Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Recommended reading: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel .Bryant 00:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Dust[edit]

Profoundly NN - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Chicken feet seems the clearest option. According to the linked article, "chicken dust" is just one of several names for them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge What Starblind said. I'm always up for new ways of snacking, but this tastes like chicken feet with a clever name. BusterD 01:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the redirect. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. -newkai t-c 16:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per everyone else. A rose by any other name... would still taste like Chicken feet.--Isotope23 18:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already merged this to Chicken feet, so unless someone has another idea I think this could be closed and the article redirected.--Isotope23 18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. --†ĥε þяíћɔЄ öf ɒĥɑямä^{Talk to Me} 22:45, 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 g11, spam, no notability asserted. NawlinWiki 17:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autry Music Institute[edit]

The article does not appear to be verifiable from reliable sources. It looks like advertising for a non-notable music school. Most Google hits are from adverising and business directories, and most of the rest are from WP and sites pulling from WP. Donald Albury 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SCHOOL, WP:V and WP:CORP. Tarret 00:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a soapbox, and certainly not the yellow pages. BusterD 00:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G11. Otherwise, strong delete as per above. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - May qualify as CSD material, as there's no assertion of notability. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a speedy delete, seeing as it's about 2 weeks old. Delete, fails notability guidelines. riana_dzast a 03:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD have changed recently - there's no longer a statute of limitation on blatant copyright violations, and corporate vanity is speediable just like biographical vanity is. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look at the history. Am I alone in smelling spam? BTLizard 11:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 161 Google hits, most of which are directory listings. -newkai t-c 16:16, 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 redirect as below. Please be bold or discuss redirects on talk pages. Deizio talk 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast delay[edit]

All info here is covered in Tape delay (broadcasting), it should be a redirect to it The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is articles for deletion. If the information is covered, make it a redirect. If not, then discuss a merger on the talk pages. --Wafulz 00:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I wanted a second opinion. It is a wiki, after all. I'm quite familiar with AfD. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:01, 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 nomination withdrawn. Whispering 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walk point[edit]

~~Can this ever be more than a dictdef? If it can't, shouldn't it be in Wiktionary, not here? Grutness...wha? 00:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn - looks much better. I wouldn't have thought it could be expanded but BusterD proved me wrong - well done. Grutness...wha? 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dicdef. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Improve Give it a second look, after my redo. It's much better now. If this is given to Mil Hist group, this will get better and earn a deserved place in tactics category. If not, no biggie. Too important a term to discard without due consideration. BusterD 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it is a better-written article now, but it still only offers evidence of the term being used by one person, which falls a long way short of the notability criteria. Only 575 ghits, which suggests that it is a slang term with very limited currency. Maybe, after more investigation, this might turn to be something to incoprorate in another artucle, but it's way short of the evidence needed to justify a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not intending to belabor this, but as an established term in military vernacular, I'm not sure ghits is an appropriate measure of notability in this case. Yet, I get 38,000 ghits on "Walking Point". That's notable. The article needs to be tagged for improvement, not deleted. IMHO, but I'll accept any reasonable ruling. BusterD 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after improvement by BusterD this might be viable article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Requires expansion all the same. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 10:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been renamed Take point as the more common form of the idiom. The article still needs work. In particular, other published recognition of the idiom needs to be cited, but the idiom is definitely in current usage not only militarily, but in business and politics. Bejnar 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the above (because AfD process is new to me). Is it correct to movepage when an articles up for AfD? Is movepage a possible option in addition to Keep or Delete? When I did this a few months ago I remember being admonished not to do. BusterD 17:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes they can, but it also requires moving the AFD debate, or at least doing an extra link to it, which people often forget. It's not usually recommended to move a page while afd is in progress, but it is possible. Grutness...wha? 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has been expanded. Still needs work though. T REX_speak 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given improvements to article, needs some additional work but is workable now. Seraphimblade 20:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn - see above. Grutness...wha? 21:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Bhumihars[edit]

Badly-named indiscriminate list. Prod by Utcursch (talk · contribs) with the comment "Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys". Prod removed by Sbei78 (talk · contribs), which appears to be a single purpose account created for contesting prods and AfDs of similar lists. I find the precedents for the previous deletions persuasive, and agree that this list should be removed, however, if the list is not deleted, I would recommend renaming it to ~~Lists of Bhumihars~~ List of Bhumihars, to remove the inherently POV term "famous", and to make it clear that this is a list. Xtifr _tälk 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename - famous is POV, yet lists are a better alternative to caste based cats, which are horrible.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 01:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys. utcursch | talk 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Utcursch. -newkai t-c 16:17, 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 -- RoySmith (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle nunchaku[edit]

The article makes no assertion of notability for this sport, other than the fact that there's an internet forum devoted to it. A Google search for the phrase "Freestyle Nunchaku" brings up 4,230 hits, the top three of which are said internet forum and two Wikimirrors. From there, its nothing but a sea of blogs, forums, unrelated web sites, and commercial sites. Consequentially 01:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete `'mikkanarxi 07:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable newly invented sport. JIP | Talk 09:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep I can see us back here in a year or so making the opposite ruling. While I agree with the points made, I can see how as a sport it might gain popularity (perhaps make its way into rhythmic gymnastics, for ex.). BusterD 11:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's like saying we should keep a band that "will someday be famous." If the sport explodes onto the international scene and attracts third-party press and attention we can always remake. But in the here and now, there is nothing on the web that suggests this meets WP:N. Consequentially 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and "...still in its infancy...". Non-notable. EVula 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Doesn't seem important.--S U I T ⁴² 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first entry here that asserts to a scattered and possibly incoherent presence on the web is actually an argument for keeping this, not deleting. If the topic is presented so chaotically on the web, then this page would seem to serve the very purpose of an encyclopaedia, bringing the entire topic together in a coherent text that provides a cohesive overview. Malangthon 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My assumption is that it is presented chaotically because its of limited popularity, and relevant to an extremely specific demographic group. There are plenty of haphazard ideas and associations floating around on the internet -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Consequentially 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep per Malangthon and BusterD. I've taken a run through the article and done some cleanup and formatting. It still could use work, but is in a little better shape. JubalHarshaw 15:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly article needs cleanup, but the assertion "Competitions are now held where marks are awarded bases [sic] upon visual display rather than predefined kata." makes it notable (if verified). Give it a month and let's see where the article is by then. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 00:55, 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. Dakota 06:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nilotic type[edit]

Delete Nice support of racial science... I would say that this violate WP:NEO but I found three instances of this term being used in an anthropological sense but they were in a scholarly journals from 1907, 1939 and 1947....go figure. This wasn't a mainstream category then and certainly isn't now. The article uses origional research to back up these outdated and pseudo-scientific claims, see WP:NOR. For you googlers, notice the lack of g-hits. The sources in this article aren't cited in-line so who knows if they're even verifiable or reliable and not just by hacks/racists. Strothra 01:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR/personal essay/neologism, see above. Opabinia regalis 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.UberCryxic 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Opabinia regalis. Original research.Montco 03:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brimba 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ask author to rewrite (see my recommendations below). Aetheling 05:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Why all the attention on the other article, I wonder? --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Pan Gerwazy 08:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that WIKIPEDIA is a source of knowledge and it unites intelligent people. If you meddled into my "West African type", I could take it as a controversal topic, but refuting such a well-established, well-measured fact like Nilotic physique is too much. Centrum99 08:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to commit personal attack on Mr.Centrum, having considered the "User Contribution" data available, my vote is for deletion on the grounds of POV, possible OR, and overall perceived bias. --Simon Cursitor

Here's the problem, as I see it: statistical studies of body features that do not reference underlying genes are extremely susceptible to bias and preconceived notions, and to incorrect conclusions due to unobserved environmental and dietary factors. If this article classified atheletes by genotype, then I would have no problem at all. However, classifications by tribe, race, or body type are notoriously inaccurate, and subject to too many ways in which the conclusions can be slanted to favor whatever conclusions the author wishes to make, consciously or not. I am well aware that the scientific sports literature deals with such issues without reference to genes, in peer-reviewed journals, but speaking as a professional medical biostatistician I have to say that I question whether any of this "research" can stand up to close scrutiny. If this article were to admit in its first paragraph that concepts such as "Nilotic type" have no scientific basis in genetics, or alternatively, if it were actually to specify the genes that define the Nilotic type, then I would be much more favorably disposed. — Aetheling 12:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia rules, personal attacks are used especially in cases, when a person uses it "as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement". However, I can document all what I say with exact numbers, from the skull length, face width, limb length, body mass index, muscle+fat width, even calf girth. What about you? Do you also know some other English word except "Delete"? It would improve our communication. Centrum99 09:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup: the editor who wrote these has stated that he is having trouble understanding how to correctly cite an article. As he lists a dozen works in his references section, albeit incorrectly, I am not convinced this falls under NOR. If others would help him figure out how to cite the assertions made in the article correctly, we might be able to get past the NOR issue, and address any NPOV or bias issues. The works are dated from 1989 to 2006. I comprehend that those voting "delete" are concerned about OR, Bias, and inaccurate articles which present disproved science as though it were current, but this may not be the case here. I myself was only able to find a reference in a 1907 work; that does not mean it does not have currency elsewhere and until we figure out what sources Centrum99 is using and whether they support his article, we cannot judge whether it is OR. If there is bias, it can be addressed - and if the article is indeed OR and promoting a disused term, then we can address that. We do indeed have an article on Racial science, and it is disputed and very poorly sourced, but IMHO it is not a candidate for deletion. Could it not be the case here? We have an article on Flat earth, which I believe just made FA. We have articles on many topics which are either proven false, disputed, or crank theories, but we have them. This term, dating to 1907, is most assuredly not a neologism. It may be outdated poor science, and then again it may be something else. Those voting "delete as OR" for an article with 12 books in the references, and "delete as neologism" for a term making an appearance at least by 1907, are surely allowing distaste for Racial science to affect their neutrality. We do not have to like something or agree with it in order for it to be worthy of inclusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changed from keep, above - see comment, below. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did not nominate this article based on WP:NEO. As I clearly state in my nom, the term, although historical, is not used any longer by credible anthropologists nor does this article explain the historical use. Rather, this article expands on the orgional definition by using origional research, see WP:NOR, which leads to a a conclusion supporting the political agenda of the author promoting race science as if it were good or even real science. The term is offensive and generalizing not to mention no longer accepted by any established scientific communities. The fact that it is no longer in use and was never widespread even at the time means that this term also fails the standards of notability. Just because a handful of quacks promoted the idea in whatever form does not make it notable and falls more under the heading of a hoax masquerading as reality in the minds of some fringe groups. You are seeing the term and assuming that it was, at one point notable, but it was not else it would be more readily found in historical scholarly journals when, in fact, only a few instances can be found. --Strothra 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOR QuiteUnusual 11:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please explain how an article with 12 books as references fails NOR. I have asked the editor who wrote the article to give better cites, explaining where and how his sources support the content of the article. He is confused, and I am willing to give the time necessary to work with him and determine whether the sources do indeed support the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because none of those books deal with the idea of the nilotic type, rather they are used in order to garner data which the author is synthesizing into supporting another topic, the nilotic type. To quote WP:NOR, it is a "synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." Here, that position is race science, an archaic pseudo-scientific inquiry which has repeatedly been condemned by all modern medical establishments. It's a fringe belief that is hardly mainstream unless one currently lives in Germany between the years 1937-1949. --Strothra 14:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the references do not indeed support any of the article content, then yes by all means delete. I have received no response from my post to the auther, nor has jossi, who pointed him/her to WP:CITE. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You received no reply from me, because I must also sleep sometimes. The term "Nilotic/Nilotid type/race/physique" was regularly used by anthropologists until ca. 60-70's. Note that the large article of Roberts, Bainbridge "Nilotic Physique" that is still frequently cited as one of the most detailed studies on East African physique, was published in 1963. I can post maps from books of Lundman or Biasutti, which are authorities from 50's-60's, who use the term "Nilotid" or "Razza Nilotica" respectively. After this generation of anthropologists finished their lifelong work, the new generation born after WW II subdued to the demands of the new age and comparative anthropology was, in fact, buried. The anthropological division that was established during the first half of the 20th century was substituted by more "politically correct" geographical terms, so, for example, you no longer study a "Nilotic type", but "East African pastoralists" or simply "East Africans". Gradually even this division was discredited as "no more meaningful" and since a certain time, scientists in Western Europe/North America must pretend that racial differences don't exist all. This absurd situation probably reached its top in 2003 with the public TV fraud called "Race: The Power Of An Illusion". I am not the only one, who complains about it. Recently I was in correspondence with a French anthropologist, who apologized that he has no newer data on the physique of Europeans, only those from his study wrote in 80's, because a broad anthropological comparison of today's Europeans is simply unthinkable. So you shouldn't be surprised that many people - if they want to discuss physical variability in Europe - must quote Carleton Coon's Races of Europe, written in 1939. There virtually exist no newer studies or synthesis since ca. mid 70's, when Hiernaux book People of Africa was published. However, since some data are needed for medical reasons, there exist recent studies in which you can find some basic anthropometric measurements like e.g. height, sitting height, arm length, body diameters etc.

