not Snopes.com. 1) This is NOT an significant internet meme unless you're using such a ridiculously broad notion of significant internet meme that covers every single chain letter, glurge story, cute kitty/puppy picture, and yes, silly workplace email messages that people forward 2) The first article link uses the phrase "There is perhaps no better known" as a way of beginning an article - this is a prose structure flourish, not reliable research. And knowledge about this incident appears to be highly UK-centric, to boot 3) Press coverage does not equal encyclopedic notability. Much content in news media, even well-known respected sources with international scope, are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Bwithh 17:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With Internet meme. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and widely reported so should be easily improved per WP:CITE. On the first page of Google results I found the Guardian and the BBC. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BBC and The Guardian are news organisations. We strive to be an enyclopedia. Will anybody care about this in 5 years time? I doubt it. --kingboyk 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 5 years have already passed since the incident in question. Catchpole 13:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Widely reported in its day, but has it had any significance or impact in the long term beyond that of the average multi-forwarded jokes/curiosity/spam/whatever? I think not. And if the authorship is in doubt, it is really "an example of the problems that staff can cause their employers..."? Or just malice, or an office prank that inadvertantly went too far? On top of which, there have been similar incidents, and I'm not so sure that this one would be the first to come to anyone's mind. Coverage at its time doesn't necessarily translate to lasting infamy. Shimeru 19:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is verifiable and notable enough to be reported on by quite a few sources. The article could be improved a bit but is appropriate for WP. Seraphimblade 20:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pursey Catchpole 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable Internet folklore. ReverendG 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kingboyk. Akanksha 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't often disagree with Kbk, but the media coverage and worldwide reach of this one make it just about wikiworthy. The article does fail to mention the content of the mail (her thanking him for giving her a hot load that was both tasty and good for hair conditioning, in case anybody is wondering) or link to its text, both of which should happen. Deizio talk 08:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, it's not a personal issue, and there seems to be a compliment lurking in there so that's cool :) --kingboyk 09:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This story and a couple of similar ones at Snopes http://www.snopes.com/risque/tattled/luxton.htm should be merged into a cautionary note on how rapidly an email, photo or video can spread. This article has some policy sites connected to it which give sensible cautions, so the thing is 'encyclopedic,' but it makes more sense to put these naughty email anecdotes in one place.Edison 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems very worthy of inclusion based on the attention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Seraphimblade above. Smeelgova 04:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Had alot of news coverage as an infamous case in email history. --Marriedtofilm 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous[edit]

Is it really appropriate to devote a wikipedia article to a one-hour program on French television three years ago? What is there to render this program any more significant for an encyclopedia item than any of the other thousands that are shown worldwide every night of the week? DaveApter 11:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: DaveApter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • Keep. What is at stake here is a case of censorship - this video is being attacked left right and center whenever it is put online. It is information that the public deserves to have access to, and if the video is not going to be able to be shown because of threat of lawsuit then at the very least we should have a Wikipedia article that discusses its content and the situation around it. It should be noted that whenever the video is put up online the relevant site is threatened within two weeks, forcing the information that it contains about the insidious group that is Landmark Education into the dark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.194.252 (talk • contribs)
  • Welcome to wikipedia! Please take a little time to acquaint yourself with What Wikipedia is not. It is definitely not a vehicle for publicising television shows, however much you personally may be impressed with the content thereof. DaveApter 16:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: DaveApter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, I think so. As a sidenote, the article is very well written. Pursey 12:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep covered by French Wikipedia. Addhoc 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't see it on the fr Wikipedia. The fr interlanguage link leads to a page saying Wikipédia ne possède pas encore d'article avec ce nom.. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A well written article Matthuxtable 13:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DELETE I hate to sound one-sided on this but DaveApter's point is quite right on. This is a one hour show that was pulled off the web site by its own news organization after charges of it being hack job were made. This is NOT about censorship as the unsigned- and therefore, I believe, discounted vote- user claims. It is about having encyclopedia articles about things that are accurate. Citing innaccurate source does not make the facts any more accurate- it just makes them CITED innacurate facts. Please. This article does not belong in an encyclopedia. 71.232.7.182 15:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: 71.232.7.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
The notability of the article becomes all the greater given that Landmark Education's main French-language web-page provides direct links to not one but two attempted refutations of the broadcast. -- Did any independent and uninvolved parties make allegations of hack journalism? or did such allegations come from Landmark Education, the "victim" whom one might expect to respond indignantly? -- As for the alleged inaccuracy of citations, the story has at least two sides, and Wikipedia has the bandwidth to cover them both and in detail. - Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Unless we are going to have a page for every episode of every TV show... or, let's see, we have copyrighted information recorded against agreement that is inside of a copyrighted TV show. I did not see any notice of permission from the TV show to use it. Spacefarer 16:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Spacefarer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article was put up as a smear campaign. The content is in French referenced is in French and only selective parts are being quoted. Where this video has appeared on the Internet, it has been taken down for copyright infringement. Wikipedia has been used to promote copyright infringement, not by hosting the copyrighted content, but by serving as a marketing and promotion link source. That is a major intent of this article. It's fine to reference the film from the Landmark Education wiki page because it is controversial and because of the effect it had on Landmark Education France. Note also that France 3 (when searching on "Landmark Education" on their web site) no longer maintains information about the broadcast, but only a reference to the Landmark Education web site. So, in summary, its fine to report the controversy, but the promotion of copyrighted material and the selective nature of creating articles to support a point of view that is part of a larger smeer campaign needs to stop (over 3000 edits by Smeelgova in three months), no matter how cute the articles look. Note also that all of the photographs are used without permission, in this article and several others. Furthermore, the reference is to a version with English subtitles. Who added the English subtitles? The video does not say--which is supreme evidence of copyright infringement. Sm1969 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Selective quoting seems inevitable unless we transcribe the entire video and contribute it to the Wikimedia Commons. If my fellow-editor has a concern with balanced quoting, s/he can add further quotes from the broadcast to the article, including the statements of the Landmark Education representative Sophie McLean. -- Allegations of a smear campaign may overlook the addition to Wikipedia by Smeelgova of a large body of well-referenced work of wide and abiding interest to readers. -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note further, that the Google video and Wikipedia links to that video have now been removed as well. This video article was put up to market links to copyright infringement. Sm1969 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Finally, even the French language Wikipedia does not have an article on either A) Landmark Education or B) this episode "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous." Why on earth should the English language Wikipedia have it? Sm1969 03:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Sm1969 asks why the English-language Wikipedia should contain material not in the French-language Wikipedia. Sadly, the French Wikipedia has long lagged in the insertion of articles, but that by no means implies that the English Wikipedia should neglect the Francophone world. Think of the present article as a service to Anglophone readers and to viewers of a French-language broadcast with English-language subtitles, making the backgound and the materials less "difficult to find". (That charitable good-faith interpretation would fly in the face of the allegation claiming that the insertion of the article aimed "to put forth negative evidence on" Landmark Education, though. Fortunately, subsequent edits have/will/can NPOVise any such alleged intention.) - Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This describes the article a POV fork. Sm1969 07:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
I'm a major contributor to WP:POVFORK and I don't see how this could be considered a POV fork. "POV fork" means more than simply "currently written in a POV fashion." -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is relevant only in the context of Landmark Education. The French Wikipedia says nothing about LE and nothing about this video. The article was created to put forth negative evidence on LE. What's worse--the underlying source is all in French language and any disputes to it would be in French, so they are difficult to find. We do know that France 3 was fined for violating media ethics. The film should be given a paragraph on LE's main web page, not its own article with selective quotes and ongoing advertisements of links and directions on how to get copyrighted material without permission. Sm1969 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
I was addressing your argument that the article was a "POV fork". Why are you not doing so? As for your last sentence, it's a bit of a false choice, isn't it? You list a number of things which are all reasons for cleanup, but then fail to acknowledge cleanup as one of our options. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to the POV fork arguments later. I am in class right now. 66.243.153.70 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Ok, let me address the WP:POVFORK assertion I made. I has more to do than with just POV fashion. For it to be a POVFORK, it must be a POVFORK of something. I assert that the article would have no merit outside of Landmark Education. The French Wikipedia has (last I checked) neither an article on Landmark Education nor on this particular episode nor on the series in general: Pieces A Conviction. In fact, before this Wikipedia article and a few discussions on the Rick Ross message boards, there is little to no English language discourse on the episode. We can't tell what is said about it in France, because we can't read French. That's my evidence for the POV FORK--it should go to Landmark Education.
  • All of the quotes in the article are taken from anonymous translations of English subtitles of the episode. We don't know who did the translation.
  • The France 3 web site that broadcast this episode no longer mentions it, but does put in a link to Landmark Education's French web site.
  • There is zero evidence that France 3 released copyright, and considerable evidence that they did not: the video was taken down from YouTube, Archive.org, Google Video. User:Smeelgova has been putting links in several Wikipedia articles to the purloined content, and I have redacted them. The lack of telling who did the English language subtitles and the lack of all the other "credits" in the video are further evidence of an unauthorized translation. User:Smeelgova has gone so far as to put up links to piratebay.org on how to get the video, and there are two different versions of the video going around: one split into six pieces and one that is whole, but neither that tell who did the translation or any of the other "credits" information. We don't even know if we are seeing strategic excerpts.
  • Landmark Education's French web site notes from a Google-automated translation that France 3 was fined for violating the French media code of ethics.
  • Landmark Education also likely has copyright over the extensive sections of their courses that were secretly filmed, and the journalists signed "copyright acknowledgement" forms as a pre-requisite for being in the course.
  • This is a case of Wikipedia making news, rather than reporting on news (original research).
  • Finally, I assert that all of the content of this article has problems with 1) WP:V because we don't know who did the translation, 2) copyright and contributory copyright infringement, 3) the refutations and responses would be in French and we don't seem to have French-speaking Wikipedians that can translate the responses and refutations, and if we did, we would have the problem with WP:V.
As an issue of verifiabilty (WP:V): the article concerns a broadcast by reputable information-provider (France 3 and Pieces a conviction). There seems little doubt that the broadcast took place: the response to it by Landmark Education itself confirms this. The article correctly attempts to link to on-line copies of the video where available, in an effort to provide verifiability. Even if complaints force the video out of publicly accessible space, the fact remains: the broadcast took place, the France 3 channel effectively and thoroughly published the content of the video by broadcasting it, and it aroused and continues to arouse interest. This makes it a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article. -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be merged into Landmark Education. Outside Wikipedia, there is little to no English-language discussion on the topic from reputable sources.

Sm1969 06:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

    • User:Sm1969: Am I to understand that you are changing your sentiment/vote now from "Strong Delete" above to "Merge" ? Smeelgova 06:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • Maybe I am not sure what "merge" means or we disagree. I don't think this article should continue to exist. I think it should be cited that there was a broadcast on the Landmark Education wiki. I think I have always held that position. LE's position, where substantiated, should also be mentioned. I don't know what to do with the inference of causality that it destroyed LE in France for the expose, but rather indirectly (in my opinion) by having assisting declared an illegal labor practice when the center was only breaking even financially (per Google translation). Sm1969 06:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
I doubt they are *veiled* at all. Landmark Education owns the copyright and that's the end of the issue. France 3 also has copyright. This is about obeying the law--whether you like it or not. The version with the English subtitles does not even identify *who* put in the English subtitles. Clearly, they are not translating the whole video, but selective parts of the video. We seem to acknowledge that the video was taken down from both YouTube and from Archive.org for copyright violation, and the only entity that can make that request is the copyright owner. Yet, Smeelgova insists on linking to material which is--with overwhelming probability--copyrighted. Sm1969 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Some have speculated that copyright issues caused the suppression of copies of the video. Do we have any proof of that, or does it remain mere speculation? -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but there is probably more quotation here than constitutes fair use, so this needs substantial rewrite for copyright purposes. In many cases, loose paraphrase (or just summary) would do just as well without raising copyright issues. As for significance, the fact that it was shown on television does not make it inherently less significant than a film. Given that we have articles on most (I think all) individual Seinfeld episodes, clearly this is of greater significance. - Jmabel | Talk 17:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Merge a small mention to Landmark Education if it isn't already there. This documentary does not seem to have significance beyond Landmark - the article seems to inflate its importance. Wikipedia is not a television program database. Bwithh 17:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The broadcast itself drew parallels between Landmark Education and other sectes (notably Scientology); accordingly, the article, in reflecting this, has relevance beyond Landmark Education itself in the wider realm of cultic studies. -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... but needs a cleanup for copyright problems, per Jmabel. Dgies 18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (either renamed as Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous or merged as a whole into a resurrected article on Sophie McLean). -- Despite repeated allegations of copright infringement, do we have any evidence of a copyright issue here? The link to YouTube says: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." And the original link to the Internet Archive states: "The item is not available due to issues with the item's content." In neither case does copyright get a specific mention. The Internet Archive's Terms of Use lists several areas of regulation -- apart from copyright issues. The page for YouTube's terms of service appears currently unavailable. One might plausibly assume that the controversial nature of the content -- rather than specific copyright violations -- may have led to the suppression of that content. -- Insofar as copyright may apply, does it apply to quotation of the translated sub-titles, which constitute a different expression of the original content? -- I note the claim above about the video being "pulled off the web site by its own news organization after charges of it being hack job". Do we have any evidence that the French television broadcasters responded to any such allegation? -- Last time I looked, the archives for Pieces a conviction went back only four months. -- Allegations of a "smear campaign" or suggestions that the article's content interests only those interested in [[Landmark Education} or only Francophones appear extreme. The article, like the video, includes references to pro-Landmark balancing material. A witch-hunt on the basis of a conspiracy theory does not justify suppressing information of interest to researchers in popular culture, in NRMs and in Scientology. -- Given the links from and to the article, deleting it would merely duplicate chunks of its material far and wide throughout Wikipedia. -- Pedant17 23:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would advise against resurrecting the Sophie McLean article. Unless she has done something notable since it was deleted last week, you'd be looking at speedy deletion under WP:CSD G4. Also, as Sophie redirects here, you're just advocating shifting the problem around. Why not get it dealt with here. Deizio talk 08:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Merge: My reasons are listed below;
(1) This is a investigative artical on something that may have been contriversal, in 2003, in France. It turns out it was not. (It does show a significant bias however. It is also noted that France 3 was fined for this Film and the only contriversy, seems to be made up by France 3) (2) It is only one episode, I wish we could do a page on every Simpsons episode, but that is left to other sites. (3) The artical could (IMHO should) be condensed on the Landmark Education Page (which it currently is)
Whether or not the French public found the video controversial in 2003, the broadcasting of that video certainly appears to have played a role in the closing down of Landmark Education activities in France. Any French controversy may have cooled; but other countries still hosting Landmark Education activities have a potentially more lively interest in Landmark Education methods and practices. -- I understand that the France 3 channel paid a small token fine only -- more like an insurance payment in case of invading privacy -- and does so regularly for its broadcasts. -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IF the artical is kept, IMHO, we need to remove a lot of the quotes, shorten it and include some references on what impact it recieved in France. (Other than the easy to find ones kept by anti-cult sites, written by anti-cult magazines)
As for Copywrite Violation, I originally posted that as I have a concern about the significunt number of block quotes. If the artical links to a copywrite violation, that's not our problem. That's the problem of the hosting site. I do have a concern about the number of inclusions of links to the "copywrite violation" on Wikipedia. At last count it is over 20. It appears that every and any page that has any link (even by 2 or 3 degrees of seperation) with Landmark Education has had the link included.
  • Opps forgot to add sig Mark1800 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed from a Weak Delete to a Delete after doing more research this artical. France 3 was fined for this film, and it was reported as a beat-up piece. (the reverse of a puff piece) Mark1800 23:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, we actually do have an article for every Simpsons episode so far aired. Second, if there was a significant (and verifiable) controversy over this particular episode, that only makes it more notable, and weakens rather than strengthens the case for deletion. Andrew Levine 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are a GOD, thank you, thank you. How did I ever miss that. Mark1800 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Concern: why has Wikipedia, become a site to track a video. IF you go to the history logs, every time this movie has been removed from a site, the new site it can be found on appears here, on Wikipedia, within 30 min. We are not an opinion forum or a place to dump every last scrap of evidence to support a point of view. Mark1800 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please reserve these comments for Talk:Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Smeelgova 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep How very strange that an article about a film exposing a cult, would have such frantic attempts to remove it, such as the copyright and other templates being placed all over it. Landmark claim copyright is violated by tiny amounts of their workshop being shown in it. Which is nonsense, and as if anyone would want to copy what's shown in this film Suppression, a bit like Landmark tried to do to the film itself. Almost as if they have something to hide. Their vehement attempts to suppress information in itself makes it even more necessary for that information to be available and makes the film even more noteworthy.Merkinsmum 18:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the use of the word "cult" is factually false and defamatory. In all court cases where that assertion has been made in the US (and when challenged abroad), Landmark Education has consistently obtained retractions. Sm1969 03:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Not according to the government of France it's not "factually false and defamatory". And please observe the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy. Yours, Smeelgova 06:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Here's your reference re "cult" and defamation: [41] on page 9 stating: "The fair and natural meaning given by persons of ordinary intelligence to to the allegation that a group is a "cult" ... is inarguably derogatory. Further, in Landmark litigation, the court held specifically that the allegation that a program or entity is a cult is actionable as either a statement of fact or a mixed statement of fact and opinion." Sm1969 07:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Please stop violating Wikipedia:No legal threats. Thank you. Yours, Smeelgova 07:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC). — Possible single purpose account: Smeelgova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic and related topics and over 3,000 contributions on this topic and related topics.[reply]
These are not legal threats as I have zero intention of acting on them (nor am I the defamed entity in this case). I am simply pointing out policy with Libel. Wikipedia:Libel Sm1969 07:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

The above statement by Sm1969, as well as the attempts by Landmark campaigners to falsely and defamatorily:):) claim the article and film in some way break their copyright, shows the legalistic bent of Landmark. When a person writes 'cult' they mean in common parlance, as normal people would use the word. They use it to mean a destructive group. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a debate here about the worth or otherwise of the Forum/EST (strange they have to rename themselves so many times- as if their previous name they have to obscure from new recruits due to obtaining a reputation as a destructive group.)

