Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 18 October 20 >

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 - was already deleted

PastShows[edit]

Reason Tony 23:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Regardless of what happens with the other other related articles I concur that this should be deleted. I was following the model of what I thought was Wikipedia but was actually a Wikia (or whatever those semi-related sites like Glennpedia are).--Tony 23:24, 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Steve W. Stiles[edit]

Steve W. Stiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Steve W. Stiles page should not be deleted because he is an important figure in the world today and his biography desereves to be on wikipedia.

I agree Steve W. Stiles page should not be deleted because if it were not up he life would be over.

Nah, this shit is too sick

you can't delete a guy that had 74 homers and over 200 rbis in one season with the DEVILRAYS!!

Steve W. Stiles is the hero of Washingintonville and should be respected as such.

If you delete this article many young women will surely kill themselves.

Steve W. Stiles' legend MUST live on!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will cry if it is delete and there will be a rebellion

If you delete this article you will then have to fear the wrath of Steve W. Stiles

Speedy Delete: vanity, nonsense. Hu 13:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: The article was speedy-deleted by an admin (not me). Hu 07:20, 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 per CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Stevenson[edit]

DELETE not notable at all. 4.18GB 01:48, 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.


A concensus has been reached to delete the page. Thank you for your participation in the discussion. —Encephalon 15:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Basic English core words[edit]

This article is nothing more than a conlang's list of words linking to Wiktionary. As such, per common practice and WP:WINAD, I have transwikied it to Wiktionary as an appendix (wikt:Appendix:Basic English word list), fixed all links to it, and put a big {{wiktionary}} box pointer to it at Basic English [1]. It is now ready to be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Dmcdevit·t 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, not hurting anything, gives a sense of how basic the language is. Gazpacho 00:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not being erased, it has moved to Wiktionary, where it has been linked to now more prominently than the other list was. Of course it's not hurting anything. What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Dmcdevit·t 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up. This appears to be one writer's POV regarding which words English words should be considered basic, yet the title and introductory context have an obvious matter-of-fact tone to them. — CharlotteWebb 02:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is this one writer's opinion of the English core words, but it is taken directly off of another website word for word. What possible significance or reason is there for this to be an article on Wikipedia? Wikipediarules2221 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. If it's already been moved to Wiktionary, it's ready to be deleted. Besides, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --BradBeattie 03:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BradBeattie. —Khoikhoi 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trans-wiki to Wiktionary or just delete but unfortunately this is not suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (I see that {{db-transwiki}} only applies if AFD has already taken place.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think there's a place for this article, just not wikipedia. MonkBirdDuke 08:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and User:MonkBirdDuke's comment. --JaimeLesMaths 09:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trans-wiki wiktionary should have something like this but not wikipedia. James086 Talk | Contribs 11:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Recury 14:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from wikipedia per nom. (I support the Trans-wiki already done by the nominator.) AubreyEllenShomo 17:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per Commen Sense--Seadog.M.S 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An external link to these words can surely be found and would be sufficient, definitely no need for a Wikipedia article. -Elmer Clark 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is not just "one writer's opinion of the English core words" as many of the delete noms are stating (showing a disappointing lack of investigation into what they're voting to delete), this is "The 850 words as grouped and listed by C.K. Ogden in The ABC of Basic English (1932)", a notable concept (see Basic English) which has been promoted by such figures as Churchill and Roosevelt. Deleting this copy is fine, as all the links are to Wiktionary anyway, but I wish the earlier voter's would understand why it is fine. --Quiddity 23:52, 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. DS 01:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentimental Horde[edit]

Sentimental Horde is a non notable webcomic, seen here. Google brings up 80 hits, Alexa shoots back with a million+ rank. - Hahnchen 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete based on WP:WEB and no third party publications making it unverifiable. --Wafulz 01:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, not verifiable. Hello32020 01:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, also article has almost no content. NawlinWiki 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. WP:WEB lists 3 criteria for notability. This article fails all three. Furthermore, "the article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section."
  • Delete per...WP:WEB. —Khoikhoi 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, fails WP:WEB, unverifiable.--Lord of Illusions 05:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per... everybody. EVula 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per, why the heck is this on here it is most likly spam--Seadog.M.S 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly non-notable per above -Elmer Clark 01:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Blecccch. Johnbrownsbody 10:54, 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 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Traveling Gnome[edit]

Can more people please start nominating and deleting webcomics? This webcomic, seen here is hosted on the free web host Comic Genesis which pretty much proves its not popular. Now, before we use {{db-web}}, someone is going to point out that it was nominated for the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. I'm going to state categorically that a nomination means absolutely nothing, being that there are roughly 100 comics nominated every year, and all the WCCA's are, are an online poll. If this were notable, there'd be quite a few reliable sources available when Googling its title, instead, it just generates 76 unique hits. - Hahnchen 00:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. As an aside: there are too many awards out there as its so easy to start an award. Not just on the web, but on TV, in newspapers, random publicity campaigns. It can be a very poor indicator of notability/achievement. Bwithh 01:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But when I think crappy webcomics, I think Hahnchen! ...Yeah. ;^_^ Delete Danny Lilithborne 02:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; no reliable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 04:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think webcomics deserve their own article until they demonstrate form of notability. MonkBirdDuke 08:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To consider I only added the comic after I saw a few listings that were asking for a wiki page for Tales of the Traveling Gnome. The comic itself has had over 10,000 readers for months now, and it's constantly ranked in the top 150 comics in all of ComicGenesis ( Reference Link ) even though it's never done any advertising that I'm aware of. However, do as you see fit, if I erred in listing it, then I did and I apologize. -Hartm, 10:19 AM Eastern, 19 Oct 06
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Artist got a nomination, but didn't win (closest thing to assertion that I could find). EVula 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this does not appear to meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not convinced that this award nomination constitutes evidence of notability. -Elmer Clark 01:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed - "nominated" is not equivalent to "award-winning," hence not notable. Johnbrownsbody 10:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts Among these comments I've yet to see something that comes specifically from the guidelines to deletion. The closest I see is 'not notable' which in this seems more a matter of opinion based on a seeming bias towards webcomics. (See first line of nomination.. notice suggestion is towards all webcomics) The WCAA is actually considered a prestigious award ceremony among webcomic artists, and the fact that hundreds participate actually goes forward to show this. The idea that it takes place on line should make sense, given that the people involved aren't rich and live hundreds or more miles apart. The idea that 'being listed at Comic Genesis' makes it not popular and even crappy is yet mere opinion yet again. Many comics that have gone on to be very popular, and featured at Keenspot the 'holy grail' of webcomics started at ComicGenesis. Yes there are many crappy comics there, but that does not by default denote bad without so much as a perusal of the actual comic. It's a resource, therefore attracts good and bad. There are not specific rules against webcomics being listed in Wikipedia. Nor are there specific implied rules that webcomics must be 'popular' or 'noteworthy'. I can't imagine there could be, because such terms tend to be the realm of opinion, and wikipedia tends to take a neutral stance instead of opinionated stances. Deletion on opinion is expressing of opinion. Deletion just because of being a webcomic is doing the same. -JH (reachable at [email protected]) 10:19 AM Eastern, 24 October 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triquetra Cats[edit]

Not notable webcomic, seen here on a free web host. Manages 80 unique links, all of them worthless. See Talk:Triquetra Cats also, for a possible message from the webcomic writer. - Hahnchen 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. I found this a bit awkward. The article was created today, and the creator of the manga noticed it in the same day, and the AfD is listed in the same day. Anyways, the comic is obviously not notable enough to be listed here. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 04:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete--and protect from re-creation until the title has been featured in a MSM article if ever. I'm the writer of the comic, and even I understand we haven't paid the dues necessary to be here Chrysicat 06:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply non-notable. The content of the article would be best served on the comic's website, not here. EVula 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Chrysicat, and by WP:SPEEDY. Article doesn't claim notability. CSD A7 is met. Also: Comic authorship doesn't assert notability. Who are we to argue with the comic's own authorship about its notability? WP:NN AubreyEllenShomo 21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - We argue with authors all the time over their works notability. Mostly they're wrong and misguided. - Hahnchen 01:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - All the more reason not to argue with this one. AubreyEllenShomo 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification - Per Elmer Clark, below, I want to clarify my position. I am applying WP:SPEEDY only, specifically CSD A7. I am not suggesting the author be given undue weight in the AfD process, which would be a violation of policy and process. I'm not even suggesting that the author be given undue weight in THIS AfD. I'm merely pointing out that 1) The article doesn't claim notability. 1a) The article's author didn't claim notability. 2) The article has been reviewed by numerous editors and none have added claims of notability. 3)The deletion appears non-contentious. 4) The subject has had a chance to review the article, and did not add a claim of notability. That the author doesn't think it's notable is only a plus, not a central reason. It shows even clearer consensus. (On a side note, per AQu01rius, it is interesting that the subject, or rather the subject's author, noticed it the same day it was created and asked for an AfD.) I believe in process, but I believe the AfD process is unnecessary here. It's the wrong process. There is consensus on deletion. WP:SPEEDY is met. There is no reasonable chance of there being dissent through the rest of the AfD period. The only discussion is wether to speedy delete or just normal delete. Anyway, I think I've clarified where I am comming from. It doesn't really matter at this point, I suppose. AubreyEllenShomo 16:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability, although I agree that the author's input should be no stronger than anyone else's, even if he is voting for deletion. -Elmer Clark 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 19:52, 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. --Coredesat 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westbourne School[edit]

School w/o assertion of significance - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with either Sheffield or Broomhill per WP:LOCAL. Verifiable, just not a lot of info right now so the subject might be best treated in an article about the community. JYolkowski // talk 01:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete There's no reason for this article to exist on its own. -- Kicking222 03:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to assert notability.--Húsönd 03:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added the inspection report by the Independent Schools Inspectorate. All high schools are notable, and this school includes the high school grades. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 11:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are less than 30 secondary schools in Sheffield, a city of more than half a million people, so it's notable in that context. It is regrettable that so many school articles in Wikipedia are so dull and empty, but my general view is that every school is worthy of a place. Emeraude 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. --Daniel Olsen 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all enduring public institutions. --Centauri 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Would you favor an article for every post office and every DMV office? Pan Dan 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. EVula 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JYolkowski, or else keep. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a comprehensive school with more than enough information available to justify the promise of future expansion. The additions by TruthbringerToronto provide additional sources, and the INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS INSPECTORATE INSPECTION REPORT ON Westbourne School makes for fascinating reading on the school's functions and programs. Alansohn 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The government inspection report shows verifiability, yes. Notability, no. In general, the existence of non-trivial third-party sources shows that the outside world (as represented by the publisher of the source) deems the subject notable, hence we Wikipedians consider it notable enough for inclusion. But a government an inspection report on a school isn't published because its publisher, or anybody, deems the school notable, it's published because government schools are accountable to the public parents. So the government inspection report is not enough to show that this school is notable. Pan Dan 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on the above two contributions: It is not a comprehensive school. It is a fee paying private school. It is NOT a government report (which is not to say it is not as rigourour.) The Independent Schools Inspectorate is an inspectorate of independent (i.e. private) schools which are not inspected by the government OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education). Emeraude 23:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn.  ALKIVAR™ 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of notability. I do not agree that all high schools should have an article. Mention it in an article on the town. Edison 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why not have a lit of schools in the area article, rather than each specific school. There is no real reason to have an article on a school, unless it is famous in it's own right, which I don't think this is. Craighennessey 23:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the most disputed topics in the history of AfD, I read in one of the namespace pages (I can't remember which), is the notability of schools (see WP:SCHOOL. I think it says secondary schools are decided as inherently notable. So keep it. That being said, the article doesn't say much. 129.98.197.86 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think a consensus needs to be reached at WP:SCHOOL before we start deleting articles on high schools. -Elmer Clark 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools (see also User:JoshuaZ/Schools if you are so inclined). Also meets criteria in proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline and is verifiable subject matter. Silensor 05:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel all schools deserve an article. Though this one does require significant expansion. Konman72 06:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the norm. Alpharigel 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. --Myles Long 06:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge do not keep. Don't wait on WP:SCHOOL since it is not likely to reach consensus. Even if it does, this article does not meet the minimal requirements in that proposal. Vegaswikian 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't even try to assert notability.Glendoremus 05:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Catchpole 11:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets all content policies (indeed, there is no suggestion that it does not). Christopher Parham (talk) 17:29, 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 16:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlogAdvance[edit]

This website doesn't meet WP:WEB inclusion criteria. No major third party publications about it, and no awards. Alexa ranking of approximately 106,000. There are plenty of Google hits, but it's a traffic exchange website, so this is a given. --Wafulz 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article lacks sufficient independent verification to satisfy WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 02:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, it's too minor. James086 Talk | Contribs 11:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 11:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks and feels like spam. EVula 15:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability on any scale that would satisfy WP:WEB -Elmer Clark 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 11:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bloggy. Anomo 02:20, 21 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 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Divine[edit]

This was originally speedy deleted per A7 after a brief AfD yesterday. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure) However the user put up quite a number of good arguments and after discussing the issue with LunaSantin, I decided to make a second AfD has been made. Nishkid64 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: The article Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure was also originally linked to this afd and presumably nominated for deletion discussion.
Also, Ms._Divine's_Tee_Hee_Hee_Heure_(Short_sketch_one-lady_films) should be included in the nom as a essentially a shorter version of the other Tee Hee Hee article. Bwithh 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The performance artist Ms Divine is a director/actress and she and her films are listed in the movie guide. 'Do Not Delete' Here are the links again with reference and proof of notablility for Ms. Divine

Ms. Divine listed in the New York Times - http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=454333

Ms. Divine listed in IMDB (Internet Movie Database) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2345632/

Ms. Divine listed in All Movie Guide - http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=2:454333

Ms. Divine's film at the Pioneer Theatre http://www.twoboots.com/pioneer/monthly_programs/2005-11.htm

I also have the official website as well.

She also currently has several movies in the works on her official website. The internet movie database which is a very popular movie guide has her listed because their site encompasses a body of useful information. That's why people frequent that site so much, because they find information that is not always that easy to find.


In addition to Ms. Divine being a director/actress, she also has her local TV show as well. That is why there were 2 articles, one for Ms. Divine and one for Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure.

The Television network that her show airs on is supported by TimeWarner Cable and RCN Cable, under a franchise agreement with the City of New York. Which means that is a legit channel accessible to all cable customers.

Her program is listed in the guide at http://www.mnn.org/viewers/schedule On the drop down menu for channel selection select "TW 67/16 RCN 86"; For Time select Mon 10/16 scroll down to the time 10:30pm and you will see the program listing for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure..

The other program is listed under http://www.qptv.org/iq/ProgramGuide/ChannelListings/tabid/95/Default.aspx Select Monday then scroll down to the time 8:30pm, on channel 34 You will see Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure listed there. Also select Wednesday then scroll down to 1:30pm on channel 56, again you will see the program listed there.

There are other programs that air on these channels that are defined in wikipedia. There are people out there that want to know and read more about these programs. That is one of the reasons why i took the time to write the articles. PeterWeller 01:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: PeterWeller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • Strong Keep The external links provided seem to point to valid websites that people do trust and turn to for accurate information. For e.g., the New York Times, IMDB.com and local tv guides, are all well-known, well-regarded and well-trusted sites. She is listed for a reason...for public consumption and apparently that makes her a public figure and therefore is very notable. Plus, who is to say that she is not famous just for being associated with other "famous" people...what makes a person who has dated a quasi-celebrity (for e.g. a reality tv "star"), a celebrity by association and therefore newsworthy? I can list many examples of the case of celebrity be association...at least Ms. Divine actually has a growing list of interviews with public figures and a large body of work that has been featured on television and in theatres.

--User:Workofordaman 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)— Workofordaman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment Aren't all of those movie links listing the exact same movie? --Wafulz 012:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the links are linking to that movie. The other internet links to her - http://imdb.com/name/nm2345632/ I put those links up there, for there are external links that validate Ms. Divine and her films.

  • Strong Delete as encyclopedically non-notable public access channel filmmaker. To address the external links: 1) It's easy to get listed in the All Movie Guide[2]. The only criteria is that the film product has to be commercially available in the country of release. That's it. If it's a theatrical film not available as a video or DVD, all you need to do is send them a press kit - so even easier 2)The New York Times film database is taken from The All Movie Guide[3]. Main difference is that a "readers' review" forum is allowed so that indie filmmakers and friends can post vanity reviews of their own films. (Nice touch with the "only" 4 star gushy review but then the effect is spoilt with three 5 star gushy reviews) [4]. 3)It's not that hard to get into the IMDB (possibly even easier than it is to get on Amazon.com). IMDB is a database with barriers to entry that are as low or almost as low as the All Movie Guide, and which is not well policed. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Nguyen_(Second_Nomination) for instance. 4) The Pioneer Theater also has bracingly low barriers to entry for film screenings[5]. Good for them, but this does not make it a good reference for encyclopedic notability. 5) As for the qptv and manhattan neighborhood network showings - the whole point of these public access channels is that ANYONE living locally can have a chance to show their program at some point. The city authorities made the cable tv companies support these "community" channels in return for letting them dig up neighborhood streets to lay cable pipes. I've occasionally come across some entertaining stuff on MNN e.g. silly "opera" staged and sung with cuddly toy animals; raw unedited amateur footage of hot European fashion shows - but basically there's no quality or content control whatsoever... anyone can stage a show and pretend to be an expert at whatever or use it as platform for their unusual political/religious views or to show off their "unique art" or whatever Bwithh 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, local cable shows fail notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, First my article is for Ms. Divine who is a performance artist NOT a public access channel filmmmaker. I was asked to proove her notability, so I proved it by providing those external links. Those links describe her diversity, which includes filmmaker/actress.

IMDB - Internet movie database is a popular database. If it has such low criteria as you stated, you would see all sorts of "bogus movies". That seems to be your opionion about IMDB than what you actually see. For instance, wikipedia has more bogus entries than Internet movie database.

Also the movie is mentioned in the New York Times, would you say that is bogus too?

The idea of wikipedia which is a user defined encylopedia is for users to access information that they want to find. Writing my article for Ms. Divine and Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure, does just that.

There are many Public TV shows that are long running and have gained cult status. What about Democracy Now by Amy Goodman. That is also a Public TV show. Should you then go and delete that entry? If this show is about "rubbish" as the user previously stated, then how did her movie and her work get accepted to Internet Movie database and to the local theatre.

And most importantly this discussion is also for the performance artist Ms. Divine not just for her show. As mentioned before I have proved her notablitity and existance from the links shown. PeterWeller 02:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller[reply]

Democracy Now is broadcast on over 500+ radio and tv stations in North America[6]. It also has established standards of content submission rather than an open access free-for-all. I already explained where the NYTimes listing comes from and about the theater and IMDB. Wikipedia has more intensive content policing that IMDB but also covers vastly more numerous subjects. I didn't say everything on public access is rubbish. I specifically said there is some stuff which is quite entertaining - this doesnt make it encyclopedically notable. Finally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine or a directory. Bwithh 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Democracy Now started as a very small independant media and then grew. The New York Times listed the movie because it is a valid movie that aired in a theatre. That prooves the notability.

There are more mistakes in wikipedia than I have seen in IMDB which makes me feel that IMDB's criteria is much higher. Determining what's notable has already been prooven with the links. The person does exist, she has an audience and her work is on display on all sorts of media ranging from TV to the internet to local theatres. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia where you can find information about subjects, especially hard to find subjects such as this underground performance artist. It seems to me that wikipedia is just for defining pop culture. PeterWeller 03:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller[reply]

"It seems to me that wikipedia is just for defining pop culture". Um... a lot of effort goes into trying not to be that. Anyway aren't you contradicting yourself by identifying with pop culture. And I look forward to the day when Ms. Divine is broadcast regularly and frequently on 500 stations all over a continent. I'm already gone over the issue with All Media Guide/NYTimes. And yes, NYTimes operates a local listing service which includes the Pioneer Theater. This doesnt prove encyclopedic notabilityBwithh 03:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now it appears to me that wikipedia is there for pop culture. At the time that I did this article I thought wikipedia was for providing information about all sorts of topics which included information about underground artists. Sort of like finding information about topics ranging from general to obscure. If the Wikipedia authors are too narrow-minded and are unable to respect art, then wikipedia shall always remain a stagnant "closed off" encylopedia. Thankfully the artist has established her own underground audience.


  • Strong Keep

The Pioneer Theater has high standards for feature movies. I saw the Bank Heist Movie in the Pioneer Theater. The theater has HIGHER standards than a commercial movie theater which only accepts movies based on their expected profit margin. The standard in question being a creative standard not a commercial one. They do no accept homemade movies, a lot of people tried that already - it does not work that way. On Public Access shows - Quite a few of them are far more entertaining and creative then the junk that gets passed as entertainment in US networks.

Deleting this article is equivalent to pandering to what Big Movie Studios Television Networks deem to be acceptable viewing. The fact is corporate media is filled with garbage shows with no real actors - just reality shows that are fed to the masses who watch anything on the networks.. A few numbers down and you get public television that features struggling artists trying to get their work out. So the morons who act in realty shows are notable? What a joke! In effect no independent film artist can be notable unless they appear in corporate media. Yippee Congrats Wikepidia...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlos00001 (talk • contribs) .— Carlos00001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Carlos00001 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally I'd delete 90% of the reality tv show contestants, and 60% of the reality tv shows, but popularity counts for a lot on Wikipedia. As for struggling artists, win a well-recognized & well-established award at an indie film festival or distribute online and get good reviews by well-known critics and you'll have a solid standing on Wikipedia. Bwithh 03:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok- so essentially what I just said. Win an award from Corporate Media (do you know what indie film festival is?!). Sure. By the way the show is quite popular online from what I've seen. But its good to know what Wikepidia accepts. I will remember that you guys only accept what what is popular. So I don't need to come to this site ever again to find out something, since I can get all my answers to popular stuff elsewhere. Thanks.

Carlos00001 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'd really like to give this one a chance, but I don't see evidence of real notability at this time. The media mentions seem to be just "drive-bys" rather than featuring this individual or her product. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article doesn't seem to demonstrate notability on the part of the person, despite the fight that was put up to keep it from being deleted. It sounds a lot like a vanity/self-promotion page. I don't see any reason to keep it at this time.--MonkBirdDuke 08:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh and MonkBirdDuke. Reeks of WP:VAIN. --Aaron 12:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, although I'm more troubled by the attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is deluded

The only reason I even signed up to make a comment was that I happened to notice the deletion notice and the invitation to comment. I decided to comment because I had seen some of her work. A search for Ms Divine on Google brings her website and this entry only appears afterwards so I doubt if she needs Wikepidia for promotion as one of your sagacious administrators claims. You admin people are clearly deluded, for I am not part of an drive by user or whatever ridiculous terms you assign to me.

I find it quite offensive too that you add that belittling little comment at the end of my username after clearly posting a link that regular users can comment on this.

I hope other regular users who read my comment (if it is not deleted) will refrain from adding anything to this stupid one-sided discussion among the narrowminded people who administrate the wikepidia.

I also urge the original poster who put up the original content to ignore this site and to remove all content from it- this site is clearly not meant to be a free encyclopedia

And this is not the only blatant deletion I have observed: An interesting piece on possible plagiarism by Albert Einstein at this site was suddenly deleted with no explanation given despite this information existing (and being confirmed) on other sites. (Even as an allegation this charge is quite 'notable')

I would advise Wikepidia to close off these discussions from the public since these do nothing but reveal the administrators blatant disregard for their general users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.105.38 (talk • contribs)

Any encyclopedia has to have guidelines and regulations as to what can be placed on the website and what can not. That's why this AfD was created in the first place. There was a little disagreement on my part regarding the deletion of the article after bearing witness to some of PeterWeller's arguments. That's why I made this AfD. Do not put the blame on the administrators, when this AfD is here so that anyone in the community can add thoughtful and meaningful discussion to the page. Nishkid64 23:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
incidentally, a google search browse for the einstein plagiarism issue suggests that this is an ugly anti-semitic rumour fabricated by white supremacist groups Bwithh 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep

Issues of notability and validity with regard to my 2 articles

My first article was for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee HEure. Some have argued saying that Public access channels are not valid thus the show is not valid. This is an ignorant statement to assume.To brush the matter off as a simple local channel show, shows a lack of respect and a lack of understanding of the importance of these channels and the role it plays in the community and culture of New York.

The Television network that her show airs on is supported by TimeWarner Cable and RCN Cable, under a franchise agreement with the City of New York. Which means that is a legit channel accessible to all cable customers. The reason I choose to write about this show, is because it is a show that has been running for the past 4 years, and has maintained an underground audience. I looked up the criteria for notablity in wiki and it states that it is notable if it has some sort of underground audience. Not many shows have done that. This show exists, is long running and has a cult audience and thus deserves notability.

There is a page in wiki on public access TV right? Is it not appropriate and perfectly NOTABLE for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure to be mentioned as an example? And if so, would that not justify a page to link to the show to present the type of stuff they play on public access?

That seems reasonable to me. Also, it is a matter of New York TV, culture and art, particularly Queens and Manhattan. This is NOT about promotion or PROFIT. One wiki admin states that he is "worried" by the Selfpromotion and vanity. Nice snide remark but still not one of logic. Perhaps what one should be concerned about is the biasness that is related to "notability", and the other inaccuracies that plague wikipedia's articles, such as False information. The blatant self promotion that I see is more often in the profile of admin users, who list all these things in their profiles when in actuality they are not notable. Not to mention the obvious cooperate promotion that exists here. See more below for what I am referring to.

This article was written to present users with articles and information that they can find out about. I am arguing my points because its a matter of principal, and I do not believe that deleting both pages is justifiable. And yes, I am determined to atleast state my points before leaving.


Plus there are pages in wiki about bands (Front 242 , Devo

Devo,(http://www.mutatovisual.com/beautifulmutants/reports/fuse/html/gvc_intrv.html) Gary Numan, Lloyd Kaufman that have that have been interviewed by Ms. Divine and have been a part of the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure. So why can't the show be notable as it presents the users with information about the show that the artists have been guests of.

My second article was about the performer Ms. Divine who is the producer of this long running TV show comedy and in addition to that, she has been making numerous sketch films (one of which is listed in IMDB) that aired in local theatres, television and available thru various internet sites. She also has interviewed the above mentioned bands. She also as an established online presence. Ms. Divine is an all-round comedic performer and has gained an underground audience throughout the years, that's why I defined her as a performance artist and felt the article would be quite informative.

This article was not up for deletion at at all and was hastily deleted after the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure was deleted.

Again there are articles in wiki about independant performers, sketch comedians and thus it is perfectly NOTABLE for Ms. Divine's to be mentioned as an example and thus justify a page to explain the sort of stuff that she does.

To submit proof of her film and of her, I enclosed the external links (with the exclusion of the official site) for Internet Movie Database, the listing in the NY times and the listing the theatre. These links listed her movie and also listed her credits and bio which included director/actress etc. which is more proof to my article where I write that she is a diverse performance artist.

The links are not simply "passing links", if you look at the links carefully it is more than a simply listing, it contains more information. Please refer to the bottom of the page where i have enclosed the details of the link

One wiki admin author states that Internet Movie Database is not valid for anyone can submit information. That statement is NOT true. Just go to the site imdb.com and see how many "Bogus" INVALID articles that you find. Probably none. Thus IMDB has valid selection criteria. However, take a look at wikipedia and you will find a a good number of BOGUS and INVALID articles written. Thus one can conclude that it is wikipedia that has a much higher chance of NOT being credible. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that all of wikipedia is wrong, but we all know there are many inconsistencies and false facts in wikipedia.

In addition to that, the same wiki author states that Pioneer Theatre in New york City has low standards. That is a matter of opinion. The Pioneer Theatre is a legit theatre. They obviously do not accept just anything. They are known to promote the works of independant artists. Try submitting a bogus film to Pioneer or a home video. It will NOT get accepted. To slander a theatre without knowing how it really works shows a lack of knowledge and an ability to understand art.

The same wiki author tries to discredit the New York Times listing of Ms. Divine and her movie. The movie is valid and so is she. How many "false' listing have you come across in the NY TIMEs listing database. Now again compare the NY times database that to wikipedia, you will see that wikipedia always has more bogus articles than ever. Why not spend more effort in correcting these inconsistencies instead of spending time in deleting a page such as this that has validity and is LEGIT and NOTABLE.

I understand that there are many people who falsify documents and articles in wikipedia, so i can see why articles need to be investigated. However, i am not trying to do that. Ms. Divine is a legit peformance artist. The links that I have provided from various EXTERNAL sites proove that. However to dismiss the links as not notable has become more like a form of bias. The Wiki biography states once again that it is notable if the person has an underground audience. Thus the artist does fit that criteria. She obviously has a long running TV show and movies that have been acknowledged and validated via the links that I have sent were just some examples.

If wikipedia is going to continue their policy of their so-called "notablity" by only relying on cooporate entities to define what music is, or what artists are. Then wikipedia is living in a very "closed box" for they FAIL to understand the valuable contributions that independant artists have made. Not only that, but wiki shows no respect for people that want to find out about these contributions. The subject of notability appears to be more of an "opinion" among the wiki admins than that of reason or logic.


Apparantly defining Lionel Richie's daughter, Nicole richie is considered notable. Defining Hilton sisters is notable. Wikipedia is not a unique online site that encompasses a wide variety of topics. It is an online site that obeys co-operate media for wiki feels Paris Hilton is legit because co-operate media said so and thus she is notable? Thus wikipedia endorses cooperate promotion But yet, defining an independant artist is "non-notable" despite the fact that I have backed my article with various links that prooves her works, her existence etc..

There are many bands and topics that are defined in wikipedia that do not have any backing of external links, yet these articles continue to exist.

Wikipedia is an online Enclyopedia, its supposed to be an online site that amasses a large amount of information. People would want to use a system like that, to find articles on topics especially obscure topics that they can't always get their hands on. That is why I choose to write my 2 articles on the performance artist and the show. However, if the article is going to be deleted, then what use is wikipedia to the segment of the population that is trying to research hard to find items. Anybody can find out about Paris Hilton. There are millions of articles all over the web about that person.