To Aetheling: I think your arguments are not appropriate. Body proportions are generally geneticly determined traits, adaptations to enviroment that don't change so plasticly like stature. Since leg length is bound with nutrition, you can observe a small increase of relative leg length (in comparison to stature) in industrialized nations during the last century. However, the increase is very small in comparison with height and obviously hitted a genetic limit during the last decades. For example, Japanese were notoriously known as small, extremely short-legged people. Their trunk index (trunk height/body height ratio) was around 54% 50 years ago. Now it is around 53,6% and appears to be stabilized. This is still far from the average of about 52% found in Europeans, 50-51% in West Africans and Ethiopids, and 48% found in the Nilotes and the majority of Australian Aboriginals. Note please, how the trunk index is bound with climate: numbers between 53-54% can be found in East Asians and Eskimos, 52% in Europeans, 50-51% in steppe-forest Africans, 48% in populations adapted to hot, dry desert. This is a climatic adaptation resulting from the need to handle with excessive or insufficient body temperature. Limbs have big volume relative to their height, hence they are the first part of the body that reacts to climatic change. In hot climate, long thin limbs better dissipate heat than short, volumnous limbs that, on the other hand, better preserve body temperature in cold climate. Since distal limb segments like forearms and calves are the thinnest, they are also most influenced: for example, Neanderthals had extremely small forearm/upper arm and calf/thigh ratio that can't be found in any modern human population, because modern Arctic humans still are not perfectly adapted to Arctic climate like Neanderthals. Nilotes and Australian Aboriginals represent the other extreme, with extremely long limbs and extremely long forearms and calves. And as for genetics, I would add that Nilotes are one of the most archaic human groups that can be well separated as a single race. They posess a special subclade of Y-haplogroup A (A3b2), a sub-branch of the subclades found in Khoisan. They must have separated from the Khoisan people a long time ago and since they have lived in their enviroment for thousands of years, their adaptation to hot climate is the most extreme of all human groups. Irrespectively if you like it or not, and irrespectively if the term "Nilotic" is "officially allowed" or not, this physical type still exists. The only way, how to erase the Nilotic type from the world is to go to Sudan with a sufficiently large army and exterminate all Nilotes. 82.100.61.114 15:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response. Based on this, here is how I think you can clean up this article. (1) In the lead paragraph, document (with references) the genetic existence of the Nilotic as a "well-separated race", and describe what is known from genetics of its ancestry and geographic dispersal. Give a lot more detail (with references) on how they fit into the broader panorama of known genetic groups of Africa. (2) Shift the primary emphasis of the article away from physique, and towards the genetic identity of this group. Avoid any characterization that is not based in the bedrock of genetics, because every other aspect of phenotype may be heavily influenced by health, nutrition, environment, and culture. Why even mention height, when, as you say, it may largely depend on living style? (3) I recommend that you be very careful with your physical descriptions. You used the words "slim" and "slender", for example, yet this slimness may be purely nutritional. Is there any evidence at all that this slimness derives from genotype? (4) In your second paragraph, I suggest that you give some of the history of the word "Nilotic" itself. You might mention explicitly that the "Nilotic" concept dates back to the days when anthropological classifications were based on little more than physical stereotypes, as part of a program for establishing a heirarchy of races, from "primitive" to "advanced". Mention that the term has not been used since the 1960s, and tell us why it fell out of favor. Is there another term that is now preferred? (5) Push all the aspects of physique into a separate section, just before the sport section. — Aetheling 17:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOR. While the first paragraph of the entry might stand on its own as an anthropology stub, the section about Nilotic types and sport smacks of original research. Even then, this particular view of anthropology (racial classification) is currently being abandoned in favor of a more clinal view. I would hate to be redundant, so I will only say this: most of the comments I made at the West african type AfD entry are valid. So, I suggest to delete for the same reasons, chiefly OR.--Ramdrake 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOR, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West african type above. Sandstein 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. NawlinWiki 17:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as highly problematic original research. The discussions above make clear that this a a very complex area as well as a controversial one, and I see no evidence that this article stands any reasonable chance of being a useful starting point for a balanced article. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nilotic type/physique" is no original research, but a well-known and established term, at least for those, who have ever read something about anthropology. But as I said on the discussion to West african type, I will start from the beginning, with a new article about physical anthropology of Africa. Centrum99 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I decided to check the references. Beall et al. do not use the terms "nilotic" or "nilote". Campbell, Leslie, Campbell (2006) do not use either term and their research is a comparison between nomadic and settled populations within one ethnicity, not a comparison of one ethnicity to another, and thus seems totally unrelated to this entry's nominal topic. Entiene and Hiernaux I could not check. The first Larsen, et al., the one from 2000, as far as I can tell does not exist: No article featuring Larsen as its author appeared in any 2000 volume, a search for "h.b. larsen" or "larsen, h.b." as an author yields no results, and searches for "kenyan" in the title of an article yielded me no results regardless of whether or not I specified 2000 as the article year. The second Larsen, at al. (from 2004) does not speak of "nilote" or "nilotic type", although it does state "In this light the purpose of the present study was to describe body dimensions, running economy, aerobic power, and related variables and relate them to habitual daily physical activity level of Nandi town and village boys in western Kenya. The hypothesis was that the characteristics of east African elite distance runners can be observed in adolescent Nandi boys regardless of where they live." The study identifies genetics as a possible factor in Nandi running. The Little and Rębacz sources I couldn't get, as the University of Minnesota doesn't have online access to the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology or Collegium Antropologicum. Ditto J. H. de Ridder, E. Smith, C. Wilders, C. Underhay, as the University of Minnesota doesn't provide me with access to the Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry. Roberts (1963)... talks about a Nilotic group, although we have Ramdrake saying that a clinal approach has supplanted one of Roberts's fundamental assumptions. Both Saltin et al., I couldn't get ahold of: University of Minnesota doesn't give online access to the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports. So, what I could get ahold of gives me 1 source that as best I can tell doesn't exist, 1 source that someone disputes as reliable, and 3 sources that in my opinion only link to the topic at hand by violating a provision of WP:NOR, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." We have Aetheling's suggestions for a rewrite, we have the existing entry, and we have an author ascribing delete reccomendations and the apparent irrelevance of multiple sources to political motivations - that last something that always makes me think the lady doth protest too much. In all, while after I see it I might welcome an article along the lines of what Aetheling suggests, at the present time I think the entry requires deletion. The Literate Engineer 22:32, 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 merge to Other V.F.D. Animals. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V.F.D. Bats[edit]

Fictional animals in the Unfortunate Incidents books. (Closing admin: this is a procedural listing so please count me as neutral.) - Banyan Tree 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Other V.F.D. Animals. It might not warrant an article of its own, but there's a better place for it than the trash bin. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BradBeattie. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 10:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Augh! I've been spoiled! (I should have known better than to click before reading the latest book.) In any case, Merge and redirect to Other V.F.D. Animals - there's not enough for a separate article at this time. TheronJ 16:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I've read the books, and I barely remember what they are. They aren't really worthy of their own page. All they have is a one or two sentences in the entire series about them. Merge to Other V.F.D. Animals. Subject is barely notable to people who read the books, let alone non-readers.--andrewI20^Talk 06:11, 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 to Angela Rippon. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Plum[edit]

Fictional fairy character. (Note to closing admin: This is a procedural listing, so please count me as neutral.) Banyan Tree 01:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make into prune juice Merge some info into Angela Rippon if necessary (already some mention there) / delete. Not a significant children's character in the UK Bwithh 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Angela Rippon then redirect. Could be a search term. No need for AfD or deletion. And once more: merging can (and should) be done without AfD/CSD or other deletion procedure, simply merge and redirect. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as well. Not enough info to constitute an article. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 10:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. BTLizard 11:30, 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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Press Pass[edit]

Appears to be a sub-stub for a television program airing on a student-run campus television network. Delete as lacking reliable sources indicating any sort of notability, WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, i.e., TV Guide for every single student-produced program. If anything, this could be briefly mentioned at the article for the network itself... no merge, since this article barely has anything, let along content worth merging. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in this AfD: 'Cuse Countdown, SyraFeud, After Hours (tv show), CitrusTV News. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide implies an episodic listing. The purpose of these articles is to provide information about the series in general and history show. When in non-stub form, the articles could include other information such as notable alumni etc. Nobody1234 02:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all as per nominator. (Nobody1234, lists of alumni belong in, well, lists of alumni, not tacked onto NN articles to try to justify their existence). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Pure advertising. --Aaron 14:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Mention/list of current shows can be placed in CitrusTV article. -newkai t-c 16:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, nonnotable campus TV shows. NawlinWiki 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom. None are notable, all should be deleted. EVula 22:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete It- It is badly written and doesn't hold much encyclopedic value.--S U I T ⁴² 00:16, 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/redirect. Proto::type 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Think I Canada[edit]

The only The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa episode article I could find, a discontinued Disney television series. It's unlikely to be expanded, and serves little purpose if no other episodes are covered. Delta Tango (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless to have an article on a single episode. Unlikely search term and nothing of use to merge as far as I can tell. Opabinia regalis 02:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every episode of every TV show does not warrant its own article.--MonkBirdDuke 02:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok, ill go nominate some grey's anatomy or desperate housewives for deletion, because under your logic they might not necessarily have the right to exist either!!! -- Librarianofages 03:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I think he meant in this particular case where there is an article for one episode out of 86 with less than five major edits in three years. --Wafulz 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see no real reason for deletion, who knows? more episodes may be covered in time, so we can't take that as a vaild reason for deletion. -- Librarianofages 03:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and redirect. There's not too much substantial text in this article- it could be summed up in two sentences in the main article. Also, the talk page appears to have been host for a vote for deletion and the outcome was "keep" based on !paper. Combined with the fact that it's an unlikely search term and has gotten pretty much no attention in three years, I think it would serve a better purpose in the main article. --Wafulz 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can you imagine the precedent keeping this would set; wikipedia can't possibly have a separate article for every single show out there, especially shows that aren't really notable in themselves--I could see a justification for having articles for particularly famous episodes of famous shows (for example, certain episodes of I Love Lucy). --The Way 05:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. It's an animated cartoon that ceased to continue seven years ago. And a large proportion of the article is an analysis which seems to be orignal research. Common sense (if common sense counts) says that this will continue to be a lone episode, still unfit for this encyclopedia. Delta Tango • Talk 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Patrick Hurston 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom, then redirect to Timon & Pumbaa (TV series) T REX_speak 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Way. There is nothing in the article or offered fron external sources to support any claim os notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article for a episode of a tv show, just like any other article for a episode of a tv show. It seems that this was nominted only becuase it is "unlikely to be expanded". So becuase it hasn't been hasn't been edited in a while it should be deleted? -- Coasttocoast 01:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The answer here appears to be the creation of the other articles, not the deletion of this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To reply to the above two editors; the primary reason this is up for AfD is because it violates Wikipedia guidelines on notability and TV shows (I don't have the links at hand but may be able to be convinced to find them). Wikipedia is also not around to provide information on every conceivable random thing. TV show articles that are simply summaries are not supposed to be around; only articles which explain how a particular episode caused a controversy, was news worthy or was a landmark in the series or in television in general should exist. Again, the fact that other shows have many articles does NOT in anyway imply that this article should exist. Indeed, according to Wikipedia's guidelines most of these other TV show articles should ALSO be deleted and I may get around to nominating them soon. --The Way 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on all counts. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you disagreeing with? Should all episodes of notable TV series have their own article? And do you really disagree to "Wikipedia is also not around to provide information on every conceivable random thing"? Delta Tango • Talk 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all episodes should have articles. And I don't agree with providing "information on every concievable random thing." I simply have a hard time believing that a well-known cartoon from Disney would fall under that umbrella. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disk space is cheap, human effort isn't. Secondly, deleting something because "no other episodes are covered" is a profoundly stupid reason... Wikipedia always will have somewhat asymetric coverage because the editors/writers decide what is interesting to them. It is not a paper work, as has been brought out. The proper way to handle unreasonable asymetry is to focus on expanding the other content not to destroy what is already there! Bryce 14:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hopefully this is enough to end debate... In looking up specific Wikipedia policies you can find on WP:NOT the following rules which imply that this article should be deleted.

1. Wikipedia articles can NOT simply be plot summaries. "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Does this particular episode have a major, real-world context? Has it provoked controversy? Is it genre-defining? If not, then delete.

2. Wikipedia is NOT a directory. "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business" are not allowed. Essentially, having articles for individual TV episode falls under the category of 'TV guides' and amounts to a directory, therefore it is not allowed.