P.S. Thanks for your comment Smeelgova. However I'm ok:) I don't consider the comments of Sm1969 to be biting, he's entitled to his legalistic viewpoint, as others are entitled to disregard it as irrelevant to everyday use of the term 'cult' to mean 'destructive group.'Merkinsmum 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • MergeThere is already a criticism section in Landmark Education which discusses this program.Expand that some if necessary. This long article is too much space for one tv program years ago. We do not have one article for every American TV investigative show epidsode. Edison 18:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Landmark, like the group it sprung from (Scientology), tries to silence critics. Note that many (most?) of the people who want this deleted are "Single purpose accounts": likely sock puppet accounts made by members of the Landmark group (Odd, considering Landmark tries to teach ~integrity~.) Wikipedia has many pages on other special television shows and several on single episodes or themes unique to a show. That said, unless there are actual complaints from the French TV copyright holder: STRONG KEEP! Grub 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I put up this AfD proposal, it was really because I couldn't see that a TV program was a likely candidate for an encyclopedia article. But if there are pages devoted to episodes of the Simpsons, perhaps that's perfectly appropriate. However, my concern is now that the article is really a back-door way of evading the WP:NPOV policies. It's a way of giving extensive coverage to minority opinions about Landmark Education, and cloaking them in unwarranted authority. It's perfectly ok to report the fact that some population (as long as you can identify them) hold the opinion that Landmark is cult, or that its programs harm people, or that it exploits its customers. So long as you also report the fact that other (much larger) groups hold the opposite views, give due weight to each side of the debate, and don't advocate that either opinion is factually correct. All this is already reported in the Landmark Education article itself (at perhaps excessive length already). DaveApter 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: DaveApter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
This is not an article about Landmark Education. This is an article about an investigative journalism documentary piece made by an internationally recognized television program that airs to over 1.5 million viewers, on France 3, France's second largest television network, Pieces a Conviction. Yours, Smeelgova 19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
This is not minority opinion. Landmark, like Scientology, can't take criticism. This topic has seen a lot of "throwaway" accounts created just to support what is truly indefensible. What is the real reason you have an RfD here? You're a Landmarker, right? Be ~honest~ and full of ~integrity~ 24.76.101.49 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the previous anonymous user bothered to look at my user page, or my comments on the LE discussion page, he would know that there is no lack of honesty, openness or disclosure about where I stand on the issue.
  • As for 'throwaway accounts' - as far as I can see, all of the delete votes are from editors who have been active for months or years. On the other hand at least three of the keep votes are from accounts created in the last week or so. DaveApter 09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: DaveApter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
The concern about minority views gaining expression seems particularly apt in this case. By artificially regarding those who have "done" Landmark Education courses as experts or as a privileged body, one can give the impression that large numbers of people support or endorse Landmark Education. This non-consensus view, misrepresented (I believe) on the current Landmark Education talk page, stands in contrast to counter-arguments on archived talk pages. The subject of the article currently proposed for deletion, the film Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous, casts a wide net during its hour-long run, presenting views from supporters as well as from detractors, from participants as well as from commentators, from Landmark Forum Leaders and a Landmark Education representative to "assistants". It does the film, the broadcaster and the article a disservice to suggest, one-sidely, that this coverage may constitute "extensive coverage to minority opinions about Landmark Education, and cloaking them in unwarranted authority." -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete', all we need now is one article per show from any country. God forbid. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm aware the -majority- opinion is that Large Group Awareness Trainings such as Landmark are somehow 'iffy'. I don't imagine the average man in the street would rush to say they're not a cult and are lovely, unless he happened to already be a believer. Most people when told what landmark does, would probably suspect a financial motive behind the organisation's trainingsMerkinsmum 03:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that this is a page for discussing whether this article is in accordance with wikipedia policies, not for airing your opinions on Landmark Education - if you want to do that please go to a discussion forum or blog. DaveApter 09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: DaveApter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep. We actually do have whole sets of articles about episodes of TV series. Lost, The Simpsons, etc. This article appears to be about a documentary that is actually notable. It is well-sourced and the subject appears to have had an influence on the outside world. -Will Beback 07:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rework and Keep There are sections that would only make sense to people who know about the show already. For example, the text below reads like Uncyclopedia. Also, the article structure is idiosyncratic. Show is notable since was broadcast to a significant audience in France and because it was controversial. Antonrojo 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • (section title)Jokingly refers to Landmark as "Cult" And it’s useless to formulate the idea that this mumbo-jumbo clouds the thoughts/ideas, Alain Roth will not hesitate to impose his truth: "I’m the boss. So show yourselves to be trainable!" Total submission required. But the absolute weapon of Alain Roth is humor. You ask yourself if you are not in a cult? Any occasion will be good for joking on the subject. "Especially, when going to dinner, don’t forget to take off your badge. Otherwise people will think that you are in a cult!"[4]

  • Cleanup and keep or merge. There is definitely much that needs cleanup in the article -- it looks as if people from both sides have tried to make sure there are sections which reflect their POV alone (Antonrojo has posted perhaps the worst-offending section here) and the article devotes too much space to conveying the content of the program rather than describing it (quotes might be appropriate in some places to precisely represent a particular point being expressed, but I doubt they are needed as much as they are used here.) However, what certain people have described as a reason the article should be deleted -- the fact that France 3 was made to pull the report under pressure -- is actually a strong reason it should be kept: like Stolen Honor or The Road to 9/11, the controversy around it has made it itself notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not find myself agreeing with Anateus often, but I would do this time. If the closing admin provides a strong suggestion to cleanup the article, so that it describes it rather than attempt to convey its contents, and the OR and POV (both pro and anti) cleaned up, then the article should be kept. Changing my vote below. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and keep or merge, as per Antaeus suggestion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems encyclopedic. Mohammed al-Khawal 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep. A show that ran Landmark out of France is definately notable material. The attacks look much like what scientology tried and failed on its Wikipedia pages. Keith Henson 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Taylor (poet)[edit]

Completely non-notable poet - couldn't find any reference to him on any search engine. SergeantBolt (t,c) 11:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:V, with no assertion of notability. -- Whpq 12:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. MER-C 12:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Addhoc 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Matthuxtable 13:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. --Aaron 16:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin[edit]

Japanese POV articles Kng Dong-woo 12:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Kng Dong-woo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • Speedy keep. This is a real concept. Failure to comply with NPOV is not a reason for deletion by itself. MER-C 12:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks NPOV to me anyway, reporting history, usage etc in a balanced manner. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep. As per all of the above. I can see absolutely no reason for its deletion. Pursey 12:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep it is the japanese word for foreigner. AfD nomination appears to be vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therin83 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per above. Addhoc 12:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Typq 13:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. No reason for deletion Matthuxtable 13:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above (NPOV, vandalism concerns) Neier 13:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, vandal deletion, also, it's not really pov at all. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — "Gaijin" is also an English word (of Japanese origin). See this definition in American Heritage Dictionary.--Endroit 14:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep regardless of the nominators intentions. Clean it up if its thought to be POV --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have made a guest appearance on Nickelodeon shows[edit]

Utterly unmaintainable and indiscriminate list, no verifiability whatsoever (not a single source listed). Last AFD said keep with comments to give it a chance, but it's been three months and absolutely nothing has been done to improve the list. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Matthuxtable 13:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, it's been one year and three months since the last AfD. In the interim, my feelings haven't changed. The list is too long to merge with the network's article; as an appendix to that article, it is in keeping with practice for other cable networks. Xoloz 13:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What practice? I haven't seen a list of celebrities who have appeared on MTV. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the articles of the shows themselves (mostly All That). This information is useful, interesting, and encyclopedic, but should be organised by show, not by network. For example, we certainly wouldn't want a List of celebrities who have made a guest appearance on NBC shows, with every guest from SNL, the Tonight Show, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I don't wholly disagree with your point, Starblind, but there is a difference here: a single-purpose cable network gets many fewer guest stars than one of the "Big Four" networks. Xoloz 13:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, and perhaps choosing NBC as my example was a poor choice on my part. My point is, though, that when people want to look up guest stars, they're much more likely to do so by program than by network. This list includes guest stars in cartoons (Rugrats), Comedy/variety (All That), Game Shows (Double Dare), Music shows (Nick Rocks), Mysteries (Shelby Woo), Talk Shows (Livewire), and sitcoms (Pete & Pete). It's a pretty diverse bunch, and doesn't (IMHO) make a whole lot of sense all grouped together. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xoloz. --ASDFGHJKL 13:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too big, no utility. --InShaneee 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this hopelessly broad jumble. I'd want it merged if it were sourced, but there's no way to tell the facts from the BS here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. TheRingess 19:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the individual shows articles per starblind. TJ Spyke 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can be mentioned on individual show pages. ReverendG 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list sets a bad example for celebrities who have guest-starred on TV series. From this list would come "list of celebrities who have made a guest appearance on YTV shows", and from that one a "list of celebrities who have appeared on Oprah Winfrey". It doesn't assert notability at all. Never Mystic (tc) 21:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems my opinion furthered a few others who have already voted here. Never Mystic (tc) 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Classically useless and hopeless. Moriori 02:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable, indiscriminate, unverified list. Resolute 03:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, let's just say per Resolute. Deizio talk 09:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. musicpvm 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists should have lasting historical and encyclopedic value. This one doesn't. -Amatulic 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Catchpole 14:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubakimoto Chain Co.[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. Only non-directory type information is that the firm was founded in 1917, but longevity does not equal notability. Emeraude 13:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - there seems to be a concern that it is possible for it to breach WP:BLP, but that can be policed within the article and is not a reason for deletion in itself unless concerns over entries are not addressed when raised (on that note: the reference in the Pamela Anderson entry should be looked at - it is perhaps more detailed than required) Yomanganitalk 15:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with hepatitis C[edit]

A list of people having a disease, seems to me, not beeing encyclopedic. →AzaToth 13:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as long as criteria are specified, for the same reason we have lists of already famous people who have died in plane crashes or have HIV. It's a useful list for research and adds way more as a reference than a category could. It's not indiscriminate (as long as we keep it to otherwise notable people) and it's verifiable, as long as all of these people's status is public. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --ASDFGHJKL 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Ok, how important is this? Famous people with Hepatitis C? This, to me, is a useless article. How many people want to know this information anyways? PS: If this is kept, please reaname the article, "List of notable people with hepatitis C" since their isn't any ordanry people on the list. --ASDFGHJKL 00:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy on naming conventions explicitly rejects that naming style. All people in wikipedia lists must be notable. Colin°Talk 07:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in order for this information to meet WP:V and WP:RS, this information has to be voluntarily released either by the patient or posthumously by the patient's family. Also please see my other comments below. Durova 02:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as long as it is sourced and adheres to biography guidelines, this kind of think could indeed serve it's function. Otherwise we'll get info like this flying all over the place. I think this is not a clearcut case of uncyclopedic info.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Encyclopedic, informative. Now I know not to share needles with Natasha Lyonne. Or Larry Hagman. Caknuck 18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why on earth should 'famous' people with this (or any other) disease be listed over and above non-famous people with this (or any other) disease? A ridiculous, totally unencyclopedic list from the 'Hello' magazine school of sycophancy and intrusion. Marcus22 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Vote change to Weak Delete per good points for keeping made by Durova - but I still dislike the idea and find it rather unencyclopedic Marcus22 21:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Comment all of these entries are people who meet WP:BIO and whose cases have been confirmed through published sources. Since medical information is legally private (in the U.S. and probably most other countries), these are individuals who have chosen to make their cases public. The brain tumor patients list met an eager reception within the patient/caregiver/charitable community before it came to Wikipedia. On a purely human level this information is comforting - people who face a serious life-changing (or life-ending) ailment like to learn that they aren't alone. There's also a value to parents and educators: several of these diseases are common among children (brain tumors are the leading form of childhood cancer death in the U.S.) and this sort of list is a resource to teachers who want to develop innovative classroom lessons so that affected children aren't unduly stigmatized. Durova 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak and reluctant keep Whatever diseases or health problems people have should be between themseves and their doctor. That said, this is a well-sourced list, and if the media sees this as a newsworthy thing to report on, it's not our place to cast judgement upon that as right or wrong. Unfortunate keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It's a useful list and it cites its sources, which makes vandalization difficult. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't give a rip how well documented it is. Wikipedia should not become the Stasi Files listing personal medical information of living people like this. I just don't like the whole concept. Deet 02:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC) I'm changing to abstain.[reply]
Comment Comparisons with Hello magazine or secret police files are unfair. The sources used are from reliable media, not tabloid tittle-tattle and gossip. If you look at this list, plus the HIV/Epilepsy/Brain Tumor ones, you will see that many of the (still living) notable individuals involved want this information to be very public: they give interviews and go on awareness campaigns The stigma attached to certain chronic conditions gives grief to those with the condition and may well be leading to people remaining undiagnosed. Charitable organisations actively seek out celebrities to give a known face to their awareness campaigns. I can appreciate the yuck factor reactions to seeing such a list on a "drive-by AfD". Hep C is the leading cause of liver transplant in the US and known as a silent killer - since many are unaware of their infection and discover only when in end-stage liver failure. Those two facts are given examples in this list. Listing undisclosed "personal medical information" is not the intention or purpose of this list. Colin°Talk 07:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of this information is already available publicly, by the voluntary disclosure of the patient or surviving family, so this really doesn't bear comparison to the Cold War East German secret police. Durova 03:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Durova above. Yours, Smeelgova 04:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, as per the reasons given by the other users, who stated their case much better than I could. Chris Buckey 16:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: This is protected health information and confidential under HIPPA. There is absolutely no way of telling whether the patient voluntarily released this information or not unless WP collected release of information forms from everyone on the list. Unethical and unencyclopedic. Having a list of people with the disease is no more helpful for advocacy or letting people know how serious the disease is that can't be done in the main HepC article. Leuko 21:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this information was stolen or leaked from health insurance companies or health service organisations, then this law might be relevant. It wasn't and it isn't. Wikipedia must, of course, take great care with information about living persons, particularly where it might be considered negative. As such verification from reliable sources is essential. Colin°Talk 07:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you ascertain the original source of the information? Maybe some overzealous paparrazi... In any case, I still don't see the benefit to society of posting this type of list on WP. It is not going to destigmatize the disease among lay people, and gives the impression that only famous people with the disease are important enough to be mentioned. Leuko 19:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first point is hopefully covered by using reputable news sources, who have editorial teams and lawers checking what they write. The list generally uses old news, so anything legally unsound would have been pulled off the web site a while ago. A negative tabloid story should definately not be used (but a "Sold my story to the tabloids" interview or biography might). Your last point is true of all of Wikipedia and other media: only the famous get noted. We don't list the members of your local cricket club, and your gran is never going to get an obituary in a national newspaper. Celebrity, whether you like it or not, is a fact of life and does have its uses. Colin°Talk 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These people are well known and their HCV status is relevant. Xdenizen 01:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Jean Dedmon[edit]

This article was deleted at its earlier AfD because the subject, contestant from the German Idol-clone, had no released recordings; A DRV consensus overturned, given the recent release of her first. See the DRV for additional details. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain, please? How does one speedy keep per WP:NOT? Xoloz 14:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per "Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy" →AzaToth 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If an article comes out of DRV with a relisting, consensus was narrow -- less than 80% (approx.); therefore, opposition can be expected, and speedy keeps are kinda nutty. Indeed, Zoe argues below that your vote is invalid, and I cannot disagree. Xoloz 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep - has her recording hit the charts yet? Else she's yet another non-notable reality TV reject. MER-C 13:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content, nothing new that indicates she has notability. AzaToth's !vote is invalid as it does not address this situation but merely states a generic comment which can be easily disproven. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I undeleted the article so that it could be edited to add the new information on her notability, based on a request to do so on DRV. Perhaps, instead of voting to speedy delete, you could just go add the information posted above? Phil Sandifer 18:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I could, but why should I, when I disagree that she's notable? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the last.fm stats: Vanessa Jean Dedmon has 95 fans, while Kelly Clarkson (American Idol graduate) has 167,301 fans. The article does not assert her notability or her passing of WP:MUSIC. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep charting musicians per WP:MUSIC, and reality contestents, especially finalists, should get articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:MUSIC. Her debut single will be listed in the official German single charts at #17 from this Friday on (see: Musikwoche). -- Citius 15:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, speedy or slow. During the last AfD, she hadn't met WP:MUSIC yet, so the article was rightfully deleted. She now meets WP:MUSIC (a charted hit in at least one large or medium-sized country), so this time the article should be kept. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, according to Citius, she won't have charted until Friday. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be more precise: the charts with Dedmon entering at #17 are already availiable, only the official publication date is Friday -- Citius 15:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So we should delete and then recreate in 48 hours? Phil Sandifer 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Toth. Smeelgova 04:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Tan[edit]

Not sure about this - I don't understand business titles - but this seems to be a non-notable businessman who holds a few positions (as do thousands of others) but whose only real claim to fame is that he has a more famous businessman brother. Emeraude 14:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back into his brother's article, unless there's more information which might make this article more expandable. Still, it is possible that other sources exist, just in Malaysia. FrozenPurpleCube 14:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to one of those company yet-to-be-created articles, and only if those companies are considered notable. Otherwise Delete. --Marriedtofilm 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there is nothing of note here that is not already covered at Vincent Tan. Vectro 03:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McGonagle[edit]

Being on a soap opera for one month does not make one notable. Fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 14:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but no prejudice against recreation in future.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMDb lists a total of two credits. Granted, the kid's only 12, but not yet noteworthy enough. Yet. Caknuck 18:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,notability4.18GB 12:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. WP:CSD#A7 —Misza13 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dcsportbikes.net[edit]

I was sorely tempted to speedy this, but listed it here instead. This forum doesn't appear to warrant a page. It isn't particularly large, and has done nothing else of note. I should also point out that a moderator on said forum was the one who created this article, so it might qualify for CSD G11 anyway. —Xezbeth 14:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Has an alexa rank of 5,574,380 [42], and returns 10 hits on a google link search[43]. Nothing here which meets WP:WEB.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Not notable. Pursey 15:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7 and Tagged. Only really asserts the rules, local events and the regular posters, which really is NN --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booth family[edit]

The creator of this article responded to my prod at length, on his talk page. My original reasoning behind the prod was:

Wikipedia is not for genealogical entries. John Wilkes Booth is notable, his entire family is not.