Thus wikipedia is not unique in the way that it claims to be. It still contains lots of false information. It still only defines items that most people already know about. It doesn't serve as a source of information where one can find the answers to unqiue topics. Not only that, but many of these wikipedian authors or so called admins (I by no means mean that all admins are bad), appear to gleefully enjoy this "authority" of deleting articles, without using any kind of valid reason. Repeating "notability" like a parrot is not a valid point. Some of their reasons are irrelevant and mean spirited showing a complete lack of professional journalism and utter biasness. And these are the people behind wikipedia. Truly Pathetic! This only serves to impede the development of wikipedia even more. Thus users who want to find information about unique topics and artists will look elsewhere, for wikipedia has failed to provide that information to users.

It would be great if there were any admins out there with an open mind who can understand these points and is willing to KEEP the article. I am also very open to improving the article, categorizing etc etc.

Special thanks to Nish (one of the administrators) who was open-minded enough to re-open this article up for debate, and giving me the chance to express how I feel about that. Thank you very much...

And also thanks to all for taking the time to read my points. I do appreciate it very much. Have a good day. - Peter Weller

PS -

The zoologist Desmond Morris who wrote the book "the Human Zoo" provides some interesting insightful observations about the creative individual. I feel this quote is very appropriate.

"The creative talent will therefore find himself alternately praised and damned by society in a bewildering way, and will be constantly in doubt about this acceptance by the rest of the community:"

Desmond Morris (The Human Zoo, Chapter 12)

Thus inorder for the creative talented individual to be accepted, society must evolve first..

NOTES I have just re-listed a small portion of the links for quick reference and easier accessiblity. I think previously I didn't list the link that had the most details. Thus Please visit links again

Ms. Divine bio credits and film listed in the New York Times -

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=339446

Ms. Divine bio and film listed in IMDB (Internet Movie Database) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2345632/bio

Ms. Divine's film at the Pioneer Theatre http://www.twoboots.com/pioneer/monthly_programs/2005-11.htm

Ms. Divine's Official site http://www.msdivine.net

Ms. Divine's Tee Heure w/ Devo featured artist on Devo's official page. http://www.mutatovisual.com/beautifulmutants/reports/fuse/html/gvc_intrv.html


Listing of program Her program is listed in the guide at http://www.mnn.org/viewers/schedule On the drop down menu for channel selection select "TW 67/16 RCN 86"; For Time select Mon

10/16 scroll down to the time 10:30pm and you will see the program listing for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure..

The other program is listed under http://www.qptv.org/iq/ProgramGuide/ChannelListings/tabid/95/Default.aspx Select Monday then scroll down to the time 8:30pm, on channel 34 You will see Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure listed there. Also select Wednesday then scroll down to 1:30pm on channel 56, again you will see the program listed there.

PeterWeller 02:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller[reply]

Note: User:PeterWeller's second vote. -Elmer Clark 02:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:PeterWeller's third vote. Ohconfucius 06:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. None of the sites you mentioned seek to screen their entries by notability. Several independent filmmakers I know, whose work is extremely obscure and has been seen only at very small local screenings (and in no way qualifies for Wikipedia inclusion), have entries at IMDB and the other sites. Inclusion on those sites have never been considered criteria for inclusion. Public access shows, as has been mentioned, are also not any sort of indicator of notability, nor is acting in local, non-distributed films. Peter, it sounds like you take issue with Wikipedia's notability guidelines in general. This is by no means the place to try to change them -- try the Talk page at Wikipedia:Notability. Under the current notability criteria, which the majority of Wikipedians agree with, Ms. Divine is not notable. Sorry. -Elmer Clark 02:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Also, since the topic was broached, Wikipedia is a community, not an island of one. I get rankled at the suggestion that I am "close-minded" simply because I do not agree with the article's creator. Also, agreed about the odious Einstein rumor. Johnbrownsbody 11:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. *drew 11:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All this interest alone should be enough to satisfy the notable criteria. Alpharigel 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm.... do you actually read the discussion or do you just judge visually by the amount of text you see on screen? Bwithh 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bwithh, that is a blatant assumption of bad faith and borderline WP:PA. --Marriedtofilm 05:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the "blatant" assumption of bad faith? It's not a personal attack, as I'm talking about his reasoning. Alpharigel says himself that he's judging by the amount of interest "alone" shown in the afd i.e. the amount of text the afd takes up on the afd page. Since he would have come to a discussion where everyone except one (who seems to have personal or professional links with the article subject) has made delete arguments, I'm questioning his logic. I say nothing about whether his logic is good faith or bad faith. I'm calling him on his strange reasoning. Possibly he may be talking about the NYT/IMDB/AMG references but that still sugggests he hasn't read the discussion, but merely scanned it. Bwithh 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You or I don't know how this editor came to their conclusion (nor if the editor is a he or she). "All this interest alone" in no way demonstrates they simply measured the amount of text on an afd screen to reach a conclusion. In your last response you brought up a second option on the comments by speculating that the they were referring to the article references which indicates that you yourself aren't even sure how they reached their opinion. Just by your own response showed your first comment was in bad faith. --Marriedtofilm 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You're entitled to your own opinions. People arguing keep based on the amount of discussion in an afd crop up more often than you might think. I thought of the second option only after I wrote that comment. If you insisting on twisting my statements to paint me as a little tyrant, go ahead. There doesn't seem to be any reasoning with you. Frankly, you could do with taking your own advice. Bwithh 16:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest you take a look at what ad hominem actually means. Bwithh 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem doesn't apply here as neither of us know how the editor arrived at their conclusion and I'm not suggesting their conclusion is correct (haven't even voted and still up in the air on this). It's just that mean spirited comment - "do you just judge visually by the amount of text you see on screen" - was out of line. --Marriedtofilm 19:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The length of this AfD page is the only thing anywhere on Wikipedia that could indicate a lot of interest in this subject. Bwithh's assumption was reasonable and in no way a personal attack. Also, to Alpharigel: if you were serious, first of all note that almost all the discussion on this page has come from the article's creator and been more about Wikipedia policy in general than about Ms. Divine, and also that "interest" on Wikipedia itself is by no means one our notability critera. -Elmer Clark 21:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elmer Clark, I appreciate your comment and wish you were the 1st responder to Alpharigel's comment. I think the 1st responder was mocking in tone, but that is my opinion. Your own response to the editor shows you gave benefit of the doubt, assumed good faith, didn't mock while explaning notability critera and seemed to value adhering to WP:BITE. --Marriedtofilm 23:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of Wikipedia is that is defines many various and sundry subjects, people, ideas etc. Having been a longtime viewer of Ms. Divine's creative efforts - weekly TV shows, movies etc. I support her fully and wonder why you would delete her from your website?

Any thinking human being should be able to look on this website, get a description of who/what is Ms. Divine or any other entity listed, access the original information referred to, and make up their own mind as to the value of the information thereby derived.

Please do not delete Ms. Divine from this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peejhayward (talk • contribs) — Peejhayward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete all per Bwithh. There seems to be a walled garden growing around the subject both inside wiki and outside. If only the achievements were anything as impressive as the (filibustering) by socks taking plpace here! Not only does this appear not to pass WP:BIO, this is NPOV also violates WP:SPAM. Arguing for a "keep" based on the length of discussion is a sure way of improving the lengths of AfD pages with dubious consequences for quality of discussion and of articles. Ohconfucius 06:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing for a "keep" based on length. That is an assumption that lacks logic. Users that vote "keep", have a right to. It is unnecessary to take a harsh tone with ones that do..

If you are referring to my response with regard to notability as "spamming". That is an incorrect assumption to judge the length of my response as spamming. In order to debate, I need words, and in this case, I have used words to express my reasons for keeping this article. Yet, this is another case of some administrators that live in a "closed box", and are quick to be sarcastic.

Not to mention the fact that I have contributed to other articles on this site, but yet some administrator has tagged my user name to say that I have not contributed articles. Once again a lack of professional journalism is displayed. PeterWeller 00:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller ---[reply]

  • Delete as I have found out, Wikipedia is more about "notability" than comprehensiveness. I concur, philosophically, with the guy who wrote "Wikipedia is deluded" in that I think Wikipedia should consider being more comprehensive in the realm of things in the public sphere (television, radio, newsprint, etc). But, at this moment they are not and as such this article is not notable under the Wikipedia guidelines and practices right now. Consistency in policy application would be best.--Tony 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questioning this Forgive me: I am not an expert on the criteria for the deletion of articles on Wikipedia.

I noticed that the initial removal was a “speedy deletion”? After reviewing the criteria for this type of removal I did not see how the deletion met the guidelines: patent nonsense or pure vandalism?

I also noticed that regarding notability, verification was an issue. I did a search on Wikipedia for Public Access, found an article on this sight for that subject, scrolled down and saw a link for Queens Public Access, clicked on that site, then their programming schedule and found a listing for the artist’s show, as referenced in her article.

Thanx— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWeller (talk • contribs)

The speedy deletion criteria applied was probably A7, lack of claim of notability. However, there was evidently some disagreement over that, hence its having been brought here. And I don't think verifiability is the main problem here, notability is. -Elmer Clark 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References given don't support notability claims.Glendoremus 02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much heat, not enough light. - Richfife 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, disregarding anon "votes". {{Afdanons}} should have been applied to this debate. --Coredesat 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Gabriel[edit]

Seems like a good and dedicated teacher, but one article in a local paper doesn't make her notable. NawlinWiki 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was just getting ready to tag this for AfD, when NawlinWiki beat me to it. I see nothing notable here, and the article is a mess with little encyclopaedic content. This was tagged as db-bio a number of times, and the tags were just removed. Delete it. ---Charles 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Can we please be cuteous to each other, keep the language to a PG level at least, and just vote, add a justification, and move on, foul comments might sway people in certain directions. Gonzo883 03:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Merge with Foothill High School article, create a section called "Notable staff" and put this article under it. This would be the most appropriate way to me. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure im not a single use account, just becuase im new and happen to know Faye Gabriel doesn't mean I'm corrupting the wiki system.
  • DeleteOrigionally wanted to keep, but if its causing that much discontent then I exempt myself from this conversation.
Origonal vote: Add a staff section on foothills page per Aqu01rius says WalterWalrus3 02:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The above user created the article in question. -- Kicking222 03:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Montco 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge per above. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability. Wikipediarules2221 02:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If so many people have already voted, then i guess we have to consider a merge 24.4.26.112 02:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While the article may not be notable enough for its own page, it seems reasonable to include it as part of Foothill's article. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmontez (talk • contribs)
  • Superstrong speedy delete A "staff" section? Are you (pardon my French) f***ing kidding me? We should start listing every teacher at every school? Why not list every doctor at a hospital? I worked at a zoo with a WP article; why don't I throw my name into it? That's completely ludicrous. Gabriel seems like an excellent person and a strong supporter of teenagers; however, not just does she fail WP:BIO, but there is not a single assertion of notability in the article. -- Kicking222 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Superstrong speedy delete doesnt make your vote count more, personal attack removed WalterWalrus3 04:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks; for example, calling someone such a name is in very poor taste. -- Kicking222 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the time I noticed my mistake, you replied. I really meant Notable staff instead of staff. Obviously your not notable enough to be mentioned in your Zoo article. But that's not the case for Faye Gabriel. Oh, and please remain cool, and refrain from using profanity. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely cool. I (honestly) apologize if you were offended, but Wikipedia is not censored. -- Kicking222 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow calm down, anyway the oldest teacher, and longest consecutive years teaching at a PUSD school seems like a notable merge to Foothill's article WalterWalrus3 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable and merge would create a dangerous precedent. (But the idea of dancing 25 minuets on Wednesday seems interesting.) -- RHaworth 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I think you didn't really read the article carefully because if you did, you would notice that it's a typo :) AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think RHaworth's vote should not be counted, nowhere in the entire artilce does it say anyhing about dancing on wednesday's, he has no idea what hes voting for.WalterWalrus3 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, WalterWalrus originally did not sign his comment and stated that he had not voted, which was a lie, as he had already "voted" (and, in fact, created the article). Second, AfD is not a vote- the person who closes the debate will consider (and, if necessary, give weight to) all comments. Third, the above user was very obviously referring to the fact that "minute" is misspelled "minuet" multiple times in the article; perhaps its original creator, who claims to not have voted, should copyedit it. -- Kicking222 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont insinuate who I am personal attack removed. I signed my merge about seven seconds (a rough estimation) after i made the merge comment. I have no idea who any of these single accounts are, theres one from a seperate ip adress, so that couldnt possibly be a sock puppet. I never claimed that i "voted" before, though i didnt, and lastly, would appreciate if you would stop picking out any spelling errors, as that isnt a proper reason to delete an article. WalterWalrus3 04:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, dear god, RHaworth was being sarcastic! -- Kicking222 03:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you know that I wasn't being sarcastic :)? Anyway, it's off-topic. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I delete the thing next to my name that says im a sock puppet? its really discearning Gonzo883 03:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not saying that you're a sockpuppet; I certainly don't believe that Gonzo883 is the alias of another user trying to stack votes. However, the {{spa}} tag applies, and only claims exactly what it says. The tag notes that you have few contributions to any articles besides this one, which is true. Your comments are not necessarily less valid than anyone else's, but it should be known that you have contributed to this article and few others. -- Kicking222 03:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it serves little purpose other than making it known that im new, which in some people's minds may make prejudice against a newbie? It seems to me like your singling me out Gonzo883 04:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How am I singling you out when I placed the same tag next to two other users' comments? -- Kicking222 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with RHaworth that merge is a dangerous precedent here. Also, sockpuppet operators should note that their actions are not going to convince anyone who reads the discussion. --N Shar 03:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppetry is indeed a concern. Please do not get me wrong however, I simply think that Mrs. Gabriel's dedication should be worth a mention in her school article. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was that the rationale for voting merge in a deletion debate was to make sure that a worthwhile topic does not drop of the map with the removal of the article (i.e., someone would merge the content before it was deleted). Here, I kind of think that the article should be deleted first, while the debate on inclusion is taken to the page on the school. Perhaps that's not a good way to do things, though -- I'm not very experienced here. --N Shar 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I also agree with RHaworth that a merger is a very bad idea, and sets a dangerous precedent. ---Charles 03:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Theoldanarchist, ur the one who kept reverting changes i made to my own userpage. Anyway, im pretty sure theres enough people voting merge to make a little tidbit on the Foothill page, so im gonna do that and if you want to debate it, i suggest you go to the Foothill High School (Pleasanton, California) page. WalterWalrus3 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is false. According to the history, Theoldanarchist has never edited User:WalterWalrus3. --N Shar 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow look at inspector gadget over here, as if saying that has any relevence to this discussion. Anyway, i dont know what happend via history but definatly remember previously seeing Theoldanarchist next to a revert, maybe it was the talk page. WalterWalrus3 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reverted your talk page after you deleted two warnings you received about vandalism. As anyone can see who looks at your talk page, those were not the last warnings you received either. I tend to feel that the deletion of said warnings gives newer visitors to your talk page the impression that you have not received said warnings in the past, and is intended to be deceptive. But, as I say, that is only my opinion. ---Charles 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you want my personal opinion, Gonzo and all the others are sock puppets, but thats just my opinon, im too tired and actually have a life, so im going to leave this article is most likely to be deleted so im gonna surrender and apologize for wasting everybodys time based on an overwhelming discontent.

I wish i knew how to do that cross out effect, feel free to do so if you want. WalterWalrus3 04:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment <s> at the begining of what you want to cross out and</s> at the end.--Isotope23 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a good teacher is valuable to society but usually not enough to warrant an encyclopedia article per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 04:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a good teacher is worth his/her weight in gold but this fails WP:BIO.--Lord of Illusions 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure she's a great teacher, but Wikipedia is not a directory of great teachers.--MonkBirdDuke 08:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-noteable. not encyclopaedic SMC 09:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Faye is clearly a good, resourceful and dedicated teacher who does her job well, like millions of others, myself included. There is nothing innovative about the methods she uses and nothing in either the Wiki article or the linked local newspaper article to suggest that she is notable enough to warrant a place in an encyclopaedia. Emeraude 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordinarily, I'd say Delete on a local teacher article, however in this case things seem to be best served by Merge and keep as redirect for GFDL purposes. She's pretty clearly (and verifiably!) notable within the school context, so mention her there. Keep it a short section to avoid undue weight, and let consensus there determine if this is an inappropriate inclusion in the school article. Oh, and everybody knock off the personalizing. -- nae'blis 15:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and keep as redirect as per Nae'blis. EVula 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no merge here. Though I am sure that Ms. Gabriel is a credit to her profession, she in no way meets WP:BIO. That said, I don't see any compelling reason to merge her into Foothill High School; circumventing WP:BIO by listing the subject in a related article is a just a very bad idea, not to mention the fact that it will encourage countless additions of students' favorite non-WP:BIO compliant teachers in their school articles. If she doesn't meet the guidelines to support a standalone article I don't see any reason to package her into another article.--Isotope23 19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? Lots of articles have biographical snippets on people who don't meet the standards of WP:BIO. It's a pretty common way of mentioning people who are notable only in a single context. -- nae'blis 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment and I think it is generally a bad practice unless the person has some important role in the article topic (company CEO, etc) and the information in someway enhances the article on said topic. I don't think an individual teacher, no matter how well liked, really qualifies.--Isotope23 20:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Being a long-time teacher at an American school isn't a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of popular US teachers. --Charlene.fic 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any of my teachers listed in Wikipedia... and I am not about to go creating any articles. Craighennessey 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One argument that's useful in AfD discussions is the "I could make five hundred articles like this one easily." Maybe it's more like five million. There are a lot of teachers in the world who have somewhat creative techniques and have had a story done about them in the local paper. So what? Who cares? Good grief! 129.98.197.86 02:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BIO whatsoever, the vast majority of the article is very trivial (read: Totally useless) information and wouldn't be worth any sort of merge I could ever envision. If I had come across this first, I would have speedied it (not without some guilt, true, but I would have done it.) Grandmasterka 09:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Non notable, though admirable. I too would have tagged this for speedy. --Dweller 09:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. ✔ She's a unique teacher. Look at these teaching techniques. This article is fucking increadible. (And it's well-fucking-written, too.)--HQCentral 09:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, she is not a unique teacher. Gifted, talented, inspired - almost certainly, but not unique. And the entry is not well-written unfortunately. It is/was full of typos and spelling errors, which have been and can be corrected. However, it would still be the sort of human interest article that is suitable for a local newspaper, not an encyclopaedia.Emeraude 13:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides, being "fucking increadible" (sic) and "well-fucking-written" wasn't speedy keep criteria last time I checked.--Isotope23 14:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's called a joke, troll. The fact that you value guidelines for some free encyclopedia more than reason shows me that you have a long way to go in life. The entry is educational and useful; therefore it should stay. By the way, I think what you meant to type above was "[sic]." (Since we're being pedantic now.)--HQCentral 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, fails WP:BIO. *drew 11:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merge per Isotope23. Does not appear to pass WP:BIO. If she were "notable staff" (whch she is not), she would by definition have a wiki article by rights. Ohconfucius 06:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am a big advocate of loosening the requirements of "notability" for public items (radio/television programs, etc) but NOT as a directory listing for non-public rosters. What is next? Listing the honor roll? --Tony 17:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete School teacher mentioned in local paper is not notable. -- WillyWonty 22:09, 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 Speedy delete per WP:SNOW and as probable attack page ("Gift was born in a trash can."). NawlinWiki 15:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Gift[edit]

Obvious hoax. Article originally said he was born in 1994, which was changed to 1987, probably because I mentioned the unlikeliness of that birth year for a porn star on my PROD notice, which was removed. At any rate, this "cultural icon" produces only 105 unique Google hits, and only seven when "gay" is added to the search. -Elmer Clark 02:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, obvious hoax. TJ Spyke 02:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 02:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. I sort of chuckled when I noticed one of the "film" links leads to the kids' book, but just because it was so inappropriate in the context. Edward Wakelin 03:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, hoax, and very close to speedy delete g10 as attack page. NawlinWiki 03:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - this definately appears to be a hoax. —Khoikhoi 03:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:HOAX or possibly even Speedy Delete as per WP:ATK. Depends if this article was originally created to try and harm the reputation of a real-life Andre Gift. --BradBeattie 04:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Note that the article was started by a new account with no previous edits. --BradBeattie 04:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete obviously a non-serious hoax Mozzie 04:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as attack page. I understand that it is not unequivocally clear that this is an attack page, but on this issue it seems best to err on the side of removing slander/libel, especially when the consensus is so clearly to delete. --N Shar 04:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd nominate to BJAODN, but only after the date of birth gets reverted back to 1994. (A twelve year old porn star???) --RoninBKETC 05:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was planning to nominate this article myself. -Kubigula (ave) 05:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, failed google search, (starred with Rob Schneider) would not object to speedy delete.--Lord of Illusions 06:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete useless. MonkBirdDuke 08:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. There's some stuff in the article that's pretty clearly libelous. --JaimeLesMaths 09:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (Follow-up comment: I removed several unsourced and potentially libelous statements from the article as a precaution, so check the history. --JaimeLesMaths 09:29, 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...again. *sigh* - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to impeach George W. Bush[edit]

Procedural nom. It was placed by 72.255.99.114 who could not create a new page with the reason this is simply a long partisan editorial and inappropriate in an encylopedia. Previous AfD is here --Wafulz 02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is easily verifiable that there us a movement to impeach Bush. Even if it is purely partisan (and I think the reality is more complex than that), that needs to be documented. There's no Wikipedia rule that only movements which Congress gets involved in get to be documented.
  • Keep. Easily verifiable and notable and encyclopedic. Maybe POV, I don't know, I haven't read the article (which is about 3x too long), but this is a well-documented topic in politics. --Wafulz 02:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and significant. Lots of information and references; although the diction and content is POV, the title of the article implies a certain bias and can easily be fixed. Wikipediarules2221 02:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm the initiator of this request (sorry I didn't format afd correctly - thanks for fixing it wafulz). This article reads like an editorial or a partisan blog (left or right). This isn't a movement like Civil Rights Movement or even something small, it is a highly partisan effort. If congress takes this up in even a minor way, then document it. Right now, this is just a purely POV effort that belongs on Kos or some other political web site. 72.255.99.114 02:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument that has been addressed countless times in the talk page - where else on Wikipedia do we document efforts to impeach GWB? Please use the talk page as a first step, and also review prior AfD discussions, as was suggested before making an AfD. Also, the article does not "read like an editorial of a partisan blog" nor is it a "partisan effort", many people on both sides of the isle have worked hard on it over many years time. -- Stbalbach 03:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is actually the third AfD, the last one being 5 months ago:
This is obviously a controversial topic - a lot of people have spent a lot of time and energy to make the article NPOV. Just about every argument and complaint that anyone could possibly come up with has been addressed in the talk page over 100's of man-hours of discussions. -- Stbalbach 03:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is a distinction between NPOV and fair and ballanced. NPOV is the use of neutral language. It is easy to talk about a partisan issue in a neutral tone. Fair and ballanced is where you try to represent both sides equally. But what does that mean? Do you give both sides equal time? Do you give each side equal time proportional to their contribution? After all the 'pro bush' side is not participating in the 'debate'. What if their are multiple sides, how do we calculate what is the right ballance? NPOV is something that can be achieved, it can be argued at the level of individual sentences and phrases. Fair and ballanced is just a matter of opinion. We will never satisfy everyone with such a rule rule, so wikipedia doesn't have it, and rightly so. Mozzie 23:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (What the heck is a "speedy keep"?) Skimming over it (I agree it's too long), my assessment is, while this article may need NPOV improvements, it doesn't seem to be an article promoting the movement. Rather, it appears (to me) to be an article about the movement. Articles about a partisan effort are still valid for an encyclopedia. =Axlq 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Speedy Keep is when an article is kept before the usual mimimum of 5 a days or more for debate has passed. --65.95.17.190 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Forget about George Bush. Not important. What important is that this is a great article and is definetly verifiable as most of these movements were reported by national media.

The only reason I could think of to delete this article is its probable POV statements. But that's something needs to be worked on, not a reason to delete the article. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, cited and sourced out the wazzu. Nominator confused about the meaning of "editorial." Gazpacho 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, this is an ugly page, it desperately needs cleaning up, but there is absolutely no reason to delete it.Mozzie 04:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an awfully slanted article because of its reliance on pro-impeachment sourcing and lack of anti-impeachment sourcing. But POV cases are never hopeless. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't catch anything in the entire, looooooong article casting doubt on the move to impeach or showing that it is advocated only by a fringe of the Democratic party in Congress. The article is warped. Nevertheless, deleting it isn't the answer, straightening it out is.Noroton 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a pretty shoddy looking page...and doesn't really justify its own existence. It basically just rattles off opinions of individuals ad infinite...which may violate Wikipedia's provision on indiscriminate information, which is all that the page really is. There isn't really much information about the "Movement to Impeach Bush"...just people that want to. The opinions of his political opponents don't necessarily comprise a movement, nor justify its own article.--MonkBirdDuke 08:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly a valid and encyclopedic article, POV concerns should be discussed and worked out amongst editors. --JaimeLesMaths 09:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wow! I stumbled into this AfD ready to argue for deletion. Once I looked at the article and its amazing reference section, I changed my mind. --Arbeiter 12:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a page to post partisan opinions. When someone does post something to contrary, its reverted. Look near the end of the talk page where you find...

"It seems to me that this article is one-sided and presents no one opposing or any viewpoints that oppose impeachment. Is there a way to add in those opposing viewpoints? I am sure that not everyone is for this, least of all George Bush. Fundamentaldan"
"Well if you can find anyone opposing impeachment who is part of the movement to impeach... Kevin Baas"

In other words, if something isn't part of our movement, don't put it here. Could you imagine a print encyclopedia putting in articles of this partisan and short-term nature? 72.255.99.114 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a specific movement. Stuff that isn't about the movement doesn't belong in the article. Criticisms of the movement do belong in the article. A lack of inclusion of criticism is a fixable POV problem, not reason to delete. Being of a short-term nature isn't reason to delete either, especially since any movement to impeach a president will have historical relevance in the future. -Amatulic 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across this entry, courtesy Google, in my research on the subject of impeachment, and found the content the most comprehensive of all the Search finds I have checked so far. The content is factual and balanced in listing pro-con views on the subject. The entry may be revised or complemented, but should NOT be deleted. I strongly recommend that the entry be removed from the deletion candidacy.

  • Delete. A collection of criticism by obviously partisan opponents should not warrant an article, and it probably violates Wikipedia's legal policy for libel. --GoodSamaritan 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where else on Wikipedia do you suggest we document the people and groups who want to impeach GWB? -- Stbalbach 13:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I was not clear. I did not suggest move or merge. I said delete. It is unsalvagable. --GoodSamaritan 09:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by a mile and then some, even though it has severe POV issues certainly verifiable and well referenced. Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject is worthy of an article. --Alex (Talk) 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to previous afd discussion - While I'm not sure about the article has a netural POV, the bottom line is that this article has already survived the AFD process. So unless something significant has changed it should be kept for consistency with the prior discussions. Once a decision on afd is made it's a bad idea to keep renominating the article unless something major has changed; otherwise there's no actual closure from these discussions. Dugwiki 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am no Bush fan but this is notable enough to keep.--Lord of Illusions 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is notable per the many scientific polls showing public report in the 30's, about the same level as his present approval rating, and numerous articles abut it in national media. In the U.S. House of Representatives, 36 co-sponsors of impeachment resolution H. Res. 635. Ninety- something references. It is extremely unlikely to happen without some changes in the House and Senate and even then some "smoking gun" beyond what is cited so far as grounds. NPOV or unsupported statements should be deleted or fixed, and arguments against impeachment should be included, even if by proponents.Edison 22:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a VERY notable topic. I would sooner delete the article about Apollo moon landing hoax accusations than I would delete the article under discussion. The movement to impeach GWB is very real and has garnered the support of hundreds of people. Btw, the moon landing article is also important; don't misunderstand. 129.98.197.86 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is precisely the problem with this article. Only hundreds of people out of millions believe in this "movement" that has little attention outside of Cindy Sheehan.