3. According to Wikipedia's notability standards for fiction, "It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own." If the information in this article must be kept, then it really needs to be merged into the article about the television show itself. --The Way 18:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is nothing but a plott summary. -- Whpq 13:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Way. The show itself barely manages to be notable, individual episodes really are not. Risker 16:05, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad-Up[edit]

Article asserts notability but has had an unreferenced tag since August 2006. I can find no sources to backup the claim. Smells like linkspam. — Moondyne 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom — Moondyne 02:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it walks like linkspam and smells like linkspam. Montco 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising, WP:CORP -- Librarianofages 02:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11 — Xtifr _tälk 03:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Straight-up advertising. BusterD 11:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Bogsat 14:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Xtifr. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Xtifr. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. EVula 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Speedy Delete G11 blatant advertising. EVula 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Advertising -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This Article is a totally legitimate entry with at least 3 valid third-party references. See References. If anyone actually bothered to do more than 20 seconds of research on this, they'd see this entry merits further writing not ignorant flaming.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.158.140 (talk • contribs) 26 October 2006 19:28 (UTC)
Speedy Delete -- blatant advert. tiZom_(2¢) 01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE - Has anyone bothered to check the references? They are real. This entry is a stub and may need further information, but it should NOT be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.158.24 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: being "real" is not an issue (and is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia—lots of real things don't have or deserve WP articles). The questions are: is it notable? (Does it meet WP:CORP?) And is it a blatant ad? (Wikipedia is not an advertising service.) The refs may help address the first point (though I'd have to review them), but the second point is far more important! WP is being innundated with spam, and a new shoot-on-sight policy has been instituted (see WP:CSD#G11). An article about an internet advertising company, in particular, is going to have to bend over backwards to avoid even the slightest appearance of being spam in order to avoid being deleted. If you can rewrite the article to avoid even the faintest hint of spamminess, I will happily change my vote (but see WP:COI). I, however, have no interest in rewriting the article for you. Having this article deleted now will not prevent anyone from writing a non-spammy article in the future, so really, it's no big deal. Either fix it now, or just chill. Xtifr _tälk 23:08, 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 no consensus (keep). Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xenos (Greek)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article was prodded but removed by creator. There is no reliable source given for the article and content is little more than a dictionary entry in a greek lexicon. ju66l3r 02:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is currently more than a simple definition, it briefly mentions it's connection with Xenia and use in culture, and around these areas I believe it has room for expansion. Further, lack of sources is reason to find sources, not for deletion. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline of Verifiability puts the burden on the person who adds the content to provide the resources necessary to verify the subject matter. Considering there was absolutely no source given at all, it made the content unverifiable and therefore subject to review for deletion. The current reference given is for Xenia (not Xenos) which as far as I can tell doesn't actually address Xenos and is a registration/subscription site as well. ju66l3r 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately that is the only source I have access to at this point, although it does infact deal with Xenos. You'll either have to trust me on that or go down to your local library and verify it yourself. Just because a source is subscription based does not mean one can ignore it, else we'd be force to remove almost ever scholarly journal. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article is more than a mere dictionary definition.--Hús ö nd 03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have attempted to expand the article, although I'm no expert on the subject. I would ask that it be reconsidered with the new edit in mind, and with the idea that it could indeed be expanded by someone with more expertise than I. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. wikipedia not a Greek dictionary. Essentially a list of different meanings of a greek word. Not a big deal when translated betwee different languages. 100% dicdef. `'mikkanarxi 05:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the word has a variety of meanings does not make it 'more than a dictionary definition.' A lot of words have a wide array of meanings in English, let alone other languages. We can't have an article for every foreign word with a few different meanings. If its culturally important, put it in the article on Greek culture. If it has a semantic importance, merge it into the article for the Greek Language. Otherwise, maybe send it to the Wiktionary but it does not merit an article here. --The Way 05:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from Wikipedia. At this moment, it's still not notable enough. Good for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary had already had wikt:ξένος for 9 months at the time that this Wikipedia article was created. It has plenty of room for quotations and usage notes, which it requires in order to be a full dictionary article but still lacks. Uncle G 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is being worked on, is much more than a dictionary entry and there clearly is a lot lying beneath the surface which should be brought out in a full article.

--Mike 14:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from Wikipedia. ""Divergent concepts" belong to wictionary. If any of these "divergent concepts" may grow into a referenced encyclopedic articles, by all means, turn this page into disambiguation page. Mukadderat 17:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup. This is a very important concept (not just word) in Ancient Greek culture, and the article can be vastly expanded. It's fledgling, but that's because it's new. Give the article a chance. ~~I'm going to list it on the Ancient Greek WikiProject.~~ I have great confidence that, with enough work and minds, we can have a great article here. (Ed: The article has already been added to the project. Once again, I ask that it be given a chance to be edited). CaveatLector^Talk 04:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per CaveatLector. Once again, WP is on the verge of deleting something that formed part of the society that gave us democracy, the scientific method, and so much more, but WP will keep every 2-bit school, pokemon character, or episode of and contestants on "reality" shows. A shame, really, on us. Carlossuarez46 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article just needs more fleshing out, such as its notable impact on society (for example: Xenophobia). - Lex 06:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Carlossuarez46 --Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important concept in Greek literature. I know one shouldn't mention Pokemon but... JASpencer 22:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful page, well written, important long established concept, root of many other words. I can think of no reason whatsoever to delete this article. Xj 11:03, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Movie Game[edit]

Complete speculation (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), unverified, prod tag removed twice. JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 02:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verify & Keep Article needs verification, not deletion. -- Librarianofages 02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both myself and Andypandy.UK tried and were unable to verify this information. According to Jimbo, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" (as found on WP:V). Though we're not talking about libel here, Wikipedia is not for random rumors. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 03:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Crystalballism; fails WP:V. Only a few unhelpful hits on google. Bwithh 03:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Simpsons Movie until more information comes out about the game. FrozenPurpleCube 03:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Simpsons Movie as per FrozenPurpleCube. Heavily franchised movies often come out with video games, but there's no need to have two articles especially when this one is lacking any notable content. Besides, it doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE at this point in time. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 05:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft foolishness. Simpsons articles are some of the worst offenders when it comes to trivial unsourced cruft. L0b0t 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unverifiable fan speculation. Andrew Levine 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' All google hits for "Simpsons Movie Game" lead to forum posts of fans speculating so we have no verifiable info in addition to the crystal ball problem. JoshuaZ 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No game based on the movie has been announced and WP isn't the place for speculation. TJ Spyke 20:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until there's some evidence for its existence. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 01:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; article can be recreated if/when a game is officially announced. --Alan Au 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ridiculously unverified, crystal-balling fancruft. The Kinslayer 10:16, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prof K E Viswanathan[edit]

Fails WP:V (probably there is an issue of Conflict of Interest too) Doctor Bruno 02:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this fails WP:V -- Librarianofages 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been given Doctor Bruno 02:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you tried to verify the information yourself? -- Librarianofages 03:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article and more Articles [1] Doctor Bruno

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Doctor Bruno 03:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:V and a violation of WP:SOAP. Appears to be a vanity page created by subject of article - violation of WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO. Professor's name gives no relevant hits outside wikipedia mirrors. Key term, "democrism", yields almost no ghits outside of wikipedia mirrors. No relevant hits in google books or google scholar. Bwithh 03:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid the term Vanity. We can better use Conflict of Interest for that Doctor Bruno

Delete Allow me to expand the above statement. A search shows no relevent hits. Thus, it is impossible to verify this article and fails WP:VERIFY completely. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less results using "-wikipedia" flag: [2]. utcursch | talk 05:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per sivaBakaman _Bakatalk 04:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Also WP:AUTO. utcursch | talk 05:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this article on 17th Oct, when my googling failed to verify existence of the man, his books or organisation. No new evidence since. Mereda 06:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soapbox article. BusterD 11:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiablity, possible COI, soapbox.-- danntm ^T _C 15:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per above. It's a badly written, unsourced, unverifiable article with a clear conflict of interest. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No links for "International Socio-Economic Economic Research Bureau". ~ trialsanderrors 22:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Badly written article. No sufficient links or source provided to check his notability. Nileena joseph 02:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- so...much...bold...can't...concentrate. Oy. NielsenGW 04:58, 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 Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability (no source for the alleged "hit single"). NawlinWiki 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy MacMannis[edit]

Contested PROD. Originally PRODded with message "fails to meet notability requirements at WP:MUSIC, appears self-authored." PROD2ed by nom without further comment. DePRODded bu anon (who has contributed to the article,) without an edit summary. RoninBK_ETC 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, As original PRODder, I was about to nominate as AfD myself, and got an edit conflict with Roninbk. :) Here's what I was going to post: "NN musician, fails WP:MUSIC, probable WP:COI, main editor is Amacmann (talk · contribs) whose userpage is substantially identical. Found and PRODded while browsing musician articles. PROD endorsed by Roninbk, then deleted without comment by 198.7.241.82 (talk · contribs). Logs reveal that the article has been deleted twice before, most recently as speedy (A7) on 28 August[3]; latest version was created two days later. May still qualify for speedy (A7), but I'm going with AfD just to make sure." Xtifr _tälk 03:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Blame my lightning-fast high-speed internet... ;) --RoninBK_ETC 04:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was userfied to Amacmann on 8/15/06. No ghits for the CD the subject "released" last year. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:AUTO. Caknuck 05:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not-notable. Trebor 14:45, 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 -- sorry to say, but unfortunately, large "group" AfDs like this tend to turn into a mess. It looks like there are strong camps in all areas -- merge, keep, and delete. If I happen to have missed a particularly strong consensus to delete any two or three of these pages, I'd recommend starting a second nomination for just those, linking to this one. Other than that, I'd recommend giving the mergists some time to do their work, and then starting smaller group (or even individual) AfD proceedings. The other trick is to put one through as a "tester" to establish a general consensus, before putting in the group. So again, rather than objecting to this close on my talk page, please feel free to head to deletion review or start second noms for particularly problematic or other individual pages. Best of luck and happy editing to all. Luna Santin 09:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here Comes the Squirtle Squad[edit]

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

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

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

There's a number of pokemon articles that say nothing except a plot summary (something just a one sentence long summary, as in the case of this squitle episode), an info box, and sometimes a cast list (=indiscriminate collection of information, what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. We don't need 500+ pokemon episode articles (only a matter of time before someone makes an article similar to this one for each pokemon episode, not hard to do either) if all they're going to contain only plot summaries and an indiscriminate dump of cast information.

This isn't a nomination for deletion for all pokemon articles (just the ones listed here). Some, like Electric_Soldier_Porygon, are significant for good reason. And has an article that does have commentary and real life context. With information which can be verified and sourced (although it currently is not). However, there is no evidence that the 500 other pokemon articles will ever reach this stage.

Actually, it seems like there just isn't anything to say about them - For example, even the very first pokemon episode Pokémon, I Choose You!, which is probably the most famous episode (being the very first) is just a plot summary. Although a far longer plot summary (which isn't a good thing. A scene-by-scene synopsis is something to be avoided as per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes

There's nothing wrong with episode articles if they're good and well developed, but that isn't the case here. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes says:

"Once there's enough independently verifiable information to do so, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show."

"Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles."

There's no indication of there even being enough "independently verifiable information" to write articles on each season, let along articles for each episode. If people really have so much to write about, they should start with good season articles, (or articles for part of the season, so like episodes 1-20, season 1. since pokemon seasons are LONG), and then expand into episode articles only when there is more to say about an individual episode.

These are the articles i'm nominating:

articles with just summaries + infobox

Articles with really short summaries (short as in one-paragraph, or even one-sentence, long summaries)

note - the Ice Cave and Holidy Jynx articles do contain a "contraversy" section. However, the contraversy sections are just a copy (or shortened copy) of what's already been said at the Banned episodes of Pokémon article. So really, there's nothing new on them except the very short episode summaries.