There may also be WP:V and WP:OR problems. Another user had endorsed the prod and left a comment here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Junius Brutus Booth and Edwin Booth also have Wikipedia articles, so I'm not sure where the merge is most appropriate. The content is worthwhile and encyclopedic; this way of parsing it is not optimal. It also sorely needs reliable sources but they should be easy to locate. Xoloz 14:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge John Wilkes Booth may be the most notable now, but his father and brother were notable in their day, so that the least, it helps to have a disambig page. That said, this page does need to be cleaned up, and it is an orphan, so I'd say merge and delete. FrozenPurpleCube 15:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't merge and delete. It violate GFDL. T REXspeak 16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Sorry, but citing sources like that is not a good way to explain things. FrozenPurpleCube 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
T. Rex is correct. For GFDL purposes, if the content is merged, we must maintain the article's attribution history -- this is usually accomplished via redirect; "merge and delete" is impermissible. Xoloz 19:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then merge and redirect, or if you want, disambig. Doesn't bother me. FrozenPurpleCube 22:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Booth is already a disambiguation page with links to the notable Booths. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article based on the current content. I might reconsider if the article gets a complete rewrite during the AfD period to focus on the most famous members of the family. --Metropolitan90 18:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article did get a complete rewrite and now is in good shape. --Metropolitan90 14:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (author's comment) Perhaps this subject would sit easier in the Music and the Arts families. The problem here is that it was the assassination of Lincoln by the famous actor in his own right, John Wilkes Booth who saw himself as a combatant a few days after the close of the Civil War that effected the nation, AND the life of an emerging theatre tradition in America, which was put right by the assassin's brother, equally famous actor Edwin Booth with his actors club in New York. Members of this family were imprisoned at the time, and remained "infamous" for years. Individual family members could be in categories as diverse as "famous assassins" (John Wilkes), or "famous theatre dynasties" (Junius Brutus, Edwin), but that would be a black mark against one or the other. This article is my humble attempt to pull it together showing the dynamics and interactions between ALL the members of this family. And their much neglected historic family home Tudor Hall has just opened as a museum near Baltimore, which I've visited, where I'm sure they're trying to do the same thing. I'm the first to admit that the article needs to be fleshed out with references and external links, just a beginning, I was hoping that others might get involved. JohnClarknew 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe Merge Looks like at least some information could be merged with John Wilkes Booth. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only if cleaned up to focus on the notable members. A brief background is permissible but the point of the page should not be obscure silversmiths and they certainly should not be redlinked. As it is this is a rambling narrative that might go well in a family history but fails the encyclopedic test. Given that there are at least four notable members of this family, I think a genealogical page is appropriate instead of maintaining all these connections on the individual articles. Also related to the American Booths are Brits Anthony Booth and Cherie Blair. [44]--Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There, you see, I did not know that Blair is married to the daughter of a Booth descendant. And there's no way I could know, without a notable "family page", which holds all the keys to such links. Also, to continue this discussion, there are similarities to a still living family which I happen to know a bit about, the Redgrave family and they rate their own page. JohnClarknew 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-known family. If this were 1860 instead of 2006, there would not even be a question about the notability of this family. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I have already tried to clean it up a bit. I've deleted reference to the family pre Junius as not necessary. This family is not generational like the Redgraves, so does not qualify as a dynasty, and therefore a genealogical layout doesn't help. It is, simply, the story of a remarkable and tragical theatre family, its members giving people lots to think about, and explore further. JohnClarknew 00:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I've cleaned up the article, stripping out all of the extraneous information such as the siblings who died young. Some of this information could be merged into the Junius article, but most of it is of no value in an encyclopedia. The article now wikilinks the important members and shows how the brothers and in-laws are related. --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge some info with Wilkes/Junius articles. There are only two members of the family presented in context of current article who are encyclopedically notable. If sources can be given to show that there other family members were high profile collectively from the arrests that were said to have happened, I'd probably vote keep though. Article as is needs lots of cleanup and is focussed on genealogy rather than significance of family Bwithh 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you count two, I count three plus two spouses, all of whom already have Wikipedia articles. I think that's sufficient for a family page. --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete (vote changed, see below) I was the user who endorsed the prod. I think I'm mostly in agreement with Bwithh's comment above: there aren't enough sources and citations to show that more than a couple of members of the family are notable. There's a reasonable chance those sources might exist, but as the article stands right now it's just a geneological listing of the questionably notable family of a definitely notable person, which as the original prod stated is not what Wikipedia is for. If notability citations for a couple other family members can be provided, I would definitely change my opinion. -- Shadowlynk 07:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • John Wilkes and Edwin are both major notable persons. Edwin was already one of the most famous actors in America before the assassination, so it isn't just that we know him because of his brother. --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep As a matter of fact, this edit is exactly the kind of edit I was talking about. :) The article now focuses on notable members and what makes them notable instead of the family tree, and includes a citation of the Booth-Blair relationship. It could use some more citations I think, maybe a link about the family in general (For an idea of what I mean, I like the second paragraph of this National Park Service page), but I'm much more convinced this article is encyclopedic, or at least very close to it now. -- Shadowlynk 10:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do think an encyclopedia should be factually correct. John Wilkes was not in the play. Also, the family was treated as an entity, and was punished, not just the notables. I don't think it was a tree at all. Any other voices out there? Join in. Two generations don't make a tree. Maybe a bush. JohnClarknew 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        • So he was not, JohnClarknew. He had access because he knew the owner of the theatre. Sorry about that! But as noted above Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, and I don't see justification for adding non-notable family members to this article. The children of Junius is something that belongs in that man's article. This is also not an article about the assassination, and insofar as any non-notable members were punished, that may fit better in the John Wilkes Booth article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per User:Zoe|(talk) , above. Smeelgova 04:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Our 5 days will soon be up. I want mainly to defend the title of the page, to retain "Booth family". There are some families, very few in fact, whose collective deeds are so unique and notable, that one wants to know more as an aid in understanding them. That's where genealogy becomes important. When investigating the conditions prevailing in the development of this family at different stages, the inclusion of dates becomes almost a sine qua non. For example, the guilt he must have felt abandoning his only son and his wife, what was the date? Later, he brought his father over to live with them, his father had abandoned his wife too. One of his daughters stayed home, a spinster, to take care of her mother. Then there were the deaths of 4 of his small children to smallpox and a local epidemic of cholera, could that have contributed to his alcoholism and dementia? He was a political radical, did his son John Wilkes feel compelled somehow to continue his father's radicalism after his father died, and murder our most famous President, let's see, that was thirteen years later? And what was the time frame after that when his brother was able to reverse society's condemnation of the family name and the profession of acting with his Players club? If there's precedent you want, there are other families which haven't given rise to these challenges; for example, if, as Dhartung says, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, why then the genealogically presented Bach family? He says Wikipedia is not for non-notables, then why was Irish immigrant not notable founder P.J. Kennedy important to the development of the Kennedy family? And why was the messy Barrymore family site not deleted? Others to compare might be The Midgley Family (who?), Rockefeller family (scores of non notables listed), Godrej family, Dupont family (fronted by Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours), and Jauch family. So, again, I urge the retention of at least the title of the subject Booth family. Dhartung has rewritten the page and deleted what he doesn't like, and he has a right to do this. But notice he has already come up with more links to the family name, WHICH IS WORKING BACKWARDS! If we can't lead off with the family name, we will have to provide more tidbits of information on each individual member's page, and leave it to the reader to connect the dots. Wikipedia is superior to other encyclopedias precisely because it is prepared to occasionally be a little provocative with unexpected accurate information in worthy situations, thus going a little further in aiding the student or researcher or writer in gaining a better understanding of the motivations of the members' actions. I can think of no other family with such built-in raging conflicts, finally resting in peace into eternity in a family gravesite, all of which makes them a very exciting subject. Please, let them be, don't cause them more rejection. JohnClarknew 06:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment JohnClarknew, you have to understand what Wikipedia is and is not. We are an encyclopedia. We are not a genealogical site, nor a place for family histories, nor of emotive narratives about children who died of cholera. What you seem to want is a psychological portrait of the family, which is fine in an article or a biography. It isn't appropriate here. Please also note that impassioned speeches are not what is needed in an Articles for Deletion debate; instead, you should be able to point to Wikipedia policy and how it is or is not satisfied. I'm glad you are excited by the subject, but you have to understand that what you write must fit here. --Dhartung | Talk 01:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dhartung, having studied again several articles on what Wikipedia is and is not, I fail to conclude that it is "not a genealogical site" or "a place for family histories". To proclaim "We are an encyclopedia" states the obvious, and is not enlightening. I believe that, judging from what I read, Wikipedia policy is not fixed, and there are no absolutes, but it is designed to bring information to many levels of its readership in the best and clearest way, and I believe that to give the Booths an article entitled Booth Family, unquestionably a noteworthy family, will serve as a SUMMARIZING ARTICLE which best leads the reader to whichever sections they wish to study further. You do not address the question why The Midgley Family belongs and Booth Family does not, suggesting you have a double standard. This is a debate over whether to keep the article Booth Family. You have already rewritten the article (with an error which I had to correct) into the content which you feel is more appropriate. Now you've changed your mind, you want to delete the article altogether. I think you are wrong. Booth Family should exist as an entry page, and does conform to the site's standards. JohnClarknew 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply JohnClarknew, you seem to be under the belief that I have argued for deletion of the article. I have not. I argued that it should be kept but rewritten under Wikipedia policy. It's hard to argue with someone who appears not to be reading what you say.
As I have stated above, we have developed guidelines (which are strong recommendations) and policies (which are firm rules). In AFD discussions arguing by example is counterproductive, because no other article is really under discussion. The question at hand is whether the existing article conforms to policy and reasonably fits within guidelines. Other articles that you cite could well be themeselves violations of either and their existence is not an argument that our policies are inconsistent. Please don't accuse me of having a double standard, especially since you have me on the wrong side of the fence. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. 'Nuff said. Do we have a consensus? Who decides? JohnClarknew 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Usually admins close AfDs after a week. Normal users can occasionally close them when it's pretty much open-and-shut keep, but we had enough discussion and changed minds going here I don't think that applies. I'd still say it's likely a keep consensus, so we might as well just treat it as such and let the admins handle all the rubber stamping when they catch up the backlog. -- Shadowlynk 08:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Girl Shrine[edit]

Taking a prod removed article to AFD. The place seems to exist as evidenced by the external links but the article makes no claim to notability. I'm afraid it will be doomed to stub-hood forever since other wiki's are hardly reliable sources of information and it's unlikely that the shrine will prompt a thorough investingation to its origins. Axem Titanium 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Google test for "German Girl Shrine" yields around 60 hits. "Mystery Girl of Ubin", the other name provided, nets around 25 hits, 6 being significantly unique. Also I've recently become aware of this policy proposal which argues that perhaps this article should be merged into whatever regional article this place has, if it's deemed to be notable enough. Axem Titanium 15:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability. --InShaneee 16:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but if it is kept, it should be re-named. German Girl Shrine is far too vague and ambiguous. I dont know what it should be re-named to, but, something better. — Gary Kirk // talk! 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 14:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikitravel. This is not encyclopedic, but might be notable for someone visiting the area. Vectro 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. "Redirect" arguments sometimes count as "keep", but not when both are supporting an editor who argued specifically to delete the article history. Anyone is free to create a redirect in its place if they want, though personally I don't see how anyone looking up 'Twister MP3' will find what they're looking for in the article on a completely different product which is bundled with many programs, only one of which is this one. RFD makes decisions on the validity of redirects, however, not this discussion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twister MP3[edit]

In my view this software is not notable WP:NN enough for Wikipedia and won't grow beyond a stub. Also contains some POV (as per WP:NPOV). I have never heard of Twister MP3 anyway! tgheretford (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing this to an outright keep, after finding and closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) as well. The same arguments clearly apply to all three - the only difference appears to be the random chance of participation. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs)[edit]

This page isn't needed, due to the fact the information can easily be explained on the Ultimate Fantastic Four page. Imagine if there was story arc pages for titles like Superman (if there isn't already..which I hope not), they would be insanely too long. RobJ1981 15:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/transwiki to comics.wikia.com. The main Ultimate Fantastic Four article handles this topic sufficiently.--HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 16:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's already a (story arcs) section in that article, so is there anything notable in this one that needs to be merged in prior to deletion? --Mrph 16:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep - good info, written in encyclopedic manner, too big to be merged with another page. - Peregrinefisher 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't necessarily advocate a similar article for every published comic ever, but the Ultimate Marvel core titles are pretty notble. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WAF and WP:NOT; all pertinent information is in Ultimate Fantastic Four already. --NewtΨΦ 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Send it to the other wikipedia projects like marveldatabse. But Keep. Brian Boru is awesome 14:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any necessary content and redirect to Ultimate Fantastic Fourt. As I've said elsewhere, I personally think that there should be some room to keep appropriately concise plot summary subarticles for "epic works" such as long-running comics summaries, but there is a substantial consensus at the comics project is that the materials are not appropriate, as reflected in WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines. TheronJ 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any notable comment that's not already in Ultimate Fantastic Four, then redirect to that 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 keep - some arguments for keeping are distant from policy, but there is still clearly neither consensus nor knock-out argument to delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs)[edit]

This page isn't needed, due to the fact the information can easily be explained on the Ultimate Spider-Man page. Wikipedia isn't a complete guide to comics, make a comic wiki for detailed story arcs pages. RobJ1981 15:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any additional notable information into the main article, then Delete this one. WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines already state that plot summaries "should not become so enlarged as to become separate articles" (as per WP:NOT) & "articles focused on describing storylines should be avoided unless significance is established through real world sources". --Mrph 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merge and delete is violation of the GFDL (mainly the preservation of history). ColourBurst 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - keep this as a redirect, then? Shouldn't be a problem with that, should there? --Mrph 19:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I really like this page and find it very useful. The main page has too much other information, and this page is where a person should go if they want a synopsis of particular stories. This is a very important page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leftynm (talk • contribs) 15 October 2006.

Reply to comment - as noted, there are some guidelines in place about this and they do suggest it should be on the main page, if anywhere. I agree that it's useful, but by itself that isn't enough to justify its existence. If there's "too much other information" on the main page, the issue may be that it's just not easy enough to navigate that page via the contents box - which should be fixable? --Mrph 18:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't necessarily advocate a similar article for every published comic ever, but the Ultimate Marvel core titles are pretty notble. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment - more notable than the non-Ultimate core titles for Marvel's flagship characters? Hulk, Avengers, X-Men? If not, then if this qualifies for its own article, shouldn't they? It would set an unfortunate precedent. --Mrph 08:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's the difference between having a page like this and having pages for individual sitcom episodes? Zagalejo 02:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Red herring, that's a separate issue. Personally, I think those fail WP:NOT too though. --NewtΨΦ 04:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and WP:WAF --NewtΨΦ 04:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any necessary content and redirect to Ultimate Spider-Man. I personally think that there should be some room to keep appropriately concise plot summary subarticles for "epic works" such as long-running comics summaries, but the consensus at the comics project is that the materials are not appropriate, as reflected in WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines. TheronJ 15:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise I suggest that we shoudl compromise. As B.M.Bendis, unlke many other comic authors, is using 'Real Time' for this series, we need only break it down into a simple Timeline like that used for 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' - that shows the evens happening in Ultimate Peter's Life from the moment he got bitten to this current clone saga and beyond. Any Major events - The Death of Gwen Stacy, The Clone Saga- can be redirected to the artile on the 616 version of the event, and, if it has an 'Ultimate' sub-article, perhaps redirected there as well.
  • Keep I seriously think that the page should be kept. It can be much more useful than the official Ultimate Spider-Man article for some things, and I actually used it just the other day. I can't believe this, of all articles, is being considered for deletion. Tai112
  • Keep This page is of such great cultural importance that it transcends the so called protocal of Wikipedia, and should never be removed, merged, or belittled in any way. Shame on you for trying to destroy this page. What has it done to you to spawn your wrath? leftynm
    • Comment - How is the plot of a comic book of "such great cultural importance that it transcends the... protocal[sic] of Wikipedia"? --NewtΨΦ 16:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the difference between Ultimate Spidey and titles such as Hulk, Avengers, and X-Men is simple. Ultimate Spidey sold better, much better. It had a competent, realistic writer and a kick-ass illustrator. This is something all of the previously mentioned itles have, at one time, lacked.
    • Comment - the title selling better is relevent to notability, but not to the need for synopsis of every arc. The rest of your comment is POV and has little bearing on the need. Please sign your posts. --NewtΨΦ 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Ultimate Spider-Man#History of Ultimate Spider-Man as per WP:WAF, WP:NOT (not a plot summary, point 7) . Add relevant bits to "History" and then merge. Onomatopoeia 08:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)[edit]

This page isn't needed, due to the fact the information can easily be explained on the Ultimate X-Men page. A long page that's just going to get longer. People need to realize Wikipedia isn't a complete comic guide, that's what a comic wiki is for. RobJ1981 15:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any notable information into the main article, then Delete this one. WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines already state that plot summaries "should not become so enlarged as to become separate articles" (as per WP:NOT) & "articles focused on describing storylines should be avoided unless significance is established through real world sources". --Mrph 16:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't necessarily advocate a similar article for every published comic ever, but the Ultimate Marvel core titles are pretty notble. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and WP:WAF. WP's not an in-universe plot summarizer. --NewtΨΦ 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mrph. CovenantD 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any necessary content and redirect to Ultimate X-Men. As I've said elsewhere, I personally think that there should be some room to keep appropriately concise plot summary subarticles for "epic works" such as long-running comics summaries, but there is a substantial consensus at the comics project is that the materials are not appropriate, as reflected in WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines. TheronJ 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per WP:WAF and WP:NOT (not a plot summary). Merge relevant bits into "History of Ultimate X-Men" section and then fuse the two articles. Onomatopoeia 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'll hit SSTM too, as mentioned below. —Cryptic 11:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R-3 SSTM[edit]

Non notable (doesn't appear anywhere in google), seems technically implausible (possibly a hoax). Unreferenced (violates WP:V)- constitutes WP:OR.WolfKeeper 15:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that 194.78.218.68 has voted more than once in this discussion. --Brad Beattie (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 05:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Struckout duplicate vote from IP. Caknuck 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Struckout duplicate vote from IP. Caknuck 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • speedy delete, blatant nonsense. Could someone block the IP before he spams again? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also delete SSTM, created by the same person and just pointing people to this page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Ineligible for speedy deletion. (The "patent nonsense" clause explicitly excludes implausible theories and hoaxes.) —Caesura(t) 13:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, I just wanted to get this mess over with. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is this user calling himself Night Gyr a kind of moral sensor or what? Information right is a basic freedom. Information denial is a dictatorship.--194.78.218.68 15:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Struckout duplicate vote from IP. Caknuck 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • Please stop repeating your vote. It gives a false appearance that more than one person wants to keep this article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was kind of buying it through the earth orbit, but it is hard to picture a rocket being able to carry to the moon enough fuel and oxidizer to land and bring the whole apparatus back for an earth landing. Von Braun and company had to bring back only a miniscule fraction of the original launch mass. If he can do this is is an unparalled genius, but extraordinary claims require at least SOME reliable and verifiable sources. Please re-create the article when the ship is more than a twinkle in the creator's eye, like when there are financial backers and news stories about it.Edison 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V. Likely hoax. Caknuck 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WolfKeeper 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable vaporware rocket, unsourced, etc. Sandstein 21:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verified. Feels like a snowball to me QuiteUnusual 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure Keep This is brand new exclusive information. It is going one step further then standard SSTO plans. If there is no oxygen use like described the mass goes down and much more becomes possible. Has anyone contacted Rocson for more details about it. Perhaps pictures. --John Coughan 09:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) — John Coughan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Brand new exclusive information" is exactly what we don't allow here. Sandstein 09:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • another vote by sock puppet, the chances of a newly registered user editing both this discussion and the SSTM article to revert it to say single stage to moon is remote.WolfKeeper 09:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the only non-sockpuppet votes on this AFD are either for delete or speedy delete, is it possible to just snowball this? --Brad Beattie (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The SSTM page was changed by someone to "single stage to mars" instead of "single stage to moon".--John Coughan 09:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prayerware[edit]