  • Comment Clearly this article will be kept, but I find it pretty disturbing. It smells like a POV fork. Even a well-sourced repository of complaints about Bush is...a repository of complaints about Bush. The "impeachment resolutions" are presented as much more high-profile than they really are. The vast majority of even the most liberal groups don't advocate anything of the sort. Things like "The ImpeachBush.org website claims to have collected over 736,000 signatures (as of September 25, 2006) on a petition to impeach Bush. None are known to have been created to oppose it" feel like weasel words -- could the reason be, perhaps, that this movement is so low-profile that no one would bother to oppose it? I don't see any petitions opposing the movement for the violent overthrow of the US government either -- is this evidence for the movement's success? Of course not. The "rationales for impeachment" section is no better -- this title really just seems to be an excuse to make the article Why Bush sucks and not have it deleted. I am by no means a fan of Bush, but I am not a fan of weaseling POV into Wikipedia either. -Elmer Clark 02:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see "POV fork" thrown around quite often in AfD's -- but you can't label it a "fork" without saying where it forked from. If not here, where else on Wikipedia do we document the people and organizations who want to impeach GWB? If we did it in the George W. Bush article, it would be too large and would justify a Main article split. That's all this is. In fact, this article was originally created (year or two ago) because the amount of material was overwhelming the GWB article causing a POV unbalance in that article. There was no intentional foul-play ("POV fork") by anyone it just evolved organically like most articles on Wikipedia do when the subject matter becomes long. -- Stbalbach 03:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is not a literal POV fork, but it just feels like the "negative" aspects of the George W. Bush article were thrown together here with the weak connection that they're potential grounds for impeachment. -Elmer Clark 04:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be original research. The article is sourced pretty well. This is a real phenomenon. -- Stbalbach 04:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the idea behind POV forking needs some explination. It is where two different parties disagree on a topic so one starts up a new page to express their views. For this article to be a POV fork there would have to be another page on the movement to impeach President Bush. If that page doesn't exist, then this is not a POV fork 150.203.177.218 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, but RENAME I really thought I was going to be in favor of deletion when I saw the name of this article. The name doesn't do the article justice. By the way, I personally disagree with almost all the politics of the people described in the article, but I am aware that they are really out there, really vocal, and they have had a lot of activity in the public life of our country. maybe call the article "Campaigns to Initiate Impeachment Proceedings Against President George W. Bush." That might keep the title from implying that there is one significant "movement" of people who are all working together. We know that's not so.OfficeGirl 04:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename, the title as it is makes the original assertion that there is a particular movement, rather than a number of disparate people who all happen to want the same thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but agreed that the article needs cleanup and a thorough NPOV bath. Johnbrownsbody 11:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is fact.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.130.196.68 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete: This article is just a political maneuver, will we need articles for every single politically driven crusade? This would never, ever, make it into an off-line encyclopedia. It's not even a real movement, just a bunch of opinions. 148.63.236.141 01:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my above comment, looking at the history of this article, it also looks like its been carefully kept POV for a long time. The previous AFD discussion also has comments regardings pov, yet when someone tries to edit it, they get yanked unless they are "the movement". This article belongs on a blog. 148.63.236.141 01:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where on Wikipedia do you suggest editors document the people and activities and headline news stories about this topic? Or do you propose we play whack-a-mole and remove it whenever it pops up in other articles (like it used to before this article was created)? Who do you propose will monitor this whack-a-mole activity, should we have a special Project set up for the purposes of censoring this information from all Wikipedia articles? Or do you think it makes sense to isolate it into a single location where it can properly be monitored? In other words, these activities are real, they exist, people will write about them, you can't stop that - but you can isolate and monitor it. -- Stbalbach 17:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wack-a-mole argument does make sense, at least its in one place. Just reading the comments here (many below) shows how partisan wiki-editing is. 148.63.236.141 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to politicize it. That is all these AfD's really are, now, stirring up the pot, a bureaucratic nuisance. We've have three AfD's in about a 15 month window, same discussion over and over. -- Stbalbach 02:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature this article! Anomo 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if the idea of impeaching George W. Bush, having an article on this notable, verifiable movement is not POV. If we deleted this we would need to delete (for example) Civil Rights Movement and Women's suffrage, since both of those are verifiable articles about notable political movements. Cynical 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. duh. Kevin Baastalk 20:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article has POV problems and needs cleanup, but the topic is valid. Erall 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Wiki's 'book burners', who can't compete in the marketplace of ideas are at it again. The movement exists. It's well documented. IMHO, AfD nominations like this, and the one on Andy Stephenson are travesties and the ultimate abuse of Wikipedia. Reign this XXXX in before it destroys a great idea. Some Wiki Conservatives have come full circle to become 21st century Wiki Stalinists!NBGPWS 04:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I've never heard Wiki conservatives described as being a problem...or even existing -Elmer Clark 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are people who advocate GW's impeachment, so this article shows what's been attempted so far. The only reason why anyone would want this article deleted is either if they support the idiot's reign or they've been successfully brainwashed by this failure of a government administration. 24.7.217.221 14:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reliably sourced discussion, albeit not a "widespread" movement. Question, why is this listed in the afd catagory:Places and transportation? --Marriedtofilm 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not agree that it breaks any wikipedia's deletion policies, and it is very informative and encyclopedic. Beltz 04:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite to avoid the current POV fork.--Tbeatty 05:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, but needs cleanup to resolve POV. Also could do with less inter-wiki links. --Zabadab 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't see any interwiki links... -Elmer Clark 11:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I just woke up when I wrote that. ~_~ I meant that there's too many blue links to other wiki pages (for dates, etc). In my humble opinion too many of them are annoying since they stand out too much. --Zabadab 12:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep qwm 15:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a follower of current events and politics I think this article is most accurately and objectively described as a major campaign theme or party philosophy for an election cycle. My view of Keep v Delete on this is how it likely should be remembered after 2008 (since any of these efforts are moot after 2008). My determination: as much as the 1994 campaign theme known as the Contract With America.--Tony 17:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears factual and sourced. Gamaliel 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. It's an awful article that pretty much reads like a hypothetical Articles of Impeachment itself, but the subject matter meets WP:N. (And yes, I !vote this way knowing that my "keep" vote will be counted as a keep and not one iota of "cleanup" will actually take place.) --Aaron 18:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Aaron. And Comment. Please. This is a done debate for keep. Get rid of this template from the page. --ASDFGHJKL 00:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well cited, Obviously there is a feeling amongst some that GWB should be impeached and this should be documented. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:27, 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 no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rossview High School[edit]

Non-notable high school with no assertions of notability. Also fails WP:SCHOOLS. TJ Spyke 02:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Please note that WP:SCHOOLS suggests a merge for valid schools articles that fail it's criteria. So I don't see it as a deletion criteria, even though nominators seem to keep insisting on using it as such. — RJH (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into the town article. — RJH (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep — It meets my personal criteria for notability. Thanks. — RJH (talk)
  • Strong delete. Not to mention the repeated vandalisms by its students. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the creator of the article seemed to think it wasn't notable, and just wanted to vent about something. I'm surprised there have been attempts to rescue the article from deletion. =Axlq 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been improved since it was first nominated, and now adequately demonstrates notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, greatest of all keepers, explain how the article demonstrates notability. -- Kicking222 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please take note of the references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why is it that deletionists just vote NN Delete, and nobody even mentions it yet as soon as someone votes keep they are asked (in highly sarcastic tones sometimes!) to justify themselves? Jcuk 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since for almost any article type (see for examples WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:PROF) notability is not a default presumption. Notability must be demonstrated. JoshuaZ 04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not really an answer, since whether notability is demonstrated or not is frequently an opinion, not a foregone conclusion, which was the essence of the question. You can't just claim something is non-notable (just as you can't just claim that something is notable); you also have to say why it's not notable. Frequently in these debates (and with PRODed articles) I read the article and am at a complete loss as to why anyone should think it wasn't notable. The deletionists often seem to believe that determination of notability is their prerogative alone, hence the desire of non-deletionists to know their exact reasoning and not just a "NN Delete"-type response. -- Necrothesp 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well it is an answer. Any object by default isn't notable. A good rule of thumb in this regard for when dealing with common objects (such as schools) is that subjects to be notable need to meet some criterion which makes them distinctive from the norm. Hence, people point to age or the point of many notable alumni or something similar. Essentially, what makes this school at all different from any others? If you can't point to anything it isn't notable. JoshuaZ 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I'm sure you know, as far as schools are concerned many people believe that all schools (or at least all secondary schools) are notable, for reasons explained many times over on many different AfDs, and thus the "any object by default isn't notable" argument is disputed with regard to this particular subject. But my point was a general one, as was the original question. Just claiming non-notability without explaining why is, in my opinion, contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Some things are blatantly non-notable to pretty much everybody, true, but many articles that are nominated for deletion do in many people's eyes already establish notability. When notability is obviously clear to some, it is not productive to vote simply NN. -- Necrothesp 18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This school is so non-notable, it can't even pass WP:SCHOOLS, and I think I know dog trainers whose schools pass those criteria. I'm all for a merge if an article on the school's district exists. -- Kicking222 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to assert notability.--Húsönd 03:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, doesn't meet the criteria in the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOLS. Lots of schools have marching bands, as well - this one having one doesn't make it more notable. --Coredesat 04:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Mycroft.Holmz 04:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 04:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless.MonkBirdDuke 08:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools, particularly high schools, have an inherent potential claim of notability. The article as it stands, particularly with the improvements wrought by TruthbringerToronto (who has again stepped up to the plate to improve articles), justifies its retention and future expansion. Deletion is destruction. Alansohn 18:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to disagree, saying that all schools have an inherent claim of notability is like saying every individual person has an inherent claim of notability. TJ Spyke 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment schools have no better "inherent claim of notability" than your local Wal-Mart. I abstain here, but that is a particularly poor line of reasoning.--Isotope23 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: A school, and particularly a public high school, has an inherent claim of notability that no Wal-Mart -- and certainly no individual person -- can ever make. Society seems to have this thing with education and schools that confers an inherent notability for all schools in general, and for each particular one. We are taxed to fund universal public education and required to send our children to school for an education (or to educate them independently). Wal-Mart meets none of these criteria. While I do not believe that every school deserves a Wikipedia article, I do believe that any one of them starts with a greater leg up on notability than does any Wal-Mart store or any individual. While this article will benefit greatly from expansion, the article (as updated) more than meets the minimum standards for retention. I disagree that schools are no more notable than a Wal-Mart (or an individual), which I find to be a particularly poor line of reasoning. Alansohn 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article does not meet the standards for retention, would you mind explaining how it does? It fails all the criteria of WP:SCHOOL, and two of the external links are the same article (one just re-prints what the other said). TJ Spyke 21:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm, I find your line of reasoning to be particularly poor (talking to Alansohn, not TJ). Society does have "this thing with education," which justifies articles on education, public education, compulsory education, etc. Society likewise has a "thing" with shopping, commerce, corporations, corporate welfare, the economy, etc. Neither of these "things," however, justify articles on individual schools or individual Wal-marts. Pan Dan 22:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree with Pan Dan. I'm required to pay taxes that pay for Police Stations and Fire Departments as well; that doesn't mean we need articles on every precinct station in America. Sorry, that just isn't compelling reasoning Alansohn.--Isotope23 00:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, high schools are inherently notable as long-term public institutions. Repeated vandalism is not a reason to delete an article, it is a reason to protect it. DWaterson 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing in the article suggests any notability. Edgecution 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleaned up article is worth keeping.  ALKIVAR™ 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alkivar and TT. We have many mechanisms in place to deal with vandalism, and deletion is not one of them. Silensor 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't nominate because of the vandalism, I nominated because the high school is in no way notable and fails WP:SCHOOL. And NO, schools are NOT inherently notable. TJ Spyke 21:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The school meets WP:SCHOOL Criterion 4: "The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools." It was on the No Child Left Behind hit list in 2003. It instituted a apecial tutoring program for students with inadequate English skills, emphasizing peer tutoring by seniors in advanced English, and all students were brought up to meet all federal benchmarks by 2005. Many fine high schools have not been so fortunate. This special program and technique diffentiates it from other schools and merits its having an article. The article is still stubby and could use revision. I added the info on test scores being far above the state averages, and the peer tutoring.Edison 22:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. I'm puzzled by the assertions that it should be deleted because it "fails WP:SCHOOL". You did notice the disclaimer at the top of that particular article that it is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline etc did you? Proposals are not policies. -- Necrothesp 00:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think a consensus needs to be reached at WP:SCHOOL before we start deleting articles on high schools. -Elmer Clark 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools are notable enough. Konman72 06:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you please explain how all schools are notable? I very much disagree with that. TJ Spyke 06:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Explain why you disagree then. -- Necrothesp 09:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless and non-notable. --GoodSamaritan 13:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and others who pointed out the issue of high schools and notability. Johnbrownsbody 11:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its notable to the people who go to the school. Somethings can be local and notable. Alpharigel 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My house is notable to me and everyone who lives with me, does that mean it deserves an article too? TJ Spyke 18:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you believe someone is going to be looking for information about your house, then yes! Alpharigel 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect that hundreds of people do not live in your house! -- Necrothesp 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but my point was that saying the school is notable just because its students think so doesn't make sense. TJ Spyke 19:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The more substantial example might be local garage bands that don't meet WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, large secondary school with over 1000 students. bbx 21:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'A special tutoring and peer advising program was implemented after inadequate performance in the 2003 No Child Left Behind tests which helped to bring the school up to all federal benchmarks by 2005.' means it meets WP:SCHOOLS #5 'The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools.' Cynical 17:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Cynical. I'm not convinced this is that unique a program but its a good start JoshuaZ 04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TruthBringerToronto and Joshuaz. --Myles Long 07:07, 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 -- Samir धर्म 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This close was overturned by DRV and relisted DRV log. Xoloz 15:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Sugden[edit]

This fellow plays for Halifax Town A.F.C., a club in the 5th flight of English football, Conference National. Is WP a dumping ground? There are only a few 5th flight players around, but almost all 4th flight players have a bio.....Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am not exactly sure about this. But I think a article for every athlete around the world is indeed too much. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article. =Axlq 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is akin to the baseball minor leagues, definitely delete. Needs to have a professional appearance at the highest level before he's entitled to an article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the context of English football/soccer, "levels 1-4 " are considered en masse to be "the highest level".... ChrisTheDude 08:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on my comment And besides, see my point below about WP:BIO not specifying anything about "the highest level".... ChrisTheDude 08:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this doesn't appear to be notable at all. —Khoikhoi 03:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non notable Mozzie 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep since he has played in a fully professional league with Oldham and others. Punkmorten 06:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite a handful of league appearances for Oldham, that still does not meet the "competing at highest level requirement". Change to Keep per ChrisTheDude. If playing for a League Two club meets consensus for notability in English football then change to keep. Catchpole 06:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - WP:BIO doesn't say a sportsman must have competed at "the highest level", it says "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league". As this guy has played in The Football League, which is a fully professional league, then he fulfills that requirement.... ChrisTheDude 07:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless it can be established he had a professional contract with Oldham, this player is not notable. Qwghlm 07:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I think the minor league baseball rationale is unsuitable, beacause I think there are quite a few minor league players that deserve their own article, especially in areas without pro teams. However, the article doesn't assert any claims of notability, and would need to be expanded before I made a call on it.--MonkBirdDuke 08:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No-brainer - Has played in a proffesional league. Rubbish article though. -- MLD · T · C · @:  11:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The soccerbase.com page linked says that he was at Oldham as a trainee. I think that moves him below the line for inclusion. -- Bpmullins 12:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, no, it says he joined them as a trainee. He then proceeded to play 20 league matches, scoring 1 goal. Punkmorten 07:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Soccerbase link on his page states for Oldham 20+ times, so that establishes his claim to notability. I'd still like to delete him mind, I really don't think many people are going to look up a player who played for a Division 2 side 20 odd times then disappeared into the lower leagues. HornetMike 13:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if we strictly followed WP:BIO on athletes, we would have millions of articles like this. Recury 14:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The Conference may be the 5th flight of the English league, but it is regularly reported in all national newspapers and on television. Therefore, I would think players within it are fairly notable. DWaterson 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - but do they ever mention the names of the players or do they just go 2-0. I looked up some newspapers and they only have the team score. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep he's played professional football therefor he qualifies. As for not strictly following WP:BIO on atheletes what is the point of having rule regs and guidelines if we're not going to follow them strictly?? You cant say on one hand this doesnt meet wiki:schools so lets delete and on the other, this does meet wiki:bio but lets delete anyway. Jcuk 23:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree with you about following guidelines, but I think WP:BIO is way off on this point and I'm not the only one who thinks so. That is why new (and stricter) notability guidelines for athletes are going through the proposal process as we speak. Recury 13:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this proposal? If you are referring to the proposal Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) from a couple of months ago, it failed to reach anything remotely resembling consensus. Oldelpaso 10:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think players from the Conference probably meet notability criteria. Comparisons with baseball are almost certainly inaccurate and not particularly useful - British sport works on a completely different system. -- Necrothesp 01:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I doubt a fully pro team plays in a stadium with 1000 seats with players who have full time day jobs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 11:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He has played in The Football League a notable league and the Confrerence is notable too. Kingjamie 09:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that doesn't make him notable. My university and high school are on wikipedia - and I won some awards there - does that make me notable? No it doesn't. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He had 5 starts for Oldham Athletic in the Football League in 3.5 years there so he scrapes in based on that. However, the Conference is not fully professional so anyone who has not played in the Football League fails WP:BIO. BlueValour 01:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a number of starts you can count on your fingers does not constitute much of a professional career. Oldelpaso 10:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 118 starts is an amount you can count on your fingers? Well, not everyone here is an octopuss, so we can't all quite count those on our fingers. And to the point, he is a proffessional footballer in a proffesional league, so he is worth notability. Mattythewhite 11:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to soccerbase he made 4 League starts for Oldham, plus one in the League Cup, and one "other" (presumably in the Football League Trophy), a total of six starts for a League club. The rest of his career has been at Conference level, and while that level has some professionals, on the whole it is a semi-pro league. Oldelpaso 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I went to the bio of some other 4-5th league player and the bio says he has a day job as a plumber - so eveidnetly not full pro.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 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. "Merge and delete" arguments are invalid, as the GFDL requires the article to be turned into a redirect with the history; all such arguments have been discounted. There are few editors arguing for actual deletion and a decent case for notability. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Therapies (book)[edit]

Non-notable book to warrant an article. Best is to merge useful content with the author's article (Margaret Singer.

Attempts by Smeelgova (talk · contribs) to canvass votes for this AfD, without knowing that it is not an acepted behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book).' was Smeelgova's only mention of this on my talk page. I don't consider this innapropriate. There's nothing wrong with discussing things with users you share similar interests with. It's not like she wrote 'Go here and vote keep, vote keep!'Merkinsmum 16:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge and delete, as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Deleting then merging would mean there is no content to merge. If you meant "merge and delete", that would be a violation of the GFDL (history preservation)... so delete, or merge? Also note that if the content was indeed reproduced from the jacket cover, that would constitute a copyright violation. ColourBurst 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currected. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. =Axlq 03:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, the book gets plenty of search engine hits. The book has not one, but two separate authors. According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria :

    "Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book."

    The book most certainly fits all of these listed criteria. It is readily available in libraries and bookshops, and has dozens of on-line and press-published reviews from notable sources. The book itself is used as a scholarly source in journal articles. Smeelgova 03:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
You forgot to copy also from same guideline (my highlight) "[...]not every book somewhere cited in a references section of a Wikipedia article will necessarily get a separate wikipedia article for itself. Nonetheless there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable." ≈ jossi ≈ t •

@ 03:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment to the closing admin. Can't we at the very least wait more than a few hours to see how this article develops? The AFD was put into effect a mere minutes after the article was created. Thank you. Smeelgova 04:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
NOTE: I have attempted to significantly modify the article as per suggestions here and on the article's talk page since the AFD began. Yours, Smeelgova 07:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment to the closing admin. - As stated above, I did not know that this particular action was a no-no by Wikipedia Administrators. Immediately after User:Jossi notifed me of this, I ceased "canvassing". There was a miscommunication after the fact between "consensus building" and "recruitment", however this only took place on talk pages. To reiterate, after the warning from User:Jossi, pointing out to me something that I had not previously known, which is that this action is considered inappropriate by Wikipedia Administrators - I ceased doing so. Yours, Smeelgova 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep or Merge This Author has published a number of books that appear to have recieved acclaim in her "abit small" area of expertise "Cults, brainwashing & Phycological manipulation" Mark1800 03:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mergeredirect, as nom -- though there seems very little to actually merge, since the "article", as such, is almost all reprodcued text from the dust jacket. --Calton | Talk 04:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and start-over I suppose the book itself could qualify as an article, but as it stands now, it's eminently unsuited for a Wikipedia article. Copying outright from the book cover is highly suspect. FrozenPurpleCube 05:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merging this article the author's article would be a step backwards--useful information that currently exists in this article (e.g. the table of contents) would have to be deleted. Deleting the article outright would just be pointless: while it may not have broad appeal, that's one of the points of Wikipedia: you can find information on just about any topic, not only on a handful of topics that a group of oligarchs have decided are important. Ckerr 08:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having the table of contents outright in the article is not a point in this article's favor. Describing the contents of a book are ok, and very appropriate for an article. Listing the table of contents is not, it's rather bad form actually. FrozenPurpleCube 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Table of Contents has been removed. The number of reviews has been reduced. I retained the review by Philip Zimbardo, because he is a noted authority on the subject. If the article is given more than than the mere day it's had to be expanded I'm sure it will be expanded upon. Thank you for your time, and your commentary. Yours, Smeelgova 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
It means merge any useful material and delete the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because no provenance was given for the Zimbardo quote, even within an article that does seem to attempt to cite properly, I inferred, perhaps wrongly, that it was merely a cover blurb. -- Hoary 03:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ......... PS We're now told that it's not a cover blurb. But there's no indication of where it comes from.-- Hoary 09:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the quote to a reference from Behavioral Interventions. Hope this is satisfactory. Thank you for the advice and suggestions. Hopefully when someone finds the location to cite the Philip Zimbardo review, we can put that back in, as he is a noteworthy authority on the subject matter. Yours, Smeelgova 09:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Summarize (deleting such flab as the infobox and the utterly uncommunicative cover photo), merge, and redirect. -- Hoary 03:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. Book by a notable author through a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Allow time to improve. I don't know the book, it would be more interesting to me if the article was wikified to link it to a discussion of Recovered Memory Therapy, Multiple Personality Disorder, Satanic Ritual Abuse and other such issues of controversial therapeutic practice that were quite crucial at the time, (1996) and are still important now. Then the article would be a good read, if the books'perspective on these issues was discussed. As it stands its a bit like something straight off 'amazon' or another book site, but linked to these issues it would make a good article for me. I supect this is what the books' about, those contemporary issues, discussing the authors views on these issues more to put the book in context would stop it being purely a rave about the book. I was referred here by user smeelgova as we had agreed on a previous article. But I like to think I've been reasonably impartial. I am passing my suggestions on to the article's talk page and smeelgova himself so if there is any value in them hopefully they will be used and the article will improve- for my tastes at leastMerkinsmum 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with Jossi's statement that user:Smeelgova has inappropriately canvassed votes for previous Afds. She informed several editors in a neutral tone to vote which I think is acceptable behavior. Andries 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. Do you feel the header still needs to be at the top of the page, especially taking into account my ignorance in the matter beforehand, and my ceasing to "canvass" after I was warned that this was a big Wikipedia no-no? Yours, Smeelgova 10:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, it should stay, to give people like Andries to comment. This is useful info for the closing admin. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds reasonable. Smeelgova 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Blank and start over per FrozenPurpleCube. Anchoress 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know about this book but I would like to point out that the ridiculously inclusive quote from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria (Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, bla bla bla) is not representative of consensus. Much much closer to actual practice on AfDs is the proposed WP:BK. Whether or not this particular book meets the criteria, I don't know, but it should be a better basis for discussion. Pascal.Tesson 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Pascal.Tesson and User:Jossi's recommendation, I went ahead and looked at WP:BK#Criteria. The criteria clearly states that if one of the criteria is met, the book is "generally notable." One of these criteria is, "The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer.", which Margaret Singer most certainly does. Smeelgova 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. An extension to information relating to a notable author. The "Table of Contents" section provides a useful summary pending expansion of the article. Thanks to User:Smeelgova (as a fellow-editor with an interest in Margaret Singer) for bringing this proposed deletion to my attention in a non-partisan note. -- Pedant17 12:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but get rid of the cheesy blurb at top of article--looks like an advertisement.Glendoremus 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. She's a recognized author, and if the book has even a paragraph it should have its own article, however stubby. Pegship 03:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It's obviously a book so should have its own article, but the article needs cleaning up - you can see the problems as soon as you arrive at the page. Also, I was only alerted to this Wikipedia Article Deletion debate when Smeelgova posted a message on my user talk page. Matthuxtable 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For note, Smeelgova's talk page says that the user is no longer editing Wikipedia. Matthuxtable 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this AfD debate yet? Smeelgova may have gone but that's irrelevant really, I still want this article to live!:)Merkinsmum 17:09, 28 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 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Dementia[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. While it was nominated in the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, it otherwise fails WP:WEB BradBeattie 03:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If being nominated is enough, I think it only has to match up with one of the criteria. But I think WP:WEB says "won" doesn't it?Edward Wakelin 03:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yeah, WP:WEB explicitly states "won", whereas this comic was only nomiated. --BradBeattie 03:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per BradBeatie's comment: WP:WEB says "won"Mozzie 04:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the didn't win so theres no other valid notability aspect. James086 Talk | Contribs 11:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The WCCAs are a gimmick award anyway, your local county's child bravery awards have more gravitas than this. - Hahnchen 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Also note that pretty much everything (although not all) hosted on the free host Comic Genesis, is worthless in an encyclopedia, just like things hosted on Angelfire and Geocities are. - Hahnchen 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable per nom.--Lord of Illusions 01:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 29 Google hits for a WEB comic? I don't think so. -Elmer Clark 02:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elmer Clark. Johnbrownsbody 11:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination.Glendoremus 06:01, 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 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repsher[edit]

Delete per lack of reliable sources from which to write this and the manifest lack of notability - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I see that most of the other articles in the category of German surnames list notable individuals with the surname in question. Repsher doesn't. For that matter, neither does Ritzel, which may need looking into if this article ends up being deleted. --BradBeattie 03:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete German surnames appear to warrant a page if there are notable people with that surname.Mozzie 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who cares?? 129.98.197.86 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really of encyclopedic value, maybe more suited to Wiktionary, but I'm not sure it'd really fit there either. If we get articles on some people with the name, then the page can stay as a sort of disambiguation page (like Schmidt, etc), but until then this really serves no purpose. -Elmer Clark 02:42, 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 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn (webcomic)[edit]

This comic fails all three critera in WP:WEB --BradBeattie 03:52, 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. Any merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 06:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights groups and the Middle East[edit]

POV fork of parent articles. For HRW, what's here is actually a subset of what's in Human Rights Watch. For Amnesty International, it's about the same length, but somewhat different, and there's a section on Guantanmo (which is not in the Middle East). —Ashley Y 06:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you check the history of the parent articles, all of this information at one time was there, and somehow, it was collated into this one article. Now people want it back in the parent articles? I guess you cannot please everybody. I would say If, and only if, all information can be returned to parent articles, then this can be redistributed and deleted, otherwise keep. -- Avi 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Avi. There are many critical informations included in this article. If these infomations can be properly returned to its parent articles, then delete. Otherwise, I recommend keep. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the information should be kept on wikipedia. Perhaps redistribute and then delete the pageMozzie 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redistribute and then and only then, Delete per Avi. Also, the nomination is illegitimate. Not only is the article not a fork of any parent articles (although it could do with a somewhat better-descriptive title), it is not written as a vehicle for POV-pushing; it covers a legitimate and well-documented subject, as is readily demonstrable by the fact that the article itself is well-sourced. Tomertalk 05:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or reintegrate back - per Avi & Tomer. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or reintegrate back same as Humus, Avi, and Tomer Robocracy 11:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The inclusion of Guantanamo Bay is...confusing, and the intro section "Human rights groups frequently run into controversy when reporting on an emotionally charged issue such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Often there is more attention given to their claims and counterclaims on Middle East issues than to their coverage of the rest of the world." sounds suspiciously like original research, but it's a notable enough topic, and poor article quality isn't a reason for deletion. -Elmer Clark 02:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless it is reintegrated, although I can see value in an article about criticisms of and responses from human rights groups working in the Mideast. Important subject, although only part of a larger subject on the fairness of these groups worldwide.Noroton 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of HRW, at least, there's nothing to reintegrate. What's the point of having a separate article that has less than its parent articles? —Ashley Y 06:52, 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 speedy delete as a copyvio. --Coredesat 06:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Bodies[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable company. The article does not assert the company's notability. See Criteria for companies and corporations and Criteria For Organizations Mozzie 04:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G12. Copyvio is from here. --N Shar 04:29, 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, obvious hoax. GarrettTalk 09:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WarioWare: Word Up![edit]

Probable hoax article created by newly registered user, based on contributions, possibly as tests. Web search pulls up no results for any of the information. Purported Japanese name is actually the Japanese name for WarioWare: Touched!. Dancter 04:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Based on creating user's history, and the verafiability of the topic. If the game is actually real and ever released an article can be restarted.Mozzie 05:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 05:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Dancter 05:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Kinslayer 08:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no doubt there will be a new WarioWare game, but until there are sources on the game, its actual name, and some content, there shouldn't be an article since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Dskj 22:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No sources, no Google hits -- as non-verifiable as it gets. Probable hoax to boot. -Elmer Clark 02:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As an avid gamer I can assure all that this game does not exist...yet ;) Konman72 06:33, 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 keep - well, just about a consensus, as many of the "keeps" are weak ones. But nowhere near a consensus to delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screwed (song)[edit]

I applied a PROD to this article, but it was removed with no explanation. The song was rumored to be the first single off of Paris Hilton's debut album, but then it wasn't. It was briefly rumored to be the second single, but then it wasn't. There are now no confirmed plans to release this as a single, and it has done nothing to establish itself as an album track of encyclopaedic notability. GassyGuy 04:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, as much as I read these, I don't nominate articles very much. In case there's confusion, among other guidelines, I'm accusing this of violating WP:NOT a crystal ball. GassyGuy 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "was planned," "was rumored" Is unsourced. Even if verifiable, which is doubtful, nobody cares about a single that could have happened but didn't. (And isn't "notable Paris Hilton song" an oxymoron, or am I being unkind?) Fan-1967 05:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The leak and remix, and the disagreement over the rights with Hailie Duff, make the song slightly more notable than an average album track. VoluntarySlave 05:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thousands of songs have disagreements over rights; that doesn't make them notable. -Amatulic 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Agreed with User:VoluntarySlave that the circumstances surrounding this single make it somewhat notable. Sort of on the fence, and the fact that it's by an undisputably notable artist pushes me to the "keep" side. -Elmer Clark 02:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a single. It's not even an aborted single. It's a song that was rumored to be a single but never came to fruition. What circumstances? That it was leaked? Entire albums often leak in this day and age, but the songs on them don't all become notable. That they had trouble clearing the rights for it? Can you imagine how many hip hop songs would become automatically notable if problems clearing rights equated with notability, given the amount of sampling etc. that is done? GassyGuy 03:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But the only other circumstance where artists fought over a song was over Mariah Carey's "Loverboy" and Jennifer Lopez' "I'm Real" (well, technically, they fought over a loop), and that was certainly notable. And it's not about clearing rights for it because of a sample, so I don't know where the comparison is there. And it IS an aborted single; why else would radio stations have received promos? The leaked version was played on a major radio station (I believe in LA), and remixes were done for the song as well. Remixes usually aren't done for album-only tracks. So this must have been planned as a single, at least for a while. In any case, my vote is...
  • to keep the page...I guess a weak keep. There was a lot of press over this song, so that makes it notable. SKS2K6 07:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comparing it because it's still about clearing rights, and there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of songs where there have been disputes over rights for usage, be it due to sample usage or what have you. Those disputes are at least legal - these sorts of disputes don't even have legal bases. <shrug> I may be wrong that it isn't an aborted single, but it was still aborted, so it still wasn't a single. It also wouldn't be the first time that album tracks received airplay - I mean, isn't that what FM radio play was all about in the day? Or, for a more modern example, a station or two spun Kelly Clarkson's "Gone," but it too wasn't a single. I just don't see how this has done anything to set it apart from other album tracks. GassyGuy 08:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This song is not a single and there are no plans to release it. Nothing is notable about this song. One suggestion, however, is to merge it with the article about Paris' album.
  • Keep; there seems to be enough to write about even if it's not a single. Everyking 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough to write about a lot of songs to fill out articles - does that mean every song deserves one? I can cull all sorts of album track info from liner notes etc., and as far as the planned single angle, there are all sorts of songs that were originally going to be promoted and then had promotion switched over to a different song. Does each of these become notable? GassyGuy 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A rumored Paris Hilton single is much more notable than most of the stuff I see here. WillyWonty 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not really an argument to include this so much as one to nominate a lot of other crap. Feel free to do so. GassyGuy 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main article about Hilton's album. No need for a separate page. JoshuaZ 18:47, 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, per WP:WEB. --Coredesat 06:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Dice[edit]