And just for clarification, these articles are NOT being included in this AfD

Electric Soldier Porygon (article is a mess, but not suitable to be bundled in here)
Pokémon: Mewtwo Returns
The Mastermind of Mirage Pokémon
all the articles for pokemon movies

`/aksha 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. There's an ongoing effort to merge these episodes (save for possibly Electric Soldier Porygon into lists, such as List of Pokémon: Battle Frontier episodes. This was a recent consensus reached at the Pokémon Wikiproject, so the merges aren't quite done yet. Unless someone has some great desire to overturn the consensus formed there, I suggest withdrawing this and helping with the merges. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- damn...looks like wikiproject beat me to the punch =). The inconsistent tagging of "this article may need cleanup" made me think people had just forgotten about the whole lot. Oh right, I'll rest my case. --`/aksha 03:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an episode article, there's other episode articles †he Bread 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...but not every other episode article consists of just a plot summary and an infobox. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They need to be kept. (14:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)) — Possible single purpose account: Pikchu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- User:Pikchu's fourth edit. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storng Keep - Needs alot of work, needs more information rather than just a short summary. (User_talk:Fabu-Vinny 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)) — Possible single purpose account: Fabu-Vinny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. (and has been blocked indefintely for being a sock)[reply]
- For the record, I'm the Fabu-Vinny of Bulbapedia and BMG and that wasn't me. --Sonic Mew 12:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Do you plan on doing this for every TV show? Many shows have articles for every episode, even Star Trek with it's 700+ episodes among the 5 series. TJ Spyke 03:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only for the TV shows where the episode articles contain only summaries. And when they can obviously be merged into season (or other logical divisions) of episode articles. Defintely not planning to nominate everything. For example, i'm certianly not planning to nominate Buffy episodes. Since the articles defintely have more than just a summary (See Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode), especially note the section on "Writing"). It's obvious someone's made an effort to actually write an encyclopedic article, rather than just an episode summary. They're all well organized, and the summaries themselves are actually good - as in they're detailed but not a dry scene-by-scene recall. With like...these pokemon episodes. I don't think people can even squeeze enough out of them to make decent encyclopedic season articles, let along encyclopedic epidosde articles. As for Star Trek, i'm not sure. I'm defintely planning to go in there and clean out the mass of trivia when i find spare time. As for actually nominating the articles for deletion, i am tempted to do so. They are also just a mass of summaries, although they are quite obviously a step up from the kind of articles in this nomination and in the 4400 episodes nomination. Using season articles for summaries of that size will cause article length problems. Don't suppose you could point me to something that explains where wikipedia stands with huge long detailed summaries that provide no commetary and otherwise encyclopedic information? --`/aksha 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All TV episode articles are acceptable for most series, and Pokemon is more notable than most. At least one of these has been up for deletion before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Catches a Pokémon) and the result was a near-unanimous consensus to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Precedent and previous AfDs do not override official Wikipedia policies. WP:NOT is an official Wikipedia policy. WP:NOT states that articles that consist only of episode summaries are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore, these must be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 19:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete All The Wikipedia can't possibly be expected to have separate articles for every single episode of every TV show ever made; it would be ridiculous (not to mention the amount of server space required). Thus, allowing these to exist sets this as a precedent. Only the most notable episodes (particulary of highly notable TV shows, think I Love Lucy, Happy Days, etc) should have their own articles. The fact that full episode guides exist for other shows (including Star Trek, which I am a fan of) does not mean that these articles should be kept, rather it indicates those articles should be deleted as well. --The Way 05:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would say merge all the short ones to lists by season, with redirects that can be someday turned into real articles. --Brianyoumans 07:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above /Blaxthos 08:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decline to vote when so many entries are being block-genocided. Makes it impossible to distinguish between sheep and goats, and renders AfD a mockery -- Simon Cursitor
- You could just look at each of them, which is what you would have to do anyway if i listed all 30 articles into 30 30 seperate AfDs? --`/aksha 09:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The main WP:AFD page suggests listing multiple related pages in a single nomination. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, even with short summaries, the articles cannot sufficiently demonstrate their usefulness nor notability. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 11:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above /Bobabobaob (14:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Fancruft foolishness. Get this trivial television nonsense out of the encyclopedia L0b0t 14:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd like the "stubby" ones merged and the more developed ones either merged or retained separately. In some cases, particular episodes of a show are important enough to fandom that folks want to list details, commentary, allusion to other works, etc. -- and I don't want to rain on that parade. But countless stubs are a pain in the neck, especially when using the random article button. BTW – Has the "mega-genre" of collectable card games, video games and Japanese animation produced a lion’s share of these stubs or is it just my imagination? -House of Scandal 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the only source of useless stubs (we have country roads, and asteroids, and episodes of current mainstream TV shows, and obscure villages, and every album ever published ever it seems, and obscure pro sports players in every sport you can imagine, any school with at least three students, and many others), but theese are particularly unpopular stubs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refer to Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project to come up with a solution as to whether these can be merged. When there is an active project working on a group of articles, general AfDs are rarely productive. --Hyperbole 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All into season articles with a brief blurb about each episode, which is what should be done for pretty much every television show.--Isotope23 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Alll and expand them into more than just stubs. Otherwise, nominate EVERY single TV show article for deletion. 20:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edgecution (talk • contribs) .
- The nominator isn't arguing for the deletion of all television show articles, or even all television episode articles, for that matter; (s)he is arguing for the deletion of individual episode articles that essentially consist of gussied-up plot summaries. Please don't set up straw man arguments. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete All per SpLoT. (In response to previous comment, I'd happily delete every single-episode TV article unless there is a very clear case for notability). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All and stop deleting info from them! Some of them previously had more than just summaries, like a list of Pokémon, humans, quotes, trivia, and stuff, but people keep removing them! Matty-chan 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it Wikiquote. This is one of the reasons why it might be an idea to merge these articles: once you remove the fansite-like detail inappropriate for Wikipedia (such as trivia sections, lists of Pokemon and humans etc.), there's hardly anything left. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then, exactly they've been saying, delete every episode article on WP. Especially the Family Guy articles for future episodes that have even less info, and also, when you make it not a "indiscriminate collection of info", there's hardly anything left. Matty-chan 10:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comments above make an untenable assertion without even offering an argument for it. Labeling the entry in questions "indiscriminate collection of information," for disposal does not advance the debate, it merely brands this topic for disdain. Let's hear the argument and not the sentiment first. Malangthon 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into episode list articles. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information states "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." (Emphasis mine.) Redirects can always be undone if somebody decides to contribute something beyond a plot summary, infobox, trivia and quote lists. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: Needs major work on the pages (Woopert 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC))— Possible single purpose account: Wooper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. (and has been blocked indefintely for being a sock)[reply]
Merge: I would say is that if minor summaries are created then to avoid wasting them as well as avoid creating too many new pages then I would suggest creating an episode guide that has basic summaries. -Adv193 03:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The nominator makes a very good case for deletion of these items. This is yet another case of wikipedia users taking what should (and already is) included in a list of items and making seperate article for no other reason than to fill a succession box or to have a place to put an infobox template. There is no meaningful content here. As to the goats and sheep: Sumomo mo momo mo momo no uchi. --Kunzite 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Plenty of room for expansion ~~as the ones you wisely chose to not AfD show~~. Not an issue --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ones he chose not to AFD were, in order, an international incident because it caused epileptic seizures, a special that had a DVD release, and a special controversial in the community because it was a test-bed for a new cast on a decade-old series. They are the exceptions to the rule, and two of them are slated to be merged anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So verify this for me - are the ones listed above, sans the three you mention, all of the Pokemon episodes? The vibe I get is that they aren't, and I don't know much about Pokemon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are 400-some episodes and the series is still ongoing. They are, however, nearly all of the episode articles still left laying around. (I think he missed a couple that aren't properly categorized and any that might have been made in the meantime.) A while back I deleted a pile as blatant copyvio (copied from a wiki with an incompatible license) and recently many of them have been merged into lists, plus the fact that with 400-something episodes we just never had articles on them all, thank Eris. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I went through the list on this article and this category and looked at each episode. The reason why i listed the articles that are not included in the AfD was to clear up any misunderstandings, since i'm listing just about all of them. If i've missed any, it would be because they haven't been cat and aren't on the pokemon episode list article. --`/aksha 12:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified by recommendation based on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Articles on individual episodes fall far outside of the scope of an encyclopedia. It's a pity that this stuff wasn't nipped in the bud long ago. --Improv 14:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Mukadderat 17:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible merge. I'm confused as to why the clear explanation given about the Pokemon project's ongoing merge efforts was ignored by the people who voted to delete. Anyway, these should end up as redirects, not redlinks. Dekimasu 06:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea. AMIB explained that in the first comment here, and i said i'd rest my case. But lots of people started adding votes never the less. --`/aksha 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - great source of information. (Mewtwo4 14:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- User:Mewtwo4 is a indefintely banned sockpuppet of Bobabobabo (talk · contribs), confirmed here. --`/aksha 02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They are NOT great sources of information. They are just sentence long synopsis of episodes, that's why they are up for deletion. L0b0t 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Anime: Pocket Monster Problem Inspection Report with Electric Soldier Porygon (keep as it has significant separate notability), delete the rest, except the following: Shaking Island Battle! Dojotchi VS Namazun!! and others of the sort need to be merged with the banned episodes page. Pokémon, I Choose You! (and maybe The Problem with Paras) have significant notability. PKMN anime was one of the most influential imports of the 1990s. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 14:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Interrobamf 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storng Keep all - alot of series on Wikipedia have seperate pages for the episodes. The articles needs alot of work... (Taiyou-BitetheLung 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Abusive sockpuppet of Bobabobabo (talk · contribs), established here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we are discussing this AfDnot all the other T.V. articles on Wikipedia. Stick to the matter at hand. L0b0t 16:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All - Maybe the articles should be expanded beyond mere summaries, but not deleted entirely. Drake.
Keep All - I agree with Drake, but the pages needs some more more besides a short summary. (Yugigx60 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Abusive sockpuppet of Bobabobabo (talk · contribs), established here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With regard to the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes guidelines, I can't agree that it provides an argument for deletion. It suggests a goal which can not necessarily be reached and it does not rule out extended episode development. Malangthon 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Possible Compromise I was thinking, this is an issue that seems to pop up here rather often and needs to become better resolved. Perhaps, rather than a simple total deletion (which is what I currently support) what about having, for television shows with many existing articles on their individual episodes, a number of pages dedicated to each season, rather than one page that has all the summaries (which would be too bulky) or many individual pages for each episode (which is too much and rather impractical)? It seems having the summaries placed in articles that discusses the season they occured in as a whole would be preferable and a good way of compromising what seems to be the two dominant positions here, plus it would have the added benefit of providing context for individual episodes. I also believe, but am not sure, that this is how the articles for the show Lost are set up. --The Way 03:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I suggested in the first comment, and it's the consensus already established at WP:PCP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with extreme emphases on not keeping these as individual articles per the existing efforts cited by AMIB. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All per Starblind. I guess I'd be fine with merging into season articles, if it comes to that. - Lex 06:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - There are alot of other seperate episode pages for different tv series, why can't Pokemon have the same. note Pokemon does not have 500+ episodes , they have 473 episodes Netto-kun (16:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)) — Possible single purpose account: Netto-kun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic (and has been indefintely banned for being a sock)[reply]
- Very likely another sockpuppet account of User:Bobabobabo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryulong (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 October 2006 (UCT).
CommentThis discussion is about only the articles listed in this AfD. Bringing up other television articles is off point. No one is saying that (insert your favorite show) should not have articles, rather that there is a process by which we build those articles. It starts with an article for the show, if the show is notable enough then articles on the seasons of the show, IF the seasons article warrants spinning off individual episode articles then we do that. Please read WP:EPISODE for a more detailed explanation. The articles in this AfD aren't even stubs they all have little beyond a 1 or 2 sentence plot summary. If and when the season articles are developed then we can create articles on the almost 500 episodes. L0b0t 17:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Everyking 18:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, alternatively merge per Ned Scott, these can not remain as individual articles. Combination 18:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the really short ones and make season summaries (if they don't already exist), Keep the long ones.--Cyberdude93 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs work to make it more encyclopedia form. Pokeant (20:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

- THese articles should also be included in the nomination

— Possible single purpose account: Pokeant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Case by case basis; for those short, stubby ones; merge and redirect relevent info into a season summary. The longer ones need to be merged, redirected, and compressed, but since these episodes are more significant, they should take up more of the season summary. Finally, episodes like Electric Soldier Porygon, which have ample potential to expand outside of plot summary (which they already have, if I'm not mistaken), should stay. Plus, external links to a pokewiki in season articles will work wonders. — Deckill e r 21:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, i agree Electric Soldier Porygon should stay. That's why it's not being listed for deletion. Notice how Electric Soldier Porygon is listed in the "these articles are NOT being included in this AfD" list. --`/aksha 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge (case-by-case) - Many of the articles contain valid information; certainly those with a Controversy section, even if duplicated elsewhere, cannot be said to be "solely plot summaries." However, if the articles cannot be expanded sufficiently (for my suggested qualifications, more than about two paragraphs, or 12 sentences) it may be better to merge them into a more generalized article, such as a "Pokemon Season 1 Episodes" or similar. Please note that by "Merge" I do not mean deleting a certain portion of the article and moving the rest; rather, I mean taking the whole content of each article, as most of the articles are what could be described as the perfect size for sections of a multi-episode article. Additionally, I would like to point out that just because one episode has its own article doesn't mean that every episode needs its own article. While it may look good for the sake of uniformity, I think it is highly possible that out of Season X (or however you want to break it down) only two or three episodes will have enough important content to deserve their own article, which can be linked to from the main episode list. Finally, one more time, for emphasis: no content should be deleted. Moved, perhaps, but it should definitely be retained. -- Y|yukichigai 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, episodes that deserve their own article for whatever unique reasons should get their own article. Notice how i have not simply listed all pokemon articles for deletion. Electric Soldier Porygon, an episode which does deserve its own article for the huge contraversy it caused, is deliberatly not listed. --`/aksha 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bold merging for all. It was done, but then the sockpuppet factory popped up and interfered with all of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into articles by season, if not a single article for the entire series. If these were sufficiently notable to have their own articles, we'd be able to write more than a stub for each. Ashibaka tock 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Everyking (72.232.215.170 03:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Merge all by season I entirely agree with Ashibaka -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all of the episodes needs alot of work. They need to be more encyclopedia form. Starwarsrebel (01:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Merge most. All banned episodes with Banned episodes of Pokémon, the rest with their respective episode lists. However, keep Pokémon, I Choose You!. It's the first episode of the anime, so it deserves its own article, with some expansion. -Amarkov ^babble 01:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Superlative delete all. Blow the pokecruft out the goddamned airlock. —ptk✰fgs 02:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... was that really necessary? -Amarkov ^babble 02:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without question. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate heap of trivial nonsense. —ptk✰fgs 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "goddamned airlock", not your opinion. -Amarkov ^babble 02:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the pages needs major editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokants (talk • contribs)

— Possible single purpose account: Pokants (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. (and has been blocked as a sock of User:Pokeant) Luna Santin 03:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all fails WP:NOT in terms of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is all just fancruft hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some These episodes should be keep: Pokémon I Choose You!, Pokémon Emergency!, Ash Catches A Pokémon, Showdown in Pewter City, The Path to the Pokémon League, Island of the Giant Pokémon, The Problem with Paras, Who, What, When, Where, Wynaut?, Shaking Island Battle! Dojotchi VS Namazun!!, Saved by the Beldum & The Ice Cave!.