Non-notable term. Only two examples given, and the term yielded 944 Google links for me. - Sikon 15:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete neologism. --InShaneee 16:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. Where did this word come from? eaolson 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everybody. ReverendG 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism TheRanger 23:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an obscure term with adequate documentation. It should be in Wikipedia. And even if it is a neologism, the two examples when such should be deleted doesn't apply here. It verifyable in two cases, and it gives encyclopedic description and comparative analysis to other similar terms. It also adds value to similar terms in "Category:Software distribution". -- Henriok 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Documented, factual & verifiable. Used in several cases. Would not oppose merge and redirect to a suitable article on obscure copyright licenses. — David Remahl 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, many of the google hits are for an unrelated software program called Prayerware. I don't believe we should have articles on really obscure licenses; I'm trying to clean out these articles from Template:Software distribution at the moment. If the info must be merged, an appropriate place would be the article otherware. Graham87 10:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied, with original page deleted. The discussion seems to be showing that as a good outcome, with the contributors accepting the stance. The page seems to have been created in the article namespace through a misunderstanding of the way we work rather than any other reason. The page can now be found at User:Larean01/Atelier 1, if the text hasn't been copied across properly and you need access to the original, don't hesitate to ask. Hiding Talk 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings/Atelier[edit]

It is the same thing as 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings except it has a weird /atelier after it. There is also directions saying that red text should be used so that signatures don't appear on the page. This goes against WP:OWN T REXspeak 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Redundancy.--Húsönd 16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to Southofwatford's sandbox, then delete.--Húsönd 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as CSD G6. Just seems to be the result of some people taking a strange approach to editing an article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southofwatford 16:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC) This is a discussion version of the Madrid train bombings article that is being used to try and resolve disputes over the content of the main article. If you don't want us to do it this way then please suggest a better way. The colours issue arises because it permits each user involved in the discussion to use a different colour for their comments. We could also use signatures, but does it really matter given that this is not intended to be anything except a working version?[reply]

Comment You should try using your sandbox for this purpose instead.--Húsönd 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this page seems to be a work-in-progress, I'll withdraw my vote until someone more learned than myself can shed some light on the situation. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Husond. Work-in-progress or not, good idea or not, it shouldn't be in the main namespace in this form. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide 09:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Hello everybody. I am the user who had the "weird idea" and who took the "strange approach" of using a colour code for the proposals made by different users. All the other users are "innocent".[reply]

I never had the intention (not even the awareness) of going against WP:OWN. My idea was to make easier and more fluid the communication in a extremely disputed topic. Of course that, once a consensus is (hopefully) reached, colour codes are to be elimitated and the Atelier page deleted. We are not asking "ownership" of "our" contributions, only using a colour code to make communication easier.

  • If, even under these conditions, the format of the page is unacceptable, I beg indications about Wikipedia guidelines about SOP in this kind of hotly disputed atelier pages. We have no discussion page (the page is already an offshot of a discussion page) and lenghty discussions inside the disputed text would make the Atelier very difficult to work with.
  • If the page is to be deleted, I ask, please, to be warned with some advance, to copy (without colours, of course) the improvements made to the text so far.

I copied the contents of the page to User:Larean01/Atelier 1. You can delete the original atelier. Please tell us if this "usification" is acceptable.Randroide 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conquistador (band)[edit]

I prodded this earlier, the prod was removed but no comment about its validity was made so this is here. Article is about a band that doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC, with the main claim of notability seeming to be that they collaborated with another band on an album. The article's also confused whether it's about the band in the title or its supposed head figure, Alex Antebi. - Bobet 16:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --InShaneee 16:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, messy, unreferenced, nothing of note here. Deizio talk 09:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete does not indicate notability. Spearhead 20:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I originally dealt with the author of this, the frontman of the band, when he began to unhaltingly plaster a pure fluff version of it across Conquistador [45]; this was after his own article was speedily deleted [46]. After I reverted what I considered pure vanity additions to the conquistador article several times, he argued (I think) that the additions were acceptable because the sites offered in their content don't sell products [47]. I eventually gave up so I could continue to revert vandalism rather than be blocked for 3RR on a vanity addition. User:Djmakeout persisted with his edits [48], all of which have been blatant self-promotion [49] [50], even going so far as to create duplicates of the first article [51] [52].
    More relevantly to the article, the band's only solid evidence of notability is that it was on some Levi's commercial and "collaborated" with another artist of questionable notability. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: obviously public figure, an almost exactly even split on whether she's public enough, no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Pike[edit]

When Process Goes Bad. I originally tagged this as a {{db-bio}} after noticing that some of the article content (which I have since removed) was intentionally misleading in an attempt to give the subject some desperately needed notability oomph. Fifteen minutes later, an admin came along and turned it into a {{prod}} with the single-word rationale "notability". After more than five days had passed, and no admin had taken action, a regular editor came along, pulled the prod tag, and decided to initiate a merger discussion where, unsurprisingly, there has been exactly zero discussion. On top of all this, I just discovered a few minutes ago that the article's a G4 recreation of deleted content in the first place!! So, obviously, I think it needs to come here for a full AfD. My !vote is to delete and salt the page. Subject's only assertion of notability is as third mike on a little-known radio talk show; the rest of the article (what little there is) is unsubstantiated fan cruft and a photo. If anyone wishes to move this material over to the radio show's article, that's fine, but as we know, a "merge" consensus = a "do nothing" consensus, so I say full delete. Aaron 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't intend to add Cenk Uygur or Ben Mankiewicz to this AfD, nor do I intend to list them separately. This is purely about Pike; being third mike isn't notable in and of itself. I should, however, note that their show has only been on Air America for about three weeks now, while the Pike article has existed since at least June 2005. In any case, being an Air America personality does not confer one with inherent notability, because Air America is not a radio network in the same way that, say, NBC is a television network; while almost all NBC affiliates carry the entire NBC schedule, very few AAR affiliates carry the entire AAR lineup. And while morning drive is generally considered the "prime time" of radio, it's a death slot for a politically-oriented show like this one. It's entirely possible they had more listeners when they were on Sirius. I can't imagine why they jumped to AAR in the first place, unless it was about money. --Aaron 19:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's certainly alot more than "third mic" on The Young Turks and, per Metropolitan90, a popular radio personalilty on a national radio network. Per the comment about AAR affiliates not carrying this show, at least 38 plus the XM Satellite Radio broadcast are. [53] --Marriedtofilm 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as national radio show host. Disagreeing with the political position of a radio show is not grounds for deletion and protection from recreation of an article. Edison 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From WP:NPA: Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to: ... Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. Warning left on user's talk page. --Aaron 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A statement about Wikipedia policy, as I made above in support of my vote, cannot be reasonably taken as a personal attack, so it was inappropriate for the nominator to leave a warning on my talk page. Per WP:NPA"It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks." Aaron should re-read his comments in the nomination, where he says that editors put in content which was "intentionally misleading." Edison 21:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaron, by those guidelines, you've wiolated WP:NPA via your nomination not assuming good faith: "was intentionally misleading in an attempt to give the subject some desperately needed notability oomph". That's questioning an editor's character and intentions. I'm restoring the portion you've deleted, and adding clarification. *Sparkhead 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a national radio show host is notable enough. I think it is silly to try to distinguish between "third mic" and main hosts. What, national radio shows are limited to conferring notability only their two biggest hosts? As a technical note, previous AfD is non-binding, and WP:CSD G4 does not apply, because of change in circumstances with the show going national.-- danntm T C 21:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 05:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (probably without redir). Common name, plus AAR just went bankrupt.  ;-( WP:OR / WP:CITE not withstanding... /Blaxthos 07:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Air America is remaining in operations while its under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.[54] Many times companies declare Chapter 11 and emerge from it (United Airlines, for instance). Having a common name (I don't think Jill Pike is all that common, btw) is not a WP:BIO basis for excluding a notable person. --Marriedtofilm 14:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / protect per nom. Deizio talk 09:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the excluding of a merge reasoning, this article cites no sources nor really claims notability. I agree with nom and also take note the lack of sources for anything, if the external link is suppose to contain information that can be used as a source it should be linked directly to that section. --NuclearZer0 12:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Update A few references and sources added to article. --Marriedtofilm 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete claims to notability look thin, no evidence of multiple non-trivial discussion in reliable independent sources. Guy 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Furthermore, this is an example of when process goes good. Instead of speedying an article that we should include, we've reviewed it, added information, and may very well keep it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Radio host on a notable network. Gamaliel 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In spite of the apparent bad faith of the nominator, there's not enough there for an article. Merging one sentence to the show is plausible, but I don't know if it's necessary. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable radio host. --Tbeatty 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nomination. Crockspot 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect as recreation of previously deleted content. ergot 15:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pike is very popular for a variety of reasons, most obviously her headlining show on the Air America Radio network. Elruin 4:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC-5) — Possible single purpose account: Elruin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
    • Please assume good faith. Judging by his few contribs, he doesn't seem like he's here for a single purpose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Note to Closing Administrator A user is consistently removing verifiable material from the article (not inserting citation tags) which is an assumption of editor bad faith and is violation of WP:POV. This particularly should not be done during an afd as it could unduly influence editors opinions. --Marriedtofilm 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be me; but the material is not verified, nor do I believe it's verifiable. As it might be considered negative, WP:BLP requires it be removed rather than be cited. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Due to her striking good looks, Jill has attracted a lot of attention, particularly from male listeners" is not a controversial statement - the US News and World Report citation on that line (which you tried to delete) actually cites the Young Turks as their source on that statement [55]. "Striking good looks" is subjective, but the rest is NOT impossible to verify. These user POV deletions were improper during an afd. --Marriedtofilm 00:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not impossible to verify, but not verified. In general, uncited information in articles, particularly about WP:LIVING persons, may be removed at any time. Furthermore, if every line has a "citation needed" tag, it makes it more apparent that there's no article to be kept here. In other words, with your line there, it's less likely to be kept. But it's your call. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The comment/note was about deleting verifiable information, which now seems to be conceded, not that everything is verified. Your sudden "citation needed" tag onslaught on this stub has been noted. --Marriedtofilm 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons given. SchmuckyTheCat 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Young Turks (talk show); no need for a merge. Bad faith nom and transparent political voting: Wikidrama at its most risible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with the network's page. --Tony 00:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable personality on nationwide network, with citations to major press sources. Derex 05:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sounds interesting. has some sources. --Alpharigel 18:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as per nom. Not an encyclopedically notable radio personality Bwithh 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ok, salting no. The AfD is from 2005, so that's hardly a mere recreation. ~ trialsanderrors 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Admittedly I don't listen to the show, but from what I can tell, it's the regular morning show for a substantial syndicated network (albeit one that has apparently declared bankruptcy). Every reference I see to the show refers to this individual as one of the three major contributors. I don't really have a major objection to merging the material, but I'd rather see that done in through the article's discussion page. As a side note, I know I can be dense at times, but I don't see how this article not being deleted speedily is a failure of process. Whether or not this discussion results in deletion, there is easily enough here to avoid A7. ScottW 22:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn, per nom --Strothra 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First AfD was over a year ago; may not have been notable then, but seems to be now as nation wide radio talk show host....I'd be willing to bet a nation wide TV host would pass notability. Smaller audience (radio) equals smaller notability, but it's notability all the same. AuburnPilotTalk 06:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ScottW. Catchpole 15:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per danntm. Xlation 12:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge w/Young Turks. She is a notable radio personality, and there are many people of similar "fame" with Wiki listings. --Writer@Large 04:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 redirect to Journals (Cobain)--Konst.ableTalk 11:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana Top 50[edit]

List copied directly from the book Journals (Cobain). Already discussed in that article. --InShaneee 16:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't imagine how this could be useful to anyone. Wavy G 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, copyrighted intellectual property. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then Redirect to Journals (Cobain). Copyvios shouldn't be kept in history. Danny Lilithborne 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then Redirect to Journals (Cobain). I believe this could be useful to some people looking to indulge into Cobain's musical interests and to discover more about the musician. codester 15:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, then Redirect per Zoe and Danny. Vectro 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Wings[edit]

Unpublished novel by an "amateur author" not otherwise specified. --Nehwyn 16:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, agreeing with nominator. Joyous! | Talk 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-promotion for made up in school one day story. The creator's edit history [56] and the "notes" section speak volumes. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IslaySolomon. ReverendG 21:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the book sounds nifty, the article doesn't even have author's name, let alone the publisher or ISBN... I don't know what they mean by "amateur book"; self-published books are okay as long as the notablity can be determined, but in this case, there's absolutely no way we could get grips of how to verify the subject: We know barely what, but not who or where or when or why and things like that. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HealthGrid[edit]

This might be an article about the website healthgrid.org, which has an alexa ranking of 1,000,000+. Or it might be something else. The text of the article makes no sense to me, and while there are many google hits on this, they seem to contain the same incomprehensible writing, and may merely indicate someone self-promoting extensively. Seems to violate WP:V Xyzzyplugh 16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, but this is a no-brainer redirect and AfD was never even needed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emit Remmus[edit]

Contested Prod. Notable band, notable album, but individual tracks, that have not been released as singles and do not meet WP:SONG, do not merit their own articles. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Lovely song, but not notable outside the album itself. Brace for the attack of the inclusionists. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to album. No need for afd. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or else Delete--The song by itself is not very notable. It should not be an article or stub by itself. At most it should be merged with the album page so long as the other tracks on the album are also listed there.--Tony 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to album. Clearly not notable. Vectro 03:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Angry[edit]

This was tagged as a speedy-delete, but the author and a few others are disputing that on the talk page. There is disagreement about whether this meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines (see Talk:Genetic Angry). I don't believe that the band is notable enough, but I wanted to bring the matter to a larger audience for more discussion. Joyous! | Talk 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete A band with two demos to their name, who've performed live in their home town. Pathetically low ghits[57] and a myspace [58] that hardly screams notability. A textbook example of why we have {{db-band}}. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep yet bands like Death Valley Meth Lab who apparently have no releases, get to stay up? Genetic Angry has put out two demos in less than 4 months. I don't see why a band that's getting recognition should be deleted while others stay up. It clearly states in the critera for having a band on Wikipedia that a band who is considered the best representative of a style, or of a local scene, is allowed to have a page on the website. This band has been proven to be considered the best representative of Truro, Nova Scotia and of the new style "emotional metalcore". So why delete it? It's not spamming or anything. It's a serious, well thought out article. I thought this was an encyclopedia, not a pop culture trivia game.(Timrotten 17:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment First of all Tim, please read WP:AUTO and WP:COI, because both are very relevant to this situation. Secondly I assume you are argueing that your band meets the condition: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability". You are not representatives of a notable style from the local scene of a city. You are the only representatives of a very, very specific genre from a very small town.-- IslaySolomon | talk 17:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Death Valley Meth Lab is probably a very ripe candidate for deletion as well, and that's why when arguing to keep an article, people shouldn't use other "similar" articles as "precedent". We have policies about content on Wikipedia; the one specific to bands is WP:MUSIC, and the information has to be verified from reliable sources. Ergo, Equalizing x Distort, from what I've found, seems to be radio show, not a magazine. ColourBurst 19:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Genetic Angry are making huge waves in the underground punk and hardcore scene and have had their demo reviewed by CANADA's MOST HIGHLY REGARDED, most highly distributed Punk/Hardcore fanzine, Equalizing Distort aka Equalizing x Distort. They are a serious band who want to have one small page out of the millions on wikipedia, dedicated to their band. Wikipedia should be open to everyone, not just people who already have enough information known about them that they don't even need an article here. (Negative Nick 17:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. The point of WP:MUSIC is to have articles on bands who are already noteworthy. We're not here to advertise up-and-comng bands. I wish you guys the best (and if you ever make it out west, I'll hit a concert), but this is not the place to advertise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as " reposted content that was deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion." (CSD G4). Tagged as such.-- IslaySolomon | talk 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as repost. --InShaneee 21:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. References demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um. Did I miss one? The links seem to be a local radio show, two proboards links, and a myspace. Did I miss something? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Up and comers maybe, but not there yet.Moriori 02:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Views of United States Presidents[edit]

This article is a POV fork that contains only two presidents and one source. The material here would be much better added to Historical rankings of United States Presidents. Grover cleveland 17:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I prodded this thing two months ago, the author pleaded for more time to clean up, and it's still a mess. VoiceOfReason 17:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insanely WP:OR and POV. --Aaron 19:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ReverendG 21:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough material here for an article, and the title does not accurately describe the content. Two is a pretty small sample of all U.S. presidents. Edison 21:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or possibly merge information into Libertarianism and without that gigantic infobox. --Marriedtofilm 21:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork, violating NPOV (lisitng have a dozen cons for Lincoln!), and original research.-- danntm T C 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Gazpacho 02:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a libertarian I think this article stinks. Harvestdancer 14:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NCurse as already transwikied . There seems to be some debate as to whether this article should be kept anyway; seeing as it's been deleted now, please take your concerns to Deletion Review if you want to continue the discussion (which has not had a comment for over 5 days now). --ais523 12:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Playdate[edit]