Fails criteria of WP:WEB --BradBeattie 04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yet another non-notable webcomic Mozzie 05:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WEB or no WEB, attempting to delete a Keenspot comic as non-notable is clearly counterproductive. As Dragonfriend acerbically pointed out, even the prominent Checkerboard Nightmare could be claimed to fail WP:WEB. --Kizor 10:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Theres a school of thought that seems to believe that anything picked up by the Keenspot network instantly makes it a notable work. I don't subscribe to that view at all. Even though the editors at Keenspot may think that its a cool comic which would draw the advertising money in, it doesn't make it notable or popular. Alien Dice is no longer a member of Keenspot. It has an Alexa ranking of 700,000, and Wikipedia's awesome advertising board is one of the top sources for incoming links. Why users like Kizor treat Webcomics like a special needs case is beyond me. How Alien Dice can possibly compete in terms of notability and popularity to such deleted sites such as Soompi, Pokemon-Safari or Encyclopedia Dramatica is beyond me. When a website still needs to rely on people clicking on votes to topsites such as Alien Dice, it doesn't exactly suggest that it's encyclopedic. There's another comment that comes across a lot on webcomic debates, is that webcomics are such an amateurish new phenomenon that we can't be expected to have reliable sources, well, so is game modding and thats been picked up by the popular press. This, hasn't. - Hahnchen 17:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of notability in the article, and 109 unique Google hits for "Alien Dice" "Tiffany Ross" is abysmally low for something that's Internet-based to begin with. -Elmer Clark 02:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What Mozzie said: Just another non-notable webcomic. WillyWonty 22:15, 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 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Ross[edit]

Non-notable individual. Fails, as far as I can tell, the notability requirements for people on Wikipedia. --BradBeattie 04:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, perilously close to CSD A7, no real substantiation of notability beyond being a a webcomic artist -- Samir धर्म 04:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete no reason to suspect that the subject is notable Mozzie 05:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete useless and annoying. MonkBirdDuke 08:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone. --Kizor 11:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Brim 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a nn, unverifiable bio. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being the author of one webcomic which is itself of questionable notability does not constitute a pass of WP:BIO -Elmer Clark 02:57, 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 redirect to Falkenbach. Deizio talk 00:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Havamal (Album)[edit]

This is clearly a non-notable album. The article itself asserts it's non-notability. There is a page for the band, which essentially contains all of the information in the article, so arguably it would be a candidate for a redirect. Although redirects are cheap, who on earth would search for an album with only 9 copies? Mozzie 04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I know that, in general, albums by notable artists are considered notable; however, this isn't a full length album, but rather a three track demo with under ten copies pressed. Neat rarity worth mentioning in the band's article if it can be sourced properly, but does not merit its own page. No need to redirect from this title as it isn't even formatted correctly. GassyGuy 04:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the band. Even if you do stipulate that albums by notable bands are notable, notability alone does not a worthy article make. If there isn't anything to say about something (like about a 3-track demo, for example), then there isn't an article to be had. - Che Nuevara 05:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. The same thing applies to Laeknishendr, Promo '95 and Skinn Af Sverði Söl Valtiva.... Demo albums aren't notable. Punkmorten 06:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Nine copies?? Sorry, even a Beatles album with that many copies isn't notable in my book... -Elmer Clark 02:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Albums generally get articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For starters, albums don't by default get articles (I'm 99% sure they have to be notable in some way, otherwise we'd get overloaded with stupid articles). Secondly, how is it supposed to be expanded? With only nine copies in existence, the likelihood of this ever being expanded is infinitesimally small. EVula 17:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very few band articles have the album information meshed into the article proper. It breaks the discographies on the infobox, and it usually ruins the flow of the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect In the extremely unlikely even that someone searches for the album, it should redirect to the band's article. EVula 17:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I can't find information that would verify the existence of this demo. It's not even listed on Encyclopaedia Metallum [7]. Strong keep for all the demos that are verifiable, as demos are albums too. Although these might be heavily limited in terms of cassette distribution, they usually get a lot of Internet listeners later on. Prolog 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. -- WillyWonty 22:18, 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 no consensus, but leaning towards keep as notable hoaxes are legitimate topics, and there is evidence to suggest that he is notable in that regard. If no-one can be found to add the other side of the story to the article, it may be worth considering stubbing it until someone finds time to write a neutral version. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Priore[edit]

NN-psuedoscientist with badly sourced results delete DesertSky85451 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find anything to assert his notability Mozzie 05:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Funded by the French government, published by the French Academy and subject of several books and articles. Seems to satisfy notability criteria. Article provides sources. Can't see the problem with it. -- Necrothesp 10:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A read of [8] - the third referenced (but unquoted) reference in the article - describes the experiments. They have all the hallmarks of a hoax. If not deleted, this needs a serious cleanup under WP:NPOV as the Priore doubter views are not referenced QuiteUnusual 20:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Needs much cleanup, including a section on criticism regarding alleged hoaxes. -Amatulic 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A book about him, "Dossier Priore," is the #7 best selling book on French Amazon.com per[9]. This establishes notability, as does funding by the French government. It is outside the jurisdiction of those voting here to determine the scientific truth of his claims, since we are not the editorial board of a peer review scientific journal and no one here has credentials for determining scientific truth which are verifiable by the others. Whether it is pseudoscience is an open question. But notable technological experimentation is still notable. A criticism section, or even better citations to reliable and verifiable criticsms is absuolutely needed. I sincerely doubt the claimed 100% cure rate for all types of cancer. Edison 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funding by the French government does not establish notability in itself. The nursery school in my village gets government funding, but that hardly makes it notable. Governments fund thousands and thousands of projects, some tiny and insignificant, others important and notable. QuiteUnusual 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no bestselling book about the nursery school in your village. Hektor 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very famous scientific hoax in France, on par with the "sniffing planes affair", one of the scientific scandals of the end of the Pompidou era. Lots of articles in magazines such as Science & Vie, and a book about it. A hoax indeed, but absolutely notable. Hektor 13:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure hoakum. Glendoremus 06:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Surely whether his ideas were "hoakum" or not is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether he and they are known. The sources would tend to suggest that they are, ergo he deserves an article. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge his ideas, merely to provide information about them. -- Necrothesp 10:23, 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 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Eden[edit]

Non-notable webcomic fails WP:WEB --BradBeattie 04:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable webcomic Mozzie 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've declined the speedy delete since the comic is associated with a notable group (Answers in Genesis) and has been around for nearly seven years (which, in webcomic terms, is a pretty long time). I take those as de facto assertions of notability. -- Merope 14:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom Anomo 02:28, 21 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 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Reflux (webcomic)[edit]

Non-notable webcomic fails WP:WEB --BradBeattie 04:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable webcomic Mozzie 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We had this discussion already, and I don't see any change in the circumstances. The comic was historically popular and prominent at the definitive web comic portal of its time [10], comparable to CRFH!!! in popularity at a time when Acid Reflux was already in decline and CRFH!!!, though smaller than now, definitely notable.
    Failing WP:WEB is by no means automatically applicable, nor is failing it straight grounds for deletion. In its own words it's "a rough guideline" intended to help editors, as opposed to WP:V, which is an "offical policy" and a demand, and - as Dragonfriend acerbically pointed out - even very prominent webcomics fail WP:WEB. It suggests a "well-known independent award", or distribution via a similar site? Both of those were in their infancy for webcomics at Acid Reflux's time. --Kizor 11:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of notabiility is made in the article. Find newspaper article telling how important and popular it was, and cite them in the article.Edison 22:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, historically notable webcomic as established by AFD1, the past has not changed since that AFD. You cannot judge older published works by their present popularity. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 10:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This used to be a fairly popular webcomic while it was still updating. How can I prove that, or say anything about this webcomic that isn't sourced to the webcomic itself or to webcomic forums? I can't. This article and this subject, albeit once somewhat popular, fails WP:WEB miserably, and should be deleted. Comparisons to PvP (covered and reprinted in RPG/card game trade press) and Penny Arcade (widely covered in viceo game press, hosting a yearly national convention), both of which have multiple printed collections, is a red herring. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no illusions about AR being comparable to either PvP or PA. I'm just pointing out that in my arrogant opinion Edison's standard is unreasonable. Now, why does failing WEB constitute straight grounds for deletion when it's expressly meant to be applied together with common sense and there's a (so far completely ignored) case to be made for the article? Why is absence of proof the proof of absence, when the article already survived one AfD and especially since it's uncontested that the comic did, in fact, meet the requirements? In fact, how is BradBeattie not liking the result of the first AfD a sufficient change of circumstance to merit having another one? --Kizor 12:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, everything about WP:WEB is negotiable if you can make a good case except for the part of it that is derived straight from WP:V. What can you say about Acid Reflux that can be verified? I'm not unsympathetic to the desire to keep an article on this comic (I !voted keep in the last AFD), but there needs to be something verifiable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This required possibly the biggest chill pill I've ever needed in my editing history. I'll try to keep things from getting to me so much in the future. There's very little in the article that can't be readily confirmed on the website, but if it's any good, Acid Reflux got a glowing review on Tangents, which certainly is a respected and popular site in its community. --Kizor 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unless it's gotten huge in the last two months, Tangents was the comic review blog where Rob sucked up to comics writers he happened to like. It's one man's personal opinion site, not a "respected and popular site." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Worth a shot. --Kizor 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fair enough. Better than when Snowspinner was citing that one godawful embarassing blog (I'm blocking on Talkaboutcomics, that wasn't it) that's associated with Comixpedia as though it were the Princeton Review of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - article gives me (and probably wikipedia) acid reflux. Anomo 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable webcomic. WillyWonty 22:19, 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 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd Notions[edit]

Non-notable webcomic fails WP:WEB --BradBeattie 04:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable webcomic. Why is it listed twice? Mozzie 05:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of notability.Edison 22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 01:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete an absurd notion to keep this NN comic. Anomo 02:29, 21 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 per A7. Nishkid64 22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9th Elsewhere[edit]

Non-notable webcomic fails WP:WEB. The one referenced review isn't from a notable source. --BradBeattie 04:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:44, 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. --Coredesat 06:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cutler[edit]

Non-notable bio as per WP:BIO. The best assertion to notability on this page appears to be contorversey surrounding his blogging. I a google search for "Jeff Cutler" and "blog" brought up quite a few hits, the most notable being a Boston Globe news story[11]. In this story Jeff Cutler is only given as an example of cash for comments in blogs. Mozzie 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, one Boston Globe story written about bloggers accepting money to shill for products mentions Jeff Cutler. As noted in the nomination, the article is not primarily about him. There are some blog posts about him and the practice, but in the end there are are not WP:RS articles dedicated to Mr. Cutler and he does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines.--Isotope23 19:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Vanity page. -Amatulic 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Also, looking at the edit history shows that nobody cares who this idiot is. 129.98.197.86 02:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable blogger. WillyWonty 22:20, 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. DS 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Minute Therapy[edit]

This page reads very much like an advertisement. There has been no one since myself to touch the page after it was created, and the creator has no other contributions, and the creator's username is DrEdelstein, which happens to be one of the authors of the book in the article titled Three Minute Therapy. The more I look at it, the more I want this article deleted. Wirbelwind 05:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with nomination; sounds like someone is trying to advertise their own services, and there isn't really any information about the "three minute therapy" itself. All leading way to thinking that this is made by Albert Ellis (the "doc"), himself.
  • Delete as per nom. How about a Three Minute Deletion? Emeraude 13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPAM - advert QuiteUnusual 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see consensus here. 129.98.197.86 02:12, 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 kept per WP:SNOW, this is clearly a notable topic and consensus is never going going to be reached to delete it because deleting it would be a very bad idea. Of course shock sites are notable, and of course we should have an article on them. --Cyde Weys 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shock site[edit]

This is a procedural nomination; a new user is requesting to have this article deleted, and seemed to be having some trouble with starting the discussion, so I'm taking care of that step for them. The prior VfD discussion may also be of note. Luna Santin 05:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While I understand the nominator's point of view, Wikipedia is not censored. I wouldn't be upset if there were more content dealing with the concept of shock sites and less simply detailing examples, however. GassyGuy 05:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep going through the critera for deletion, especially the core policies WP:NOR, WP:V andWP:NPOV, I fail to see how this page meets any of them. The subject matter is offensive, but that isn't a reason for deletion Mozzie 05:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. After reviewing the reasons found here[12] as to why the article was nominated, I must disagree with the original nominator. First of all, "grotesque" is a very subjective word and open to multiple interpretations. Second, Wikipedia isn't endorsing these websites by writing an article about them anymore than they are endorsing George W. Bush for writing an article about him. Third, we cannot rely on unreasonable hypothetical scenarios when judging the criteria for deletion. It is unreasonable to delete the article because "a hacker" might come to the page and link one of these websites to someone else's webpage. Using the George W. Bush comparison again, we would have to delete that article because it lists his address (1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) and thus someone could use that information to harm him. This deletion nomination is therefore unreasonable and should be denied. --Hemlock Martinis 05:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, let me give both sets of arguments at once. My opinion is somewhat neutral, I've been involved in trying to keep this article from being a liability for some time. The reason behind the actual decision to nominate by a new user are along the lines of "this is gross, why should we cover it," but there are definitely reasons to be concerned here. Mangojuicetalk 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pro deletion: This article is, basically, entirely made up of original research. Most of the article consists of the list of various shock sites, very few of which have really satisfactory source (Goatse.cx does, but it has its own article anyway). Although individual sites have some references, a bigger problem is that the non-list part of the article is completely unreferenced, and probably unverifiable. A web search for the term "shock site" on google turns up around half as many hits when we exclude Wikipedia & its mirrors.. and apart from Encyclopedia Dramatica and Urban Dictionary, nothing really comes close to the level of describing the use of the term or defining it; the rest are examples of use. Mangojuicetalk 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Con deletion: First of all, List of shock sites, which got merged to Shock site, was already nominated for deletion four times: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th; each time, the article was kept (the first three debates had "keep" outcomes, while the 4th one was a "no consensus," with a hella lot of participation). Although the content is distasteful, Wikipedia is not censored, and this is certainly a notable phenomenon. Finally, this article attracts vandalism and inappropriate edits from new users a lot... but this probably keeps those users from continually creating new articles on their favorite shock sites individually. Also, the article is sourced, even if the sources push the boundary of WP:RS, that may be necessary given the kind of topic this article covers. Mangojuicetalk 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced this isn't a keep, but I do question some of the examples; do we really have any good sourcing of "penis bird" that it belongs on the list? GassyGuy 05:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source for that one is an official letter from Slashdot complaining about that picture being used for trolling; they ask Rotten.com to move it to a different URL. The letter is posted on Rotten.com's page with the picture. Mangojuicetalk 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We now accept content hosted by the primary source as third party coverage? GassyGuy 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said, I think the sourcing is generally sketchy, but this is something. Personally, Rotten.com has a reputation for posting complaint correspondence, and they have no reason to fabricate the letter. If you want to discuss individual sourcing issues, I invite you (beg you, even) to join us at Talk:Shock site where we have to constantly explain basic WP policies regarding sources and verifiability. If you have a problem with this one, I don't blame you, but look at all the other ones too: this is, IMO, one of the better sources in the article. Mangojuicetalk 16:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mangojuice --AAA! 08:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's a relevant site, a documentable internet phenomena, and doesn't belong on the articles for deletion. --MonkBirdDuke 10:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's handy to have some place to link to when someone out there asks "What's Goatse?" --JDHarper 10:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, Wikipedia should not be not censored. Rixth 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia should not be censored. Wikipedia is where all human knowledge should be. 'Nuf said.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves/Saoshyant talk / contribs 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article doesn't suck. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It's an evil, albeit vital part of the internet. Original research can be fixed. --DodgerOfZion 13:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As people have said, censorship isn't a reason to get rid of a page. I personally have gotten use from the article, as every now and then I've used it to figure out what a shock site is without having to see an unpleasant picture. Edward Wakelin 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mangojuice, but isn't it just listcruft. Khukri (talk . contribs) 15:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I fail to see how any of this has encyclopedic value, but I don't find the nominator's arguments compelling either. -Amatulic 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now lets stop being stupid, people 86.42.165.146
  • Strong Delete This article contains useless sites that can have no benefit to people at all. Maybe friends can joke eachother into going into the sites, but that's about it. These sites are grotesque and need to be removed, along with this whole article. Some of these sites contain pornography, viruses, trojans, and more horrible things. If a hacker gets on someone's site they could come to this wiki, look for one of these sites, and redirect the homepage he is hacking to the shock site. A friend could trick a gullible friend into going to the site. None of these things have any benefits to anyone at all. People don't even need to know this information because it can not benefit them in any way positive, besides for them to make a mental note to never go to that site... This topic needs to be deleted because of these reasons.Sumperson01 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those reasons fall under any WP policies I've seen, and like I said, I have used the article in question to avoid finding out what some awful site (I'm a very curious person) by going to it. Instead I can read that it's a picture of awful thing X. So, it actually does benefit people in positive ways.Edward Wakelin 23:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't help people in positive ways, but it does help people in negative ways.
        • Err... So being able to satisfy one's curiosity without seeing something stomach-churning is negative? Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there's no standard of "positivity" for inclusion on WP. Edward Wakelin 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Shock sites are an important cultural aspect of the Internet. Any studies done into the counter cultures of the Internet will always include things like Goatse and GNAA. Its unavoidable and is research worthy. - UnlimitedAccess 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand why this page bothers some people, and it's a little disorganized by the nature of the topic, but it definitely needs to be kept. It's notable and verifiable. 129.98.197.86 02:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously the concept itself is valid, it's an observable and reported phenomenom, and itself an outgrowth of more traditional juvenile behavior like mooning. It seems to me that the real problem is that this article includes links to sites that cause this sort of problem. That may be so, but itself is not a reason to remove information from Wikipedia, any more than we remove information about software emulators because people might pirate video games, or information from chemistry articles so people can't make poisons or explosives. Or heck, pick a gun based on information about firearms here. Unfortunate though those risks may be, censoring this site just to avoid a person's possible misconduct is not a viable choice. It would be equivalent to an ostrict sticking its head in the sand. (Which if you look it up, you might find that they don't do that) FrozenPurpleCube 02:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the other keeps RZ heretic 04:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Okay, I gave two sets of arguments above, but I'm rather surprised how easily everyone seems to be willing to dismiss our longstanding no original research policy in favor of weak arguments like "Wikipedia is not censored." Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean that offensive things should be kept regardless of other policies, just because they're offensive. I want to endorse this side of the argument, because I want to see some discussion of this issue, not just blanket endorsements of Wikipedia not being censored, which is all we've had so far. Mangojuicetalk 04:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, many of us who came in early were addressing the original nomination, which didn't really raise this point. I haven't finished sorting through the article, but so far, all of the sources appear to be primary, which is definitely a problem. However, I was thinking perhaps we could go through and purge some of the most egregious violations. First, though, I must question: has there anything been written on the concept of shock sites? If so, then I'd say keep this, as its unsourced but verifiable; if there really isn't anything reliable on the topic, then I will amend my vote accordingly as it becomes unverifiable OR. GassyGuy 05:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sources and NOR are valid concerns, but I don't see them as especially problematic for this article. Still, this [13] result should be enough to establish that there are some sources out there, though they may be hard to establish, if only because of the various terms used (one place may use shock, others might stick with offensive, or something else, but mean the same thing), but it's still something that is understood to exist. I suspect the best immediate source would be various tutorials on avoiding the evils of the internet, but I'm not too familiar with them myself. FrozenPurpleCube 05:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP. What's the reason for deletion? Wikipedia is not censored. --Czj 06:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no reason for deletion and it allowed me to check suspect web sites from work without having to view them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.153.131.254 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong delete It's articles like this that severely weaken and cripple Wikipedia's credibility. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a repository of useless, senseless crap, which is what "shock sites" are. Honestly, I can't fathom how anyone who has ever listened to the vision of Wikipedia as espoused by Jimmy Wales can support the inclusion of this or any other junk article. Wikipedia is supposed to add to human knowledge and increase our understanding - that is the purpose of any encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is gradually becoming more and more of not just a pop culture resource (with endless television episode guides and character profiles), but a resource of useless trivia. Even Jimbo has acknowledged these problems. If we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously, if we want Wikipedia to be accepted as an encyclopedia, then we're going to have the cut this crap out of the loop once and for all. If anyone here is interested in the true mandate of this project, which is to help build a free encyclopedia, they will vote to delete. IMHO, anyone who votes to keep this and other articles like it is not interested in this mandate, and is instead contributing to the demise of this fine resource. metaspheres 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that the list isn't necessary and will probably just turn the article into a "post your own shock link" page. If this page has a list, it should only contain info on shock sites that are notable enough to have their own articles. I don't believe, though, that the whole article should be deleted, as shock sites are a notable internet phenominon. I also suspect that the user's personal taste may be influencing this deletion nomination. Grotesque or no, Wikipedia is not censored and content shouldn't be removed just because certain users find it offensive.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The reasons given two years ago, along with many of the comments above, are more than enough to keep this page This isn't PuritanWiki. Tarc 23:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe the article should be merged with Internet troll.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The question should not be, "Is it offensive?" but rather, "Is it encyclopedic?" The question of offensiveness is moot. There are plenty of things in any encyclopedia - even Britannica - that one may find offensive. For instance, articles about human anatomy or sexuality. As I have stated in my comment, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform and educate. This is the goal of Wikipedia and this is why we have featured articles and Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0. Articles such as this do not conform to the mandate of Wikipedia and if this project is to ever achieve parity with "closed-source" encyclopedias (Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, etc.) these articles will have to eventually be phased out. If not now, then in the near future. But I can assure you that it will happen, and it's already been slowly occurring since late 2005 when it became clear that the quality of articles in the arts and humanities and culture (as opposed to science) leaves much to be desired. Let us not avoid the inevitable but quickly set things into motion. The sooner Wikipedia cleans this junk out, the sooner we will arrive at a high-quality 1.0 release, and even better releases beyond that one. metaspheres 08:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Metaspheres, I'm afraid I must disagree. While you may be right to have concerns over the contents of this article, as I'm sure there are folks who see this sort of thing as the place to troll, that's not a reason for deletion. It's a reason for concern, and attention, but this article is still about a real phenomenon, which is itself the outgrowth of yet nother aspect of human behavior. It probably does need some study and documentation, as it is important for the social sciences to study humans as they behave, and ignoring it doesn't do anybody any good. in fact, that sort of stick your head in the sand and just believe what you want to believe mindset has been the bane of social science for a long, long time. It really needs study by clear-minded folks, and if Wikipedia wants to help with that, it won't be by deleting this article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you see, what you have just described is original research. As far as I know, there are currently no academic works on "shock sites." If Wikipedia's policy on original research is still in effect (last I checked, it was), then this is one for the sociologists and culture critics. Once they've come up with a thesis or two and published their findings, then more power to everyone who wants to include this junk. metaspheres 20:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In case you failed to notice, the article in question does cite sources in the references section. Your claim of "original research" holds no water. Tarc 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow. Did you look at those references? Because they (1) don't back up any of the substance of the article, they're only in the list. (2) Even for the sites, some of them are kind of sketchy in backing up the inclusion of the site or its status as a shock site. (3) Not a single one of them is clearly a reliable source. Mangojuicetalk 02:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Precisely. metaspheres 09:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, I have looked at the references and while not perfect, it is a start. Better effort could've been made into cleaning up the arcitle reather than carrying on a frivolous AfD for a myriad scattershot of reasons. Tarc 20:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but even if I agreed with you about anything being OR in the article, the problem of original research is not so endemic to this article that it warrants deletion. This article isn't about a theory of behavior that leads to the creation of shock sites, but describing a real and observable phenomena, that nobody is going about denying that they exist. There is a wide gap between theory and observation, that sometimes that NOR policy doesn't cover very well. And yes, there are people writing about them, here's a book [14] on the subject of disgusting websites. Not serious and academic, but enough to demonstrate some interest. On TV, there's this report of a Consumer Reports article [15] which indicates that this exists, not to mention this [16] bit of news which uses the term to describe the actions of the German gov't. (and they aren't the only gov't to take action [17]. This page [18] describes them from a security perspective. Even though they use different terms, I think it is clear what they are talking about. Since they are a firm providing tech support services, I'm reluctant to add them to the page, but they do show that there is interest in the subject. I suspect there's more in discussions on content-filtering, protecting children, and whatnot, but I must admit, I have little familiarity with them, so I'm not even sure where to look. Still, I don't find your objections, either in terms of what Wikipedia should be, or OR, very persuasive. FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up to add this [19] link, which is a Whittier Law Review article on the subject of internet domain names. I think that satisfies the question of whether there is any possibility of any valid sources. I'd prefer something more substantial like this article, but this should show that it can be achieved. (And in this case, the shock site refers to Macromedia Shockwave, which is one of the things complicating searches on this subject) FrozenPurpleCube 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is regularly pruned of vanispamcruftisement and there are sources for these being described as shock sites. Guy 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY Strong keep Yes, I actually had to go the extra mile with the "VERY" portion, this article is more of a resource for people who want to actually AVOID these kind of sites, so they will know when the link they are going to is real, or just a skillfully devised prank to gross you out! But, I'll only go by these words...IF you allow us to add Meatspin to it, it's more popular then Lemonparty, Tubgirl, and Goatse combined! ViperSnake151 19:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also spam. Guy 23:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for reasons stated above, and that it's good to have this article in existence when someone asks in a forum "what's Goatse?" after someone posts a link. -Ich (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article you are looking for is goatse.cx. Guy 09:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. However, I'd say that it would look better with notable sites only. --UNKNOWNFILE 02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It is reality and it is mentioned in Wikipedia policy. --Ineffable3000 04:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. metaspheres argues: "The sooner Wikipedia cleans this junk out, the sooner we will arrive at a high-quality 1.0 release...." I respond that we won't reach 1.0 by screening all 1.4 million articles and deleting those that don't belong. The more common vision of 1.0 is that it would represent a selection from among all the articles. There's a large middle ground of articles that wouldn't go in 1.0 but that shouldn't be deleted. JamesMLane t c 09:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my comments at the AfD for Time Cube and Wikipedia:Five pillars. The vision of Wikipedia, as outlined by Jimbo, is as a free encyclopedia. Which is to say, an encyclopedia along the lines of a traditional one such as Britannica or Encarta. The only difference being that it is free (obviously) and perhaps just a bit more "liberal" in it's outlook and what is included - for instance, including articles on localities, institutions, software programs, etc. that wouldn't normally be included in a traditional print encyclopedia. But, not so liberal as to go ahead and include articles (such as this one and Time Cube) which literally add nothing to the "sum of human knowledge" (per Jimbo's original vision) but actually take away from it. I'm serious - articles like this one have become so numerous that like reality shows on television, Wikipedia will begin lowering one's IQ. Most visitors invariably will come across these articles if they spend more than a few minutes here. What you're basically saying is that Wikipedia 1.0 will be the actual encyclopedia and that this, the original Wikipedia, is just a "knowledge base," a repository, if you will. That's fine. Then Wikipedia should redefine itself, and Wikimedia should fork Wikipedia into two, similar to the original setup with Nupedia and Wikipedia. One, the actual encyclopedia with informative, educational articles, and the other, a repository of mostly useless pop and Internet culture references. metaspheres 16:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia's not censored. This is a silly nomination. Bryan 17:34, 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 redirect to Cohabitation. --Coredesat 06:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living in sin[edit]

Non-encyclopedic content per rv discussed on Talk:Cohabitation PsYoP78 05:15, 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. --Coredesat 06:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Finny[edit]

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. EVula 05:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously Delete not notable at all--MonkBirdDuke 09:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. - SimonLyall 10:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete - IF he is just the Exec of the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce then not notible enough,. - SimonLyall 10:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. But what was a large article listing several things that would make this man notable, has been reduced to a single sentence by User:SimonLyall on the claim that there is a copyright violation. Now, this may or may not be the case (I've no way of knowing) but if the removed details are accurate, then Charles Finny deserves an article. Abstain Emeraude 13:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Compare [20] with [21]. Pretty much 99% of the edit is a copyvio. That said, I still don't see anything that satisfies WP:BIO. EVula 14:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after copyvio is removed, not enough remains, and I don't think he's notable enough for the page to be worked on. --Dom 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deputy Chief of Mission at the New Zealand Embassy in Beijing. First secretary at the New Zealand High Commission in Singapore. Seem fairly notable to me, but then what makes a diplomat notable? OK, so original article was a copyvio. If someone had rewriiten the info and quoted the source, it seems there's enough to make notable. I'm still abstaining though. Emeraude 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable person of a non notable corporation. T REXspeak 00:48, 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 no consensus. --Coredesat 06:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonique Smith[edit]

Non-notable actress fails WP:BIO. Also, her IMDB page [22] seems especially non-notable. --BradBeattie 06:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Delete" Agree with nomination...An encyclopedia is not a place for people with a couple credits on obscure movies...that's what Imdb is for. Entirely non-notable.--MonkBirdDuke 09:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough credits etc. Second Google hit is MySpace. Punkmorten 09:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like Smith's blog, but in the third party. "Oh I hope I get the part!" becomes "She has expressed interest in the role of..." EVula 14:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, her most significant role is not on film but on Broadway -- Mimi in Rent is a very major role. Adding Internet Broadway Database source to article. NawlinWiki 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A single major role doesn't secure notability. The article needs to be sourced significantly (and some of the stuff would just have to go) before I would consider it/her notable enough to stay. As it is, the whole article smacks of autobiography, between the editor's single-minded edit history [23] and unsourced minor claims ("She performed in various plays at her local church...", etc.). EVula 15:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edited to cut out the unsourced stuff. NawlinWiki 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A single major role doesn't secure notability" is your POV and not based on WP:BIO policy or precedent. . --Marriedtofilm 17:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A star in major Broadway production and appeared in national television shows. --Marriedtofilm 17:41, 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 wasdelete. DS 02:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Arelio Bognano[edit]

Hoax. This person does not exist, neither does Silvera Bartotti or Emilia Frabache. The rest of the article is preposterous - note that he is the assistant manager of Fortaleza while living in Tenerife! Punkmorten 06:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - obvious hoax ChrisTheDude 07:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he got the blow injury which made him to be in peace for one and an half years" - a blow injury will do that to a man :-) ChrisTheDude 09:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If anybody by this name accomplished anything half as notable as the stuff in this article, it would be easily verifiable. GassyGuy 07:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. Qwghlm 07:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a weird article, in that, most of it is not absurd or ridiculous like most hoax articles on here. However, none of this information is listed anywhere outside of wikipedia. This player's stats alone would make him one of the greatest in the history of football, however he's not readily identifable on google? I think not. --MonkBirdDuke 10:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax Scottmsg 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 15:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 21:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noel (food)[edit]

Delete: Unverifiable, Uncited, and possible not notable. Note that this page is the rewritten and relocated descendent of this edit, which was added on April 1 by an anonymous contributor who made changes to no other article. Vectro 20:23, 13 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 06:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only recipe I've been able to track down is Buche de Noel,a marzipan cake. L0b0t 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would say NO redirect as this claims to be an egg and spice dish, some kind of custard unrelated to Buche de Noel. L0b0t 01:25, 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 as unverifiable and possible original research. Redirect will also be deleted. --Coredesat 06:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mall Sainthwar[edit]

Administrative note: This is a second attempt at an AfD that was plagued almost entirely by sock-puppets. Lets give it another shot, with some experienced voters having a hand, eh? Below is the original nomination. No vote. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous instances where legions of brand new users have flooded a debate, I have semi-protected this debate. If any new or unregistered user wishes to make a substantive point in the debate they should please do so on the Talk page. Guy 13:00, 19 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.