Please delete these instead of reverting them.

Ragnaroknike 06:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the articles that were already merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge. The relevant WikiProject has reached a decision. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BrenDJ 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Would you care to provide a reason for that? Because this isn't a vote. -Amarkov ^babble 23:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all, or delete. Most TV episode articles are completely unnecessary, containing only plot summaries and the cast (which is 99% identical from one episode to another). A TV series can be much better described in a series of season's articles, where you get all the relevant info together. This is a well-reasoned nomination, and I would support the deletion but for the announced merge effort by the project, which is admirable and hopefully will be a much followed precedent. Fram 09:11, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business Rules! Language[edit]

Restored after deleting it per A7 because of some second thoughts. I believe the article is not a notable programming language. Nishkid64 03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find any third-party verification at all. Its name, of course, renders it impossible to google. The only search that wasn't chock-full of false positives was for "Business Rules Application Group", which only finds a single (probably unrelated) resume. Regardless, the article as it stands is clearly promotional, and I stand by my G11 speedy. "This article is written by BRAG members as a part of our ongoing effort to catalog our usage of this somewhat obscure language" says it all, really. *Delete. —Cryptic 05:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional fluff /Blaxthos 08:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising a non-notable language. JIP | Talk 09:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The language itself may have some historical interest, but this reads like advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified.-- danntm ^T _C 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as badly-written, unsourced, unverified. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:42, 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 speedy keep. JYolkowski // talk 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilroy College[edit]

No assertion of notability of school. Appears to be completely unspectacular. Also a frequent target of vandalism, but that's beside the point. riana_dzast a 03:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added references and categories, and I hope that the article is better now. But I'm really not very interested in Catholic secondary schools in Australia. I only expanded the article because I saw that it was up for deletion. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
Keep All schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 06:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Colleges and secondary schools are generally considered to be notable, and the same would apply here. Yamaguchi先生 08:35, 24 October 2006
- My first dodgy AfD nom! Had to be one sometime :) Fair enough, then. riana_dzast a 10:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and considering the nominator identifies that they made a genuine mistake, speedy close - no other viewpoint other than keeps have been given. Daniel .Bryant 10:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- *sob* That works for me. riana_dzast a 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was flagged as copyvio from [4]. Speedy doesn't apply as it is over 48 hours old. T REX_speak 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne (rapper)[edit]

Article appears to be an autobiography with no verifiable information Skywolf 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was on #wikipedia-bootcamp with this user for about a half-hour trying to find out information. I also did a google test, using "John Wayne" +rapper -wikipedia -movie -actor -film [5] (to get rid of John Wayne the actor), and got 932 results. The page is also (as pointed out to me by User:Skywolf on bootcamp) a direct copy of this. Myspace is not WP:V. Period. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RoyalGuard beat me to it, I tried to find out more information and like was mentioned previously, the only hit on google was his myspace. --Skywolf 04:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12 Blatant copyvio. The same person who runs that MySpace profile may be the one who "wrote" this article, but there's no evidence of that (and if it was, it'd be a conflict of interest). EVula 05:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be speedied because it is older than 48 hours. T REX_speak 20:03, 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 speedily deleted. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gibson[edit]

No ghits, totally unverifiable, likely hoax Seraphimblade 04:14, 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: recurring hoaxer. `'mikkanarxi

Jack Spoonie[edit]

(also nominating the redirect Spoonie)

Nomination for deletion Likely hoax. Cannot find relevant hit in Google Books[6] or on Google[7], despite serial killers being a popular subject. The word "spoonie" does not appear in the Clockwork Orange[8]

Article creator User:Cro..Scream has a history of vandalism [9] and hoaxing[10].

Props to User:Calton for first noticing this may be a hoax.

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgie Dimitrov (Fantasy Writer) for afd for another article by same editor.

Bwithh 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and, I guess, me. And thanks to Bwithh for digger even deeper. A glance at the creator's talk page shows a couple of warnings from May about creating hoaxes, so I'm suspecting more of the same. --Calton | Talk 04:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid hoax. Danny Lilithborne 05:00, 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: recurring hoaxer. `'mikkanarxi

Georgie Dimitrov (Fantasy Writer)[edit]

Nominaton for deletion Suspected hoax, created by same editor who created Jack Spoonie. No sources to be found - fails WP:V. No claim made for encyclopedic notability.

Article creator User:Cro..Scream has a history of vandalism [11] and hoaxing[12].

Bwithh 04:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given the lack of sources, signs of life, and history of hoaxing/vandalism. --Calton | Talk 04:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid hoax. Danny Lilithborne 04:59, 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. Nothing to translate; random babble in Polish. `'mikkanarxi 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pl.soc.polityka[edit]

Not english, translate tag has been in place for 2 weeks, no one has bothered, so AfD is prescribed as the next step. This seems to be an article about a usenet news group, so by that measure, this might quality for db under web. Akradecki 04:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not "about"; a random cut from msg board. `'mikkanarxi 05:05, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warlords (Star Wars)[edit]

Delete and/or Redirect. There isn't really anything to merge; it's a term used a couple times in the novel Darksaber; nothing big. Deletion or redirect seems the best option. — Deckill e r 04:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable concept, doesn't warrant its own article. No sources, either, and given the actual name the article itself could quite possibly be incorrect (it says warlords are a whole group of people in a particular SW book when it seems possible, without sources, that this simply refers to warlords as they are normally conceived (ie. stock leaders of warlike groups) --The Way 05:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EVula 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe merge if appropriate Patrick Hurston 15:47, 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. Proto::type 09:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms of the Imperial Navy (Star Wars)[edit]

Delete. I believe the title of the article explains, so I'll keep the nomination short; this article is essensially a trivial description guidel also doesn't really assert any significance, if we'd like to get extremely technical :). — Deckill e r 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not nearly notable enough for an article of its own, and probably fancruft. Maybe, though, a merge with Imperial Navy (Star Wars) might work. -Amarkov ^babble 05:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Amarkov. EVula 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. BusterD 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above; this isn't Wookieepedia. Alba 13:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why merge? where are the cited sources? This article looks to be original research with the editors viewing the movies and documenting the information. -- Whpq 13:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Starfleet uniforms should also be deleted, not only is this not Wookiepedia, it's not Memory Alpha, either. Iceberg3k 16:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I'd consider Starfleet uniforms to be fine. It talks about the transition of the Starfleet uniforms (in an out-of-universe sense) between the various Star Trek TV shows and movies, isn't a straight listing of "this person has this this and this", and actually has some references. EVula 16:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq; nothing to merge that can't be added to the main article separately once/if sources are found. -- nae'blis 21:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core des at 04:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Rense[edit]

Delete non notable conspiracy theorist. Criticism doesn't make him notable - he's a consipiracy theorist who clearly represents a fringe minority and thus will be the natural subject of criticism, but it doesn't make him notable. Further, beware that google hits will be slightly inaccurate with this one. He does not meet WP:BIO standards. Strothra 04:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article had AfD nomination in June here, passed as consensual keep.

Keep, Its hard to keep my fingers from typing out D*E*L*E*T*E, but that’s says more about me than about Rense. In the interest of fairness, I think he reached a level of notability a few years ago that justify his inclusion in WP. He has fallen out of not just the Talkers 100, but even the Talkers 250 in recent years, but that’s now,…a has-been for sure, but he was semi-significant in the world of talk radio once upon a time. Brimba 05:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another crank with a website who does not meet WP:BIO. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nothing new from last nomination which was closed as a consensual keep. Article had AfD nomination in June, here, passed as keep. This AfD is being done by the same user, Strothra, with the same nomination reasons. *Sparkhead 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TDC. Consensus can change. - Crockspot 14:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I hear that same song quit a bit, please provide evidence that policy was followed, per WP:CCC and some documented discussion had taken place before this nom that consensus may have changed? *Sparkhead 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable kook, well-known to those who pay attention to this stuff. There are 33 Factiva newspaper hits, which would qualify as multiple, non-trivial sources. According to an article from The Pantagraph, for example, rense.com "has been singled out by the U.S. State Department as a site that contains 'a great deal of unreliable information." ("U.S. citizens entitled to many news sources". The Pantagraph. 23 November 2005. p. A6.) Zagalejo 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I went looking for this article, hoping it would count. The only thing I found was this blurb:

Article 2 of 3, Article ID: 0500488637

Published November 23, 2005, in the Pantagraph - Bloomington, Illinois

U.S. citizens entitled to many news sources

I write this to bring attention to an important Web site that can be found through Google. The Web site I am referring to is that of the Jeff Rense radio talk show program. It is special because it has been singled out by the U.S. State Department as a site that contains "a great deal of unreliable information." If you go to the site, scroll down a little ways and on the left-hand side you'll see the word "Datapages." Under that is a

Get complete article (272 words)

Getting the complete article costs $3, which I'm not willing to spend on a minor part of my Wikipedia hobby, but this header and length does not sound like an article as such. Note that 272 words is short - you've just read half the "article" right here. It is written in the first person, which is not a standard journalistic practice. It refers to the reader as "you", again, not very journalistic. It starts with "I write this to bring attention" - how many articles start like that? It reads like a "letter to the editor", or at best a poorly written editorial. The US SD mention seems to be that it was part of a long list of conspiracy sites, again, not something granting special notability to it. Please show me I'm wrong. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, rense.com is one of only a handful of conspiracy sites that the state department explicitly mentions: [13]. I do agree that the article I listed might not be the best source - the more I look at it, it does seem to be some sort of letter to the editor - but I'm sure there are some substantial sources out there. This guy was the host of a nationally radio show, after all, so give me some time to do some searching. Zagalejo 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The state department mention does seem to be just as an example of a type. Will wait, and if you can find a good citation, I will change my opinion. Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find an article that is actually about Rense and his website in BusinessWorld (Philippines). Here's an excerpt:

The aliens are not just out there in outerspace. They are in cyberspace, too.

If you still can't believe it, try Sightings site (at http://www.sightings.com) and get a load of the stories and photos from many sources from around the globe.

The site is based on the Sightings on Radio (formerly The End of the Line) program by Jeff Rense, a television news director and anchor for 12 years, the site explained. "The show presents advanced information and alternative views that rarely, if ever, appear in the mainstream media," it continued. [...]

Under the heading HOAX!, Mr. Rense explained how the site Webmaster was able to analyze that the UFO photo turned out to be a photo of a stage prop, particularly, stage lights.

"My Webmaster, James Neff, a brilliant analyst in his own right... determined that the new photo is indeed a stage prop as you can see from his enhanced computer work," explained Mr. Rense. (Silva, Veronica C. "Cyberspace: Host to Host". BusinessWorld. 4 September 1997. p. 18.)