Dictdef, and unlikely to expand beyond one. The content has already been transwikied; it can be found here at wiktionary. Picaroon9288 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, dicdef.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, it's already been transwiki'd. It also has no potential of expansion beyond a dicdef, so I tagged it. ColourBurst 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A5 reads: "Any article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (et al), where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded." The article hadn't been discussed at afd at all; that's why I created this subpage. I just wanted to make sure that all steps of the process were followed prior to deletion. Picaroon9288 20:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definition ReverendG 21:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore since someone's already speedied it. I disagree with ColourBurst, there's plenty of room for expansion here, and all stubs start out as dicdefs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "All stubs start out as dicdefs" is wrong. (Per WP:IAR, I'm commenting here rather than closing the AfD and suggesting that User:Badlydrawnjeff take it to WP:DR.) Full text of the article was transwikied, in case anywone was wondering if something was lost. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it really wrong? Either way, the speedy was certainly premature. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree on both parts:
        1. Some articles do, and all should, start out with something more than a definition.
        2. An article which consists only of a definition can be speedily deleted, without prejudice to re-creation if something more can be said. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see any speedy deletion criteria for that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it would match A3: Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This particular definition does only consist of a rephrasing of the title. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LyricsEMOTION[edit]

Non-notable. An early version of the article stated that this website has only been live since mid-September, 2006. Few hits in Google, most seem to be directories or blog articles. Does not meet the proposed guideline in WP:SOFTWARE. eaolson 17:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parley Sports F.C.[edit]

Football (soccer) club that plays in the Bournemouth Saturday Football League, which is at the 15th level of the English football league system, and formerly played in the Dorset Combination, which is at the 11th. Policy in WP:CORP is that only clubs that play at the top 10 levels are inherently notable, and there is no reason to suggest from the article that this club is notable by any other means. Qwghlm 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. As said, unless someone can provide sources for this club being notable in any other way, it fails WP:CORP. – Elisson • T • C • 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable sports team. Catchpole 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. - fchd 20:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE ALL THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUPPLY BY :PARLEY SPORTS CLUB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.81.223 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Where the information came from has no relevance when it comes to deciding whether a subject is notable enough to have an article.... ChrisTheDude 07:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it very much does. Provenances of sources is important. If the sources of the information were independent of the club, and were in-depth articles about the club published in magazines, newspapers, books, or suchlike, then they would count towards notability. See the primary notability criterion in WP:CORP. So if you want to make a case, 86.29.81.223, cite sources where people independent of the club have published non-trivial works of their own about it. Uncle G 10:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bad choice of wording on my part there I think, Uncle G. I took the choice of the word "supply" to mean that the anonymous user was suggesting that the article should stay solely because it (the article) had been created by someone who is a member of the club, that's what I was suggesting isn't sufficient to justify it being kept.....I think..... ChrisTheDude 11:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Parley Sports Club can supply this information on its own website. Resolute 03:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly not the best place to do so, but initially I wanted to raise the suggestion that we be more flexible when proposing club articles for deletion. If there is an article on a club, even sub level 10, but which already contains a significant amount of information within it, including links to other wiki articles, our focus should be on reasons to keep the article not why to deleted it. The WP:CORP policy says a club is notable if "The club... has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club... itself"', so if one can find a multiple of mentions of the club on articles from independant websites, then the article should be retained.
In this instance, however, the article is not that detailed. I can find little mention of the club other than in football databases and similar online encyclopedic sites. Furthermore, I cannot find the club itself's website - I have found the club's youth football website Parley Sports Rangers, which contains no link to a senior club - which raises the question whether there is a senior team? Added to the confusion about a possible notable past player (see here) and all in all I am inclined to vote to delete this article. -- MLD · T · C · @:  13:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parley does have a senior team if you look on Bournemouth FA it will tell you that the first team plays on a Saturday in Divison 3 and they have a reserve team on Sundays in Divison 2 i dont know the mangers names, thats why i added the youth teams mangers name to the football info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.85.160 (talk • contribs)
  • User:86.29.87.237 added this section to the article, I removed it as it is wholly inappropriate for the main article. I guess if anything it should be here:
    ==!! PLEASE SAVE THIS PAGE FROM DELETION !!==
    !! THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM A NEWS PAPER ARTICLE OUT OF THE LOCAL BOURNEMOUTH DAILY ECHO SO THEY WILL HAVE A REFERANCE OF IT IF YOU CONTACT THEM, THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE WAS CALLED 'PRIDE OF PARLEY' I AM NOT SURE WHAT YEAR IT WAS PRODUCED!!
    ALL THE INFORMATION SUPPLY BELOW IS NOT FALSE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM AND PARLEY SPORTS CLUB DO NOT HAVE A CLUB WEBSITE TO DISPLAY THIS INFORMATION ON.
    AND AS YOU CAN SEE PARLEY SPORTS F.C NO LONGER HAVE A FOOTBALL TEAM THAT PLAYS IN THE DORSET COMBINATION BUT HAS A JOINT LINK TO THE Bournemouth Saturday Football League PAGE AS THIS IS THE LEAGUE THE CLUB NOW HAS A TEAM PLAYING IN.
  • The above moved here by ChrisTheDude 15:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've searched the archive of the Bournemouth Daily Echo, which goes back to 2000, for an article by that title, and several variants, and come up with nothing. Uncle G 18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • yer you have only searched back to 2000 i am not sure what date it was as it was a news paper cutting with information about the club i found. I no the reports name was called Karenza Morton contact her or the Bournemouth Echo they should find it for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.85.160 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. If the team moves up enough levels in the English football league system, Wikipedia can include an article about it at that time. --Metropolitan90 15:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all history on Parley Sports taken from the Bournemouth ECHO if they can confirm that it has been taken from there paper, keep information about 'Club Information' and the Football Information Box. make inprovements to the page by adding the club logo and a picture of the clubhouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.85.160 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment The issue at hand is that the majority of editors deem the club not to be notable. Adding the logo or a photo of the clubhouse to the article will not make the club any more notable..... ChrisTheDude 23:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My local town paper used to write up reviews of the local Pop Warner football (for non americans; its a youth-level American football league) It doesn't make them notable and worthy of an encyclopedia article. If my church's softball team gets a newspaper article, can I write a WikiPedia entry for them? NO. Verfiablility is a necessary but not sufficient cause for keeping an article. Also needed is a proof of Notability. This team does not seem to rate as notable, since they play at level 15... When they get promoted to a top-10 level team, then they will be worthy --Jayron32 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • you lot are like a bunch of old women god whats the big problem ? I made an article about Parley Sports F.C and none of you can say that it's has proof of notability, why dont you contact the Dorset F.A or even the Dorset Premier League for Parley Sports history, the information i added was taken from the Bournemouth Daily Echo can't you phone them to confirm notability. And also I no we are not a top level 10 club but we used to be as you will see in are history we resigned from that League in 2000. Check Are Hits Out On Google for a small village team that used to play in the 'Dorset Premier League' thats pretty good, and as your see the first search result to be found is Parley Sports FC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. So that means most people will use WIKIPEDIA to search history about it. And you want to 'Delete IT' you want to take a look at other pages that are just as bad as are's with nothing on them at all. You look throught the 'Dorset Premier League' pages of teams for this season and see how many have history about them selfs, not many i'll thing your find!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.92.124 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Actually, the google evidence works AGAINST your arguement. In order to be valid subject matter for a Wikipedia article, then the subject needs to have notability outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a means to gain notability; it only documents subjects that have notability verified by reliable third party sources. If a WikiPedia article turns up as the first hit on Google, it is usually a red flag that the WikiPedia article (and NOT an outside source as required by the WikiPedia policy against original research) is the only major place to find this information. As such, it should be deleted. If you have evidence to the contrary, then IMPROVE THE ARTICLE. Calling experienced editors names or complaining that the club should be kept without providing hard facts will not work in your favor. Also, proof of existance is NOT proof of notability. The fact that a single local newspaper wrote about them does not mean that anyone outside of the immediate area has even heard of this club. If they have, then PROVIDE REFERENCES to show that the club is widely known and regarded outside of the immediate Bournmouth/Dorset area. If there is no such evidence, the article is not notable. Even if they were the best level-15 club, that makes them like the 500th best club in England. Again, my Church softball team is pretty good. But it's not the New York Yankees or even the Toledo Mud Hens. --Jayron32 20:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment unless I'm very much mistaken it's the responsibility of the creator of the article to demonstrate the notability of the subject, editors participating in an AfD debate shouldn't need to start phoning up local newspapers to find these things out.... ChrisTheDude 10:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the responsibility of people to substantiate their assertions with cited sources. So it's the responsibility of someone who claims that an article exists in the Bournemouth Daily Echo to cite it, giving date of publication, title, and byline. But everyone in an AFD discussion should do research. Uncle G 12:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another comment - I've just noticed that there are a number of clubs currently in the Dorset Premier Football League (level 11) who don't seem to have ever played at a higher level (specifically Blandford United, Bournemouth Sports CM, Cobham Sports, Cranborne, Gillingham Town, Hamworthy Recreation Holt United (Dorset), Poole Borough, Sturminster Marshall, Sturminster Newton United and Westland Sports , so presumably they need to be deleted too......? ChrisTheDude 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. Each subject should be assessed on its merits. The best approach, I suggest, is to go through each article and research the subject. Find out what sources exist. If you find good sources, add them to the article (as references or as further reading) in order to improve it and in order to let other editors build upon your work. If you cannot find enough material of suitable provenance and depth to satisfy the notability criteria, then think about deletion. Uncle G 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The Dorset Premier Football League used to be one level below the Wessex League back when the latter was only one division. When the Wessex League essentially absorbed the Hampshire League, the DPL was placed below the 2nd level of the WL, at the same level as Wessex Div 3 (now called Div 2). That's why the DPL clubs have articles, along with a number of other level 11 leagues: Sussex County League Div 3, South Western League, Devon County League, Central Midlands League, Spartan South Midlands Football League Div 2. These leagues are among the strongest at level 11 (indeed, the CML has applied for level 10 status and the SWL and DCL are merging to form a level 10 league next season). Club pages in a garbage level 11 league like the Northampton Town League are questionable, but club pages in the previously mentioned leagues I think should stay because these leagues consistently supply promotion candidates and FA Vase entrants. --Balerion 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addition - It's worth noting that Parley Sports played in the DPL for four decades, but have more recently run into hard times necessitating a move down to more regional leagues. The larger issue is how we deal with clubs who drop from what's considered a notable level to a non-notable level. This issue was tested in this mass AfD, but in the confusion of the case-by-case basis of each club, nothing was fully discussed. --Balerion 01:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply It's also the problem that nearly every football club in England is under the auspices of a single governing body. This includes over 700 teams within the top 11 levels of the English football league system alone. Levels 12+ include (i did an approximate count) 450 leagues. Assuming, even conservatively, 15 teams per league, that results in 6750 teams in these divisions, meaning we have well in excess of 7500 teams, probably closer to 8000 teams. That doesn't even count Sunday leagues. SOME standard has to be applied. By analogy, the U.S. has a rather extensive Baseball structure running under the auspices of Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball. There are also thousands of smaller amateur and semi-pro leagues. Counting ONLY Major and Minor leagues (down to rookie leagues), and including equivalent independant leagues, there are about 400 teams. Assuming that as a reasonable number of potentially notable teams, that matches well to levels 10+ in the football league system. It is unreasonable that the 700th best football team in England recieves notable press coverage beyond, say, a mere note of game scores in a local paper. This team USED TO be as good as the 700th best team. Its currently about the 3000th best team. That can't be notable. --Jayron32 04:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not necessarily advocating a keep, but there will be tougher calls than Parsley Sports in the future - clubs who spend a number of years at level 9, but then drop to level 13...what do you do then? (see: Tuffley Rovers, which was kept) I'm not the biggest fan of the baseball analogy because the US sports structure, legally, practically, and culturally, especially in baseball is completely different from England's. Minor league teams are essentially independently-owned reserve/youth teams and outside the minor league structure, there is no smooth decline in talent like there is from the Football League to the Conference, for example. --Balerion 06:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The History i added about the club should'nt be delete i mean its good for a club of that size to have that amount of history, not many clubs have any thing as big as that on Wikipedia and i thing they should be the pages you should be looking at for DELETION. We as a football club are very proud of are History in the Dorset Premier Football League and we want to share it with people all around the world or people that have an interest in Lower-league football. I know that the information has been taken from a local newspaper but that article was written up for readers to tell them about what 'Parley Sports Club' has achieved over the years and most of the information added was taken from Parley Sports Club's history, websites and association who will supply you information about Parley Sports F.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LUIGI909 (talk • contribs)
  • HELP Can some one contact people for notability on Parley Sports F.C i.e Kevin Bond manger of A.F.C. Bournemouth or even contact the Local F.A, DORSET, or contact the DPL Contact's because some one thats uses Wikipedia more than me can get the problem sloved as i am NEW to Winkipedia and its seems complicated. THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by LUIGI909 (talk • contribs)
    • Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end ChrisTheDude 15:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It apears i have made a mistake by saying that Ron Saunders was manger of Parley Sports indeed he was'nt he was manger at Aston villa and I have now corrected the problem and i am very sorry if this information was seen to be made up or fake in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.94.218 (talk • contribs) 14:54, October 18, 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply This is in response to the writings of LUIGI909 and 86.29.94.218(anon) above. NO ONE doubts that this football club exists. NO ONE is denying it, or other facts, such as where they play, what league they are in, what their history is, etc. etc. The question is whether such facts warrant that the club is notable. Word of mouth contacts with people involved in the organization, or with local newspapers, or anything else, does NOT establish notability. Please read WIkipedia's guidelines on notability BEFORE you comment on this article. The primary notability criterion is: Does this subject receive 1)significant coverage in 2) several 3) non-trivial sources as 4) a primary focus of the writing. So far, this subject fails on all grounds. We have no evidence of coverage beyond a single newspaper, and no evidence that the coverage is more than scores and results of games. Passing mention in a sports section does not qualify. Do we have articles that review their performance? Have books been written on their history? Are they the subject of ANY critical analysis? If they are, then PROVIDE THE SOURCES. Simply saying "I think the local paper wrote an article on them a few years ago" isn't good enough. Provide book titles and authors, website URLs, newspaper dates and by-lines; give us something to work with. If the ONLY way we can get more information about the subject is to call someone, then they aren't notable. --Jayron32 19:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - playing 5 levels below the notability threshold and never having played at level 10 or above. Nothing otherwise notable. BlueValour 02:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's no evident consensus whether to keep separately or merge, but that discussion may certainly continue on the talk page.--Kchase T 11:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Bedroom[edit]

Not every list created by an author deserves its own article. BhaiSaab talk 18:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with and redirect to Asra Q. Nomani. Picaroon9288 18:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The topic is notable and is the subject of a great deal of media and academia coverage [59]and most notably the topic is highly relevant within the context of the Islamic feminism movement and refered to in other Wikipedia articles.--CltFn 21:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's only one university's events page which mentions it twice. BhaiSaab talk 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per above. --InShaneee 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Laudable, but apparently not widely established even in academic discourse yet[60]. (Also the article content needs a little POV tweaking) Bwithh 00:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Nomani article can't hold everything. Certainly notable enough for an article. Azate 07:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as if her article is already very long - on the contrary, it could use more content. Regarding notability, even a Google web search returns less than 30 unique results. [61] BhaiSaab talk 09:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, this could someday be an article on its own but it needs to become more notable (i.e. more references to it in the published media or in books). For now, it may as well be put into the Asra Q. Nomani article. I would also be OK with a Keep decision. I definitely disagree with deleting the article. --Richard 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with censorship? It has to do with the appropriateness of an article about a list which virtually no one talks about in scholarly or even non-scholarly discourse. BhaiSaab talk 10:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. BhaiSaab talk 10:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sliders Dimension[edit]

Delete. Non-notable web-based sci-fi series hosted by Freewebs. Google search does not reveal many relevant hits [Check Google hits]. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 18:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the article Mick Bingham to this AfD, as it is the main character of the series. ... discospinster talk 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Fan... fiction? Game? Whatever it is, it's got no assertion of noteworthiness and no outside sources. Seems likely both articles were created by the author, too. Shimeru 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trash. Danny Lilithborne 22:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as non-notable. (The author converting improper Wikilinks into URLs is an additional detriment, but we're only supposed to consider whether there could be a good article here, rather than whether this article could be changed into a good article.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experience Networking[edit]

Delete. Neologism coined last month. No relevant Ghits in the first five pages: [Check Google hits]. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 18:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Let's not drag this out any longer. -- Steel 22:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers: Cyber[edit]

Somebody's fanfic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, so keep.--Konst.ableTalk 11:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Martin[edit]

Appears to be an article on a non-notable lawsuit. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean up Just looked this woman up - seems she's something of a road safety campaigner who's been featured on CBS News and several other places. I think we should find out more about her before deciding on her notability--Edchilvers 18:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. No claim made of encyclopedic notability. News coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability Bwithh 23:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, auto safety lawsuits happen all the time. Gazpacho 02:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up Just added some more information on her. She is a well-known young politician in the making in her city. NFLBARBIE22:36 15 October 2006 (UTC) — NFLBARBIE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep if cleaned up and claims to notability are properly included, otherwise delete. "A well-known young politician in the making in her city" falls two strikes below notability standards ("in the making" and "in her city"). Appearing on CBS news is a point toward notability, but additional indications of notability are required. (The biography needs to be sourced or deleted, as well.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, as per Edchilvers above. Smeelgova 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional books[edit]

This is yet another near-infinite list of objects of an exceedingly broad class which have nothing in common save that they are fictional. It includes books that are one-off jokes and books that are themselves the main subjects of the works in which they appear and fictional books that you actually get to read all or portions of and books which are mentioned only in passing by their titles and...well, it suffers from the same basic problems of indiscriminate fictional lists, in that it's too huge to be usefully complete, that new entries are made all the time, and that the list is so broad that most of the subjects have nothing whatsoever in common other than that they're fictional books.