Not notable. Only one google hit for name. Creator removed prod, is civil but cannot provide other sources. Possible original research. Please also note Mall sainthwar rajputs redirect first created by author as a copy.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not only is it non-notable, it's among the worst written pages I've ever seen. If the author wishes to keep it, I reccommend book citations to prove notability and an article formatting that can actually be read. --tjstrf 07:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that it is quite likely that English is not the first language of the contributor. GassyGuy 07:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that. Doesn't change that the article has no cohesive structure. (indeed, it's nearly nonsense) -----tjstrf 07:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say nicely is, please consider the points laid out at Wikipedia:Civility. While it may be appropriate to point out that the article would require cleanup if it survives AfD, there is no need to call it "among the worst written pages" you've seen, even if it is. GassyGuy 07:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just changed some of the formatting to make it easier to read. It does need rewriting and the sources need clarifying. But if what is there is true, it's a good piece of Inidian hstory that seems deserving of an article.--Siobhan Hansa 08:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In as much as I can make head or tail of it, it appears to be original research in support of an external agenda. I am not satisfied that the article is neutral, the sources do not allow me to verify that, and I do not have the wherewithall to fix it, so unless it is fixed it should be removed as violating core policies. Guy 13:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I desperately want to say keep on this, because I'm just sure enough about this to think it's worthy, but I'm not sure regarding the source and don't know enough about it to make a clear decision. I'd suggest whoever chooses to close this see if they can get input from someone more familiar with the history and subject (or a similar subject) to get a clearer idea on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless article undergoes a major rewrite and upgrade of sources. As noted above, the writing style is difficult to understand and suggests an author with limited English language skills. The surname of the primary source author matching the subject of the article also raises concerns about the objectivity of the cited sources. While this could be valuable material it appears just a likely that this article is an attempt to promote the importance of a family or clan using private family histories. --Allen3 talk 13:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ban the socks/meats that flooded the first attempted discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands as totally unverifiable. Conceivably, there might be some other spelling or transliteration that could produce sources, but that looks pretty doubtful. Fan-1967 20:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, non-compelling prose (the introduction fails to describe adequately what the article is about), and no other article links to it. -Amatulic 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and Straong Delete. WP is not Uncyclopedia, elaboration doesn't render verifiability to hoaxes. - Aditya Kabir 02:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: http://www.hvk.org/articles/0698/0087.html  ?!?!?!?!? LGMᚂ 02:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The responses to the first AFD was by true citizens. They are different people and the term sock puppet does not apply to that. They have reacted in that way since they are new to the Wikipedia. Is there a policy in Wikipedia that gives more weightage to an user of Wikipedia who knows absolutely nothing about a topic, rather than experts from that area who are not Registered Users in Wikipedia. Does it mean that once you are a registered user you have every right to pronounce judgements about areas that you have idea or knowledge. This is a disturbing trend. The article is poorly written, but atleast there should be no doubt about the Notability and Verifiability. Can every one who has voted above tell me what all steps they took before telling this is Non Notable and Non-verifiable. AFD should involved active participation and not just "delete" even in areas where one has no knowledge  Doctor Bruno  13:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof that they were 'true citizens' instead of one person with a legion of sockpuppets, although per WP:AGF let's assume they are a real group of different people. Nonetheless a group cannot ensure their article is on Wiki unless it is notable and verificable; which this article fails. The only sources to support it is one website and few offline non-English books whose existence cannot be verified: sorry, this is not enough; one could use such 'sources' to prove anything. I asked for Indian community to verify the books/facts, nobody has responded, and the poor quality of the article is just a final nail to the coffin.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What all things you want to verify. Tell me some 5 points and we will post the question to the over enthusiastic guys who are trying to defend the article. Many books have been cited. Just because the users in India don't have time to go to library and just because those books are not available online, it does not mean that the sources are false. If there is a doubt, you have to keep. Give them some time to scan and upload. What is the urgency in deletion  Doctor Bruno  14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources to support it is one website and few offline non-English books whose existence cannot be verified The only sources for MOST of India related contents are non English books and 99 % of those are offline. If you are not respecting those, then I see a BIG systemic bias here. Such behaviour will ensure that there are no articles related to Indian History in Wikipedia. I find such a behaviour disruptive to Wikipedia in the long run  Doctor Bruno  14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi, I need some more time to rewrite/edit this article. Yes... I admit that it seems to be poorly written and may not be easy for a non Indian to understand. I will provide you more sources of verification. Since these are the festivel days in India (like your christmas) So I am on holiday. Moreover I strongly object to the remraks "sock-puppets" as it is very insulting and not civilised in this case. Before making any such comment, you can verify that such people really exist or not. Almost everyone has provided his contact numbers, addresses and other such details. Anyway..accept my regards and give me some time if you can. Shalendrasingh 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too second this. Irrespective of the fact whether the article is kept or deleted, the editors have to Assume Good Faith and Maintain Civility. A lot of phone numbers, addresses were given in the first AFD. Shouldn't the guys who decide to call genuine persons has SOCKS, cared to Verify (by just calling those numbers) as to the persons were genuine or not. The numbers are from various regions in India and it is obvious that it cannot be one person. Why is that Verifiability only for the new users and those who are not accustomed with Wikipedia. Why do the senior editors don't care to even type a simple Sorry for the Blatant Insults they heap on others without verification. You can say that it is not your duty to call every number. But then it is not your duty to insult others. A casual look at the first AFD especially before I formatted it will tell that those are new users and not suspected socks There was not even a "Keep" or Strong Keep etc. It was all in the form of letters to editor of a magazine. It was obvious that these were guys who are new to Wikipedia. Still insults are heaped. Is it because you can tell anything here and get away. This should be changed. Senior editors should act with conscience. They should understand that the WP:V which they are so fond of quoting applies to their action also. ANy one can do mistakes. But in any civil word, a simple sorry is expected after insulting some one. This long message is to tell editors that others are getting hurt by your (??unintentional) acts.  Doctor Bruno  02:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My goal when nominating this for AfD was to generate discussion, not necessarily delete it. The goal seemed to have been achieved; I'd like to note that I am not voting either keep or delete - please count my vote as nominator as abstain. It is my hope that this article can be improved and expanded. If not, I suggest it is moved into Shalendrashingh userspace, as he indicated a willingness to work on it until it passes our notability/verifiability criteria.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have told that I am in no way related to those Rajputs. My concern is that Indian (as well as other regions where internet is not so popular) articles are immediately deleted when that does not turn up in Google. In many cases the editors search with the wrong spelling. In many cases the sources are not online. I am only opposing the stand "Few hits in Google, hence not notable, delete" taken by most American and European Editors who never VERIFY things  Doctor Bruno  02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep- I would like to agree with dr.bruno's argument. He is an intelligent , unbiased editor of wikipedia. I think Mall Sainthwar is an article of historical importance. Most of the users depends wikipedia for getting informations. If it fails to give information on relevant things who cares this site. Unneccessary deletions organised by junior editors and sock puppets will surely fade the image of wikipedia.Nileena joseph 08:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize in advance, but may I ask whom are you referring to when you say "Sock puppets"? And may I ask your reasons for thinking that the article is of historical importance? utcursch | talk 09:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-(May not be provoked) Little Cleaning-up is needed to the article.I agreed!. But no need to delete. Cutting off the head is not a medicine of headache.I can't blindly comment that a community or a caste is non- notable.(Days of untouchability has gone) Union Cabinet recently approved inclusion and modification of certain castes and communities in the Central list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Castes like Mall-Saindhavar,`Kurmi-Sainthwar' and `Kurmi-Mall' as sub-castes of Kurmi and Unai Sahu have also found place in the list.There were a number of news reports that I have read about their repeated pleas for inclusion in OBC list. Anyway Mall Sainthavar is a community of historical significance.A news report that I have found from The Hindu daily is furnishing herewith-[24]Nileena joseph 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dera Nileena, thanks for the link. What should be noted here is that Mall and Sainthwar have been mentioned as sub-castes of Kurmi. But, the article says that Malls and Sainthwars are Rajputs and gives a "historical" account of these castes as Rajputs without any reliable sources/citations. I'd happy to change my vote to keep, if some convincing sources are provided. My reason for voting delete is not that Malls and Sainthwars don't exist. The reason is the article only contains false information. The link provided by you only strengthens the view that the article is Original Research/Hoax/Attempt to rewrite history. utcursch | talk 03:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

++++ Respected Utcursch sir ji, if you are considering the OBC list to decide that Mall and sainthwars are subcaste of kurmi, then I think you are trusting on Indian politicians who are greedy about vote. Kurmis and mall-sainthwars don't have marriage relationship. This entire politics was started by one Congress Politician who said that sainthwar kshtriyas should be included in OBC list- just to gain vote. He alongwith some more politicians were successful in doing that but later on court order they were removed from OBC list. Again during 1994, few politicians started the move supported by some local sainthwars to include them in OBC list. That was the time when every caste wanted to be in OBC list to get the benefit of reservation. This time, there was no chance for inclusion in OBC list only by name - sainthwar. So a big game- where by this caste alongwith MALL will be declared as sub-caste of Kurmi and few sainthwars gave written affidavit that they have marital relationship with kurmis to avial benefit of reservation. This was enough for those politicians and by this, these two rajput clans became subcaste of kurmi on government record BUT NOT IN SOCIETY.

Being an Indian you must be knowing that how politicians are playing on the name of caste and religion. How they became nervous after supreme court judgement on creamy layer. What I want to say is that - Instead of wide gap between Mall-sainthwar and other rajputs, there are marriage relations but not a single relation with kurmis except love marriage. I would also like you to visit some villages like Pali, Bhusawul, Bharrohn, Dughra, Danaur.. and get the royal feel. Bharrohn village belongs to BHATI RAJPUT migrated from Jaislemer, Rajasthan. Sir, one can write anything to glorify his past, but what about existing Historical places which are named after Historical events....... By jay singh [email protected], Mob no 09322697836Jaysingh r 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Respected utcursch ji, Your are right if you go by govt. papers. There are two opananion about this too. But some historian has done a lots of research on this topic and most of them are non Sainthwar, they have tried to prove that Mall Sainthwars are rajputs. Actually this is a tiny community and limited mainly to eastern part of U.P. Some are still located in kashmir and Rajshthan. Many Sainthwars.. especially some Malls have a very systematic "vansh chart" (community pedigree chart) which prove their roots to old royal rajput families. If they are a subcaste to kurmi then some questions need to be answred. Why are they found in a limited place (mostly in eastern U.P.)? Why don't they have any relations with kurmis? Why "Akhil Bhartiya Kshatriya Mahasabha" recognises them as Rajputs/kshatriya? Why the UP govt once put them out of OBC category? Dear, you know that how vote politics can defy and distort history to gain some personal advantage in India especially in north India, where caste based politics is given prime importance. So don't go by the politics.. wait for complete revised article with many more citation for verification and then give your verdict. Had it been your doubts only then it was most welcome but you have tried to put your thoughts so forcebly as if evrything is very well known to you. Shalendrasingh 07:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete. (No systemic bias here, I'm an Indian). While I respect Doctor Bruno's efforts, this is completely cooked up "history". The few text sources are "VISHEN VANSH DARPAN" and "Aina -e - Awadh" are extremely non-notable and are probably published by "Mall Santhiwars" themselves. utcursch | talk 09:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • * * KEEP* * * This is regarding the mail by Utcursch where he strongly supported to 'delete' by saying that he is Indain and go on blaming that History is Cooked by Mall - Sainthwars Rajputs. Sir, if you are Indian then kindly visit North India, know diffirent clans of Rajputs and kindly read some books like books Vishen vansh vatika, Kshatriya kalpdrum, Kshatriya kalplata, Kshatriya Rajvansh, Gorakhpur janpad aur iski kshatriya jatiyon ka itihas etc., these books can not be found on internet but that doesn't mean that these books are wrong. Further kindly refer the 16th century battle between Noorjahan Begum and Mahawat khan in Kashmir near Jhelum river.

There are some places which are named after some historical events. Aine-e-Akbari is not written by Mall and sainthwar rajputs nor we need historical cooking to prove ourself. For some political benefits, one political partiy declared mall-sainthwars as 'sub-caste of kurmi', which I highly condemn. Regarding our existence, you can very well refer to 'Central OBC list' of India. Also I request to visit Rajasthan, place of Rajputs and look for Bhati rajputs in Jaislmer. You will find the link. By Jaysingh Note: This is user's second edit. utcursch | talk 03:03, 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. Grandmasterka 07:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SLS Health[edit]

This is a psychiatric treatment facility in New York State. Judging from the page history, it was created primarily to disparage the facility, alleging variously that their treatment methods are nonstandard or nonapproved, that they mistreat patients, etc., all either unsourced or sourced to blogs and other non-reliable sources. Recently an evident supporter of the facility has begun editing the article, wildly swinging it the other way, and adding extraneous information about the founders and their methods that do not belong in an article about the facility itself. My requests to the editors to adhere to verifiability and NPOV have gone largely unheeded, so I ran a LexisNexis search to see what I coud find myself. In the last 10 years the only newspaper articles to mention the facility are about other psychiatric issues, naming the director and quoting his opinion on unrelated topics. AND, one case in which a patient drove away from the facility and committed two murders. However this is not proof that their treatment methods are flawed, of that their care is substandard. The newspaper articles do not even allege, much less state as fact, that their security is lax. Fundamentally there are no reliable sources about this treatment facility, so it fails notability and verifiability. Thatcher131 07:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nomination, it seems like a smear article and should be removed, perhaps by speedy deletion.--MonkBirdDuke 10:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think they should be given some more time to resolve mthe matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.88.45 (talk • contribs)
Note, this is one of the IP addresses that has been repeatedly adding unsourced allegations and personal POV despite repeated advice on policy. Thatcher131 15:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • undecided I am not an objective source as I have positive experiences with SLS which I like to share. Regarding noteworthiness, they are one of the few facilities to offer exposure response prevention treatment for addictions and they are one of only a handful of facilities to use an objective, evidence based tracking system to measure patients progress. They track patients symptoms and improvement over time - this Target Behavior Tracking system is based on Dr. Santoro's Ph.D. thesis. Aside from that the Executive Director of the Wellness Center is a regular expert on Court TV. The people treated usually prefer to stay anonymous and so the lack of sources is not surprising. As the person attacking is very persistent and has now moved to the unprotected discussion page the downside of keeping the page is that it would probably have to be protected and/or patrolled for a long period of time. -- Rrgg 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an attack page. KrakatoaKatie 03:21, 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 merge and redirect to 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies. – Avi 05:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup crime concerns[edit]

Although for the most part well written and sourced, this article consists almost entirely of details of things which people thought might happen during the World Cup (still written in the future tense) but actually didn't. Whilst there was some hooliganism, it was no worse than at any other major tournament and could probably be covered in a couple of sentences in the main World Cup article. On the other subjects (trafficking of women, denial of service attacks, etc) there really isn't anything to say from a post-World Cup point of view.... ChrisTheDude 07:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's real and valid information, and certainly worth including information about, somewhere. However, it may not be worth a whole article on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sure that might have been your intent, but the article title is broad enough that this sort of thing can fit into it. Whether it should or not is an open question, but if you really don't want it to do so, you might want to see about a different name. Me, I'm not sure that the controversies in the article warrant their own seperate one, but that's another matter. FrozenPurpleCube 03:31, 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 Nomination withdrawn. ~ trialsanderrors 02:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Impagliazzo[edit]

First AfD in August 2005 was a no consensus with two arguments: 1. Article needs cleanup, and 2. Guggenheim Fellowship bestows notability. Since then nothing has happened to the article itself other than the addition of a picture (seemingly to verify the claim "Russell Impagliazzo has had a big red beard for most of professional life and is recognized by this"). On the Guggenheim, it's a grant rather than an award, and the sheer number of recipients in 2004 makes me doubt it bestows notability. Oh, and most of the links don't work anymore. ~ trialsanderrors 07:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am tempted to call delete, because of the comment "Keep and see if it develops into something better" from the first AFD. But 578 Google scholar hits is pretty good. Punkmorten 09:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I checked the ISI citation index and he has a modest amount of cites, best is ~100 with three coauthors, and a couple with 50+. I did some cleanup and am going to withdraw this nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 02:02, 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 Keep. Catchpole 11:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey F. Brown[edit]

WP:BIO states Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office are notable. I don't know if commissioners on the California Public Utilities Commission belong to that class (since commissioners aren't executive officers), so this is open for debate, but it seems he's the only commissioner on the CPUC with his own article other than Steve Westly, who is currently state controller. ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: 142000 Ghits may be somewhat notable, but I am unsure.--Jusjih 10:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a leading member of a powerful public utilities commission (especially in CA) is notable and such a page could be researched by any number of people. --MonkBirdDuke 11:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep Kinda seems like this passes WP:BIO, but I'm not sure... I'm going to hit up WikiProject Biography for their input. EVula 15:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While getting appointed to a PUC is on the extreme fringes of notability, he was elected to citywide office in San Francisco five times. We might want to consider an amendment to WP:BIO for those elected to citywide office in major cities. Montco 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd be fine with such an amendment, though "major cities" would have to get a very clear definition. EVula 02:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. No question about it, but I am sure we can have the debate over the specifics in another place. Montco 02:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We already have Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability for local politicians. I don't think automatic notability for local politicians would pass muster. Too many issues with vanity, electioneering, etc. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MonkBirdDuke. JamesMLane t c 10:06, 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. --Coredesat 07:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ame Akasaka[edit]

Seems to be a fan-made hoax character, evidenced by her lack of any google hits. I couldn't quite fit this into any speedy criteria, so here it is. —Xezbeth 08:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per 0 Ghits outside of Wikipedia. Punkmorten 09:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, WP:V. PJM 12:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oh yes, Wikipedia needs to have more pages with fictional characters' blood type on them... EVula 14:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 21:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Dskj 22:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious hoax: for example, the Japanese characters given for her name are in fact the name of the series' real protagonist Ichigo Momomiya. — Haeleth Talk 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This character is obviously fake. If there was a fifth volume of a la mode, wouldn't there be a THIRD OR FOURTH?
  • Delete — looks bogus to me, also.--Endroit 20:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. WillyWonty 22:27, 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. Wickethewok 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gevalum[edit]

Non-notable online game; fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 09:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 139 Ghits.--Jusjih 10:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more relevant external links added per WP:WEB specifications (Through related online news sources, information databases). 130.108.222.40 15:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not sure I see the relevance of all those links, nor how they help to establish Gevalum's notablility. Percy Snoodle 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The info on links is relevant 81.8.201.97 17:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment but how does it establish the game's notablility? Percy Snoodle 09:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see the relevence of this article. It describes a game that is not even of note, and it reads like an advertisement.24.36.202.52 01:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disagree, 24.36.202.52, reads like any informational article... also, as listed, game is of note, as shown by three notable online sources 130.108.222.40 02:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment this user has already voted "Keep" above. Percy Snoodle 09:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 16:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, Speedy Delete - Listing a game in a database is not establishment of notability. The Kinslayer 09:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The links are pure spam. Links to other online games, links to official sites, links to an MSN group for crying out loud! The Kinslayer 17:53, 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 - Yomanganitalk 18:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic Tragedy[edit]

No indication whatsoever that this song is notable. Contested prod. MER-C 09:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (merge is a vaguely possible option, but I'd say it's not the best). Yet another non-notable song by a notable band. Unless released as singles, songs tend not to be notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable single, redirect to The Used (album) (and remove the wikilink on that page). EVula 14:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe redirect, but deleting entirely seems like the best option.UberCryxic 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yeah, scratch that; I just checked the date of the album's release, which was 2002. If it was a more recent album, the liklihood of its release as a single would be much higher (in which case it would be nice to have a pre-existing article ready to go, just sitting in the history). Considering that Poetic Tragedy is a dead-end article, just deleting it won't affect any links. I've changed my response to reflect that. EVula 15:20, 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 delete. Yes, all of them. --Coredesat 07:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Igwe Amobi I of Ogidi[edit]

The background for this nomination starts with Amobi I of Ogidi - created by 66.9.5.200 (talk · contribs), later deleted as unverifiable/possible hoax.

I am now, on the same grounds, nominating the related articles for deletion:

For further details, see User:Punkmorten/Amobi I of Ogidi. Punkmorten 09:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as likely hoax. I'm not seeing anything either on Google (outside Wikipedia mirrors, of course) or Google Books. We cannot take chances on hoaxes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Punkmorten, good job researching. Unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-19 16:46Z
  • Delete per nom. Good job. It is extra work to examine the edit history of an editor but in the case of dubious edits does often pay off. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely suspicious and unverified hoax, possibly intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to some sort of advance fee fraud. DWaterson 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and I'd support a block on User:Historicalsearch Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Nothing verifiable in these links. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:47, 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. --Coredesat 07:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Gambetta[edit]

The 46th highest building in Paris. Nothing makes it outstanding or encyclopedic. The relevant information is already covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region anyway. Punkmorten 09:55, 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 delete as an attack article with no useful content or history. Uncle G 12:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RILF[edit]

Neologism. Prod deleted by author and since neologism is not a criteria for speedy deletion I'm bringing it here. TexMurphy 11:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mate this texmurphy must spend all of his day on da computer, everyone says RILF, its is like saying, texmurphy is a poof, you say texmurphy is a rilf — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCas (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete, G10 - attack. Tagged. PJM 11:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an attack page or pretty much a nonsense page (yeah, it's not gibberish, but I defy anyone to make sense of it). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an attack/nonsense page. MER-C 12:03, 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. Daniel.Bryant 10:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancies[edit]

Was {{prod}}'d for more than 5 days, but I couldn't bring my fingers to delete it. UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Good call. John Rutter is a composer of encyclopaedic value and there is already another commercial CD of this piece. That 2004 recording [25] was reviewed [26] in the American Record Guide. --Mereda 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good call indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. EVula 17:59, 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. --Coredesat 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hook (film)[edit]

Strong Delete - No sources for the film, both linked articles refer to The Hook urban legend and NOT a student film. The Kinslayer 12:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional The only assertions of notability are unsourced, the whole article seems to be POV and I can just go on and on listing the problems, but I'm hoping there as self-evident to everyone else as they are to me. The Kinslayer 14:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, POV, non-notable... poster child for WP:NOT, really. EVula 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 04:10, 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 - Yomanganitalk 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garage flowers[edit]

Article on band with only assertion being that the frontman is apparently well know for his work with a different band and that they intend to release an album in 2007. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Lots of false positives with a Google search because the name of the band is also the name of an unrelated album by the The Stone Roses. However, searching with both the name and the frontman [27] returns one Google hit to the band's myspace profile. While WP:BAND does state as a criteria: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable," I nevertheless don't think this band is notable. This is also a violation of WP:COI given the name of the editor and the article is not verified through reliable sources--Fuhghettaboutit 12:38, 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. --Coredesat 07:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writersmuster[edit]

NN forum. Prod removed by author. Fails WP:WEB. --Onorem 13:04, 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. --Coredesat 07:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Ferrari[edit]

This article was written by the subject. It was tagged as possibly non-notable 12 June 2006. Since then, only alteration has been to remove statement that she would be appearing in a production (presumably she didn't) and this was made by the subject! No attempt made to establish notability. Vanity, non-notable. Emeraude 13:11, 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 delete, this counts as patent nonsense IMO. NawlinWiki 14:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwalinapi[edit]

Blatant hoax, e.g. "Currency: Shoes (= USD 0.5)/ Socks (= USD 0.01)" and "Life expectancy at birth: 92.6". Contested prod. MER-C 13:12, 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. --Coredesat 07:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primer Chronicles[edit]

A sprite comic without its own domain. Tagged A7 (web site with no claim of notability) but there are sufficient editors that I thought it should have a debate here. I count 24 unique Googles outside Wikipedia and forums. Guy 13:38, 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. We're not a directory. --Coredesat 07:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Parking in Singapore[edit]

Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and not a webspace provider. Resolute 13:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This is an interesting and useful article that is totally neutral and factual, and lends itself to continual updates and high verifiability. I cannot find anything in WP:not an indiscriminate collection of information [31](7 points) and WP:not a webspace provider [32](3 points) in WP:NOT that it directly offends. MAYBE "not an FAQ". On that note, other lists of such localised usefulness and unique temporal quality does exist in Wikipedia (example: List of radio stations in South Carolina). Johannuar 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment btw, being a noobie, i would like to know why is wiki not an "indiscriminate collection of information". With a nearly limitless supply of writers and storage, why can it not hold anything that is neutral and factual (and better yet, encouragingly community-editable). Yes, even a list of Coke machines in New York :) Johannuar 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh God, the capped heads! EVula 14:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment sorry - noobie qn - what's a capped head? Johannuar 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Recury 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 14:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what next, a list of Coke machines in New York? NawlinWiki 15:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't an internet directory. The article is on par with a list of all the hawker center stalls in Singapore that sell vegetarian food. -Amatulic 21:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, and a directory. Edison 23:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The motorcycle parking situation in Singapore is deplorable. Wiki is the perfect venue for motorcyclists to edit/update places that we can and cannot park. In particular, we want to know those establishments that don't value us enough as customers to let us park in their garage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.3 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Suggest transfer to http://www.sgwiki.com --Vsion 02:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment suggestion taken. thanks. Johannuar 07:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, WP:NOT a directory. --Terence Ong (T | C) 07:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a great topic for something other than an encyclopedia article, like maybe a blog. WillyWonty 22:29, 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. --Coredesat 07:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Chickens[edit]

Non-notable webcomic that fails WP:WEB. Nominated for an award, but didn't win. BradBeattie 13:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Pretty much every webcomic has been nominated for one of those at some point. Fails multiple reliable sources criteria. Wickethewok 14:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:WEB is the nail in the coffin. EVula 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it fails WP:WEB. -- Mikeblas 17:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable.Edison 23:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi! This is Doug Savage, the cartoonist of Savage Chickens. I just heard that this topic was marked for deletion so I thought I should mention that Savage Chickens is distributed online via PopMatters, which seems to meet criteria #3 of the WP:WEB. cheers, Doug. --69.67.171.172 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yep, it's hosted via PopMatters [33]. I admit that Google shows a large number of results (about 100k), but Alexa shows an average of 2.4 hits per day over the last month. Now this might be because it's primarily viewed through PopMatters, so it isn't exactly a strong argument (for deleting the article). All we really have is WP:WEB #3. The question it brings us is whether PopMatters is well known. Unfortunately, I don't see any critera for that. --Brad Beattie (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fry the chicken per nom. Anomo 02:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable webcomic. WillyWonty 22:30, 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. --Coredesat 07:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin madeley[edit]

WP:BIO. A linedancer with no notable achievements. Delete. —Brim 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's hard to see how any line dancer could achieve notability. A quick Google suggests that Madeley is simply one of countless linedancing club "choreographers". Cain Mosni 16:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. EVula 17:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A British line dancer? Google seems to think the Irish field hockey player is more notable. Caknuck 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WillyWonty 22:31, 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 Keep (after the move). Yomanganitalk 18:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization[edit]

This article, and another I will also nominate, is a thinly veiled plug for a company that has raised funds for the Organization; indeed, the bulk of the article is about the Blue Plate company, not the Y-ME organization. The author of this article has submitted only one other article, also nominated for the same reasons. Both articles seem to contain what could be from the Blue Plate company newsletter. Emeraude 14:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons: Hephzibah Children's Association Emeraude 14:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hephzibah. The following comment applies to Hephzibah: See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations) which asserts "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." A purely local group is not notable unless widely written-up in the press or in books. EdJohnston 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Y-ME No press references at all. Since this is a national group, it could be rewritten to escape the notability problem if it's IN FACT widely cited, and cited from a national point of view. With no references at all, it should be deleted.EdJohnston 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Keep EdJohnston 13:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Also had a copyvio, which I removed.[34] EVula 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Y-ME per WP:NC. I have rewritten the article to cover Y-ME in neutral language, and included evidence of the organization's notability (coordinating the silicon breast implant safety campaign). --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note with interest your finding of a NY Times article from 2003. It seems possible that Y-ME might be an activist group with wide influence. The NY Times notes they may have received funding from implant manufacturers. Surely this would have received press attention. Do you think you could find more articles on this issue (especially more recent ones)? EdJohnston 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to violate WP:AGF, but unless you live outside the United States, I fail to see how you could be unaware of Y-ME. There's a difference between being tough about WP:V and being disingenuous. I hope it's the former. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, I did not know of this group, though I live in the US. All articles should have references, even those on familiar topics.Your recent changes to the article have made it a lot better. EdJohnston 13:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for Y-ME. This is one of the biggest and most active breast cancer support and fundraising group in North America. They have 42 chapters and are active in hundreds of U.S. and Canadian cities and towns - teaming up cancer patients with long-term survivors, raising funds for breast cancer research, running mobile free mammogram services, and the like. They organize charity runs in hundreds of cities raising money for research. (In other words, it's far more than an "activist" organization.) They were originally an African-American organization, but now also reach out to all women (and men).