In addition, there are plenty of brief mentions in other sources, eg this one from the Skeptical Inquirer and this one from Whole Earth. Does any of this confer notability...? Zagalejo 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 Google scholar hits. — goethean ॐ 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh.... There clearly are a lot of unrelated mentions, treating him as if he is well known. Will change my opinion, below. The BusinessWorld ref needs to be added to the article, that's at least more than just his site name, it's a couple of paragraphs. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 50% advertising + 50% accusations of anti-Semitism = 0% WP:N. If someone cleans it up, I'll change my vote. --Aaron 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is possibly as painful as Brimba's keep, but for me the pain is procedural - I am against renominating an article for deletion on a regular basis. That said, though, this article does not have enough citations from Reliable sources. There is a Popular Mechanics article that mentions Rense's site, but he is clearly not its focus. Even so, if there were just one more like that, I'd feel comfortable keeping, but there isn't. The other sources are from conspiracy sites that don't rate Wikipedia articles of their own. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few others. A mention in Skeptical Inquirer, mention in an op-ep in Washington Times, mentions in various books at Amazon.com. *Sparkhead 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changing my opinion per these and other mentions. They're small, but there are a lot of them. Here are more, in fact, here is a Google Books search - 30 books refer to him. [14] Yes, I'd feel more comfortable if there were another article mainly about him, but I think enough unrelated casual mentions by semi-reliable sources treating him as if he is notable do add up to notability. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without commenting on Jeff Rense, the bottom line is that this article previously received a Keep result in an afd discussion and nothing significant has changed in the article. It is important in the interest of consistency and closure that the results of previous afd discussions remain in place barring major changes to the article. Dugwiki 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the last discussion was tainted because I had nominated the article and some of the people arguing to keep were doing so because I had been in an edit disput with them at the time over a completely different article. I think that it is good to start over again from a fresh perspective in which no one is chasing me around wiki trying to destroy my edits and contributions. --Strothra 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that an AfD that resulted in a consensual keep should be disregarded because you believe certain editors voted "keep" out of spite? *Sparkhead 20:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rense is highly notable in his area. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a part of an area or field, he's a fringe conspiracy theorist. These individuals typically act alone and have a small readership of individuals some who criticize them and some who support the theorist. This does not make him notable since he does not have a cult following. --Strothra 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire industry around conpiracy theorizing, e.g., Nexus magazine. It is an area of thought, and Rense is well-known in that area. — goethean ॐ 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are compendiums of theories. You're essentially arguing that conspiracy theorizing is a field. If he was notable in a particular conspiracy theory (as long as the theory was notable), either establishing it or making some breaking discovery in it then I would be more inclined to agree with his notability under that particular theory. Just because there is an industry around it doesn't make it an institutionalized entity which would make it a field of research. --Strothra 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Among some groups of people, i.e., those interested in conspiracy theorizing and similar political thought, Rense is highly notable. — goethean ॐ 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's your belief. --Strothra 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[insert pointless last-word comment here] — goethean ॐ 20:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; with 783 unique hits on Google, I don't think we'd be having this discussion if his views were not WP:CB. ~~"Jeff Rense lives in Southern Oregon", should not be the lead, if the article survives this review.~~ Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per June keep and re-nom by same editor doesn't seem to have anything new in terms of reasons, but an agenda to promote. ThuranX 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous AfD nom. However: The Jeff Rense program show is broadcast over radio networks, satellite and the internet five times a week, Please update the article for the sake of proving notability: WHICH radio networks? A syndicated radio show host is notable, someone who puts their podcast on shortwave repeaters is not. WHICH satellite? If your show is on Sirius/XM, that's more notable that someone putting their podcast on Free-to-Air. And the internet, people pay to listen - could be notable, question is - HOW MANY? SchmuckyTheCat 23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whole Earth (magazine) said in its Winter 2002 edition on p. 40 "Jeff Rense broadcasts interviews and conspiracy reports via his Internet radio show for three hours every night of the week and claims over 7 million hits a month. His site archives these shows and also provides innumerable daily news articles on how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. A much linked-to site." Bejnar 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject is non-notable outside of the walled garden of conspiracy theories, but little to no mention in mainstream press. Fails WP:BIO. Morton devonshire 18:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bit soon to nominate this one again since the last one was keep, and while consensus can change I'd hate to see AfD become a pitch-till-you-win scenario. There have been no new complaints about the article, and the article has not changed that substantially since the last keep. Thus, I'd say let the kook be for another few months unless new complaints can be lodge. He appears to be a notable kook, at present.--Rosicrucian 01:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but this article could possibly use a rewrite and some more credible sources. Johnwwatson 08:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperstrong KEEP Give the Paranormal boys a chance at this. Martial Law 23:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He once had (still in the archives) a article about a British National who hacked the U.S. Defense system computers to get UFO info. He found something that the US govt. does'nt want released. He also has another article depicting how North Korean troops could defeat the US in war. Martial Law 23:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Comment: If you see red or colored links on his articles, Bold BLACK links, either click on them, or access these seperately. Those are the sources of the articles submitted to him, such as the one example placed here referring to Concentration/Internment Camps in America intended to deal with "troublesome" Americans when the NWO is in place, according to its author. Martial Law 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Comment: The reason I said to give the Paranormal boys a chance at this, is that 1/4 to 1/2 of the articles reference UFO and/or paranormal matters. Martial Law 23:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too soon for another AfD, agree with Rosicrucian this is not pitch til you win, per Sparkhead and AnonEMouse having found several mainstream references, although his theories are not my cup of tea. Seems a notable kook. We do not have to agree his theories are valid or even rational for him to have an article, but a significant proportion of the population do share some theories he publicizes. Edison 01:05, 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. --Core des at 04:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Africa wins again[edit]

The article is of dubious notability; the only two sources do not give an account of where the phrase originated or how common it is plus the sources themselves don't seem like proper sources for an encyclopedia. The article, which is essentially a stub, doesn't even completely agree with its definition for the phrase with the sources it quotes. This is not a dictionary for phrases and articles need proper sources that can at least establish some notability. On top of all this, the article is isolated: virtually no other articles link to it The Way 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del nonnotable phrase. `'mikkanarxi 05:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a neologism to me. ColourBurst 06:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per norm. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 11:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete. I nominated it for speedy deletion not more than 2 weeks ago but it somehow didn't happen.--Thomas.macmillan 15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit and switch the redirect so that the west Africa term stays - "west africa wins again" seems to be reasonably common phrase, at least among the expatriat community, and at least as far as Google can find (e.g., "Jonathan Randal, for a long time the New York Times reporter in West Africa, used to refer to WAWA, to describe the area he covered, standing for West Africa Wins Again. The point of this name was that the region is truly hopeless and little can be done." from [15]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWBrooks (talk • contribs)
Neutral. I came across this article about a month ago, at which point its only source was a book from 1961. Looks like people have found more recent sources since then. I've lived in West Africa and never heard the phrase; Googling the largest expats-in-Nigeria site that I'm aware of turns up nothing. [16] Wouldn't this be more appropriate somewhere like Wikiquote? ergot 15:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Mukadderat 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --BrenDJ 19:37, 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. Dakota 06:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy Posse Girls[edit]

del promo of nonnotable burlesque group. 34 unique google hits. `'mikkanarxi 05:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, provides solid evidence of local (AZ) notability, but nothing more. Xtifr _tälk 07:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to an untutored eye, the article does not appear to be written as a promo, and appears to assert notability outside performance, in re their contacts with LEOs, and the non-pursuit of this. Simon Cursitor
Delete as advertising a non-notable performer group. JIP | Talk 09:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDefinitely local interest, but not solely, given the troupe's affiliation with the national fetish scene, reference sources outside Arizona, and presence on the Web.Gutterkitty 16:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User Gutterkitty's only edits are to the Pussy Posse Girls article and this AfD. JIP | Talk 06:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is true. I am new to Wikipedia. But for the record, I have no professional affiliation with this troupe and did not write the entry as a "promo."Gutterkitty 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I was just checking. There have been cases in the past where people have written promotional articles about things they're associated with. JIP | Talk 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see mention of "National Aspirations" for the group, but no real evidence that they have achieved any notability beyond their local scene. There is one non-AZ source cited, but that one seems of dubious notability itself, not to mention questionable reliability. I think this group may well be on its way to achieving notability, but I don't think they've "arrived" yet. It won't hurt anyone to wait for a while before creating a Wikipedia article, so I counsel patience. Xtifr _tälk 20:42, 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD criteria G11 and A7. Guy 12:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wicky woo[edit]

This article probably fails WP:WEB. The author removed the prod tag and vandalized my userpage. Sbluen 05:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I'll warn the user while I'm at it too. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 05:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this exist ? And even if so, is this article a wiki-quality analsysis ? Delete -- Simon Cursitor
Delete per nom. BTLizard 11:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current contents, then Redirect to Little Britain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the creator of this page has become outraged. Please see his user page and his recent edits for more information. Scobell302 16:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:WEB. semper fi — Moe 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above. Pete.Hurd 05:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. ♠P M C♠ 07:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:33, 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. Dakota 06:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D2jsp[edit]

Non-notable software Seraphimblade 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del. `'mikkanarxi 07:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't establish notability. Trebor 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — cleary lacks notability -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This may belong on a Diablo 2-specific wiki, but not here. Deusnoctum 03:09, 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 to Biker Mice from Mars. --Ezeu 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Karbunkle (Biker mice from Mars character)[edit]

Article about a fictional non-notable character; We should merge into Biker Mice from Mars, then delete, per WP:FICTION. Vectro 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Ponch's Disco 06:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Merge and delete is a violation of the GFDL. ColourBurst 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, how exactly does the GFDL factor into this discussion? :o Vectro 04:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that ColourBurst is saying that the nom is flawed, in that the nom requests merge and delete, which isn't allowable under the GFDL (edit history must be preserved). ergot 15:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of this information already exists here. Unsearchable fancruft OR. An orphaned article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Biker Mice from Mars. There is no reason this article should be deleted. Merging can be done without AfD or deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The artice's creator posted this message on the deletion discussion talk page. Vectro 15:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out that Karbunkle is very notable character to the plot.AnaMizuki 06:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even so, if the article isn't large enough to warrant a separate article for the characters (and this seems to be the case here), WP:FICT says to keep it in the main article. ColourBurst 16:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Don't be such "deletionists". By the way, love the double standard about deletionists and the "neologism" argument for deleting wikipedia pages. DougHolton 04:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Going offtopic, if this gets out of hand I'll move it to the talk page) Indeed, the article deletionist would not be notable in the encyclopedic namespace; that's why it doesn't exist. But I'd also point out that dividing people into deletionists and inclusionists is not helpful; it only serves to create factions and undermines real discussion and concensus. Let's talk about the merits of an article in an engaging way, not build forts and defenses. Vectro 04:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems rather a lot to merge into the main Biker Mice page, which only has fairly brief descriptions of even the Mice. I was just about to create an article on Lawrence Limburger (the series principal villain) and his henchmen - including Karbunkle. Would it make more sense to merge it into that? --Anglo-Norman 09:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you would be so nice.AnaMizuki 12:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The info in this article can be cut down into a nice paragraph. I would leave out the "Dress" and "Species" parts and cut "Physical appearance" down to one sentence. - Lex 07:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would like to keep the species part, because it has been a mystery for the fandom for years.AnaMizuki 10:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As a general rule, we like to keep fan speculation out of articles. This article says he is confirmed as a mad German scientist, so that's the info that should be included. If you can find a reliable source about the species speculation, then it might warrent inclusion. - Lex 16:15, 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. Dakota 06:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher F Silver[edit]

ISBN number provided in article does not exist, google produces no hits for name or books. Likely hoax, totally NN person if not. Seraphimblade 06:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - a random check of some of the book titles has no gHits - see also James W. Fowler --ArmadilloFromHell 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable and fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a CV databank. Prolog 06:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are correct and this is not a CV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sinfoniaba (talk • contribs) 06:48, Oct 24, 2006 (UTC).

Delete For what it's worth, there is a Christopher Silver listed as an adjunct professor at UT-Ch. Miller-Motte appears to be a non-degree business college/vocational school sort of thing. Perhaps he will be notable in a few years, right now he is just ambitious, as far as I can see. --Brianyoumans 07:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know in US 'professor' most usually means university teacher and is not a title of merit. I presume an adjunct professor is lower in scale, in which case definitely non-notable. If my understanding is incorrect, please say so, but I still support Delete because nothing in the article suggests any grounds for thinking this guy notable. (Incidentally, is it common in the US for someone to be awarded two bachelor degrees from the same university at the same time?) Emeraude 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO/WP:PROF; WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of resumes. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. About as junior as an academic can be, doesn't even have doctorate yet. Despite claims above, sure looks like a CV to me. Fan-1967 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "...this is not a CV"? Yes it is. Almost certainly WP:AUTO/WP:COI [17]. Listing papers he has co-written does not equate to verifiability. According to his own website, he's just a PHD drop out from a Canadian university [18]. Clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per above -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:46, 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 Speedy redirect to Tuam. Aaron 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuam people[edit]

Page is a list of nine people from Tuam with no incoming links and no categorization. All content has been duplicated in the Tuam article in a "Tuam people" section. Thus, the article is entirely redundant. — AjaxSmack 06:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. This doesn't need an AfD; it's a plausible search term. ColourBurst 06:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Aaron 14:53, 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 CANCELLED. Simple harrassment and meat/sockpuppeting. Blocks either in place or forthcoming. -Splash - tk 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The American Card Catalog[edit]