There is relevant precedent in a list of fictional weapons, and a pair of lists of weapons in fiction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also a list of fictional rulers and a list of fictional characters arranged by political stance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. To recap my remarks from Talk:Fictional book, while it's true that it is a rather broad and diverse list, it is also well-organized, interesting, entertaining and useful. The fact that the fictional books serve different purposes as outlined above (jokes, plot elements, excerpted works etc.) only makes the subject more compelling from a literary standpoint. Looking over titles in a section related to Adams, Borges or King helps to give a sense of the tone of their books as well as how extensively they use this literary device compared to other authors with only a few fictional books listed. I realize this article is just a list, but further perspective "is provided in the parent article, Fictional book. Frankly, I think the parent article needs work, but the list article is fine, and should be retained and added to as needed. Karen | Talk | contribs 20:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It rather seems to me that the place to talk about the works of Douglas Adams, Borges (whose first name I can't spell from memory), or Stephen King is in their their articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Karen. This is a supplementary list to the parent article. The only alternative would be to split this page into ~58 tiny pages (which noone wants), or split the lists amongst their author articles as A Man In Black suggests, but that would make it very hard indeed to browse the entries as a collected genre device.
    There are dozens and dozens of large lists, like Lists of fictional things, and I certainly hope you don't intend to AfD them all. Or if you do, then a Village Pump discussion would be much more appropriate, than an individual deletionism rampage ;) --Quiddity 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Literarylistcruft with a strong dash of popculturelistcruft to boot. To avoid just being a pointless list, this article would have to put all these books in context and explain their significance - but that kind of discussion only belongs in the article about the author or the actual work of fiction. It may not belong there if the detail is not a significant narrative device (e.g. the one-time gag punning book titles in Wallace & Gromit.) . If the discussion of each book was included on one page, this would be too unwieldy Bwithh 22:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Bwithh and WP:NOT's comments on indiscriminate lists. I don't see how "fictional book" can constitute a genre as claimed. A list of works about fictional books would be something else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it is not a genre, but a literary device, serving several purposes depending on the needs of the writer. Dispersing this material into individual authors' or books' articles or, worse, deleting the material entirely, would not only undo the work of many Wikipedians who consider this list worthwhile, but also make it harder to consider the scope and value of this convention. Nor would a list of works about fictional books serve, because only a few are the subject of the real books in which they appear. As for being "pointless" (I hope you folks don't mind my consolidating my rejoinders here), I did not consider the Invisible Library pointless when I first came across it years ago. This article improves on that site by organizing the data better, and providing a little background on some of the individual titles. More of this detail would make it better still. Deleting the article would merely leave a large hole in a reader's resources on the subject. Karen | Talk | contribs 15:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that's it's an unwieldy page and lists things that have little in common, but also its information is handy and amusing and thought-provoking and, most important, not found elsewhere (since Invisible Books went under). I would love for the list, or its sections, to be linked to from the authors' (or the books') main pages, so that discussion of Borges' or Vonnegut's fictional books as a construct could happen at a more logical place and in context. This has already happened with books from the Harry Potter universe, probably because of their number and popularity, and at least a few others from this page, like Stephen King and Tolkien, could support similar pages. But I think it would be a pity if a reader could not jump from page to page of fictional books to get an idea for the popularity and variety of the device.Ljhliesl 21:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Entertaining to many and useful to some and encyclopedic enough.Noroton 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Fictional books have a long and noble history as literary devices. They are far from being fancruft ("extraneous or of low quality") not only for their position in literature but also from the point of lit crit, lit research, and lit theory. There's even a quite scholarly book on the topic: Fictitious Authors and Imaginary Novels in French, English and American Fiction from the 18th to the Start of the 21st Century by George A. Kennedy [62] As a final bit of supporting evidence, the Library of Congress recognizes the phrase "Imaginary books and libraries" as a legitimate subject heading (with a "see also" reference to "Literary forgeries and mystifications" !!) [63] --Bookgrrl 02:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that some of the lengthier sections could be split off, as per List of fictional books within the Discworld series and List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series. Daibhid C 11:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Strong Keep—per Karen and Quiddity, et. al. Lists of this sort have a lot of value to the customer-reader. Just scanning it was better than a weeks jokes by email! Brings back many fond memories and smiles!
       If the Admins who patrol vandalism can't keep it under control, then it's past time to face the fact we need to lock more things down to registered editors only, and that Jimbo's ideal's are in the long run, abusive of the admins time.
       There is no reason to not provide limited protection for more articles save unworkable starry-eyed idealism that will cave to a more pragmatic policy sooner or later, and this is one such class where that applies. Yes such are prone to vandalism, but it also represents a lot of love by a lot of contributing editor's and to delete such spits on their contributions. (Did you really mean to be so Baldly antisocially BOLD, you anom nominator? (Did I miss some policy change—where's your signature?)
       I say it's much better to contemplate deleting the nominator of this very nice example of care and affection than such a well presented compendium—he or she can be replaced far more easily, and can walk anytime no matter what we decide! (Given the size of our wiki-paycheck, who could blame them! <g>)
       Not all data need be limited to dead tree standards, and Dead tree encyclopedia's can't do this type of dynamic listing job; it's one wikipedia should take on proudly as additional value added for our readers.
       Whether or not it's ever 'complete' is irrelevant—any wiki user needs to face the fact that they evolve, so that is a non-starter.
       As a father of two teens, I marvel at how often they dive to look up social minutia (Band, a baseball or football stat/fact, etc.) which the old lady and I just throw out in passing casual converstation (normally in a prone position!)... usually as a 'do you remember so-and-so when he did such-and-such? When was that anyway? While we search the failing grey matter for clues, the kids dive in and most frequently give us a date or whatever from wikipedia. So like it or not, wikipedia's become a go-to resource for the now-maturing generation... as well as the rest of us. God knows, even as a computer engineer of mature years, I wouldn't think of researching such on the web—at least not for a long while—and to them and many of you, that is now second nature. That is why this is a typical article type one now would expect to find herein, and each are little treasures to brag over, not delete. Best regards to all! // FrankB 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Um, A Man in Black did sign his nomination. I strongly disagree with it, but it was done correctly and in good faith. Unless I missed something, no one else has brought up vandalism as an issue with respect to this article. I actually haven't seen much, compared to articles with more specific subjects to target, e.g. Nickelodeon (TV channel)‎‎ or Madeleine L'Engle. Also, there are a fair number of people working on this article, which makes it harder for vandal edits to stand for long. I happen to agree that requiring registration would reduce vandalism slightly, but this is not really the venue for that suggestion. Let's please stick to the merits of this particular article. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Fascinating to those who dig all things bibliographic, fictional or not, and of no interest to others, who can leave the list alone and get on with their lives. Encyclopedic in that it includes links to the actual works which include the fictional titles, so that readers can then go to the pertinent article per Bwithh for context. And although "the list is so broad that most of the subjects have nothing whatsoever in common other than that they're fictional books"...does having apparently only one thing in common make it less worthy of note? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pegship (talk • contribs) 10:30, Oct 17, 2006 (UTC).
CommentIndeed. And is that not the raison d'être of a list -- to collect things that have something in common? (List of redheads, anyone?) --Bookgrrl 18:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The question is whether this list is useful. To start, it is useful in the sense of being fascinating--I had never imagined such a list or List of redheads-- I find it refreshes the imagination for those who remember the original works well, serves as a hint to reread for those who remember the original work but not the fictional ones within it, and is suggestive for those who see something that looks worth following them up. It's useful in the sense of suggesting other things to include--I havea few in mind--or in seeing if perhaps the people who wrote the WP missed one. WP is not a list. This does not mean that WP does not contain lists, when they have a purpose. Nor is it a place for bare lists alone, without articles From WP:List

Information. The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.

DGG 01:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Karen | Talk | contribs above. Yours, Smeelgova 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong keep. Speaking personally, I use this list for reference purposes all the time. I fail to understand why the possibility for infinite expansion is a reason to delete a list of data that is otherwise difficult to come by. I think it's so useful (and interesting) that the Fictional books parent article should be strengthened, and if anything, the list broken off into comprehensive articles about various authors' fictional books. I can't speak to the articles of every single author listed, but the Stephen King article for example is far too long as-is, and if the list were dismantled an entire new article would be written. Chris Stangl 09:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Much as I dislike articles consisting of nothing more than a large list, I have to admit this one is rather interesting and informative. -Amatulic 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Sure its a long list, but its interesting and a useful reference. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 03:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (thus keep). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states in xxxx[edit]

This is deletion for a number of articles:

I hate to do this, but clearly, this is not a way to organize such information. Besides, as of right now the lists are unsourced and therefore very much available for POV wars. Just see List of sovereign states for various discussions on what's "sovereign," what's "autonomous," on de facto, de jure, and all the other stuff. I don't believe anyone could handle such discussions spread out on 5000 different lists. Renata 18:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. It seems like a lot of work to have made, but it's still more work to get WP:V compliant and yet more to maintain and protect from stealth edits either out of POV or vandalism motives. Also, terms such as "sovereign states" are mushy for non-Westernized areas and pre-Westphalia Eurasia. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Dhartung. The WP:V problems are just too overwhelming here. Also, I picked a year at random (1952) and found West Germany listed as Western Germany. A minor issue in and of itself, but it's an indicator of suboptimal scholarship, on top of all the other problems already mentioned. --Aaron 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete There is no other side in Wikipedia able to have a map for each year as has been requested. The political geography is changing each year. I see absolutely impossible to put in a single page all the changes of all the hundreds and hundreds of German, Greek, Italian or Arabic sovereign states. (Who can reading tables like this, this or this?) If there are static years, redirections exists. It's absolutely impossible to have an idea of what exactly existed in a year with only a list of what appear and disappear. The possible divergence of opinions never are a reason for delete an article. The POV says that if there are more than one opinion both them must be written but never is a reason of deletion. The laziness never is a reason for don't write an article. I think that be able to know the countries that were sovereign in a year watching a single page would be very, very interesting. Excuse my poor English level, please. Sobirà 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this section as a concept won't have more problems that Religious leaders by year and similar. 81.32.208.229 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As per nomination, and horribly annoying to watch being edited repeatedly on RC ;) Pursey 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per Dhartung. - fchd 20:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not very important and rather problematic. ReverendG 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There were only 9 sovereign states in 820AD? I expect a few hundred kingdoms scattered around the globe might have disagreed. An historical atlas would be a useful reference for questions such as, did Croatia exist the year Nikola Tesla was born, or where was historical Macedonia, or when were Israel, Judea and Palestine sovereign states, but there would clearly be differences of opinion and hair splitting definitions, so the articles would be huge. In theory, the history of sovereignty could be argued and settled in the article for each state, but the claim of so few in 820 is troubling.Edison 21:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorta Keep I'm doubtful of the viablity of the arguments made against it. POV wars? If there is any disagreement about whether a state existed in a given year and was sovereign, then the problem is with the Wikipedia article on it, which should be sourced itself. If there's diagreement about what constitutes a sovereign state, that's a seperate problem, worth addressing on its own. And that one person can't handle 5000 different lists? I think that's why Wikipedia has more than one editor. That said, I don't think we need a page for literally every year. Grouping by century and listing the years of sovereignty in there would be simpler. FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poor way to show this data. Ideally would be a time-lapse map or maps with links. Also debates over sovereignty and sourcing makes it even more unwieldy and impractical Bwithh 22:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until we have a better way to present this information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A world political map as suggested by Sobira for each year or decade is an excellent idea. The lists are second best but better than nothing. If the editor reponsible is heading towards dated world political maps encourage them. If knowledge of years such as 820 is small Areas for which information does not exist would have a separate colour code until that knowledge is found and cited. As for possible arguments, aren't they fantastic? Martin Cordon 00:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not an active community member, so I won't vote, but I stubled across a pag with this deletion notice and have to say that I think this information is potentially very valuable to readers who don't want to sift through a few dozen pages to get an idea of the geography of the world in a given year. Maybe this isn't the best way to organize this data, but if done well this data would be incredibly useful.--Isra1337 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune This strikes me as being highly encyclopedic, but horribly overdone. With the exception of some years, there is no reason why these lists could not be pruned down to a decade level, rather than yearly. Note the nations that existed at the beginning of a decade, then note changes over that time. Or, basically, merge and delete 90% of the content. Resolute 03:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Cannot see what deletion criteria these articles meet. They are definitly encyclopedic and are a similar idea to the lists of State leaders by year for which we already have almost all of the last 2000 years. I do think that changing the articles to 'List of states in xxxx' would be better to sidestep the arguments over sovereignty. Davewild 07:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is not a repository for lists, categorized or otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaxthos (talk • contribs)
  • Prune/merge as per Resolute. Also, can we get some kind of historical political maps as mentioned? They'd be wonderfully useful in clarifying the lists. ♠PMC♠ 07:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The concept of having world maps showing the sovereign nations is fundamentally flawed and impossible to realize. World maps are extremely poor vehicles to show countries: there just isn't enough "bandwidth" to accommodate the necessary data. The problem starts with the fact that the earth's surface is 3/5ths water, so only 40% of the map can be used. Add in problems with projection, and you end up being able to show only the very largest countries, and being unable to even label these adequately. Look at the problems inherent in this map of Europe in 800 AD and this is just 8 - 10% of the world's surface. MapMaster 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom, Aaron Bwithh; histlistcruft meets original research. Contrary to Davewild, the inaccurate and unmaintainable State leaders by year cruft should be deleted too and renaming these ones would not help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per problems with scope and definition. The modern definition os State arose after the Peace of Westfalia, so lists of "states" before then are most likely to be misleading. This is compounded by the problem of when an entity can be said to be sovereign: For instance, were all the entities of the Holy Roman Empire sovereign states? Should they be included in these lists?. It also seems overkill to have a list for every single year; listings by decade or longer periods would allow for more commentary which could be used to provide context to most of the controversial claims, though I wouldn't be entirely satisfied with that solution.
Also, I can't see how this cannot be solved by creating a bunch of country-specific Timelines and sticking them in related articles; these could easily cover long periods and show the evolution of several countries at once. For example, think of a timeline showing simultaneously the different kingdoms in the Heptarchy then their gradual merge into the Kingdom of England an so on, until modern times. That'd be one Timeline in about 10 articles, all showing the same info and being a navigational aid to boot. Much better than clicking 100 articles just to see when the Kingdom of Great Britain became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, keep, keep! That's what I've always wished and never found in all the web, and I think that only Wikipedia and its more than 60 millions visits per day can get. My experience is that if you are interested in know what existed in a year (something absolutely important for understanding the changes in the History) you won't find this information. You will have to search in more and more hundreds and hundreds of pages crossing information for each year. I don't want to know the year when the "Kingdom of Great Britain" became the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" I want to know how many states there were in the south of Spain, Italy, France and Germany when bore the "Kingdom of England" and the expansion in the same time of the Asiatic states. How many pages I'll have to check for having this information? Please, keep all these information! I need all them! If there is more than one opinion about the sovereignty of a nation, well, <reference/s> code was created for a reason of showing different sources and opinions. Llull 14:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prune/merge as per Resolute. The List of wars series gives an example of what this might look like, I think it would be a lot more manageable. Kmusser 16:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Llull's most interesting comment above. Smeelgova 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Llull above. Neier 13:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or at best Merge into State leaders by year). While this is a nice concept, it is unworkable and is doomed to produce inaccurate, incomplete, and even laughable results. For example, check out List of state leaders in 337 and you'll see that there were apparently only 9 state leaders (and hence 9 sovereign states) in that year. Check out the List of religious leaders in 1701 (there are only 3!) and you'll see similar silliness. The fact is that for most of the world's history, we just don't know what the sovereign states and who religious leaders were and, as noted earlier, if you go back far enough, the concept is meaningless. MapMaster 20:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's not as you say. In the Middle Ages there were sovereign states with the same leader, and and feudal states to a bigger state but with different leaders. Today, an approximation to this situation is the "Commonwealth", with 16 sovereign states but all them with the same king. 80.39.162.25 22:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeffklib 06:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong keep - I would be open to alternative proposals on this topic. But simple deletion is quite absurd. I can easily imagine siutations in which this would be useful. I once had a world history project of drawing a world map in several given years, for example :/ savidan(talk) (e@) 03:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: They should all be marked as unreferenced and uncited and maybe renamed but the idea is pretty good and the articles are mostly accurate. The concept is just as good as any yyyy in subject article so deletion doesn't seem reasonable. Needing cleanup and verification is not a real good reason for deletion except in extreme cases. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cite verifiable resources.--Jusjih 10:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mattéo Zecchini[edit]

Non notable Belgian footballer, plays in third division (where there are normally no professional players). Zecchini + Walhain gives 38 distinct Google hits[64]. Fails WP:BIO. Fram 19:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIIR[edit]

Essay / original research / fork of existing articles. -- RHaworth 19:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. DesertSky85451 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It should be noted that the article creator removed the AfD template. It has since been replaced. Resolute 03:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please dont confuse this article with the essay. Please define article then, so that I can re-edit it acoordingly because I can't think of any other template.--Angad Bhat 10:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I share the same concern as the nominator does: That this is an original research essay, not an encyclopedia article. That you signed the essay with your name twice doesnt help. Neither do WP:POINT violations in retaliation for voting to delete this article. [65], [66], [67]. The only thing I can suggest is to rewrite the article such that it does not appear to be an essay. If this is a fork, some of the information may be better suited for existing articles. Resolute 16:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wikified, removed my name, shortned the length, re-framed. Now, please don't tell me again that its an essay .Angad Bhat 20:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is still an essay. It is also a fork farm - all but two of your sections are already covered by existing Wikipedia articles. -- RHaworth 07:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It still reads like a school paper, not an encyclopedia article. AubreyEllenShomo 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to Delete the article. --Konst.ableTalk 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GIS providing spatially- aware services[edit]

Despite the author's claim in an edit summary that this has been cleaned up, it is still an essay or fork of geographic information system. -- RHaworth 19:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with nominator most of it looks like spam, and the article name is not appropriate — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. Obviously someone tried hard to make this an encyclopedia article, but failed on WP:POVFORK as well as basic spelling and grammar. No encyclopedic merit in this form. Sandstein 20:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed, follow Wikipedia:Verifiability. →AzaToth 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian metal[edit]

This page needed deletion as it is spam and fails to have proper references. Indeed it only cites other sites of a similar nature which it promotes and therefore fails to be subjective. It is also ideologically dubious and there is probable vanity involved. No reliable sources, lack of notability not verifiable, To use wikipedia jargon i've seen here.

Moreover having been in the scene for many years I have never heard of anything as ridiculous as christian metal, this is an oxymoron and goes against everything this genre of music stands for, this is not heresy I will not recant.

Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall. The Crying Orc 19:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Six Thinking Hats - Yomanganitalk 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeBono Hats[edit]

NN-theory, very few google hits DesertSky85451 19:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snooty Sims[edit]

Contested prod. Original prod tag by User:Sillygostly said "There is absolutely no reason why this article should be on Wikipedia as its clearly an ad made by somebody behind the Snooty Sims website. Vanity pages, and articles which would be redundant in the future have no place here. This website would much better be suited as an external link in The Sims 2 main article." I added that the alexa rank is 65,256. Khatru2 19:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 20:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fansite. TJ Spyke 05:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've made my point clear. Despite the relevance of the website to The Sims 2 community, the article itself is completely useless. Sillygostly 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obatalian[edit]

Not sourced, probably a made-up term. Perimosocordiae 19:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if the information is correct, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bucketsofg 20:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kiaxx 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The information is correct to the best of my knowledge (though I don't know why it's spelled with an "l" rather than an "r"). But as stated above, WP is not a dictionary. -- Hoary 03:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a real term, although the romanization is wrong. It is as valid an article as Moe, Otaku or any other Japanese word with its own entry. MightyAtom 12:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since unlike "moe" and "otaku" this word does not have currency in English... and unlike those articles, this one defines a word rather than describing a cultural phenomenon (the latter belong in encylopedias, the former in dictionaries, and WINAD). — Haeleth Talk 09:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley Meth Lab[edit]

Band. While there is an assertion of noteworthiness, it is uncited and likely unverifiable ("large underground following"). The article mentions no releases; doing several searches, I was able to turn up one EP. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Article is also an orphan and hasn't been touched (aside from cats and notability/citation tags) since February, so it seems there's no interest in further developing it. Shimeru 20:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Simon[edit]

Originally deleted as A7, citing Wikipedia:Candidates and elections proposed guideline. Recreated. Proposed for deletion under A7 again, but primary point of Wikipedia:Candidates and elections has been met: first an article on the election, then articles about the candidates. So, whilst agreeing this is A7 in terms of the article itself, I have questions about the notability in general of the subject herself. So it comes here, with no opinion from me.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I added the speedy tag after noticing it had already been A7'd just a few days ago. But I'm a little confused by your remarks. I can't find any article on the election -- there isn't one linked from the Ellen Simon article, or from the incumbent's article, or from Arizona's 1st congressional district, where she's running. I also don't understand what you mean about the article being A7 but not the subject herself. Could you elaborate? - David Schaich 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Special:Whatlinkshere/Ellen_Simon - a check to be done before any speedy delete. It reveals United States House elections, 2006, United States House elections, 2006 complete list and Arizona United States House elections, 2006 as linked articles. As for WP:CSD's A7: this is quite specific - it requires an assertion of notability. So an article about someone notable can be deleted if the article doesn't even try to say why. At the same time, an article about someone who has no notability can't be deleted if the article gives good cause for why they are notable. For instance, I have no idea who the current president of India is; but they are notable for being president of India. If the article about them never mentioned that fact or any of their achievements, it could be deleted. If an article about somebody else provided proof that the person in question was president of India, even if I hadn't heard of them, it would still be grounds to keep. It's a fine line, and no reflection on you as speedy nominator. That's why we have admins elected for their experience in these things and AfD as a process of the community to discuss them in case better experts exist. Hope this helps! ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep First of all, in rebuttal to the above, the primary point of Wikipedia:Candidates and elections has not been met. Yes, the policy states: "first an article on the election", but the very next paragraph starts with the following statement: "This should not be used as a reason to delete candidate articles". Secondly, she won a five-way primary for the Democratic nomination in her district with almost triple her nearest opponent (i.e., she is no "sacrifical lamb" candidate). Finally, the latest poll has her ahead of the incumbent (see here). Yes, the article (clearly) needs beefing up, but that's no reason for deletion. I'll volunteer to help beef it up -- but only after this is resolved (I don't want to waste my time). It's three weeks before a pivotal election with national, and international, implications. Let's slow down on the deletion of articles on competitive candidates. -- Sholom 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, to quote the whole sentence, "This should not be used as a reason to delete candidate articles with plenty of third-party verifiability of notability if the only problem is that the election article has yet to be written. This is clearly not (yet) the case here, where there is barely an assertion of notability, much less verification. Please do your best to try to find reliable sources establishing Simon's notability as a major local political figure per WP:BIO; I'll revisit my vote once you've done so. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Major local political figure?" She won a five-way primary. Neverthless, I found some info (none of from her campaign literature) and added it in. (I'll sure hate to see this deleted now!) -- Sholom 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please don't mistake this for a vote or similar. This is just a discussion about the inclusion of this article in our encyclopedia. It is a request for comments on the article as it stands. No offence to the writer of the article or supporters/detractors of the candidate in question is implied or meant. This is simply a process that exists to improve Wikipedia. I'm simply looking for people to advise me/others on this article's place. Cup of tea, anyone? ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Umm, with all due respect, this AfD process IS a vote. If you'd just wanted comments, you might have considered Wikipedia:Requests for comment. And as for supporters/detractors of the candidate, I wouldn't recognize her or her opponent if I met the in the street and I'd feel exactly the same way if she had won a five-way Republican primary. I find it embarrassing that three weeks before the election, wikipedia editors are considering deleting an article on someone who has close to 50-50 odds of being elected to Congress. I realize that "usefulness" isn't a criteria for which biographical articles stay and don't, but with thousands of truly worthless articles already in wikipedia and incredible amounts of cleanup and other fixing needed, exactly why should time be spent debating keeping a biography that clearly is (a) not a vanity page, (b) not a soapbox/campaign page; and (c) actually useful to tens of thousands of voters in this Congressional district? John Broughton | Talk 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sturgis Charter Public School[edit]

Vanity page filled with rampant NPOV problems, as well as possible original research. Knowing Is Half The Battle 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails to assert notability. Essay is a non encyclopedic original research.--Húsönd 20:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ReverendG 20:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR WP:CITE WP:NPOV /Blaxthos 23:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a public high school, this school has inherent claims of notability, and the article more than meets the qualifications for retention. Again, this nominator makes charges of Vanity for a school that seem to belie a complete and utter misunderstanding of the term. See WP:COI, which explicitly states that "Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion — this has created serious problems. Remember that such an accusation may be defamatory. As explained below, an author's conflict of interest by itself is not a basis for deletion", which thoroughly undermines the case for deletion. The article had a lengthy section criticizing the structure of the school and its IB prgram, which has has been removed (and could have been removed -- or edited-- by any of the individuals who had an issue with the NPOV content). As one of only four schools in New England offering the IB program it makes explicit claims of notability. Alansohn 05:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn's (unsigned) reasoning above. --Rob 04:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - The use of the word vanity does not undermine the reasoning for deletion. The article is clearly written with a point of view. Additionally, the article has no source citations and appears to be rife with original research. Each of those issues individually are serious problems; all of them together make a strong case for deletion. /Blaxthos 05:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm aware that the POV section has been removed, but as a former student I know this Wikipedia article has been somewhat of a hot topic, and usually when the POV section was removed, the author reverted the article within a matter of hours. I really agree with Blaxthos' above comment however. I corrected a few factual inaccuracies relating to courses. Patrick Hurston 16:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've never seen potential for reinsertion of POV section as a justification for deletion. If it were, George W. Bush would have been deleted long ago (not that there wouldn't be those now considering this as an approach. Hmm...). A combination of monitoring the article on watchlists (it certainly is on my radar) and page protection should deal with the issue. You, of all people, are best suited to identify -- AND CORRECT (or at a minimum identify) -- the issues you have cited.
      • Reply A friend of mine (don't know his username) had tried to remove the POV pushing and rewrite the controversey section to make it more netural several times some months ago. The original author of the article (who apparently has a major ax to grind with the school) reverted most or all of his changes systematically every time, and eventually started accusing him of vandalism and "cheerleading". Patrick Hurston 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS If the article is indeed not deleted and the POV section is replaced, I will most certinally correct it, though if the original author is as vehement as he was when my friend tried, I can't gaurantee that my changes will stay. Patrick Hurston 20:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For many months, individuals claiming affiliation with the school--students, alumni, teachers, unspecified others--have attempted to obliterate details of the school's history and current standing, using the entry on Wikipedia to facilitate public relations, rather than increase public knowledge. Wikipedia administrators have repeatedly refused to sanction these effortson the basis that striving for NPOV does NOT require eliminating controversy, it requires acknowledging ascertainable facts and balancing conflicting accounts and interpretation. This effort requires thought, not politicking for deletion. The "friend of mine" cited above as a champion of truth was in fact soon thereafter banished from Wikipedia for vandalism. At this time, there exist more than 700 IB-affiliated high schools in the US, as well as thousands of charter schools, and tens of thousands of public high schools. None of these characteristics--IB-affiliated, charter, or high school--is itself notable. On the other hand, Sturgis is well-known for having made an explicit promise to its surrounding community that it would involve all students enrolled in the IB program, which according to IBO policies, requires IB testing of each student in each subject area. The fact that the school claims to be educating all students to IB standards without testing students at those standards is notable locally (because of the promise of the charter), nationally (because of the debate over the role of standards in education policy), and internationally (because of the violation of IBO policy and the implicit challenge to IBO control of IB standards). For the most part, the sanitized entry merely reiterates what is already available under pre-existing entries for the IBO or minutia from the school's handbook.
    • NPOV does not require balance. It requires inclusion of all significant and verifiable points of view. POV arguments invented by editors themselves are not verifiable and should not be added. Gazpacho 01:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have ways to deal with POV pushers. Gazpacho 01:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep dont give in to POV pushers, I agree with Gazpacho, we have ways to deal with them. Deletion is not an acceptable alternative for something that has a potential to be cleaned up.  ALKIVAR™ 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The section in question was not citied and not verified. Had it been cited and verifiable, that would be a different story, but it apparently, as far as I can see, ammounted to original research. Patrick Hurston 04:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have we not yet established the notability of high schools? It seems to me that we pretty much have, yet still the nominations come. -- Necrothesp 18:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is beyond old, go hash out your issues at WP:SCHOOLS or find something more constructive to do. RFerreira 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per my friends above from schoolwatch. --ForbiddenWord 14:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month. As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 16:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Can I say that, as someone who is not a "member" of Schoolwatch and dislikes being classified as such by people who think most school articles should be deleted, I don't really think it's in the spirit of Wikipedia to continue to nominate secondary schools for deletion when general consensus on AfD definitely seems to be that such articles should be kept. It's a pointless exercise, and often seems to be merely a (very poor) attempt to prove a point (i.e. we can continue to nominate these articles even though general consensus is against us). Just my opinion. -- Necrothesp 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the consensus that matters is the one that can turn out the most editors, and that is the group at Schoolwatch, as evidenced by the archived list of how many school articles have been deleted thanks to the voting efforts coordinated by that project page. --ForbiddenWord 17:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy. Stop trying to out-vote things and start doing what encyclopaedists are supposed to do: research. Cite sources. Don't parrot dogma. Uncle G 19:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know that Wikipedia is not democracy; consensus is the important thing in much of the project, though, and a very large and interested part of the community has declared their opinion on the notability of schools. That assuredly counts for a great deal in AFD, just to look at the other Keep users' comments for example, like Silensor's valuable additions to this discussion. Just look at the facts given in the article, like the 350 students figure and the budget of 1.2 million, and the fact that it's a school. That's a stronger claim by far than most articles have to notability. --ForbiddenWord 19:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator here has cited reasons for style editing, not deletion. Silensor 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a high school, the general consensus has been that high schools all meet notability TheRanger 17:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another high school. No assertion of notability. One's the same as the next, and this is one of them. —ptk✰fgs 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable school. Montco 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, notable school. Bahn Mi 02:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn's evidence of WP:SCHOOLS compliance 'The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools' (WP:SCHOOLS #4). Cynical 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all enduring public institutions. --Centauri 14:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please articles for deletion is not the right place for cleanup it meets guideline proposed Yuckfoo 02:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, subject is notable. bbx 20:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether it was made up in school or not, this is not verifiable with reliable sources. Also, the end of this discussion was just a flamewar between the article creator and an anonymous user. --Coredesat 07:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciribot[edit]

Non notable project, likely vanity, WP:NFT. Húsönd 20:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By mageknight53: I love this page, I put time into it. What do you mean "non notable"!? Play the game and see for yourself. And it's not vanity either. Besides, Ciribot was created 7 years ago.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mageknight53 (talk • contribs) .

Your contributions are welcome. However, please read Wikipedia's policies such as WP:NOT, WP:NFT, WP:RS, WP:V, to which I believe the article you created does not conform.--Húsönd 21:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this edit of yours clearly confirms that this article is unverifiable, non-notable, could even be considered a hoax.--Húsönd 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By Mageknight53: The game was released in October of 2005. Ludamad created Ciribot in 1999. That's why I changed it.

Ciricreator.:I don't know why this may be believed to be a "hoax", if you use a search engine and type in ciribot, u will find ciribot forums like http://forums.gamemaker.nl/index.php?showtopic=141602 , http://www.ciribotforums.xpt.net/ the ciribot website at http://www.freewebs.com/ciribotgames/index.htm and the site for the game download itself @ http://www.64digits.com/games/index.php?cmd=view_game&id=424

Ok, I believe that Ciribot is not a hoax. Still, those sources do not assert any notability. Furthermore, forums aren't the kind of sources we rely on. See WP:RS.--Húsönd 23:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient proof of notability. --NovaSTL 23:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Um... very nice, well done, but not suitable for an encyclopedia without reliably sourced claims of relevant notability Bwithh 00:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf, this page is weird...O_o

"Wikipedia is not for novel things you and your friend come up with in school or in your garage one day." - [[68]] Seriously, this article is a waste of space, I say that if less than 5 people care for its existence, it deserves to be deleted. Sorry if it hurts, but you can make your own website about this. Oh wait, you already have. - Kulinsj007

If you don't get it, read Ludamad's blog. Or play the game. -MK53 PS: What do you think about the game?

The page has been vandalized now, all well, it would be deleted anyway. For the record, this is the third time a ciribot article has been attempted, the third time it is being deleted, and the third time it was not anyone who made Ciribot making the article. Many things this page could be condemned for, true. But do not call it vanity, that insults me. - Ludamad

If it was already made and deleted two times, then you should have already learned your lesson. - kulinsj007

Quoted from you:""Wikipedia is not for novel things you and your friend come up with in school or in your garage one day." - [[69]] Seriously, this article is a waste of space, I say that if less than 5 people care for its existence, it deserves to be deleted. Sorry if it hurts, but you can make your own website about this. Oh wait, you already have. - Kulinsj007" Well, in fact, there are AT LEAST A THOUSAND people who care about it. And Ludamad came up with it in 1999, and created a videogame for it in 2005. So what do you mean "in school or in your garage one day"? That doesn't mean "over the course of 7 years". You just got OWNED! -Mageknight53


Kulinsj - it was not me who made it! So there is nothing to be learned. Mageknight, you DO realize you are saying that to the guy who came up with the idea of ciribot, right? (which I have mentioned is not me, but rather the person you just "owned"). In addition, as if you aren't clueless enough, he made the videogame along with me. This is just silly.-Ludamad

Kulinsj-i would like an explaination for who is using my name (kulinsj007) in this debate, I am the one who invented "ciribot" many years ago and since then, it's concept has been taken far by ludamad and I believe that it is worthy of an entry in wikipedia. More work is being done in the ciribot games and will likely gain popularity at it's release.-kulinsj

Sorry, I was busy laughing uncontrollably after reading those statements. All of them. Over 1000 people care about Ciribot? Yeah right. Come on, I see the forum on your ciribot site, theres 318 posts from 272 users. 92 of which are from the creators. An average of 0.83 posts from non-creators. And outside of the top 5 posters, there's an average of 0.54 posts per user. I guess they REALLY care about ciribot. And also, if its 7 years old, don't you think you'd grow out of that kind of thing by now? Come on. And for the record, mageknight (nice name, are you a level 72 dungeon master?) I didn't "get owned." Whether you've been obsessing over it for 7 years or not, it's still something that you made up in school or in your garage one day, and is still useless information to the world. This is an encyclopedia, not a worldwide diary for things you do with your friends. You have your own site, get over the fact that just about nobody cares about ciribot. More people care about this rock [[70]] than your little ciribot.

Wait a sec... Luda didn't make Ciribot? And besides, more than a thousand people DO care. Try 64Digits. =P Owned, -Mageknight53

Once again, mageknight, I tried 64digits, and theres 109 downloads and 33 comments. 1000>109. Stop saying that over 1000 people care if only 109 downloaded it, and theres about 20 of those people that actually bothered to comment (most of the comments are responses from "ludamad" who I prefer to call adam). I downloaded it myself too, and got bored in a couple minutes. I went to play games on my SNES, much more entertaining. Anybody can make a little game like that with a gamemaker program. And stop saying "owned" when you are just making yourself look like an idiot by saying things that are obviously not true. I still think it's funny you call yourself "mageknight" too, what are you going to do, blast me with a fireball spell? Please, you are doing nothing to help defend the game, you don't even know who created Ciribot. Making invalid, untrue and exaggerated comments doesn't help win an argument, especially if you back them up with something as stupid as "owned."

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

Well, just the idea of deleting this topic just destroys the purpose of the game itself. without this to support it, it shall be forgotten and will be left to rot in the internet junkyard, along with many others.