They've been reviewed by Charity Navigator [35] and by give.org, are mentioned in webmd.com [36], the Chicago Daily Herald [37], and as mentioned above the NY Times.

I can see that someone who has never had breast cancer might not know of this, but it is *very*, *very* notable. --Charlene.fic 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, but everything you've just mentioned is a web site. Are there any print commentaries on the organization since 2003? If the Daily Herald is a newspaper, can you get us a date and a page number? EdJohnston 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Herald is a newspaper that serves the western suburbs of Chicago. I'm not sure that particular article appeared in a print copy, since I found no mention of it at Lexis-Nexis (which does list the Herald). However, there's plenty of stuff to work with here: in addition to what I mentioned below, there are 67 Google scholar results, 39 Google news results, and 86,000+ overall google results. Zagalejo 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for Y-Me. With Lexis-Nexis, I found 197 major paper hits for "Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization", plus 21 magazine hits. I don't want to list them all, but I'm sure that several of these articles must be out there (for free) if you do a little searching. Zagalejo 23:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I now see there are citations. I would change my vote to Keep if someone would add the most appropriate citations to the article. It doesn't look good to have the only reference be the organization's own web site. EdJohnston 03:13, 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. This article's had enough to drink. --Coredesat 07:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Homerton Blaggards[edit]

School drinking society, no indication of independent notability. NawlinWiki 14:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University is not a school, and drinking societeies may deserve entries if notorious enough, but this is riddled with inconsistencies which suggest it is a hoax. For a start, if Nick Hancock achieved a first in law (true) in 1976 as stated, he would have been only 14. Hancock is clever, but not that clever! (Nick Hancock (actor) gives details). Secondly, the list of Presidents has Hancock 1976- 1977 and is then empty until 2004. My suspicion is that this club was set up in 2004 and has latched on to a celebrity as a mythical founding father, but in their inebriated state they have failed to research dates properly. So, a new club, non-notable: delete Emeraude 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Americans use "school" to refer to university/college Bwithh 01:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Student clubs at a single school are almost never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Come back when notable, chaps. OBM | blah blah blah 15:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could be speedied as something made up in school one day... Cain Mosni 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. Surely Homerton didn't admit Law students in 1976? And it's extremely unlikely that a male drinking society in Homerton is one of the oldest in the Uni (sorry guys, but you're kinda recent, and until recently heavily female)... OK I didn't read the article properly. But it's still not notable! JackyR | Talk 16:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I just did an extreme reduction of the article[38], as it was a copyvio. It has always had the copyvio content since its very beginning. Let's just get rid of it. EVula 17:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rusticate/Delete as per nom Bwithh 01:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and probably a hoax. WillyWonty 22:33, 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 Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination and no support from other people for deletion. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopscotch (film)[edit]

Perhaps I'm wrong here but this doesn't strike me as being a notable film either historically or qualitatively. I know the film well, and even the article screams mediocrity. On the other hand there may be notability criteria for films, of which I am unaware, that make this a perfectly acceptable article in which case I'm happy to be corrected. Cain Mosni 15:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, bordering on Speedy Keep. AfD is not cleanup, and there's nothing so egreigiously bad about the article that a full rewrite is necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you misunderstand - I was simply pointing out that the article's own description of the film simply confirm's its mediocrity. There's nothing wrong with the article per se. (IMO, naturally.) Cain Mosni 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, I don't understand. Are you trying to say it should be deleted because you didn't think it was very good? Not only isn't that a deletion criterion, but the rest of the world seems to disagree: It has a Criterion Collection release, several award nominations (including a Best Actor Golden Globe for Walter Matthau), 3 stars from Roger Ebert, and a high 7.0 average on the IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I'd say this is a keeper. You have major actors in the film, also this was a widely released film. Easily passes being notable for me at least. Wildthing61476 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So, by that rationale, any film with notable cast members is a candidate for Wikipedia? That rather suggests to me that a huge number of very bland, uninfluential, middle-of-the-road films are going to end up with articles. My nomination for deletion was predicated on the assumption that the film should have some specific significance in its own right (be it historically, socially, or in its influence on the industry). Cain Mosni 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your question, yes. Middle of the road movies and even horrible movies deserve articles if they are verifiable and national or international releases. A movie doesn't have to have won an award or be Citizen Kane to have an article. That's one advantage of having an online encyclopedia; you can include a lot of extra information that a printed encyclopedia couldn't handle. Dugwiki 17:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. When you open an encyclopaedia of films, such as ISBN 1579581463, what do you expect to find? Uncle G 18:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well if I were looking at a general encyclopaedia (which is the light I have always viewed WP in) then I'd not expect to find documented anything but those films which were industrial milestones, iconic or historically influential. In a specialist encyclopaedia of film, however the field would naturally be much braoder. Your point is well made, and understood. As nominator, I'd like to see this closed as a speedy keep. Cain Mosni 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - bad faith nomination (stop the ridiculous AfDs!!!) PT (s-s-s-s) 17:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What it would be better to stop are your repeated accusations of bad faith, levelled at every nominator that you have disagreed with today. Uncle G 18:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I calls them as I sees them. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that I went as far as saying quite clearly that I was perfectly open to correction if my judgement of the criteria was flawed (which it appears has proven to be the case), it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that perhaps your accusation is made in bad faith (and in a fit of pique). Cain Mosni 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you have been corrected, withdraw the nomination, let's speedy keep this, and let's move on. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep notable film, long list of notable actors per IMDB.--Lord of Illusions 19:14, 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. --Coredesat 06:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now and Later[edit]

No real assertion of this candy's notability, and I must say I've never heard of it. Unless notability demonstrated, delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wha? I can get this candy in any store... the article needs some attention, but the subject itself is certainly notable in my opinion. I've lived in the US all my life; perhaps it is only prevalent here? EVula 16:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When I went down to the States, I see them in the candy store. I'm not very clear on it though, but I think keeping it is good. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable candy with availability (at least) nationwide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, strong keep - bad faith nom. AfDs are getting more and more ridiculous everyday. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I don't agree that this article should be deleted, I don't see any evidence for a bad faith nom. I mean, after all, is is just a brand of candy...Dina 17:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Agreed... please WP:AGF PT and don't start accusing people of bad faith unless you actually have some sort of evidence that this is the case.--Isotope23 19:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick web search verifies the candy is a national brand. Article could use a little clean up, but otherwise no reason to delete. Dugwiki 17:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's hard to know exactly how to assert notability for a candy. Lots of google hits (I found that "now and later" + candy seemed to get the most related hits). Dina 17:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd never heard of them until I moved to Texas, but they're popular here. In fact, I'm about to open an Apple-flavored one now. Caknuck 18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though it tastes like chewing fruity cardboard, it is a widely available candy that has been around for 40+ years.--Isotope23 19:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep go to a movie theater. Danny Lilithborne 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a kid I was always disappointed at how there was no sequence of events as the label promised, then realized it was "Candy now, cavities and fillings later."Edison 23:04, 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 - Yomanganitalk 18:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick (singer)[edit]

Very brief article with not much information. I thought of speedily deleting it, but there was an arguable assertion of notability (by stating that the song was a "hit"). As it stands, however, delete as not suffiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either expand if notable or delete if non-notable. This short description is unencyclopedic.--Jusjih 16:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [WP:N], agree, under the standards to be sufficiently notable I have been learning this does not qualify.--Tony 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable without more on how big of a "hit" the song was. It seems like every singer refers to their singles as "hit singles." WillyWonty 22:36, 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. --Coredesat 07:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Hoxit[edit]

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff with the cryptic comment "reality contestents like this aren't capable of being "non-notable"." Prod had been seconded by User:Xtifr. Certainly, a few losing contestants losers go on to notability. This is not one of them; after losing on the show, she finds herself just another struggling model and five years will be forgotten completely. I don't think we intend Wikipedia to be a Who's Who of losing game show contestants. Mikeblas 16:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She was a finalist contestent on a major television show. Not much else to say about it, folks on America's Next Top Model are inherently notable. Also, I don't think my comment was cryptic as much as direct - if you're on a show seen by millions, it's rather impossible to say that a person isn't notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. This "finalist" was the first of thirteen contestants eliminated. Your claim that an appaearance on television establishes notability is simply too loose. -- Mikeblas 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not my claim, however. Whether she's the first or the twelfth, it's pretty much the same in terms of audience and notability when it comes to reality shows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable L0b0t 17:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable model. She should be mentioned in the Top Model article as a contestant, but that's not a reason to have her own seperate article since there are no other verifiable notable facts presented about her. Now if she's done anything significant other than appear on Top Model, expand the article and I'll reconsider. Dugwiki 17:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO, see my reasoning below. Caknuck 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough for an article.Edison 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not another reality show contestant! -- Necrothesp 01:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People who appear on Jeopardy! for one day and lose are seen by millions too, but I hardly think that every Jeopardy! contestant deserves a Wikipedia article--although Ken Jennings clearly does. But this person is no Ken Jennings--merely some random loser. Xtifr tälk 07:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, and rightly. BTLizard 10:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eliminated contestants are indeed capable of being "non-notable", and the first one to be kicked out certainly appears to fit that category. She does not appear to have capitalised on her 15 minutes fame, so would be destined to fail the 20 year test with 19 or so years to spare. Having said all the above, there seems to be precedence for a simple redirect to ANTM6. Ohconfucius 06:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nod Mad Jack 02:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. WillyWonty 22:37, 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. Again. --Coredesat 07:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bre Scullark[edit]

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff with the cryptic comment "reality contestents like this aren't capable of being "non-notable"." Certainly, a few losing contestants losers go on to notability. This is not one of them; after losing on the show, she finds herself just another struggling model and five years will be forgotten completely. I don't think we intend Wikipedia to be a Who's Who of losing game show contestants. Mikeblas 16:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She was a finalist contestent on a major television show. Not much else to say about it, folks on America's Next Top Model are inherently notable. Beyond that, she was the cover model for a magazine, and seen by millions on the show anyway. Direct isn't all that cryptic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Bre Scullark was on the "cover" of (and in a photo shoot for) mahogany-mag.com, a webzine with only one online issue. AFAICT, it does not have an ISSN number. Its "coming soon" website is ranked in the 740,000's by Alexa. -- Mikeblas 16:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake on the magazine. It's still worth a mention, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable L0b0t 17:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand article or Delete Same comment as other contestant above - Mention her in the Top Model article, but unless she's done something significant other than appear on Top Model, delete it. Dugwiki 17:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO, see my reasoning below. Caknuck 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Edison 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh yes they are! -- Necrothesp 01:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to the show website America's Next Top Model. Montco 01:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just because there's a new type of game show ("reality show") does not mean that game show contestants are inherently notable, no matter how many millions of people may have briefly seen them . Wheel of Fortune is notable; it's contestants are not. As a finalist of a single season, she might deserve a mention in the show's article, but I'm not entirely convinced of that. Xtifr tälk 08:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her fifteen minutes is up. BTLizard 10:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even those girls who have signed with modelling agencies may never get up to much. The subject does not appear to have capitalised on her 15 minutes fame, and without even the hint of a contract, is dead in the water. Having said the above, there is quite a lot of precedence for delete with redirect to ANTM5. Ohconfucius 06:29, 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. This one, too. --Coredesat 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Schmidt[edit]

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff with the cryptic comment "reality contestents like this aren't capable of being "non-notable"." Certainly, a few losing contestants losers go on to notability. This is not one of them; after losing on the show, she finds herself just another struggling model and five years will be forgotten completely. I don't think we intend Wikipedia to be a Who's Who of losing game show contestants. Mikeblas 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The trifecta is complete, I suppose. She was a finalist contestent on a major television show. Not much else to say about it, folks on America's Next Top Model are inherently notable. Show seen by millions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This "finalist" was the third of thirteen contestants to be eliminated. -- Mikeblas 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable L0b0t 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand or delete As with the other two models above, mention her in the Top Model article, but unless she's done something else that's significant delete her article. Dugwiki 17:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable Vyse 18:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO, see my reasoning below. Caknuck 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Edison 23:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why are they inherently notable? They were nobodies before and in a few short days they'll be nobodies again. Even winners of reality shows frequently revert to being nobodies once the tabloid interest wears off. -- Necrothesp 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per my comments on the other two above, game show contestants are not inherently notable. Xtifr tälk 08:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable and not interesting. BTLizard 10:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All reality show contestants (this applies to people on shows like Survivor and The Real World as well) have to be known for something else as well, just being on one reality show doesn't make them notable. TJ Spyke 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 15 minutes of reality TV fame does not equate to a Wikipedia article. EVula 17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. reality contestents like this are indeed capable of being "non-notable", and this one appears to fit that category. She was not even placed (ie outside the top 3), and does not appear to have capitalised on her 15 minutes fame, so would be destined to fail the 20 year test with 19 or so years to spare. Ohconfucius 05:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. WillyWonty 22:38, 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 per precedents. Aksi_great (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Land Belcher[edit]

Individual Magic: The Gathering decks are not notable. See precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U/G Madness, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sligh, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravager Affinity, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Force. Andrew Levine 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fancruft L0b0t 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Fancruft" is not a deletion criteria or valid reason for deletion. However, as per the above mentioned previous afd discussions, this should likewise be deleted to be consistent. Dugwiki 17:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT a game guide. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete card game strategies are non-notable. WillyWonty 22:40, 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, per WP:BIO. --Coredesat 07:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Zande[edit]

Non-notable bio. Most of the Google hits do not refer to the person in question. --Nehwyn 17:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Mike Zande is perhaps not regarded as a "national" celebrity, he is a well known radio phenomenon throughout central Illinois. Deleting this page would deprive his fans and, in fact, all the citizens of central Illinois of an important resource detailing the life of one of our most beloved personalities. — 141.161.128.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So? Let his fans visit his web site. Wikipedia shouldn't provide surrogate web pages for anyone. -Amatulic 21:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have listend to Mike Zande for a few years now, and enjoy having a post about him. A lot of people would want to know more about him and his new wave style of DJing. It is the way of the future, and we should embrace his past. --jon hansen — 74.134.83.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete as advertising- Article as written appears to be unreferenced self-promotion for the DJ, probably cut and pasted from promotional material. Unless the article is cleaned up for neutrality with verifiable references to establish some notability, delete it. Dugwiki 17:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable college DJ. Claim to being a national personality because the show is streamed is laughable. Emeraude 20:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stick to commenting on the article deletion process. Positive or negative opinions on the show are not pertinent here. --Nehwyn 20:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While obscure to most, it is undeniable that Zande's popularity is steadily increasing throughout the midwest. His official addition to wikipedia is inevitable - if not now then soon. — 209.254.5.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • This guy is pretty popular and his article should be left on Wikipedia once it gets cleaned up a bit and some more information is put on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.215.234 (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 per WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat 07:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Rieffel[edit]

  • Fails WP:MUSIC. No entries on artistdirect or allmusic, nothing in the article which indicates notability. She sells her records on cdbaby and from her myspace account. She's also ten years old. And she receives more than 3,000 hits per week to her website!! (</sarcasm>) User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite requests, the creator of this article has not produced any 3rd party references. -- RHaworth 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. Brianna has been sent a message regarding her profile here. Hopefully, this matter will be cleared up. -- Summers95926 4:58pm PDT, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What matter? How would her having been sent a message clear anything up? If she is personally notified or not, it has nothing to do with her notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. This article is nothing more than a publicity page. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for posting advertisements. Interesting that the only contributor to the materials on the article has participated in this deletion discussion by calling the article "her [Brianna's] profile here." Wikipedia is not a place for profiles. MySpace is. I am sure this cute little girl has a lot of potential, but she still has a long way to go before she makes it into an encyclopedia. Best of luck to her, and bye-bye!OfficeGirl 04:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine. Go ahead and delete it. But when you start getting hate mail from her fans, don't come crying to me. I tried to warn you. -- Summers95926 12:37am PDT, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Fans? I see only one fan, that person being yourself. If Brianna Rieffel's alleged fans find the idea of this deletion upsetting, how come they haven't come to the rescue by providing the 3rd party references that were previously requested? Threats to spam the email boxes of other Wikipedians are not an appropriate way to keep an article in the system. I think that Brianna Rieffel is probably a super-great little kid, but she's not an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article yet. Maybe in a few years. I hope to see great things from her in the future. OfficeGirl 18:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE!! I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about? There are several other child entertainers that are listed here on Wikipedia and they are ABSOLUTELY ADVERTISING. Do we need to post newspaper articles to make this "notable"? These other child entertainers are ALL advertising on here so why delete this one? Unless you care to delete ALL OF THEM? Why single out this one? This little girl is making a big impact on those affected by hurricane Katrina by the heartfelt song she wrote for and about all those people. She has been on WDSU TV News, radio on KMRC 1430 which can be found on the List_of_radio_stations_in_Louisiana and in The TIMES PICAYUNE because of this song. She is donating ALL of the proceeds from her song back to the people of New Orleans. For this article to be deleted would be a serious injustice to this little girl's cause. Like I said, if you delete this one, then you need to delete all of the young entertainers that are on here! User:breezee95
    • Wow, — Possible single purpose account: breezee95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic., who would have thought? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems your contributions are mostly trying to get articles deleted. Maybe try making more positive contributions. I am a new user by the way, so you can expect that I will be watching for your other negative attempts and comment on those as well. user: breezee95
  • Comment Please add your comments to the end of the section, and don't put anything in front of the === - it screws up the formatting. --Jamoche 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aren't you paying attention? Apparently not. -- User:Summers95926
    • You're missing the point Jamoche.......this should not be deleted forget about what order my original response was made. The point is, if you delete this one, then all the rest of the child entertainers listed on here need to be deleted too. User:breezee95
      • Because, of course, Brianna has so much more public recognition than "all of the rest of the child entertainers". User:Zoe|(talk) 04:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No more no less. She should be treated equal. The other "articles" on these other child entertainers are clearly advertisements, just as you claim this one to be. All of these kids have positive messages to send this world, so let them speak and quit trying to delete it. It's starting to sound like you have some "personal issue" with this particular child entertainer. Otherwise move on to getting someone else deleted. user:breezee95
          • I am not sure I fully understand why someone is working hard to get Brianna Rieffel's profile deleted. Granted, she is a little girl so she would not have a extensive history to mark as accomplishments. She is a survivor of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and has written a song to express her feelings over the "promises that were broken". Since Hurricane Katrina has been one of the biggest natural disasters the United States has ever witnessed, to find someone so young who wants to express the feelings of tens of thousands of people in such a positive way by writing and recording a song about those feelings are remarkable. Remarkable in the way that she has no plans to profit from Katrina (many have), but has choosen to give the proceeds back to building schools in Louisanna, to me, is a postive in keeping her profile on Wikipedia. In my opinion, you can never give children enough examples of positive, child role-models. Brianna will be a huge success regardless of whether she makes the pages of Wikipedia or not. user:AGTGrasshoppa
          • That's very nice. When she does become a huge success, then she will have met our guidelines for notability, and she can have an article about herself. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think the child, Brianna, cares either way if she is listed on this site or not. I don't think that is the issue here, delete her if that is your goal. Personally, I see no harm on leaving her profile on Wikipedia. It doesn't take up unnecessary space and after reading just one entry on the homepage about Ramu in the category of "famous monkeys" I have to wonder how this particular monkey became so "notable". Now I ask "why this monkey and not others?" Forgive me for comparing a talented 10 year old child to a pesky monkey whos only claim to fame seems to be biting people.user: AGTGrasshoppa
  • DELETE per nom as WP:SPAMand failing WP:MUS. "Brianna Rieffel" scored 134 unique Ghits, and alexa ranking for her official site which claims 3000 hits weekly is over 5 millionsths, so it's not enough to even hint at notability in my book.... Ohconfucius 06:41, 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. --Coredesat 07:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Generation Xers[edit]

A list that does not have clearly defined parameters, is dependent on original research for the vague criteria it is based on, and which has the potential to include billions of people. Indrian 17:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Already covered far better in the Generation X article and the individual birth-year categories. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Generation X will do. Poor title to boot. PJM 19:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointless list. Generation X is itself a pretty useless concept, but that aside, the above comments are spot on. Delete Emeraude 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So, it lists 5 sets of criteria ranges, then arbitrarily picks one to use. This list is not based on any solid inclusion criteria... it's totally arbitrary and should be removed. Besides, as based on Indrian's nom, there is no criteria other than the arbitrary year's born, making this potentially completely unmaintainable.--Isotope23 19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary and unverifiable. DWaterson 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly pointless. Punkmorten 09:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WillyWonty 22:42, 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. DS 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubberband Theory[edit]

Hoax. Search on Google Scholar for "rubberband theory" + wormhole" and "rubber band theory" + wormhole yields nothing. Mr Spunky Toffee 17:45, 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. --Coredesat 07:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Dankleman[edit]

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff with the comment "inherently notable reality contestent." Certainly, a few losing contestants sometimes go on to notability. This is not one of them; after losing on the show, she finds herself just another struggling model and five years will be forgotten completely. I don't think we intend Wikipedia to be a Who's Who of losing game show contestants. Mikeblas 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, contestent on America's Next Top Model, absolutely confers notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All that confers is the ability to look hot. Caknuck 18:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, not notable enough for the CW to keep her bio page up on the ANTM page & not notable enough to spell her name correctly (according to IMDb, it's "Sarah Dankelman" [40]). Caknuck 18:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, she meets WP:BIO, under "notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except she is not an actor (notable or otherwise) and appearing on a reality show is not the same as being a TV personality. Delete Emeraude 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We certainly disagree on that, in letter and in spirit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you read further, WP:BIO gives criteria for notability: Features in pop culture publications; fan base; independent bio; name recognition & endorsements. I see none of those satisfied. If you can demonstrate that any of the models in AfD meet these, I'll reconsider my vote. Caknuck 20:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Start with any magazines that cover the show. Continue with the hundreds of fan sites for ANTM. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but being a Top Model contestant just doesn't ring my notability chimes. EVula 21:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Edison 23:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete realitytvcruft. Bwithh 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto above cruft comment L0b0t 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete proper term is "game show contestant", and game show contestants are not inherently notable (to put it mildly). Xtifr tälk 08:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as just another game show contestant. Mr Spunky Toffee 21:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. reality contestents like this are indeed capable of being "non-notable", and this one appears to fit that category. She was the second person to be eliminated, and does not appear to have capitalised on her 15 minutes fame, so would be destined to fail the 20 year test with quite a few years to spare. Having said the above, there is quite a lot of precedence for delete with redirect to ANTM4. Ohconfucius 06:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable game show contestant. WillyWonty 22:44, 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. Aksi_great (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Deck Formats and Strategies[edit]

This article has already been deleted once just two weeks ago and was apparently immediately recreated. It is a how-to guide and entirely original research. It may be speediable as a repost, but I was not involved in the original debate and therefore do not know if this article is virtually identical to the original.Indrian 17:48, 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. No idea why this wasn't speedied before. --Coredesat 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zuby[edit]

Likely self-promotion / auto-biography. Non-notable musician. Delete. —Brim 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 19:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Vanity spam. EVula 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Amatulic 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7. Plus I find it hard to believe that a two-month old person is a student at Oxford University.--Húsönd 23:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom -- lucasbfr talk 01:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom.--Tony 04:09, 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. – Avi 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Tower[edit]

Insufficiently notable for an article (and currently very low quality as an article). – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • After reading this, this, and this, I am confused. Uncle G 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone ahead and added those links to the article. I wonder if this is too soon for an article though, or if this is a crystal ball situation. --RoninBKETC 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crystal ball rule. This seems like a big deal for Brighton but it doesn't seem that notable otherwise. Most large developments have some level of political back-and-forth. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dhartung. EVula 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep! - I live in Brighton (Actually the city of Brighton & Hove). This is a massive modernisation project of the largely georgian-victorian costal city of Brighton. It has been very widely reported in the UK and has attainted quite some controversy! Its basically going to change the image of argueably Britains most popular sea-side resort and a major tourist attraction. It will affect all 160,000 people who live in Brighton, not to mention countless other people who visit the city and will likely become a major british landmark associated with the popular sea-side resort of Brighton. It will replace the west pier and palace pier as the symbol of a the city its anticipated. Its actually a very very important article. I cannot emphasise a strong keep enough. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 22:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite some of this reporting. Those of us who actually have cited reports have been confused by the mutual disagreements amongst them. At the moment, I haven't seen anything that agrees with this article at all, making my opinion that it should be deleted for being unverifiable. Uncle G 07:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as written. Perhaps someone could find newspaper articles showing multiple nontrivial coverage in mainstream publications, if it has been so widely written up.Edison 23:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this seems to be a big deal on the south coast, perhaps a smerge and redirect to Brighton would be most appropriate? Grutness...wha? 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Brighton Marina tower or merge with Brighton Marina. [41], [42] and [43] are examples of verifiable news coverage from the BBC over an extended period of time. DWaterson 00:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Abstain. I'm totally confused. It appears that this article is in fact about a third new tower proposed for Brighton. At first I assumed it was about the proposed I360, then the recently approved 40 storey Brighton Marina development those BBC links I provided related to, but actually it appears to be about a proposed 43 storey one. This forum post [44] appears to be the only thing I can find about it. It doesn't even seem to be on RMJM's website yet [45]. DWaterson 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – regarding which tower this actually is: the Brighton article recently had mention of this building added to it, in addition to an apparently separate "Marina Tower". (I removed the latter because it was a link to a building in Swansea, though I understand from the above that there is to be a Brighton Marina Tower too.) Certainly, the reference to neighbouring Sussex Heights (reference made in the Brighton article, and presumably in this article too, although here it's written "Sussex House") places the tower in the heart of Brighton, not at the marina. Also, just to clarify, my nomination isn't just to open the discussion, it's also a delete "vote". The place for this, if anywhere, is in the Brighton article or perhaps Landmarks and notable buildings of Brighton and Hove. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad not to be the only one who is confused. ☺ Uncle G 07:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dhartung or Merge with Brighton Marina.--Tony 04:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per WikipedianProlific Alpharigel 19:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentI'm not going to argue it all relentlessly to be honest as I have other projects both on wiki and elsewhere which are consuming all my time. So I have to apologise and say I can't sift through the internet and papers to uncover sources about the tower in media. All I can tell you is this tower will be a.) one of the tallest buildings in the United Kingdom and Europe, b.) It will have a massive local impact and most of all c.) it will likely be a British landmark, known by just about everyone in the UK and many from the US, Europe and elsewhere within 10-20 years time. Its being made by the designers of the London Eye....that in itself suggests this is not just going to be some small tower block affair. For that reason it really does deserve its own article. I'm a very impartial wikipedian, speaking up in an AfD is really very out of character for me, and as a resident of Brighton I have a somewhat unique perspective on it. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That certainly does sound genuinely notable and interesting, and (as the proposer of the deletion) I'd say that I for one will be all in favour of an article on it, when it happens, or when documentation about the project is available. But without concrete (unambiguous) evidence, it's original research and unsuitable for Wikipedia. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to back out on this as I'm now unsure which tower this article is refering to. I to thought it was refering to the i360. But now am unsure as per the other post highlighting similar concerns above. I recommend a redirect to i360 tower perhaps or deletion is the right thing to do. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and there is no reliable sources. --Terence Ong (T | C) 03:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not yet meet the requirements of WP:V, but of course welcome back when it does. -- Satori Son 14:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the BBC seems to have coverage of it ([46]) and therefore thsi meets WP:V. Cynical 21:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That's a list of search results via the BBC search engine, and the first two are in the utterly different New Brighton which is in Merseyside! After that I see various references to all sorts of other towers. If you've found a specific BBC article which relates to this tower, could you please link to it directly? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. It generates controversy NOW [47], so should be kept. And it is project by Frank Gehry=NOTABLE. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: that too is a different tower, which is indeed notable due to the architect. But it's not in Brighton, it's in Hove, at the site of the King Alfred Leisure Centre; the Brighton article mentions it in reference to the Marina development. Neither of these are the tower near Sussex Heights nor the West Pier referred to in the various versions of the article which is the subject of the present vote, nor the text surrounding the link to it which appeared in the Brighton article. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 21:31, 29 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. We're not a publisher of original thought. --Coredesat 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Killed Hitler And Then The Bigfoot[edit]

This is an article about a screenplay by a webcomic artist. Parts of the screenplay has been published as a regular feature on the website. As a screenplay, it doesn't satisfy the questions presented in WP:NOTFILM (it seems to have interest from producers but hasn't reached pre-production). As web content, it fails WP:WEB. Twice it was prodded, both times it was removed, with a reason of "ambiguities" being cleared up. I think it's pretty clear this screenplay is non-notable. hateless 18:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This movie needs to be made with Bruce Campbell, though. EVula 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V & WP:NOTFILM. Campbell is a perfect choice, though... -- Scientizzle 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Fang Aili talk 20:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per EVula and Scientizzle, and Wikipedia shouldn't be a depository for all screenplays.-- danntm T C 20:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the concerns about this article, but must stress that the screenplay is in the works as a motion picture, the article is under construction as details of the production are released, and this article is being written in response to demand (from a considerable fanbase) for a reputable source of factual information on the subject. As far as verifying the information goes, there will very soon be an IMDB entry relevant to all of these concerns and cementing the production as 'notable', but the entry cannot be created without the wikipedia pages on Krzykowski's projects as third-party references. I have already explained this difficulty to Scientizzle, who suggested suspending the creation of these pages until we have the IMDB reference, but as I have already said: For the IMDB reference, we need wikipedia pages. Even so, this is an article about a developing motion picture, in which there is a great deal of public interest - not about 'a screenplay by a webcomic artist'. I feel there is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of TMWKHATTB.