I only created this article to apease a troll who was using this to clutter up another article with needless information. Non-notable, unrefrenced, hell not even an ISBN or LOC cite! Ponch's Disco 06:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a good idea not to feed the trolls and Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is part of the Spotteddogs/Scott Brown network of them! TV Newser Tipline 06:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Makgraf 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: From a quick Google search, this seems to be quite a reputable publication. http://www.psacard.com/lingo.chtml devotes an acronym, ACC, to the catalog. T206 is a famous name that was coined by this catalog. I don't know what all the yelling and screaming is about with Tecmobowl but, frankly, even if he is Spotteddogsdotorg, he's contributing a lot more useful info than 95% of the people here. I'm getting sick of the attacks. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It should also be noted that Tecmobowl removed the AFD notice from the article [19] calling it vandalism and has removed every vandalism notice I have put on his talk page. OBILI ® ± 15:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably because he's sick of this bizarre campaign you all have going against him. TV Newser has been blocked twice now and I think more blocks may be coming. Closing admin should keep the vote shopping in mind too. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, I asked him why the ACC article existed (saying it was listcruft) [20] and then he mentioned to me that he was putting it up for deletion. That's not "vote shopping". Makgraf 19:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You make it sound as if there is a conspiracy against Tecmobowl. I would say he is a vandal, according to my reading of the Wikipedia vandalism standards. Tecmobowl removes content from articles that should not be removed and removes vandalism warnings from his talk page. There is no conspiracy and I feel the problem is Tecmobowl. OBILI ® ± 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll discuss the overall situation at the WP:RFI which has already been opened under Tecmobowl's name. As far as this AFD is concerned, it's shaping up to be a witch hunt (or a WP:MEAT attack) and the vote stacking I linked to above bears that out. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing disallows his removal of warnings from his talk page, and readding them is probably vandalism itself. This has been discussed repeatedly, and attempted changes to add it to policy have failed. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Final Destination 3. --Ezeu 01:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination 3 DVD[edit]

An obvious fancruft page. Important information should be put onto the Final Destination 3 page. There doesn't need to be articles for special edtion DVD's, if that were right... then Wikipedia would be flooded with many of them (seeing as how.. most/all DVD's have special editions). RobJ1981 06:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Final Destination 3. Move useful information to main article and redirect. No requirement for deletion here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Final Destination 3. I shutter to think how many articles would be created if every single DVD had an article. TJ Spyke 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). Don't forget spoiler tags! --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 01:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Whpq 13:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Final Destination 3. Add the spoiler tags into the page and then merge into the Deaths section. -- Fraggy4 18:21, 31 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 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Younessi[edit]

Non notable oral surgeon; previous prod removed. Brianyoumans 06:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Non Notable, AND a copy violation from his CV at Sydney Adventist Hospital --Pan Gerwazy 08:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only sentence the author User:Ojy added was "He has published several articles in various medical journals and is presently working on a book on Australian Idioms." Several articles? Google finds only one (11 ghits in all outside Wikipedia). The author's name looks suspicious, and all his contributions were to this article. And what have Australian idioms to do with dentistry? So, definite signs that this is a vanity piece by James Younessi himself. --Pan Gerwazy 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per reasons given above. Emeraude 12:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above, as copvio; also fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claims about being an author means that it doesn't quite qualify as a speedy deletion. I cannot find any Australian sources on him and Google News Archive comes up empty [21]. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable as a dentist or an author. Lankiveil 08:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- nn. - Longhair\^talk 03:45, 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. --Core des at 04:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie minera[edit]

del nn vanity with quicktime filmography. `'mikkanarxi 07:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable. Mukadderat 17:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete published work is from a vanity press, no independent sources to verify information. -- Whpq 14:10, 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 keep. --Ezeu 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of China-related topics 123-L[edit]

Either this page has outlived its usefulness, or I don't get what it's about. A nearly unintelligible list of all articles related to China, best covered by searching the category 'China'. There are nearly no red links. Also nominated is its lower section List of China-related topics M-Z. Proposed deletion on grounds of WP:NOT indiscriminate information, virtually impossible to keep up to date. Ohconfucius 07:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps looking at the other articles in Category:Lists of topics by country will help to clarify things. Uncle G 10:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes which clearly states that the generally accepted consensus is that "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." The fact that lists CAN have red links is an argument in their favor. Alansohn 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It may be difficult to keep up to date, but it certainly doesn't violate WP:NOT, which lists seven specific indiscriminate collections of information. This is none of those seven.--Kchase T 12:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 06:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hecklers[edit]

del nn "high school basketball fan group" `'mikkanarxi 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and a vanity piece. BTLizard 11:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely non-notable.. (We're not meant to say 'vanity' any more, but hey, they've nothing to be vain about.) Emeraude 12:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above; CSD A7 possibly. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable group. NawlinWiki 17:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only assertion of notability is unverified. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 01:27, 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 keep. --Ezeu 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mile High - Series One - Episode One[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Budgiekiller 07:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Budgiekiller 07:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This was just added; it looks like the author might be intending to go through and make entries on all of the episodes. I think the article is way over-detailed, but that is something that could be discussed on the talk page. The series was at least successful enough to get a second season; having basic articles on the episodes is OK with me; they are low maintainence. --Brianyoumans 10:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Successful" is pretty subjective here! Try the List of Fawlty Towers episodes for an example of a successful programme with decent episode synopses. Budgiekiller 10:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now but cleanup, etc. Obviously a work in progress. There's plenty of precedent for TV series to have individual episode articles. If this remains the only episode of this series with its own article in, say, 6 months, then let's revisit the question. 23skidoo 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It now has another episode and has been appropriately renamed since the AfD began.--Kchase T 12:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir tibon[edit]

del vanity: nn journalist. `'mikkanarxi 07:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Only article by its creator, for what it's worth. Emeraude 12:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Often worth quite a lot, IMHO! Seriously, there really is nothing here, is there? BTLizard 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interested interest in... interest? I don't like not being able to use "vanity" anymore. :( Danny Lilithborne 13:56, 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 of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chonga[edit]

Slang definition purporting to trace the evolution of an ethnic stereotype. If the term is widely used it is possible that there is an article to be written, but this one is trivial, POV, and probably offensive. Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all that is holy. --Kinu 05:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will never be convinced that this is encyclopedic. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Let's make this a paleologism at least as far as WP goes. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 7, 2006, 07:23 (UTC)
Do Not Delete This is a realistic term that thousands of people know. The information is absolutely true. And although it is a stereotype, it is one that is extremely common in South Florida. Please do not delete the article. No one here is from South Florida. They have no knowledge of the term - Unsigned comment by 168.221.143.68 at 05:36, February 7, 2006
Comment : What is notable in south Floridia may not be notable for Wikipedia. Truth has little to do with this debate. Pschemp | ^Talk 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Extremely Unencyclopædic. Avi 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This article was very useful for my thesis on ethnic stereotypes in Miami. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia/dictionary which was able to accompany my research. This page was excellent, and should be kept for future research on ethnic stereotypes. - George H.

Unlikely — Same IP as last Do Not Delete comment. Can this 'discussion' be ended soon?
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 8, 2006, 16:28 (UTC)

mmm hmm -- the article has been in existence for about 36 hours. how useful could it have been for your "thesis"? bikeable (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and apparent sockpuppetry. Stifle 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Just because you might not like the use of a term doesn't mean that it should be deleted from dictionaries (that's directed at you Orwellian 1984 delete crazy psychos). If we're going to delete this entry then the entry for the "n" word and bitch should have to go as well. This term is as much part of american encyclopedic history as any other coloquial term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.76.7 (talk • contribs)
Do Not Delete The previous "Do Not Delete" edit has an excellent point. If the stereotype wigger is on Wikipedia, then there is no reason why this Chonga stereotype article cannot be on it. All this article needs is a little more editing and it will be acceptable. I see no reason why it should be deleted. - Simon H.
Do Not Delete This should not be deleted for the same reasons mentioned above. the use of the "n" word, or even the term wigger, this is indeed a stereotype but is not to be deleted because someone does not like it.
Do Not Delete!! In reference to the 1984 Orwellion bikeable. The fact that you counted the hours which this page had been in existence shows yours distatste for this entry, and your distant location in Boston probably adds to the distate which you dislpay towards this article. It just so happens that I researched wikipedia while this page was still under construction. If the terms "wigger" and the "n" word can be used as research items, than so should the term "chonga." -George H.

Note the excellent use of references in Wigger. If you can provide real, verifiable references to use of the word, and its importance beyond being a slang definition (since wikipedia is not a dictionary, and if the article could be rewritten as an encyclopedic discussion of a cultural phenomenon and not in the current mocking tone, then it might possibly be worth an article. I'd recommend starting with references. Just my two cents as a "1984 Orwellion"! bikeable (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW — Urbandictionary.com does recognize this definition. My vote remains delete as above, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But I thought this fact should be noted. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 9, 2006, 02:24 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE- this article has been very useful to numerous friends of mine here in south florida who are not familiar with the term "chonga", those of you that dont agree, dont know the term and have nothing to do it, but as for the youth of south florida this word has become very popular and has grown extensively. i plead that this article SHOULD NOT be deleted.--168.221.143.68 17:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Gabriel F.[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It is, for all intensive purposes, similar to a stub. If anything, this article should not be considered for deletion: it should be considered for extension. References to the word chonga are difficult to find (in print, the internet, etc.) because it is not a word that has garnered world-wide usage. If you'd like references that you MIGHT be able to find, listen to radio station El Zol 95, a local station here in Miami. It's not easy to find references for a rather new term. Also, this is not a definitionesque article. If you'd like for it to be less "mockery-toned", by all means, go ahead and edit it. The way it stands now, everyone in Miami that I know that has seen the article (and in the past 24 hours, word has spread FAST) agrees that it is truthful and not in any way just a slang term with no relevance. This article contains the history, the evolution of said chonga, and is, in no way, offensive. If a girl is dressed like one, she knows what she's doing, and she knows what she's attempting to look like. If I wear a gold chain around my neck, 3 inches thick, with a spinner on the end, a thick Ecko sweater, and my pants around my ankles, you'd immediately say I'm trying to be "gangster" or "gangster-like". This is because I AM. You do not look a certain way without being able to be labeled. This is just a new label for a certain female demographic, primarily found in South Florida which has not found national usage yet. --Gmasterluis 00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — All these people who want to see this article become encyclopedic (and therefore acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia) should focus their attentions on improving the article. Is is acceptable, encouraged in fact, for the article to be edited, expanded, and improved during the deletion discussion. The criticisms levelled above by the delete voters are common here. Many new articles suffer these same faults. Occasionally an article can be improved enough during the deletion process to cause people to change their votes. The faults noted above are somewhat subjective, but based on objective observations. Gmasterluis says If you'd like for it to be less "mockery-toned", by all means, go ahead and edit it. Articles should only be edited by people who understand the subject matter, the keep voters here claim to understand the subject, the delete voters clearly do not (from your POV). So the delete voters need to put their heads together and re-write the article to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. And they need to do it quickly before a deletion decision is made.
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 10, 2006, 01:39 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE!!! This article is extremely helpful to people new to South Florida who do not understand the term.
DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!! THIS ARTICLE IS VERY TRUE OF SOUTHERN FLORIDIANS AND IS NOT IN THE SAME LEVEL AS THE OFFENSIVE N WORD USED TO BRING DOWN AFRICAN AMERICANS. CHONGA'S ARE PROUND OF WHAT THEY ARE, SOME OF THEM EVEN PURCHASE APPAREL WITH THIS WORD WRITTEN ON IT. PEOPLE FROM OTHER STATES AND EVEN OTHER CITIES HAVE NOT YET HEARD THIS WORD THERFORE BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT A REAL WORD, BUT TO US IN SOUTH FLORIDA IT IS VERY REAL. THIS ARTICLE SHOULD REMAIN IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BECUASE IT CALL HELP OTHERS UNDERSTAND SOUTH FLORIDA'S CULUTRE AND PEOPLE.----HOTTEETS.COM
- Comment — You're still missing the point. No one is claiming that this is not a real word. The issue here is the article in question, and it's appropriateness for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Try reading the comments and suggestions that I (and others) have posted here. Take these ideas to heart, and work to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia standards. Coming here and bitching (you) HAVE NOT YET HEARD THIS WORD THERFORE BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT A REAL WORD is not productive. And it won't do any good. The administrator that decides the final outcome of this discussion will not be swayed by TYPING IN ALL CAPS and moaning about how you don't understand us. The only issue here is the quality of the article. If you approach the phenomenon of "Chonga" from a sociological and cultural perspective, write an article from that POV, and write it at a level of quality commensurate with other articles, you will find that the word is kept, and you will win this fight. Read the comments by bikeable above and use those articles as a guide to improving this one. Bringing in a bunch of your friends to scream DO NOT DELTE is not going to help. (And, by the way, the term we usually use here is Keep. Not "do not delete")
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 10, 2006, 03:12 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 10000 sockpuppets an intro paragraph that mainly argues (unsuccessfully) for keeping the page... (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article just needs to be worked on. It has not been here for very long, and requires INTELLIGENT people to work on it. I've been working on it a bit, even though it isn't originally my work, and I am not someone with all the background info, though I can ensure everyone that it's all true and valid information. The people complaining, I don't agree with them, because they aren't making valid arguments. However, this topic should not be for deletion, as I stated before. We (people who are well aware of the term) are trying our best to improve the article and continue make it grow into a more encyclopedic source of information.
do not delete this article. it is hilarious and is very useful to people who do not know what a Chonga is. Everything in this article is true, i should know because i am a teen living in S. FLorida. But people who do not know what Chonga means can learn from this article. p.s. if you are intersted in seeing Chongas for yourself, go to International Mall or Santa's Enchanted Forest.
- "Hilarity" is not appropriate in an NPOV encyclopedia article.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 11, 2006, 21:17 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetX[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, non-notable ad agency, linkspam — Moondyne 07:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. — Moondyne 07:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Trebor 14:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G11, otherwise, Delete per nom. Xtifr _tälk 22:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 01:31, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurvinder Jagdev[edit]