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstable High School[edit]

Vanity page, very little encyclopedic content. Knowing Is Half The Battle 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom ReverendG 20:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable school. I added some details. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have near-complete agreement that high schools are inherently notable. While this article can use more details and expansion, it demonstrates far above the minimum necessary to justify retention. I can never understand why some users devote so much time to AfDs without taking the time to "try to make general improvements when I see them needing to be done". Alansohn 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and notable school. --Carioca 03:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nom's claim this is vanity appears to be false. If you think it is vanity, then explain how/why, and then feel free to fix that, and any other problems you see in the article (no deletion required). --Rob 04:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep doesn't appear to be vanity (at least now). Fg2 07:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Current content doesn't appear to be vanity. — RJH (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand! Patrick Hurston 00:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Large high school. -- Necrothesp 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the notability of this school, I find a subtle irony in this nomination.  ;-) RFerreira 01:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- pointless nomination thanks mostly to the numbers of votes schoolwatch can turn out. --ForbiddenWord 14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointless comment. AfD is not a vote. Do you have an actual argument as to notability, other than the argument-by-assertion made by RFerreira et al? Pan Dan 15:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia's decision-making process is about consensus, and the consensus is that all schools are notable. Just see the general results of how many schools have been deleted at the schoolwatch link I provided for further proof of that. --ForbiddenWord 17:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no consensus that "all schools are notable." When an AfD results in "No consensus," that's effectively a "keep," but it still means--um--"no consensus." Pan Dan 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if the consensus at schoolwatch is that all schools are notable, and the editors from there can show up in large numbers to influence AFDs however they like, and no consensus = keep, then all deletion nominations are efforts in futility, and my above comment about pointless nominations is right. --ForbiddenWord 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment There is no consensus all schools are notable, primarily evidenced by the number of school AfD's that end in no consensus. Largescale opinion spamming by a wikiproject (as you've describe above; I'm not stating the wikiproject actually does this) may be effective, but it doesn't prove consensus. Your logic above is flawed and just demonstrates an example of gaming the system.--Isotope23 19:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think that there's any effort to take advantage of the system. I think the reason School AFDs continue to be such a problem is that there is a small, vocal minority that would mostly like to see all but the most popular schools' articles deleted and a large majority of editors who have declared consensus that schools are notable and that verifiability needs to be the factor considered in AFDs. --ForbiddenWord 19:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • How odd, I would think that there is a small but vocal minority that wants to keep all schools and that most editors don't. Given that most of the keeps in these AfDs come from established schoolwatch editors (by your own description) and that frequent deletes come from editors who don't have anything to do with school articles at all the above claim is very hard to understand and seems to border on projection. JoshuaZ 19:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment, actually... School AfD's are such a problem because neither side of the debate has the majority they wish they had, and there is no incentive for both sides to sit down and try and hammer out a good faith compromise (and the views are so far apart I'm not even sure compromise is possible). I'd say it is a pretty safe bet that this will go on ad infinitum as long as Wikipedia exists. If a majority exists at Wikipedia, it is the teeming mass of editors who just don't care one way or another.--Isotope23 20:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Hah. Probably more true than most of the school editors would want to admit. JoshuaZ 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment - ForbiddenWord wrote "a large majority of editors who have declared consensus that schools are notable"...I just visited schoolwatch, and there's a handful of editors that have expressed opinions on the talk page there, but not at all a large number of people, and there's no listing of editors that endorses ForbiddenWord's opinion. Ironically, there is, instead, a statement that the project was going to remain neutral.... Akradecki 21:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this decent article about a notable and large high school, nomination made under false pretenses. Silensor 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously non-notable school. I don't think I will ever be able to wrap my head around why people cling to every school stub like it's a holy relic. —ptk✰fgs 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in the article asserts notability. Montco 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added a reference to a hazing incident reported by the Boston Herald. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the athletic successes mentioned in the article satisfy WP:SCHOOLS. Cynical 11:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all enduring public institutions. --Centauri 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Would you favor an article for every DMV office? Pan Dan 22:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. And eventually we probably will. --Centauri 01:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...and while you are at it, add your local McDonalds' too! In many towns it is an important social center.--Isotope23 14:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools.  ALKIVAR™ 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all schools. This is a global encyclopedia; "notability" isn't satisfied by merely being notable in the school's local community. -Amatulic 22:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your comment as to notability, but c'mon, you wouldn't delete all schools would you? Shouldn't a school that's featured in multiple non-trivial, non-local sources, like Phillips Academy, be kept? Pan Dan 15:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is notable no explanation made how it is vanity Yuckfoo 02:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, db-group. Deizio talk 22:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weast Coast[edit]

Non-notable, non-sourced, seems like Original Research. ReverendG 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson family (Glendora, California)[edit]

Not worthy for the encyclopedia IrnBru001 21:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. ReverendG 21:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable; vanity (?); not verified. Bucketsofg 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn family. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entirely nn family. Deizio talk 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might be notable, might not be. Article doesn't contain anything particularly convincing either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to Delete the article. --Konst.ableTalk 11:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Bianchi[edit]

Terrible, embarrassing, self-penned vanity. But lots of claims of notability, which, if true, would make a substantially rewritten article a useful addition. Originally nominated for speedy deletion under CSD-A7, the above stopped me from deleting it but also stopped me from just keeping it. Opinions, please.➨ ЯEDVERS 21:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Reads like a magazine vanity piece. ReverendG 21:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, stub and rewrite. He meets WP:MUSIC, I think: among other things he's won a Gaudeamus_Prize. Bucketsofg 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per {{db-spam}}, so tagged. Someone who cares, and who is not Oscar Bianchi, can then do the rewrite Bucketsofg is proposing. Sandstein 20:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a company, product, group or service as stated by {{db-spam}}. This is a person, and he asserts notability under our existing rules. This could be false, or not enough, but it is an assertion of notability as we require. Not a speedy delete and tag removed. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you're right strictly speaking, but since he's essentially presenting himself in his professional capacity as a (presumably paid) musician providing entertainment services, I could also see us applying db-spam per analogiam. That's exactly the sort of text it was created for. Sandstein 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a company, product, group or service as stated by {{db-spam}}. This is a person, and he asserts notability under our existing rules. This could be false, or not enough, but it is an assertion of notability as we require. Not a speedy delete and tag removed. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Er, yes, thank you, I did read what you wrote the first time around. No point in wasting precious bytes here :-) Sandstein 21:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of vanity, article created by a user with the same name as the article, so it meets WP:COI. If it's really relevant, let's have other people write the article from a WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dockingman (talk • contribs)
  • I support deletion, but it should be noted that per WP:COI, "an author's conflict of interest by itself is not a basis for deletion". Sandstein 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... per {{db-spam}} or WP:SPAM ("Advertisements masquerading as articles"), if that's not clear from my above comment. Sandstein 21:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it's not clear to me that the Gaudeamus prize is sufficient to meet WP:MUSIC, and in any case the article has problems with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Vectro 04:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoonieCast[edit]

Contested prod. This is an article about a fansite which does not meet our criteria for web inclusion additionally, this information is duplicated (actually copied and pasted) from the wikimoon article (which has an incompatible license with wikipedia) [71]. An internet phenomenon should have more than 20 google hits. It also appears that this article was entirely created and edited by the people who created the website. --Kunzite 21:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kunzite 21:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete looks to be edited mainly by the people responsible for it. Non-notable fansite, or podcast, or whatever it is. Get rid of it. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even though it looks very pretty and is nicely-written. A metric I like is, "Will anyone ever hear about this out-of-context?" In this case, the answer is probably no. Everyone who hears about the Mooniecast will have a pretty good understanding what it is. If you can learn everything there is to know about something in one conversation, it just doesn't need an article in an encyclopedia. You'd rather have them go to your own website anyway, right? --Masamage 00:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the reasons these sort of things are added is to direct people to the website. Wikipedia has quite a few mirrors and it helps with google search rank and the like. --Kunzite 01:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, that makes sense. --Masamage 03:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its not referenced and can not be verified. Also, doesnt meet WP:WEB like Kunzite said. Also, Wikipedia is NOT and advertising medium. Websites get covered here AFTER they attain notability and not in order to GAIN notability. Shinhan 05:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nadsat lexicon[edit]

Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary and prior precedent in transwikiing and deleting lexicons, this article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Lexicons are only lists of words and their translations/definitions, which is not encyclopedic.I have transwikied it to Wiktionary and formatted it myself, see wikt:Concordance:A Clockwork Orange. As such, it should be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 21:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definately should not be deleted. extermley useful when reading the book.

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, db-bio. Deizio talk 22:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Heilpern[edit]

questionable notability; article reads like an advertisement, cover letter, or resumé - CobaltBlueTony 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostage High[edit]

Delete. Non-notable homemade film. The article has no sources and does not state when or where the film will be screened. It's not the same made-for-TV Hostage High that starred Freddie Prinze Jr. ... discospinster talk 21:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Obvious homemade film. SubSeven 03:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When you try to claim notability by saying it is your first film involving blood, you strike out. Resolute 04:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't even qualify under the proposed WP:NOTFILM guidelines. Hostage High is actually the DVD release title of the truely notable "The Siege at Johnson High." [72] --Marriedtofilm 04:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; definitely non-notable --Mhking 02:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jeff Silvers 14:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this a homemade movie? What qualifes something as homemade? Besides this movie was shot on locations, and even with a ridiculously low budget, it was not a homemade movie. I never seen the movie Siege At Johnson High, so I couldn't have took the name from them, but it's your word against mine. So I renamed my film, not for you, for myself. Delete the nom. What is that? If you want to delete it, then delete the motherfucker already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.82.239 (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 - consensus is it doesn't quite make it yet. - Yomanganitalk 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate King Online[edit]

Article fails to even allege notability. I PRODded it, the prod was removed on the odd argument that this being a commercial piece of software, PROD doesn't apply. Whatever. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep This is a real online game, though fairly new, so I wouldn't expect much for it, and it was recently blanked because of game guide concerns. Since this game is so new though, I'd rather give it a month or two to see if it has legs before deleting it. That said, they do have a profile on Gamespot, so it may be notable enough. FrozenPurpleCube 22:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim to encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a games database Bwithh 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, the prod was removed per Wikipedia policy, which states that once a prod is removed for any reason, the article is not supposed to be subsequently re-prodded. See the WP:PROD page for more details. If the original author hadn't removed the notice, I probably would have as it appears to meet WP:SOFTWARE (although rather poorly and without citing sources). The catch is that I don't care enough about the article to actually bother improving it, which is why I suggested sending it to regular AfD. --Alan Au 02:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking the history, it looks like I actually removed the original prod. Regardless, needs to undergo a regular AfD. --Alan Au 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only because you deprodded it for specious reasons. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In hindsight, I was a bit terse in the edit summary. The implication about of my comment about it being a commercial piece of software was that it meets WP:SOFTWARE regarding third-party coverage (game reviews and strategy guides in print, etc.). I typically reserve prod for unsalvageable articles. Of course, the irony is that I'm not personally interested in salvaging the current article, which is why I suggested sending it to AfD. Please see the article talk page for more information. --Alan Au 18:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Alan Au 02:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC) --Alan Au 02:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's toeing the crystal ball line, but with an entry at GameSpot and an open beta, deleting it now will ultimately result in a restoration later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A GameSpot entry does set it aside from the cesspit of free MMOs, but it's still only in beta; it might be suddenly taken down (like Multiplayer BattleTech 3025) and then fade into obscurity. The current article is pretty rough, but if it achieves notability avid fans will provide something better. Until it attracts those avid fans, though, I think it falls just short of inclusion. GarrettTalk 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to have non-trivial multiple reliable sources yet. Wickethewok 15:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense by Interiot - Yomanganitalk 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gullahooten[edit]

unsubstantiated neologism; violates WP:NOT CobaltBlueTony 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, db-bio. Deizio talk 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karu[edit]

Delete. Pretty much nonsense about some forum user, but the speedy tag was removed. ... discospinster talk 21:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cars 2[edit]

no source, possible hoax, Wikipedia is not cystall ball. Google yeilds no results --Coasttocoast 21:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as hoax. ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 22:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. You'd think Google would have heard of it wouldn't you? The Land 22:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete. no proof of existence. Rampart 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. What do you mean there are no google results? What about the BBC article about it being sold in Peru? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixariscool (talk • contribs)
    • Keep this article becuase a blackmarket vendor from Peru claimed that Cars 2 had been made but not released? Should that be cited or what......--Coasttocoast 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. No official announcement from Disney/Pixar, no movie. And another thing. How can Joe Ranft Direct/Star in it when he passed away last year? RMS Oceanic 14:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Pixar (understandably) takes quite a long time to make a 90-minute movie. Not that I believe this exists. But the Ranft thing isn't why.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That's not a speedy deletion criterion, however. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax and fancruft. Storm05 16:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. Radagast83 18:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was a Speedy and a salt JForget 23:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bemanistyle[edit]

Bemanistyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This has been deleted and recreated six times now. Rather than carry on wasting everyone's time playing whack-a-mole with it, bringing it here for either a decision that it does somehow pass WP:WEB, or once-and-for-all decision to delete. (If the latter, I strongly recommend salting this and Bemanistyle.com.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Blatant advertising, re-creation of deleted article with no improvement, non-notable. and please, for the love of pie, SALT. - superβεεcat  17:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt. Re-create in userspace and send to DRV at this point. - Chardish 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Article has been recreated too many times, never with demonstration of notability, and current creator is disrupting other articles about web pages in an effort to prove his point. Any new creator who has actual sources can take it to DRV.-FisherQueen (Talk) 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a copyvio since the new creator copied it out of a cached version and therefore lost the edit history. Salt. And warn the originator about being civil in edit summaries. Corvus cornix 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. How many times do we need to say it before its done????? Burntsauce 22:00, 26 September 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 Merge. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown (-core)[edit]

Article is an unnecessary, barely expanded, unreferenced fork of a section in the Metalcore article. Deizio talk 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, however this page does need lots of expanding, breakdown is usually a core element that makes up metalcore. Otherwise if this is not getting expanded, then get it merged into the metalcore article. Invictious 09:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge It is an important part of the metalcore genre, but due to its length should be merged into the metalcore article. Limetom 03:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nominator even though he listens to fireball ministry. This could be a section in metalcore, but many metal genres make use of breakdowns, although their exact nature differs from genre to genre (for example, in certain more commercial black metal variants the breakdown is employed as a cheap means to put a slow, haunting keyboard-intensive bit in the middle of the song). Death to false metal. The Crying Orc 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into metalcore. Keep the content, as it is informative, but seems to not warrant its own article at this time. AubreyEllenShomo 17:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above.--Jusjih 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 07:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Theological Seminary[edit]

Unaccredited bible college, no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources of provable authority. Guy 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per norm. /Blaxthos 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The seminary is accredited. Please see http://www.chea.org/search/actionInst.asp?CheaID=168989 , which I have added as a reference. Evidently CHEA is satisfied that the seminary is accredited by the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS), Commission on Accrediting. I added references to the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. There is lots of news coverage available for this school. --JJay 01:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Small but sufficiently notable. --Flex 18:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is accredited. The U.S. organization that comes closest to overseeing accreditation recognizes four different types of accrediting organizations, of which the regionals are not the largest. The accrediting body is recognized by that organization. GRBerry 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a small, but accredited. Qmax 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its accredited... I think it deserves an article.  ALKIVAR™ 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The copyvio version has been deleted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuen Shan Senior High School[edit]

  • Keep. Notable school, but not fully translated. I added a link to the official site in case anyone is interested in expanding the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyvio--Oppengd 01:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this article can be recreated very quickly with non-Copyvio material, we have little choice. Alansohn 02:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per truth.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I created a noncopyvio version at Talk:Kuen Shan Senior High School/Temp. It's just a stub, but high schools in general are notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process via copyvio procedure. — RJH (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep non copyvio version please the school is notabel Yuckfoo 20:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep non copyvio rewrite.  ALKIVAR™ 03:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep non-copyvio version as rewritten, now meets our WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, etc. RFerreira 00:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite by TT, trash the other one as copyvio policy dictates. Silensor 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable school. I prefer the copyvio version in Chinese, however, as its length implies a greater probability that some assertion of notability may be contained within. —ptk✰fgs 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Am I missing something about the 'rewrite' by TT? It just mentions the name of the school and where it is. This isn't an article, it's a telephone directory entry. Cynical 11:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Anyone wanting to learn about it can look at the web site where the copyvio stuff came from. -Amatulic 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the rewrite is just one-sentence and impromptus, why not just delete and wait for an interested editor to recreate from null? --Vsion 03:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing more than a directory entry (the rewrite, that is). --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, non copyvio rewrite. bbx 20:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Things Done for Kentucky's Homeless[edit]

Non-notable, no sources, vanity, original research /Blaxthos 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge into Allentown, Pennsylvania. KrakatoaKatie 03:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tilghman Street[edit]

I usually support the inclusion of most roads, but this one is simply not notable. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is a major street in the third largest city in the state. It is cross-referenced in many other articles. It is poorly written, and I was about to save some substantial improvements to it, right when you entered your AFD nomination. It should be kept, and it does need some editorial attention to improve grammar and phrasing. PAWiki 23:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this article states absolutely nothing besides "this is a road, it used to be part of a highway but it isn't anymore." Also, it has no sources and reads like it was written from someone's personal experience of driving the road, which makes it WP:OR. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Like Rschen, I normally support the inclusion of road-related articles, but there's no need to have an article on a non-notable road that no longer carries any designation of any kind. Even when it did have a designation, the designation wasn't restricted to that road, so there's no need to keep the article from a historical perspective. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Merge and redirect. Merge the content with U.S. Route 22 in Pennsylvania and Allentown, Pennsylvania, and redirect the article to U.S. Route 22 in Pennsylvania. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, removing the original-researchy stuff, with Allentown, Pennsylvania. Per WP:LOCAL, it's significant to the city, so it should be covered in the city article. JYolkowski // talk 01:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's admitedly a very poorly written article and there's a lot of notable information about the road that's missing. That would support strengthening it, not deleting, it. PAWiki 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a lot of information about this road is added to Allentown, Pennsylvania, it would make sense to break it back out into its separate article at that time. Right now though there isn't a lot of information in the article, so from an overall quality perspective it's probably best covered in the town article. JYolkowski // talk 22:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Looks like the main throroughfare of Allentown. Aspects relating to its modern role in the city should be merged with the city article. Its role as an old alignment of US 22 should be merged with the US 22 in Pennsylvania article. --Polaron | Talk 02:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not against merging the US 22 portion into the US 22 in PA article; however, as of right now, the US 22 state-specific article doesn't exist. When it is created, Lehigh Valley Thruway should be merged into it as well. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. If this road is significant to Pennsylvania roads as well as Allentown, then it should be merged with the Allentown, Pennsylvania article. --myselfalso 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Polaron.-- HowardSF-U­-T-C- 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NZIST[edit]

Non-notable organization that fails the WP:ORG and WP:ADS criterias. Google only shows around 20 relevant results [73].--TBCΦtalk? 22:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as advertising spam. Article created by Single Purpose Account[74] belonging to webmaster/secretary of NZIST[75].Probably a decent-minded organization and a good faith article creation, but non-profits are subject to new stringent policy on spam as much as commercial companies Bwithh 00:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are an incorprorated organisation in New Zealand with around 300 active members established in 1996 - this is not spam advertising. It is purely informative for the history and progress of the organisation to be recorded. We have mainly been using our own listserv ([email protected]) to discuss technical and educational issues. I thought it was time for the group to be recorded permanently. Gil Hunter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterg (talk • contribs)

--Daniel Olsen 02:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. If possible, this vote can be used for the entire garden. /Blaxthos 07:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Gerry Ashton 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Program Schedule[edit]

Schedule (violates WP:NOT) /Blaxthos 07:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because there's no telling which ABC this is referring to, but I can't for the life of me think of which one it might be. It actually seems more like Nick programming than ABC, and I think they are sharing with CBS, not ABC anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 14:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A1, no context. Nickelodeon shows on the schedule, no ABC kids block, not even old CBS kids block. Can't comprehend what this is. Plus, does not disambiguate between the Australian and US nets.
That would be the Phillipines, actually. I can accept that this network might have a notable prime-time programming block of the same value as the US ones, but daily programming is a bit much. FrozenPurpleCube 20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While it doens't say it anywhere (that I know of), wikipedia is not TV Guide. AubreyEllenShomo 17:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable, perpetually changing data. -Amatulic 22:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_October_15&oldid=1081097482"