    Oh yes, and I strongly suspect that Bruce Campbell was not entirely out of mind when Krzykowski wrote it. Kinestra 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Recreate the article when it is a movie.Edison 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Something to do with a crystal ball. BTLizard 10:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this article is being written in response to demand [...] for a reputable source of factual information on the subject", "the [IMDB] entry cannot be created without the wikipedia pages on Krzykowski's projects as third-party references" — This is clearly a gross abuse of Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance, to host the original never-before-published documentation for a film, with the intent of citing Wikipedia as a primary source elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance nor a free wiki hosting service. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. The place for this sort of thing is the author's own web site. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 12:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in the Fishermen discussion, it seems on more recent information about the IMDB process that my previous comment was misjudged and factually incorrect - for this I apologise, I am relatively new to wikipedia and know nothing about the processes these films are going through besides what I have been told as a member of the fan community. Nevertheless I stand by the fact that the articles were not created for the purpose you suggest. It is not a case of 'never-before-published' documentation, because as I have said, the demand for the article was for a logically compiled source of information that is otherwise disorganised and hard to find. Kinestra 12:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTFILM? Technically it is NOTFILM because it's not been made into film. Anomo 02:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ideas for movies are not notable. WillyWonty 22:49, 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. --Coredesat 07:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antwan Jones[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. He's published a few papers, but he hardly is "infamous" as the article claims. —Brim 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem notable to me. Reads almost as a CV, but considering the article is the only one by Bowlinggreenstate and the subject of the article is a graduate student at Bowling Green State, this may not be surprising! Emeraude 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Why is he " infamous?" Sounds like a man who will one day be outstanding in his field, but he is still just a grad student who published a few papers. A qualifying exam is the very farthest thing from a publication in a peer reviewed journal and doesn't need mention. Become an outstanding professor and then rewrite the article. I really think that will happen.Edison 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Tony 04:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY Delete no notability 4.18GB 03:46, 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 delete, per WP:BIO. No sources were provided verifying any of the statements in the keep argument. --Coredesat 07:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Ochoada[edit]

[WP:BIO]. Simply being a candidate for a state legislative office is not notable; nor is Wikipedia a who's who of political activists. tony garcia 18:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:VAIN. The bit about the birthday is hilarious -- this is perhaps mergeable with the UM campus article. Half the "references" have nothing to do with him, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One article in the college paper is not enough to establish notability. Not a present candidate for public office. Not quite enough to justify an article.Edison 23:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO.zeeboid 11:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Orlanda Ochoada is extremely well known at the University of Minnesota, a very large public institution. In addition, many conversative candidates for statewide office in Minnesota seek his advice, counsel and endorsement. He is probably among the top 10, certainly top 20 of the most influential non-elected republicans in Minnesota
  • Comment "Extremely well known"--is this verifiable in Wikipedia's standards? "candidates...seek his advice..."--is this verifiable? "probably among the top 10..."--again, this justification for the 'Keep' seems to also not be verifiable. These statements sound more like someone trying to create notability to save the article.--Tony 00:21, 21 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 07:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArnoldExposed.com[edit]

nn website Willy Beback 19:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "nn" mean, Willy? What specific issues do you have with the article? GeorgeC 19:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"nn" means "non-neutral." -Amatulic 21:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's referring to deletion, 'nn' means non-notable. A non-neutral topic may not warrant deletion if it's notable enough. Incidentally, this exchange may underscore why it's not great to use abbreviations for this sort of thing. ScottW 22:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexa ranking of 504,075, very little press coverage (unless someone can point this out to me). This doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. Wildthing61476 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smells strongly of POV-pushing. I couldn't find any press coverage. EVula 20:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yet-another-Alex-Jones spinoff or something like that. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. POV but fixable. Fails to meet WP:WEB though. -Amatulic 21:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -Will Beback 23:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (Note - not the nominator)[reply]
  • weak delete. if there was a significant movement to amend the constitution, this could end up getting more traffic, but that's crystal balling. Montco 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can there be POV problems when the focus of the website is against amending the Constitution to allow Schwarzenegger to run for president? MoveOn.org promotes a view and its article states it, but does not push it. Does anyone claim otherwise? So, why does the same consideration for that article not apply to this one? And Dhartung, I find your comments reek of selective outrage. If you don't like Alex Jones that's your business. However, seeking to delete articles about subjects you disagree with is wrong. GeorgeC 02:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, just go ahead and delete the article. Sorry to have caused trouble. I know the rules for deletion say don't take it personally, but I can't help but take it personally because if it was a non-controversial website, we wouldn't be here discussing it. GeorgeC 07:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've been known to nominate websites that don't meet WP:WEB. Content doesn't matter to me one bit. Wildthing61476 11:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you. GeorgeC 03:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The TV show Tripping the Rift set in the future said that the USA changed their constitution so he could become president and I expect it to happen. Oh and a WP:WEB fail, too. Anomo 02:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine GeorgeC 03:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The site should be included as an ext link (not just a reference) in the Arnold Schwarzenegger article, but it doesn't need a separate article. JamesMLane t c 11:07, 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. DS 02:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Firewalls[edit]

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or instruction manuals ElKevbo 19:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pretty clear-cut rationale. EVula 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a perfectly good article on firewalls already so this article is a duplicate. Furthermore, it appears to be a copyvio as teh text is swiped from CERT as noted here. -- Whpq 20:20, 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 delete. – Avi 04:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishermen Movie[edit]

This is an unreleased, independent short film created by an artist with (currently) minimal notability (see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Who Killed Hitler And Then The Bigfoot). Fails WP:V and WP:NOTFILM. -- Scientizzle 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, though your comparison to The Man Who Killed Hitler And Then The Bigfoot is severely flawed; this movie does not need Bruce Campbell. Very important detail right there... EVula 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with the article on TMWKHATTB, I feel the notability is being severely underestimated. While Fishermen has never been commercially released, it has played in filmhouses, it has been showcased to producers, it has been widely downloaded and viewed through the homepage, and it has been shown (as mentioned in the article itself) at a film festival. The article has been written in response to demand from fans, and even if we put aside its status as an independant film, it is notable as being a 'back yard' movie that earned its creator a hollywood contract. Kinestra 23:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • it has played in filmhouses -- this claim doesn't appear in the article and is unsourced. The film festival, Brickhouse Young Filmmakers Festival, doesn't appear to be notable. it is notable as being a 'back yard' movie that earned its creator a hollywood contract in which case it would belong as a small subsection of an article on the creator. WP:NOTFILM is pretty clear about means through which to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. -- Scientizzle 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I have mentioned already that these articles are still under construction...I am most willing to add any relevant information that is required, but I have spent more time today trying to get through all the complaints levelled at me than I have actually adding content. My point in any case is that Fishermen has had a great deal of public exposure and the article is in response to demand for a factual resource. Surely 'notability' comes down in the end to whether it is something people are likely to come looking for in an online encyclopaedia. The answer in this case is undeniably 'yes', as it was public pressure that prompted its creation. Even so, WP:NOTFILM clearly states itself to be a guideline and not a Wikipedia policy. Kinestra 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, "the public wanted it created" is a poor argument. Can you cite a source for this claim? I have a very hard time believing that people around the world were thinking "Man, that Wikipedia is okay, but if it had an article about Fisherman, it'd be awesome!", or anything even remotely similar.
        And yes, you're right, WP:NOTFILM isn't a policy (yet); however, it is the closest thing we have to a guideline on the matter. In cases where there aren't specific rules about something, open discussions such as this one are all the more important. That said, there still isn't evidence to prove this movie's notability. Do you have anything other than "public pressure prompted it"? Anything verifiable? EVula 05:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an impossible situation - what you're asking me to verify is the pressure from the fan following, without referring to a 'self-published' website, which is the very place that hosts the news blogs, reactions to news blogs, forums and fan discussions. I can supply a link to the original thread in the fan forum that greeted Fishermen's online launch, for what it's worth. All I can say to you is that there is considerable interest in a wikipedia article on this topic, mostly because its popularity outweighs the reliable information currently available about it. I feel like a snake chasing my own tail. Kinestra 11:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's because you've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. You need to seek the proper outlets for your primary source material. Wikipedia is not the place. Uncle G 12:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Kinestra (talk · contribs) has explained both here and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Who Killed Hitler And Then The Bigfoot, this is clearly a gross abuse of Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance, to host the original never-before-published documentation for a film, with the intent of citing Wikipedia as a primary source elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance nor a free wiki hosting service. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. The place for this sort of thing is the author's own web site. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 12:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think you will find that I quite clearly stated the reasons for writing the pages as being response to demand for a reliable article bringing together what has until now been very loosely collated factual information (not, I might add 'never-before-published') . While I am doing my utmost to find the kind of third party citations wikipedia asks for, this is not a straight forward task due to the nature of the topics and the restrictions of the internet. The IMDB entry I mentioned was not the reason for the writing of these articles, and I never suggested that it was. What I meant to demonstrate was that there was an IMDB entry in the offing, which would allay 'notability' concerns but that there continued to be a similar issue with the availability of suitable citations. The fact is that the IMDB entry does not rely on the wikipedia articles. They would help a heck of a lot, and it would mean that after a short grace period everyone would have their citations, and the articles would be able to fulfill their primary purpose of fully and factually informing people. I am not involved in the IMDB process, and I am party to no more information on the productions than any other fan, so I can't speak for that side of things - it's just an issue that I was aware of that I thought relevant to the 'notability' concerns. I apologise unreservedly if I have caused or been the subject of misunderstandings as a result. Kinestra 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An IMDB listing would not allay notability concerns. We have a very strict policy regarding what can and cannot be listed; IMDB, as far as I can tell, does not. (for example, *I* am actually on IMDB, but that doesn't parlay into a wiki article) EVula 14:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes you did: "there will very soon be an IMDB entry relevant to all of these concerns and cementing the production as 'notable', but the entry cannot be created without the wikipedia pages on Krzykowski's projects as third-party references" Uncle G 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I addressed this in the discussion of TMWKHATTB - it turns out this was in fact a factual error on my part, for which I apologise, but in either case I did not say that this was why the articles were written. The IMDB issue came to my attention after the articles were begun, and I thought (again, apparently mistakenly) that it would be relevant to the situation. I feel that these articles are being persecuted with some amazing vehemence - they are factual, they are in popular demand, they are relevant to a number of notable motion pictures in production and an acclaimed artist, and I am entirely willing to give the references they lack, but I am only a fan trying to write about something I have no direct contact with; I can't wave a magic wand and make hollywood producers bare all. In the case of Fishermen, I will be able to give sources and reference to third party articles, but they are not instantly available to me. Kinestra 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like an interesting movie that someone might need some information about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpharigel (talk • contribs)
  • Cut down and merge to Elsie Hooper This film only has encyclopedic notability in relation to the Elsie Hooper film project - insufficient for own article Bwithh 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear that Elsie Hooper has sufficient notability either - its optioned content for a movie in "development hell" which might eventually be made. There must be hundreds of thousands of movie projects that are optioned but never produced. The claim that this is the first online webcomic to be optioned ever is unsourced. Paging Hahnchen.... Bwithh 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the status of the Elsie Hooper movie, the news sources are quite out of date - something I will rectify ASAP. The movie is in fact now moving into production, but I'm waiting for verifiable information on the most recent developments before I risk writing them up. Likewise, the unsourced claim of 'first online webcomic' etc. should be sourced soon - it's all on the to-do list in between sorting out the issues with these pages. Kinestra 21:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete no sourced evidence of notability per WP:NOTFILM or otherwise. Eluchil404 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Might be a good topic for some other web site besides Wikipedia. WillyWonty 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Does not meet the requirements of WP:V, and Wikipedia is not a free ad site. -- Satori Son 14:36, 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 per WP:BIO and WP:SNOW. --Aaron 05:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Manners (MP)[edit]

Totally non-notable. Lacking sources as well. In short, who cares? Just because some fellow got selected for a legislature somewhere doesn't make him sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article.UCF Cheerleader 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep UScentric bias of nominator regretted, but this article is about someone who was elected to a national parliament, was related to another notable Wiki entrant. Who cares? Personally, I don't, but because I personally do not care about 200+ year ago MPS does not mean it should be removed. Emeraude 20:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - meets WP:BIO as a politician elected to a national parliament. -- Whpq 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. EVula 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. All members of their country's ruling legislature are notable. Many dedicated Wikipedia editors are working hard to fill in the blanks to have complete histories of their country's legislatures, even if some of the articles are a bit stubby. Fan-1967 20:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not only for things that interest 21st century American college students. Nationally elected representatives of any country at any time are notable. --Charlene.fic 21:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure if you know this, but you should: Calling a member of the House of Commons in the 18th century "nationally elected" is absurd. Suffrage was extremely limited back then, and even most of the middle class couldn't vote until the Electoral Reforms of 1832. The Georgian Parliament was riddled with handpicked lackeys that stood from "pocket boroughs". MPs until the late 19th century at least were neither "elected" or "national." UCF Cheerleader 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should have said "official elected to a national legislature" or some such. However, saying he wasn't an elected official because only some people had the vote is like saying Abraham Lincoln wasn't an elected official because presidential candidates were picked by a small number of party delegates (and voted on only by white men). Manners was according to the laws of his country of his day an elected official on the national scene. Edited to add: please don't lecture me on what I "should" know. It doesn't add credence to your AfD. --Charlene.fic 02:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- given the plenitude of Star Trek and Star Wars characters with their own entries in wikipedia, what is the sense of excluding the real-life legislators--Christofurio 23:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC) of a world power?[reply]
  • Keep (again from below, as former 21c. U.S. college student.) Members of legislatures merit articles in Wikipedia, however obscure their accomplishments, according to WP:BIO. I recently edited and defended an article in Afd on a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, using the same argument. The national British parliament clearly more than fulfills the same criteria. Dina 00:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obvious notability. Whether the sufferage at the time was universal or limited or hand-picked, he was still a Member of Parliament. DWaterson 01:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Member of a national legislature, ergo notable under WP:BIO (and common sense). -- Necrothesp 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The subject quite clearly passes WP:BIO. youngamerican (yo) 02:01, 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 Keep per WP:BIO and WP:SNOW. --Aaron 05:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Manners-Sutton[edit]

Non Notable. Article does not show this gentleman had any significance in history other than having been an obscure member of Parliament a long time ago. Why bother with an entire article on him? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of insignificant facts. UCF Cheerleader 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Same nominator proposed George Manners for deletion and I respond with the same points: UScentric bias of nominator regretted, but this article is about someone who was elected to a national parliament, was related to another notable Wiki entrant. Who cares? Personally, I don't, but because I personally do not care about 200+ year ago MPS does not mean it should be removed. Nominator's own article does not exactly show understanding of what notable means. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of insignificant facts". What? What else is an encyclopaedia but a collection of insignificant facts? Emeraude 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO. Even if he died on the toilet an hour after being in office, he is still an elected official (though he'd probably be notable more for that story...). EVula 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it could use some work, along the lines I mentioned on its Talk page. It was a pretty important moment in Brit and world history, the years when Manners-Sutton was in parliament. With whom did he stand on the crucial issues of that day? America, France, Ireland, India.... --Christofurio 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Member of Parliament. Fan-1967 20:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not only for what's popular with 21st century American college kids. All elected parliamentarians in all countries are by definition notable per WP:BIO.
  • Comment. I'm not sure if you know this, but you should: Calling a member of the House of Commons in the 18th century "nationally elected" is absurd. Suffrage was extremely limited back then, and even most of the middle class couldn't vote until the Electoral Reforms of 1832. The Georgian Parliament was riddled with handpicked lackeys that stood from "pocket boroughs". MPs until the late 19th century at least were neither "elected" or "national." UCF Cheerleader 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not a fair point. If we're going to get rid of non-US legislators because they were "handpicked lackeys", we'll have to get rid of articles on thousands of US legislators as well, so why pick on non-US legislators? I'm sure you realize that most US senators were once hand-picked by state legislatures or by governors personally, and that most junior representatives were hand-picked to run by more senior politicians. I won't say that you "should" know that, though. --Charlene.fic 02:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and response to above It's a fair point, historically speaking, but then we'd have to get rid of a lot of U.S. "elected officals" too (as women could not vote until the 20's and African-Americans, practically speaking, not until the 1960's.) The consensus seems to be that if one is the member of a legislative body, one merits an article. Since in the U.S. this extends even to state legislatures (and we've got 50 of them) I strongly support the notion that every member of the British parliament merits an article if someone chooses to write one. Dina 00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO criteria. Members of national legislatures are inherently notable, whether elected by universal suffrage or not. -- Necrothesp 01:15, 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 keep and cleanup. – Avi 04:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Grove[edit]

Delete or Speedy Delete, as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which states in part:

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source…These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia….

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject.

If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources.

There are two versions of this page Bohemian Grove and Bohemian Club. The AFD applies to the first only, as the second only needs some editing. I am asking that Bohemian Grove be both deleted and protected from recreation.

Between the main page and the talk page we have allegations of child prostitution, sexual harassment, involvement in an "ancient Canaanite, Luciferian, Babylon mystery religion ceremony", etc. with those attending including Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Alan Greenspan, Dwight D. Eisenhower, William Jefferson Clinton, Robert Novak, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry,

The original article was created on 7 November 2003, with the only source cited being Alex Jones (radio). The proper name for the club is the Bohemian Club, however, Jones sells a video titled “Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove” so we have an article titled Grove instead of Club -the name of the club’s compound instead of the name of the club. IMO Jones used “Grove” as it sounds more pagan/sinister than “Club”; whatever his reason, his usage is the reason for the current page title. The only reason for someone to look-up “Bohemian Grove” on Wikipedia is to validate Jones’s claims, which seems to be the main reason for this page existing. If someone had never been exposed to Jones, and wanted information about the club, they would use the correct name “Bohemian Club”.

The best choice at this point would be to invoke Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion G10 for more details). Brimba 20:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect. It appears that they should be merged. However I'd support leaving this article title as a redirect rather than deleting it. Speculative material should be trimmed. -Will Beback 21:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violate BLP, full of claims of secret meetings, nothing referenced. Every potentiially controversial claim would have to be footnoted to show which reliable, verifiable reference is supposed to prove it. Edison 23:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Will Beback above, since this is a common search term. Any BLP violations should be removed; no statement of fact should be sourced to Alex Jones. Tom Harrison Talk 02:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Will Beback and Tom harrison --Guinnog 02:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The frequency of edit corrections on this article indicates it is being agressively patrolled by editors with an unusually strong interest in its deletion. Anyone patrolling this article who is or has been a member of, associated with, or acting as an agent of the Bohemian Club should provide complete disclosure and perhaps should refrain from editing or commenting on this article or the associated deletion article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.133.154 (talk • contribs)
  • This article is not a biography of a living person, but a description and discussion of an organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.133.154 (talk • contribs)
see above These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia Brimba 03:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For the following reasons:
  1. Neither the Bohemian Club nor the Bohemian Grove are people. Thus the WP:BLP does not apply to the article. Specific details about people within the article may need to be edited but this is not cause to delete the article.
  2. The Bohemian Club is an organization. The Bohemian Grove is a place. The two are as different as " The Department of Defense" is different from "The Pentagon" The Bohemian Grove has its own unque history and purpose, apart from the Bohemian Club.
  3. I saw no defamatory information about any living person or individual.
  4. Lack of References is not cause for articles to be deleted. Instead, they should be improved. If notes and footnotes are needed regarding either the Club or the Grove, they should be requested rather than the article deleted. Either that or a bunch of articles should be deleted.
  5. However the article is actually pretty well referenced, but it is not footnoted. The references are in other sections labeled "See Also" or "Further Reading" which is not particularly wikipedia standard, but it is still references.
  6. There are kooks who see demons and so on in the actions in the Grove. In the interest of NPOV their views should not be cause for deletion. However, alternative views should be sought. I have sought them and they are not easy to find, so their lack of existance here is not direct evidence of bias. But if the article is biased... improve it, do not delete it.
  7. The two articles LOOK similar because of lists of people (which should be verified) but the lists are actually different and so is the content of the articles.
  8. However, if two articles is one too many they should be merged (with redirect) not deleted.

--Blue Tie 05:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy keep merge - the article may need a cleanup, but a suggestion of deletion is absolutely ludicrious. We can't just afd every article that has POV added. Hell in the time it took to file this nom you could have removed all the nmaterial you find objectionable. Eek. Just read both properly. Lets merge them Glen 05:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean out conspiracy crap. Obviously noteworthy, look at the sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and/or Merge  : It would be bizarre if Wikipedia didn't have comprehensive info on this considering everything else that's on Wikipedia.
  • Merge where appropriate if you wish, and remove the conspiracy nonsense. Otherwise requesting deletion is nonsense since this is a quite notable topic. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I'm an anon, and can't really have my opinion counted, but this seems to be notable enough, but only notable enough to have it merged into the other article. The conspiracy stuff, and anything that cannot be verified with a reliable source needs to be gutted, per BLP. The sooner the better. --198.185.18.207 14:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY SHOULD THE "CONSPIRACY STUFF" BE REMOVED? How are you so completely certain of what is conspiracy and what is not? do YOU have proof that what you deem and throw off as consipracy is actually false?

  • This article should be left as it is. The strident calls for removal only make it that much more important to keep in it's exact form.
    Apparantly, you do not know how WP works. We can't just put stuff in articles that we might think is true. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA! We have to base things in verifiable reality rather than some make-believe wannabe world. Thanks, though. --198.185.18.207 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, you don't know how WP works. By definition, WP is a compilation of edits by anyone who chooses to edit. This process may or may not result in truth. WP simply presents as truth what the consensus of its reader/editors believe. This is a sort of 'consensus reality', rather than any sort of absolute truth.
  • Keep or merge Maybe clean up some. I don't really see what the big problem is.--Peephole 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The problem is that we are saying these people amongst other things are involved in child prostitution. We have sentences such as “was forced into sexual acts with other boys.” Only at the very end of the page do we state “after hearing many hours of testimony, the grand jury threw out all of the allegations concerning sexual abuse, labeling the charges a "carefully crafted hoax". That’s the child prostitution part, the conspiracy part is only slightly better. Some of the people listed have passed on, such as Ronald Reagan; many however still qualify as living. How is that for a start?
The internet is full of conspiracy theories and lurid tales involving this club, most of which can easily be debunked. The larger problem is that in validating any of the conspiracy theories, or appearing to treat them as being potentially creditable, we have given underpinnings to all. If someone makes ten claims, and Wikipedia treats three as being potentially creditable, it becomes harder to dismiss the other seven outright.
Apparently you saw at least one problem as you removed: "Jones states that, according to "Kyle", "it was a constant irritant being asked by old men if he slept around and wanted to have some fun"." While it’s great to have that gone, it will likely return in a few weeks. Better to merge, and then delete.
Brimba 08:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in agreement with Merge because they are two different things: A club (with separate address and activities) and a High-end Camp Resort owned by the club but with its own unique history, purpose and significance.
As far as the comments about being forced into sexual acts with boys... this is ONE SMALL Paragraph nearly at the end of the article under a section clearly labled "Controversies". It is verifiable and referenced (though it could be referenced better). It does NOT violate any wikipedia standards and it is written in standard news / summary style. The problem that you are having is with wikipedia standards. Your idea that including allegations is a bad idea might be a good one. I would support it. But I would have you note that there are problems with it too. For example, Bill Clinton faced numerous allegations that were never proved in court or substantiated regarding sexual misadventures. Bill O'Reilly had a lawsuit with many lurid details filed against him. These were not sustained in court but they are significant events and reasonably included in any encyclopedia. So what rule could you establish that would allow those things in but NOT permit the same thing related to Bohemian Grove?
Finally, I would point out that merging does not get rid of that content. --Blue Tie 14:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Don't delete, don't merge because its controversial,
If this article is derogatory and controversial, then label it that way let people make up their own minds. Maybe wikipedia should create a category for this very thing. It's is controversial and derogatory and maybe some dismiss the citations but people should be given the opportunity to make decisions for them selves. I would suggest that they create a category conspiracy theories or just theories, because some times all you have are theories, and what make one persons theory more credible then another. Like evolution for instance, there is evidence but not conclusive thus evolution is a theory, a credible one at that but its still a theory and people should treat it like that. Let people make up their own minds and let them examine this evidence and any claims people make. It's the only way it will be able to move past a theory. It's the only way people will investigate it and gather more evidence to prove it. Its how science works, publishes an interpretation of a evidence, a theory and others examine it and add to the body of evidence to either prove or disprove it. You cant just dismiss some thing because its controversial. If we did that we would be no better then those who killed Galileo. Don't delete, don't merge because its controversial and when or if it is disproved leave it there and let people decide.165.146.80.83 01:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and/or Merge: People suggest things for deletion for often bizarre and political reasons. It would be unique and unencyclopedic if Wikipedia didn't have info on this, particularly considering everything else that's on Wikipedia. Rgds, - Trident13 13:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bohemian Club; move the worthwhile stuff from this article over there and nuke the conspiracy cruft from orbit per Will Beback, Edison and Tom Harrison. --Aaron 21:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The most efficient way to present information on this subject is to have the general article on the Bohemian Club, and this daughter article with more specific information about the campground. The "Past attendees" section appears to duplicate information that's properly in the general article. My vote is not a vote against removing such duplicative material, along with any specific passages that are POV, unverifiable, etc. AfD is not a substitute for a "Cleanup" tag or for editing anything in the article that's problematic. JamesMLane t c 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's plenty of information about this place out there, it just needs to be added to the article. Deserves a separate article from Bohemian Club and besides, the club is almost universally known, even to members, as "Bohemian Grove". wikipediatrix 03:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Encyclopedic entries must be verifiable. None of the references sited provide an independent non-biased verification of the material in the article. There is no verification or evidence anywhere that any of the names listed have ever had anything to do with the site or the club. The only way I could see allowing the article to stay would be by providing proper references for all of the claims in the article and removing all the unverifiable claims and people. --Matt 0123 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are at about 20 credible references cited. They simply are not put in-line and are not called references but are listed under "Further Reading". There are also a number of references found on line in addition to these print references. These are found in the "Links" section. I do not think that an argument about it not being referenced is valid. But perhaps the way that it is referenced can be improved. That would not be grounds for deletion. --Blue Tie 11:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the entries in Further Reading or External Links provides a verifiable first hand account that Bill Clinton and George Bush attended the camp? (One example of many unverifviable claims in this article). A link to an external site that provides the same list of unreferenced names is not a reference. As I stated previously, it is inappropriate to maintain this article with the unreferenced claims and names listed. We can not toss out integrity because so many people want it to be true. The way it is referenced is the key to any encylopedic entry, and is in fact the best grounds for deletion. The people who like the article retained should take the time to properly reference it. Matt 0123 11:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at them? There are several. There is nothing particularly unusual that they attend -- it is covered in the ordinary press as "incidental". It is a vacation for them. For example, Bill Clinton went there and the press almost ignored it. You can read that he went there a year after the fact in an article by Alexander Cockburn, for the September 1995 edition of The Nation, (by the way, that would be a reference if you need one) but he wasn't talking about the Bohemian Grove, he was talking about Bill Clinton going on vacation to Yellow Stone Park and mentions that last year he went to Bohemian Grove. My point here is that it is not a scandalous thing, nor an unexpected thing that rich and powerful people attend a campground club designed for rich and powerful people to routinely attend. That George Bush attended is also attested to in several sources. For example, the Sonoma County Free Press has published a list of people who have spoken at the "Lakeside Talk" at Bohemian Grove. http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/bohos/highlights.html It includes George Bush. It is not a scandalous thing. It is, in fact, a matter of distinction and an honor rather than something that would lead to libel per WP:BLP, so on both counts: Lack of sources and on danger of libel I do not understand this concern. --Blue Tie 19:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. There is a vast amount of material from reliable sources on this subject; its existence is unquestionably verifiable and notable. The key to a good article is to replace the conspiracy stuff with solid information -- including criticisms and allegations where backed up by reliable sources as to matters of record. --MCB 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep / Do Not Merge Per Blue Tie. Bohemiam Grove is distinct from the Club, and its summer meetings attract many notables who may never visit the club in SF. Source better or delete much of the conspiracy stuff. NBGPWS 21:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- This is not a biographical article, and exposes of its connections with politics were published as long ago as the late 1970s / early 1980s in Mother Jones (magazine), so it's most definitely not just a personal Alex Jones hobbyhorse. AnonMoos 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, with cleanup tag and allow for organic improvement. Remove any information that cannot be sourced... could be construed as libel. --Czj 08:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a subject that is fundamentally notable. Agree with Czj that cleanup tags, not AfD, would be the best solution in this case. Nightwatch／respond 05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Clean-up tags would be a better solution, and it is an important topic. -- Craigtalbert 07:33, 29 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. Add a passing reference in Demographics of Vancouver#Asian immigration if you wish. – Avi 04:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HongCouver[edit]

Delete: Non-notable - The nickname HongCouver is too trivial to be worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Anything useful currently in the article more properly belongs elsewhere. HongCouver is no more significant than the many other nicknames for Vancouver: Terminal City, Hollywood North, NoFunCouver, etc. The talk page indicates not only a lack of consensus on the meaning of the term (and it appears doubtful that one could be reached), but also that others have noted their dislike of this term's inclusion as it's own article, while support for it is not apparent. Bobanny 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to be a non-notable term and should be deleted under WP:NEO. Tarret 20:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and maybe Merge) I can find some evidence for this on Google, but its hard to sort through it all. I'd say just delete it and make it a redirect to Vancouver; perhaps there should be a section in the Vancouver article to address the "Hongcouver" nickname. EVula 20:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself says, in the first paragraph, that " it is not in common public use by residents, non-residents, media, and politicians." So... why is there an article? Eron 21:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge. The article's citations give some notability and verifiability to this nickname that not all nicknames have. (Its past, minor use is proven — verifiability is there. Its meaning is debated and too speculative and less important anyways.) Still, not enough for an article itself. But reference to the nickname need not be lost. --Ds13 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge. It was popular with Toronto-based media types about 10 to 20 years ago when Hong Kong residents were flocking to Vancouver and pushing up the property values. Nobody used it in Vancouver and nobody at all uses it now, but it has some historical interest. As Ds13 says, the term would best be noted in the main Vancouver page. --Charlene.fic 22:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I would consider it to be an offensive term, I personally know people who still use it. The article needs work but I don't see why it needs to be deleted. There is a history of use, and supplied references. It's not that important of a topic, but then neither are the Pokémons. (BTW, Hollywood North is an article as well.)--Bookandcoffee 22:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (very lightly) and redirect to Vancouver - this is, near as I can tell, not in common use today. It used to be, and was indeed a derogatory term, but these days it's very limited in its usage. Hollywood North is by far the most regularly used nickname for Vancouver these days, so I can understand its having an article. (WP:POKEMON doesn't really work well for arguments like this, by the way.) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which is weaker - the argument or the essay. :)--Bookandcoffee 00:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bookandcoffee--Hooperbloob 22:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge If someone wanted to write an article on Chinese immigration to Vancouver, mention the name Hongcouver, and redirect Hongcouver there, that would be a little more reasonable topic. As it is, I don't think it deserves a whole article. -- TheMightyQuill 04:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I live in Vancouver, but I have never heard the city refered to as "Hongcouver" -- Selmo (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge The content would go better, I think, in the article Demographics of Vancouver in the #Asian_immigration section. As far as the name "Hongcouver", it might merit mention in that article and the main Vancouver article. Mang 04:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the origins of the name come from the same racist undertones as 'bad chinese drivers' etc. from the time when there was a great imigration of people from HK over to Canada. Born in Canada, my parents are Asian and I still find the term offensive. I see very little reason to support such a slang and racist term. Article falls under WP:NEO and lacks notability to result in its own article. Mkdw 06:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mkdw. Can you provide a reliable source for your theory of the name's origin? If so, it can support the article. (Potential offensiveness is not a good reason to delete an article.) I agree with your link to WP:NEO though. So IF the article or its contents are kept or merged, the reason is given there: "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources." More sources like the New York Times article are probably necessary. --Ds13 14:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any sources I can cite though I do know for a fact that CBC Radio One, in September/early October, aired a program about the origins of the phrase 'bad chinese drivers'. The stereotype came from the time when many Hong Kong imigrants were able to come to B.C. and illegally purchase driver's licences. The program briefly listed some other negative stereotypes of the time including HongCouver. I can also from my own experiences, have only heard the term used a couple times and in a degratory manner. I'm not strongly passionate about this article, but I do believe in Wikipedia's NPOV and the quality of articles. We could spend all day trying to find out whether the term has negative or descriptive properties. I suggest we follow the evidence and look more to its validity. If any notable sources: City of Vancouver, Mayor's Office, B.C. Government, Federal Government, recognize the name, it should stay, otherwise it is a slang term and WP:NEO prevails. Mkdw 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. ROTFL. More fake mythology about "racist undertones" which, as we all know, is what lies underneath white skin, at least as far as anybody who doesn't have white skin sees it. "Bad Chinese drivers" was a common phrase in Vancouver LONG before the 1980s-era influx, and is not a stereotype except insofar as many people seem intent on fulfilling it. No kidding. And we had other kinds of bad drivers, too - people from the land of yellow licence plates (Alberta), Fraser Valley farmers, Sunday drivers, people from Montreal/Ontario who assume BC's driving laws are the same as their own; bad Alberta drivers, bad Ontario drivers, bad greyhair drivers, pig-headed Fraser Valley farmers, the advent of the Greeks in Kitsilano in the '70s, and much more; feeling singled out by equating people's complaints about ACTUAL BAD DRIVING by hiding behind the endless whine about white racism against the Chinese don't matter piffle as far as the truth of the situation goes. It's not about race, it's about culture and actual driving habits/customs; one reason other than the simple absence of driving regulations/driver testing in some countries explains why "yield" and "stop" signs were ignored (and continue to be), and help "the rest of us" understand why the Chinese politicos/SUCCESS were so hot-to-trot to stop the prosecution of the 150,000-300,000 cases of bribing public officials that were ensuant upon the influx, where "cultural differences" were cited as the reason why Chinese immigrants thought that bribing officials was OK, and having a bought-and-paid-for drivers' license was also OK, but there was NO WAY it was OK to prosecute the perpetrators because, since 98% of them were Chinese, "it would have been racist" to proceed. But oh, wait, I should be talking about before the influx, as promised: blind/rude Chinese drivers have been a fact of life on Vancouver's East Side since immigration was opened up again in the 1950s; and it's not because they're racially Chinese, it's because they're still driving in an Asian context; multiculturalism on the roads has been a disaster. And to hear someone trot out yet another bit of fake history that this term was created as a result of the influx shows just how far in denial people are about owning up to things, instead of pretending it's someone else's fault/wrongdoing. How do I know this? Hmm. Probably by having been run down by a Chinese driver who didn't like me riding my bicycle in his way, and by being witnesses to accidents where, frankly, you have to wonder what the person was thinking (two in recent months) and where clearly "bad driving" - disrespectful, dangerous driving - was clearly the cause. And the perpetrators were clearly Chinese (and I do know the difference between Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Filipinos and others; and "bad Chinese drivers" is apparently a phrase known in the local argot in Manila, Bangkok, and elsewhere. So grow up and get over it, and get your parents to realize that, while they may drive sanely, a lot of people show up here from HK and Mainland China with no regard for local laws or customs, on the road or otherwise.Skookum1 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets keep this civil please. I noticed several warnings on your user talk page and so we needn't remind you again. Mkdw 00:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the bulk of those "warnings" were from axe-grinding revisionists, and I recall that the majority of the "several" were from the same person (HongQiGong); their own insults and personal attacks on me I didn't bother citing wikipolicy on them the way they did on me, but theirs were far worse. So much easier to make an allegation and consider it a conviction, I suppose. I'm polemical by style and inclination but not as "personal attack"; only in calling spades spades, and familiar enough with my own history and culture to know when it's being slandered by somebody who has an agenda against it (as with HongQiGong) or, as in your case, somebody who's been here for twenty years who doesn't know the whole situation/history and has been propagandized by "official media"; or as in Yuje's case (someone else from the pages where HongQiGong and I have crossed paths), someone who knows a lot about Chinese immigration/life in the US, and is insistent/incredulous that it is any different here. As for the CBC airing that sow on "bad Chinese drivers", the CBC is hardly an impartial source; Calling what people racist for observing that new-Chinese immigrants drive differently/badly "racist" is one of those over-reaches of current p.c.prejudicialism that, while they may be all very earnest and self-righteous, are entirely misplaced. My apologies for any personal slight towards you - had I known you were a WikiGod I might have stepped a little more carefully; or not. I'm getting tired of the rewrite of BC's history and culture to flatter the various new elements, whether they're from TO or HK. My First Nations friends know what I'm talking about, and sympathize; but of course in any arena where someone else has power over what can or can't be said it's easy enough to shut someone down, as you've just threatened to do. Fine - Wiki would lose a major contributor on BC historical and geograpical articles, with dozens of articles on the backburner yet more to go, and someone who knows the early history of the province to sort out the mumble-jumble that's too common about it; no point in giving you examples; just examine my edit history; don't just judge me on HongQiGong's endless whining (I've given up on edplaining to him why he's wrong, as he'd just call me a white racist - and in a mocking tone, as if I was stupid, which obviously I'm not). Anyway, I know an AfD page isn't the place for an exegesis like this so I'll leave this off; further dialogue on issues raised welcome via email or on my talk page.Skookum1 06:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article resulted from the lengthy (and similarly irrelevant) section about it that at one time existed on the Vancouver page. Its content has been trimmed back recently, but expanded and tends toward discussing various aspects of the HK-annexation era influx to Vancouver; content that could/should be on History of Chinese immigration to Canada or Chinatown (Vancouver); I actually think, given the special nature of Chinese society in Vancouver, that the History of Chinese immigration to Canada article needs complementing by a History of Chinese people in British Columbia or something of that kind; that where some of this latter-day content could go, as well as the discussion (unresolvable) as to whether HongCouver is derogatory or not (see Talk:Chinaman and Talk:The Orient for more on doublespeak/denial and the re-tooling of vernacular English to suit politically-correct biases). HongCouver is not in common use - an earlier version of this article omitted the "not" from that opening sentence; I inserted it - and does not deserve an article, except perhaps one discussing the various claims against it; on the one hand, as claimed/presumed by some new immigrants, it's a flattering term alluding to Vancouver's synthesis/transfer of HK's culture and population, to long-time Vancouverites it's an uncomfortable reminder that the city we knew is no more, to the resentful types it's proof that the people who find it uncomfortable are racist, er, white, er, racist, er, white.... (they have a problem telling the difference).Skookum1 05:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: hongcouver is a very accurate description of vancouver, there is a 30% asian population and its only increasing, they might as well rename the city hongcouver there probally will be hardley a white anglo saxon left there in 50 years

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

The result was Keep per WP:BIO and WP:SNOW. --Aaron 05:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord George John Manners[edit]

Non notable, no significance to history. UCF Cheerleader 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Member of Parliament. 'Nuff said. Fan-1967 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad-faith nom from an editor who has shown ignorance for proper notability standards (see George Manners-Sutton and George Manners). EVula 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not only for things popular with American college students. I don't claim bad faith, but I wonder if the nominator realizes there's a big world out there past UCF or even the entire United States. Deleting articles on the Mannerses is analogous to deleting articles on people like John Hancock and Button Gwinnett (signers of the Declaration of Independence). --Charlene.fic 22:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly suggest that the nominator review WP:BIO more closely before nominating any more former members of British parliament for deletion. This is getting repetative, and frankly, I'm starting to feel that it's reflecting a bit poorly on the biases of American Wikipedians. We have an article on every single signer of the American Declaration of Independence and I'm sure most US citizens couldn't name four.[48] Dina 01:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable per our own notability criteria. -- Necrothesp 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:BIO. youngamerican (yo) 02:04, 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. – Avi 04:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Low Level Flight[edit]

Looks like a vanity page for a band that does not appear to have released its first album yet. Also copyvio from this web site --Tcatts 20:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fair enough, the guy won Canadian Idol, but there's already an article for him. Also it reads like a publicists' release. Nothing more than advertising.Bobanny 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even though the article is about to go in the crapper, we shouldn't allow copyvios. I removed it[49] and left the bare facts (also removed the incorrect categories). EVula 21:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hope I'm weighing in my thoughts correctly as outlined in the guidelines. I created this article. I did it to give information regarding this person's new band, which is seperate from his Idol career, and thus (in my opinion) should be seperate from his personal page. I thought it would be useful to be able to link from one page to another to give people a chance to read more of about the band itself and alone from the person. FYI: I am also one of the contributors to the band's website, and have permission to use the content from the site and have the photographer's permission to use the photo (if there is a way I should have credited that, forgive me). I also disagree that it is nothing more than advertising. "Buy Our Album" is advertising, this is information.. articles about other bands, movies, actors, artists, books, writers, etc are permitted in the encyclopedia and are not considered advertising for their work, correct? --LLFRyan 08:45, 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 delete. DS 02:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrational Theory[edit]

Original research Wereon 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. EVula 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot speedy delete original research. Wereon 23:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, Húsönd just dropped me a note to let me know. Changing vote accordingly... whoops. EVula 01:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOR.--Húsönd 23:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The original editor's paragraph beginning "NOTICE" essentially states that this is original research.Cardamon 08:19, 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 Keep. KrakatoaKatie 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unity08[edit]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Self-promotion & Advertising DXRAW 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No outside sources on anything, it just reeks of spam. EVula 21:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has some POV problems, but it's nothing some good citations and rewriting can't fix. Note that this isn't a trivial group either - it has received some mainstream media attention. Two of the founders have appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and The Washington Post has written a print article about it as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just revise so article is acceptable.— Possible single purpose account: 68.94.195.127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep Seems to be mentioned in several articles, several of which are focussed directly on this group. [50] Resolute 01:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs a pretty significant re-write. While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the founders are generally respected individuals in politics and can generate some noise over the next year, even if they accomplish absolutely nothing.Montco 01:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Every single citation is to their own web site! I know the group theoretically meets WP:N, barely, but as-is the article probably would have gotten yanked in five minutes if someone had just slapped a {{db-web}} tag on it. I'll change my !vote if someone does a major rewrite to bring it up to snuff, but I'm not going to do it, as I'm not personally convinced this organization is even going to survive 2007. --Aaron 05:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote; see below.[reply]
  • Keep per Jtalledo, but the Wpost article (evidence of notability) must be included as a ref. Derex 05:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but probably needs some rewriting. Alpharigel 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've just completed a significant rewrite to the article, addressing the concerns raised in this discussion. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Jtalledo's rewrite. --Aaron 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being involved in politics and current events I have heard often of Unity08 (maybe more than I realize since it was months before I discovered it was Unity08 and not unity [in] '08). I have heard them discussed on Glenn Beck's radio show a number of times as well. While I was an insider I overheard a number of discussions indicating that ignoring the group will make them go away. So, from my own personal experiences I know they are a growing force in American politics. --Tony 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rewrite. I think it's going a bit far to call it advertising. SteveLamacq43 16:19, 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 Merge with flux capacitor. KrakatoaKatie 03:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Fusion[edit]

Originally {{prod}}ded [51] citing "BTTF-cruft. Minutae from a feature film, not significantly notable to sustain an article."; subsequently removed by 63.88.50.33 (talk · contribs) w/o edit summary. Full disclosure: I originally {{prod}}ded the article.

If WP:FICTION applies here, this doesn't even qualify as a "minor character". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Merge with Back to the Future Trilogy or flux capacitor. It's notable in the context of the film as a final solution to the ever-present problem of how to power the time machine, a problem that plagued the characters throughout the series. -Amatulic 21:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The inslusionist in me wants to keep this neat little article on a neat little bit of pop trivia from one of my fave popcorn movies series, but the pragmatist would be ok with a merge into flux capacitor if the community so agrees. youngamerican (yo) 01:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The flux capacitor article itself is large enough to stand on its own. I would support a merge with an article about the technology in Back to the Future. That would be a place where the hover conversion could also be. Val42 18:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Avi 04:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jed (artist)[edit]

The article is not notable enough (under WP:MUSIC) to remain on Wikipedia. Anthony 21:15, 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 No consensus. – Avi 04:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Rodriguez[edit]

Non-notable as the daughter of a "high-ranking Scientology official" and "Katie Holmes' Scientology minder." Ckessler 21:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In spite of the article's claims, I fail to see the relevance or notability of this person, except perhaps to other scientologists. -Amatulic 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple pieces of non-trivial coverage PT (s-s-s-s) 22:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just barely enough sources of non-trivial coverage. In general, there should be more sunshine on people who are running the Scientology organization. For such a controversial org, they don't get much coverage individually. hateless 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I absolutely agree that the people running this organization should be made public, however, I don't think that Rodriguez fits that description. By the information here, she seems to be a mid-level member at best, only known for being the child of a higher-up and her loose affiliation with a celeb member. Ckessler 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Celebrity entourage members are not inherently notable. I think a mention in the Katie Holmes articles is fine though. Bwithh 03:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable individual. Smeelgova 04:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, how can anyone ruining the Scientology cult be bad? TJ Spyke 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Jessica is the brain of Katie Holmes. --Tilman 06:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable persion, fails WP:BIO. Edgecution 06:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Bwithh hit the nail on the head. WP:BIO is not fufilled; WP:RS does not over-ride WP:BIO. Daniel.Bryant 12:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. Alpharigel 19:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --PhilipO 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 09:05, 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 - Yomanganitalk 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redhead fetishism[edit]

This has been as-is since 10 June 2005. It's a permanent substub of a completely obvious concept. Since lots of things can be fetishized, I don't see how this article contributes to Wikipedia at all. It's really just a dicdef, and I thought it was speedyable under A3, so I tagged it for speedy and prod (just in case), but the tags were removed. Mr Spunky Toffee 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Charlene.fic 22:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WINAD or smerge to Red hair or Trichophilia (i.e. merely mention it). There's certainly no substantial content in the article. As a fetish it exists, e.g. search IAFD for redhead or red hair. The obviousness of it is subjective; would an alien understand why there would be a common redhead fetish, and not a pinky finger fetish? Шизомби 22:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 22:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Red hair. Powers T 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing to assert the notability of red hair fetishes from fetishes in general. I can see nothing that makes this article improvable to an acceptable standard. 150.203.177.218 06:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, even though I'm quite fond of redheads myself. :) Xtifr tälk 09:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: with Red hair. Xdenizen 02:17, 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 delete. --Coredesat 07:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paint the possum[edit]

Non-notable phrase supposedly based off of an Internet image, however Google doesn't know it. The article appears to be an attempt to direct viewers toward the image, going so far as to tell how you can find the image in Google (hint: don't search for "Paint the Possum"). The article continues to note that the phrase is "not a commonly published term". ScottW 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obscure neologism.--Húsönd 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to urbandictionary and let them deal with it. [Translation: Delete per nom.] --Aaron 04:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Tony 17:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WillyWonty 22:53, 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. – Avi 04:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States public officials accused of crimes[edit]

Inappropriate for an encyclopedia; largely unsourced and therefore violating WP:BLP. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for arbitrary lists of things US politicians have done hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unmaintainable + Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Húsönd 23:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what if it is modified to be an alphabetical list of political scandals by person? i think there's valuable information for people to reference in organizing it as a list and for more information on the scandals they may follow the wiki links.

  • Delete per nom and Husond. Interesting concept, but definitely a WP:BLP concern and the list is potentially endless. --Aaron 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are you kidding me? This is a useful guide to establishing the who's and what's in a timely fashion. --AWF
  • Delete Considering how many times 'accussations' are made in a politically motivated way I think this article, even if sourced, runs into WP:BLP issues. Someone motivated enough to throw a sourced accusation on this article is not likely to be motivated enough to follow up and add the result if the accused were innocent or not guilty. However, List of American Public Officials Convicted of Crimes I think is a legitimate list. Hard to argue that a conviction was politically motivated.--Tony 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I like it, but there is no way to keep it updated. Brimba 06:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since being accused of a crime is entirely meaningless and is therefore not something worth listing people on. However I agree with DS and Tony on the '...convicted of crimes' list. Cynical 21:36, 28 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. – Avi 04:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Marcinkowski[edit]

Vanity article edited extensively by User:Adul (the subject) and User:155.69.4.123 (an IP registered at Nanyang Technological University, where the subject currently resides). An AfD in March resulted in Keep based on a passus in WP:BIO which no longer exists ("Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more"). Despite the strong whiff of self-promotion, the subject (former Associate Professor, now Visiting Researcher at said Nanyang Technological University) does not seem to meet WP:PROF. ~ trialsanderrors 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:BIO seems like a very narrow pass under "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Pass of WP:PROF under "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." Google Scholar brings up zero hits, and that's a bit troubling, but I'd say weak keep. --Daniel Olsen 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I should add: ScienceDirect: zero hits. JSTOR: zero hits. ISI citation search: zero hits, discounting a physicist of the same name. Newsbank: two articles on the Pope's visit to Singapore written by the subject, no articles on the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 00:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has already been cut down considerably several months ago. The author is involved in Christian-Islamic dialogue in Southeast Asia and beyond. In the light of the many misunderstandings between the world's two largest religious communities, his contributions have been widely publicized, recently also in Singapore's leading daily newspaper Straits Times. It would be good if the discussion on this article could be less polemical and more scholarly.

Moreover, I wonder why this obviously strong, one is almost tempted to say "personal interest" in deleting or vandalizing it??? With regard to hits: try first "google" and other search engines. I would be glad if other scholars (!) could enter into this discussion. Moreover, with regard to "self-promoting" etc.: the links to Nanyang Technological University in Singapore (recently rated as among the world's top ten in the fields of sciences, although not a "Western", American, university) has NOT been added by the article's author. In the past, as in the case of earlier attempts to delete or vandalize this site for whatever reason, I had to lament certain prejudices, in particular by certain North American contributors. Again, it would be good to get the views of other, perhaps a bit more scholarly contributors.... By the way, the articles mentioned had not been on the Pope's visit to Singapore (which has not taken place anyway, but on his invitation to dialogue to Muslim scholars). JSTOR is ok, but not necessary telling. Marcinkowski published also under his Muslim name "Ismail Marcinkowski", but anyway, it's up to you guys, I just don't appreciate that aggressive tenor of the one who is again advocating its deletion.... Anyway, whatever.... quite tiring all this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.4.123 (talk • contribs)

  • Cut down on the accusations, Doctor Marcinkowski. It's the first time I've actually seen your article today. And I didn't know Google was considered a scholarly search engine. Not even scholar.google. ~ dr. trialsanderrors 04:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:VANITY, particularly nom's research showing no scholarly database hits. --Aaron 04:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete associate professors have not achieved significant notability in their field. If they have, then they become full professors very quickly. Derex 05:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject appears to have a successful academic career, but as it stands the article carries no external sources and no links to his journalism (a search of the Straits Times site turns up nothing, and I fear that "contributes commentaries to..." leaves open the possibility that they are letters to the editor). Likely a commendable scholar -- and, in future, quite possibly a notable one -- but not yet. Robertissimo 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 13:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per norm.Alpharigel 19:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Fails WP:PROF and WP:VAIN. trialsanderrors's investigation work and judgement is trustworthy. Bwithh 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Insufficiently notable per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. -- Satori Son 14:41, 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. --Coredesat 07:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Blanchette[edit]

This article has been nominated twice for deletion before (here and here). The first time closed as a delete and the second as no consesus. I am nominating this on the grounds that it fails Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sources criteria. In its 1.5 years existence, this article has never had a single reliable source mentioned and I certainly don't find any. Delete. Wickethewok 22:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, indeed. What an odd previous AFD. No real reasons for either side given in there... 0_o Wickethewok 03:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Hanchen and Daniel Olsen. Eighteen months is more than enough time. --Aaron 04:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:27, 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

Jazza[edit]

Non-notable flash animator. Fails verifiability and reliable sources. Only claim to fame is winning a school's trivial Flash event competition. Delete. Wickethewok 22:59, 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: as the references found half way through the discussion clearly haven't convinced a significant proportion either way, no consensus, I'm afraid. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Parents Network[edit]

Was originally put up for speedy deletion per A7, but I removed the tag and decided to send to AfD. I did some research and it appears to be notable (using Google and Alexa to back up this claim). Note: I am only nominating this article for deletion because I wanted some second opinions about the article's notability. Nishkid64 23:11, 13 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, Nishkid64 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Using Google news and Lexis-Nexis I can find only one article where BPN is featured, and it's in the San Francisco Chronicle, practically BPN's "hometown paper." Delete unless more other reliable non-trivial third-party sources can be found. Pan Dan 23:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just because the BPN is near San Francisco doesn't mean that the Chronicle suddenly is no longer a reliable source. --Daniel Olsen 23:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I totally agree it's reliable. I'm just suggesting that because it's local to BPN, its coverage of BPN doesn't show that BPN is notable. Pan Dan 00:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (I see that my use of "more" may imply that I thought the Chronicle was not reliable--have changed it to "other")[reply]
  • Delete per Pan Dan. If 1LA were to become a Wikipedia guideline, every small town yahoo who's ever gotten a perfect 300 down at the bowling alley would suddenly meet WP:N. --Aaron 04:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep SF Chronicle[52] The Guardian (UK) [53] Science magazine (a mention)[54]
  • Keep Pan Dan did make an interestig point. We shouldn't be making decisions based on some small local paper that isn't read outside of San Francisco. However, I'm swayed by the large number of google hits. Alpharigel 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This "small local paper" is the largest newspaper in Northern California and has a daily readership of over 500,000. --Daniel Olsen 23:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Counting Google hits is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers, but BPN was actually featured in numerous news articles outside the Bay Area (45 at Newsbank, although with a number of duplicates. SF CHron and Guardian articles are the strongest articles). ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I looked through the top 20 Newsbank articles and those on the talk page. Every one is either a trivial mention, or local (e.g. #5 on the talk page). The one exception is the Guardian article, which is a column not an article. Don't think there's enough here to establish notability of BPN, by analogy with existing notability guidelines which generally require multiple non-trivial sources. Pan Dan 00:13, 21 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. Daniel.Bryant 10:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Con-Dom[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion, but I removed the tag as I didn't really understand how it was relevant to the article. The group seems notable and might pass WP:MUSIC (not confirmed yet). Nishkid64 23:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This artist is widely known in the power-noise genre of music, and are early innovators of the genre. Cnwb 04:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely a well known figure in the field.Ac@osr 13:31, 14 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, Nishkid64 22:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Although this article needs citations and cleanup, a quick Google search suggests that this topic is barely on the right side of notability. I say a meek keep. Vectro 21:18, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daryll Bryant[edit]

Contested speedy, contested prod. Article gives no reason to believe the person meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Valrith 23:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable individual. Wikipedia is not a promotional device. Also see Thesa, Daryll Bryant's wife, for another non-notable individual. --Charlene.fic 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. May I also suggest his project Campusanity, which appears to link to a non-existent website and a deleted MySpace and little else? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Let's add Julie Bergeron (his mother in law) to the list of articles to delete. Seems like textbook vanity editing. --Daniel Olsen 00:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. Julie Bergeron was already A7-ed. ~ trialsanderrors 06:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vanity. EVula 06:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. And omg at the similarity between my name and this guy. Daniel.Bryant 10:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:AUTO & WP:NN Caknuck 22:51, 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 Merge to Tok'ra technology in Stargate (I took the clue from the article itself and the fact there was an almost identical entry in the target article, but feel free to move it if its in the wrong place - just don't move it back into its own article). Yomanganitalk 18:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tac (Stargate)[edit]

Un-noteworthy, even within its own universe; nothing more than the shambles that this article is can be said about it Alfakim-- talk 23:21, 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. --Coredesat 07:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campusanity[edit]

Non-notable podcast. Fails to assert notability. Google test shows 2 results, both Wikipedia pages. BradBeattie 23:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Author appears to have spewed a number of non-notable articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryll Bryant). Valrith 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lack of sources clinches it, although something which appears relatively small-scale to begin with may not be notable even with more sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Tony 04:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Another user deleted the afd from the page, so we might want to watch the page until discussion ends. TheRingess 19:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where 'another user' is the article's author... Valrith 20:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "Official site" is 404. Caknuck 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WillyWonty 22:56, 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 Speedy deleted by Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs) as NN neologism.

Poo poo blowjob[edit]

OK; some people seem to think this is patent nonsense; however some people would suggest otherwise since some coprophiles obsess about sucking feces [55]. It seems that somebody on Newgrounds obsessing about sucking poop seems to confirm that sucking poop does exist.

  • Keep to alert people who are reading Wikipedia articles about the risks of feces. --Nintendude message 00:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Nintendude. Also; feces are very controversial when it comes to eating them. --ZFU738 00:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The expression "poo poo blow job" gets 2 Ghits neither of which appear to be relevant. Therefore the term itself is a non-notable neologism. We can cover this material (and in fact, already have) at coprophilia. No need for a separate article with a title that will never be searched for (therefore, no redirect necessary.) Interestingly, in researching my opinion, I just learned that a search for "Eat shit" redirects for coprophilia. That's both sensible and amusing. Dina 00:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dina. This is someone's idea of a sick joke. - Lucky 6.9 00:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't like making accusations, but Nintendude's edit history is extremely suspect. Just my two cents. - Lucky 6.9 00:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dina. This is at least the third such article I've seen in the last week with a similiar topic, but an equally inapprorpiate title. JPG-GR 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question Since Nintendude created this Afd after removing a db-nonsense tag shouldn't s/he abstain from voting? I am under the impression that nominators for Afd must support the deletion of the article. (I could be wrong though.) Dina 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Dina says that "poo poo blowjob" only gets 2 google hits; however we can rename this article and keep it if there is a similar taboo act which actually exists. Also, I believe that "ZFU 738" is a license plate number of a car that a former Clarenceville student drives; and why would a user use a familiar license plate number as a username? isn't that disturbing? --Clarenceville Trojan 00:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point is that we already have an article that describes this taboo act -- coprophilia. We don't need to rename this one and we don't need an article about this specific non-notable neologism. Dina 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and that same person has a history of feces-related nonsense. This is going away as a speedy. Let it clog a toilet instead of AfD. - Lucky 6.9 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that history and I agree this is all WP:BOLLOCKS but I'm not certain what speedy criteria would suffice. Dina 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-notable neologism. It be bye-bye.  :) - Lucky 6.9 00:27, 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 redirect. --Coredesat 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AACPP[edit]

Delete because there are enough reasons (Portuguese initials and data for election 2005) to believe that this Macanese political party AACPP is actually the same party as Association for Helping the Community and Engagement with the People.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Choihei (talk • contribs) .

  • Close debate I agree that this is the same for the party you mention, however this did not need to go to AfD. It serves a purpose as a redirect, which I have changed it to. Resolute 01:45, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_19&oldid=1116878343"