del nn lower-level official. `'mikkanarxi 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Minor bio with no assertion of notability. No google hits either. --Mereda 08:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not speedy. There is some assertion of notability but at a very micro level in Indian politics. "plans to run for the next local elections." is not sufficient for a wiki article. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plans for local elections ( I suppose local elections is for the Panchayat ) and not even MLA or MP !!! Doctor Bruno 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Non-notable bio. Prashanthns 10:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would it be uncharitable to suggest that this article may have appeared as part of his "plans to run for the next local elections". BTLizard 10:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sure that less than 5 people of the electorate of the "Local elections" would have ever known about Wikipedia and not more than 2 would read this article. That is the level of penetration of Internet in India (except in Cities) Doctor Bruno 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator's only article, which suggets BTLizard may be right. Emeraude 12:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- Nothing is here to prove his notability. non-notable bio.Nileena joseph 13:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Doctor Bruno 02:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel .Bryant 00:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jory[edit]

del. about a name. `'mikkanarxi 07:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ "as an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." (CSD A7). Look at the Origin section. Just a ~~vanity page~~ autobiography. -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ for now. This article is nonsense. We have plenty of articles about names (see Category:Given names), and if and when someone wants to write a serious article about the name, it might be OK. --Brianyoumans 10:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no opinion, but this article has been completely rewritten about a different subject, a film entitled Jory. Nominator and those who have expressed opinions may wish to review the current page. GassyGuy 11:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is in fact a completely different article; this one is perfectly reasonable. --Brianyoumans 09:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Since the article has changed totally, I don't see much point in keeping this discussion open. -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second a speedy keep; the article's content has completely changed since it was first nominated and reviewed. Dar-Ape 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletionists like Islay are too quick to draw. He doesn't even read the article before listing it for deletion. DougHolton 04:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:No personal attacks. Then, please review both the page history of this article and reread my comment above (and IslaySolomon's own speedy keep comment directly following it) and review whether your accusation might have been a tad hasty. Thank you. GassyGuy 04:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not list this article for deletion, Mikkalai did, and with good reason. However, the content of the article has completely changed and, if you look above, I have actually voted to keep it. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I was the one who nominated this for a speedy delete, when I was newpage patrolling. It was patent nonsense at the time--some in-joke gibberishy blather about somebody who happened to be named Jory. In the interim, however, all that's been entirely replaced by a legitimate entry about a legitimately-notable film. That this is being considered for deletion at all is just an artifact of the review system. Let's move on. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 18:24, 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. --Ezeu 01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Charles Griggs[edit]

Musician who made one album in 1973 before dropping out. Only reference a recent local newspaper article about him, but seems to have made few -- if any -- ripples on the music world. The article's creator says [t]he problem is that there simply aren't any other references aside from the one article... making verification, well, difficult. I went so far as to e-mail rock-and-roll historian Ed Ward for help, but he said that while the producer and session musicians were pretty well-known, he's never heard of this guy, either. I mean, good luck on the comeback, but let's wait until that happens or some verification that this made SOME impact on the music world. Calton | Talk 07:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, include the album, The Legend of Sir Robert Charles Griggs. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete main article per Calton. No decision yet on the album. Not really that notable and would be a borderline A7. – Ch acor 07:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for both. Here's an article on him, his album was released on Capitol Records in 1973. I don't think it'd be a net benefit to lose this article based on the associations he had. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of Only reference a recent local newspaper article about him in my nomination did you overlook? What section of my nomination having to do with "associations" did I overlook? What aspect of a single local newspaper article -- for which the subject was, no doubt, the source of the information in it -- counts as "multiple" coverage? Are WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:Reliable sources, WP:References, and WP:CITE the only policies you've decided can be dispensed with, or do you have any more you want to jettison? --Calton | Talk 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't overlook it at all. Taking the situation into consideration, coupled by the fact that all we're looking at right now is online sources, I'm not "dispensing" with any policies. I'm thinking this is one of those times where the "just because a person doesn't meet WP:BIO, they don't have to be deleted" clause comes into effect. This is a unique instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you HAVE dispensed with every single standard, because -- well, you don't even bother to explain the "because", either. Any more handwaving and we could run a windmill. --Calton | Talk 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to understand my actual arguments doesn't invalidate them. I'm sorry I can't be clearer for you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that the information in the article is verified by the informational booklet published by Capitol Records for the release of the album, which I will remind you was a nationwide release on one of the biggest record labels in the music industry. This can be confirmed by Capitol Records. Also, I checked this with Gary Paxton, who confirmed it. And Gary no doubt knows more about such things than Ed Ward. In addition, a quick yahoo search will show that Griggs' songs appear on country music playlists for radio stations all across the country. I would also suggest that it is unneccessary to take this discusion and debate so personally. Justinkrivers 06:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that it is unneccessary [sic] to take this discusion [sic] and debate so personally. If that was aimed at me, you first. I've gone the extra mile to help you: that you've done nothing to actually help yourself choosing instead to argue irrelevancies isn't my problem.
Once again, the question is NOT whether this guy and his album ever existed: I should point out that my mobile phone, my desk calendar, and my MUJI AT-DF09R2 Desk Fan in front of me all exist, and they're not getting articles, either. Once again, it's WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC (has this guy done enough in the world to rate an article? No.), WP:Reliable sources (a personal conversation you say you had with someone? Not enough.), WP:References (Yahoo searches that are uncited? Which proves what, exactly?) and WP:CITE (one lone local newspaper clipping, with the information presumably coming from the subject?) --Calton | Talk 06:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with saying that this subject doesn't deserve an article simply because he hasn't done enough in your opinion to merit one is that since he is an artist it is impossible to gauge what merits his work will have to future critics. If Wikipedia existed in the 1860's and someone tried to post an article on Emily Dickinson, it could be deleted for the same reasons you are offering now. Because this man is an artist and because he is still living, and therefore able to offer future works, he deserves an article so that future researchers have a starting point.Skylark29 10:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Skylark29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. Indeed, this was his first edit. – Ch acor 11:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. borderline noitability Mukadderat 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not as famous as Willie Nelson, but notable in the country music world. --Marriedtofilm 07:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew Robert Charles Griggs years ago, he was a pretty notable Nashville guy, wrote a hit, and I think it's good to have him here

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

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

The result was delete both per WP:NOT and WP:V. The problems mentioned by the nominator have not been addressed despite the heated arguing going on in this AfD discussion. --Core des at 05:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Robo Blast 2 and Sonic: Time Attacked[edit]

These both have been to AFD previously, approximately a year ago. In those AFDs, users claimed that these projects are "massive," "important," and "among the best-known video games of its kind." However, it's now a year later, and nobody has seen fit to come up with any proof, or make any effort whatsoever to meet WP:SOFTWARE or any effort to verify any of these peacock claims or even add them to the articles. How long do fan projects get to advertise on Wikipedia? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFDs: Time Attacked, Time Attacked 2, Robo Blast

Completely fail No original research, Verifiability, Notability, Reliable sources, What Wikipedia is not, and Neutral point of view. Delete forthwith. --Slowking Man 08:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on both accounts. The last time SRB2 was due up for AFD (four months ago or so) it was proven that the article needed some work, but was far from advertising. Googling "Sonic Robo-Blast 2" turns up 30,000 results, and several people have worked towards adding more information to the article to help prove it's notability (mentions in magazines, for example). Sonic: Time Attacked I'll give you - 470 results on Google. But I really like the fangame, and the website for it isn't even up anymore - how does that even constitute advertising if there's essentially nothing to advertise? Time Attacked is one of my favorite fangames, and, well, that's good enough for me. Here's a thought: If you're so worried about "peacock claims" (man I hate Wikipedia Slang), edit the article to remove them rather than jumping on the delete button. BlazeHedgehog 09:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you direct me to some notable mentions of the game in popular magazines? The only thing I can find is [22], which is on the Talk page, not the article. A couple fleeting mentions in single issues of publications don't exactly constitute notability in my view—neither do your subjective views of the game. I also don't see any information in the article supported by reliable sources. --Slowking Man 09:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reviewing those scanned articles, these are really trivial mentions. One mention is one sentence and a screenshot, another is a screenshot and a caption, and one is a three-paragraph capsule that doesn't say much more than "This is a Sonic fangame using the Doom engine." They're not really substantial, and not sufficient material for an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:RS is a concern which may be able to be fixed, but WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV (to a degree) and WP:NOT cannot be. Daniel .Bryant 09:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've given these plenty of time to gather non-trivial reliable sources, and it hasn't happened. Delete, and if and when either of them make the cover of EGM or something, we can revisit the issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a fangame. End of debate. Danny Lilithborne 13:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decline to vote - just a note, in regards to fangames, will every article and this category: Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels have to be put up for deletion? --tgheretford (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My word, I wasn't even aware such a thing existed! And yes, it probably does deserve a good cleaning-out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not directly related, but Category:Free, open source puzzle games likely needs some ... erm ... pruning, too. Serpent's Choice 14:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel.Bryant. No reliable third-party sources. The Kinslayer 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep received an overwhelming keep vote before [23], why change it now? --Oscarthecat 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Because it was kept due to it supposedly being cleaned up. Over a year later and it hasn't been touched to provide the links required. That was more than enough time, so here we are. The Kinslayer 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Holy crap, you guys are like an inconsiderate, rabid pack of wolves! At the very least, keep SRB2. What might not seem notable to you might be very notable to somebody else, and the article has quite a bit of information on it. Besides, it's worth noting that Gamesmaster is actually a fairly popular gaming magazine in the UK, if I recall properly. BlazeHedgehog 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not a opinion, something is either notable or its not. TJ Spyke 21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bullshit. What's notable to you is might not be very notable to me. You think stuff about Wrestling is notable, so much so that you seem to support there being seperate articles dedicated to various WWE events and outcomes. That's not notable at all, to me. BlazeHedgehog 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - BlazeHedgehog is succinct at the very least. The assertion "Notability is not a [sic] opinion, something is either notable or its not," is so far off the radar that it touches the edge of psychopathology. Who would make such a self-centered statement except for a mind that exists in a universe of one or someone trolling for a bit of agro? Malangthon 01:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - BS yourself. You may not like wrestling, but articles like SNNE ARE notable. I couldn't care less about things like Dora the Explorer, but they are notable. These fan games also fail WP:SOFTWARE. TJ Spyke 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - TJ Spyke not only seems to have missed BlazeHedgehog's point but is now actually making Blaze's point and refuting the one TJ made earlier. I strongly suspect mere trolling for the sake of starting a heated exchange. Notability is in the mind of the beholder unlike the lunacy about absolutes asserted here. Some people need to review what they write before entrying the fray in such a defenseless state--if their goal is to contribute and not subvert the process of discussion. Malangthon 01:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again. Gamesmaster isn't exactly a small, trivial publication publication. To quote it's Wikipedia article; "GamesMaster is the biggest selling multi-format video games magazine in the United Kingdom, even outselling its critically acclaimed rival Edge." So the largest videogame magazine in the UK isn't notable enough? Might as well get rid of it's Wikipedia article, then, eh? And get rid of articles like Metroid Prime 2D, and, well, every other game featured in that Gamesmaster article (most, if not all of which, have Wikipedia articles, and, no doubt, Gamesmaster found them through Wikipedia). Infact, let's torch all homebrew software completely! I mean, have you ever seen Cave Story printed in a magazine? I haven't! Get rid of it! It's full of weasel words! I mean, "the game has received praise from gamers worldwide."? There's no way to prove that! BlazeHedgehog 22:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You might want to try reading WP:SOFTWARE, trivial mentions don't count. 1 sentence and a small picture is a trivial reference. Also, pointing out another article that shouldn't exist is NOT justification to keep another that doesn't. If you see an article that you think shouldn't exist, nominate it for deletion. TJ Spyke 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        But I won't nominate it because I know it's notable. You see, I was being facetious. If I nominated it for deletion? A million Cave Story fans would come forth and smack me down, telling me "No, we like this game and it's notable". I'm sure SRB2 fans would likely do the same if they knew it was up for deletion, but guess what? I can't tell them otherwise I'll get accused of sock puppeting or whatever the hell it is you guys call it. And you don't consider that the slightest bit unfair? BlazeHedgehog 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd take on a million Cave Story or Halo Zero fans if I didn't already know about the substantial coverage of those games in game publications. If you went and found sources that could be used to write this article, then sure, I'd change my tune in a second. Until then, you're unlikely to convince anyone with handwaving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        And Google results suddenly mean nothing towards popularity, now? They seemed to mean quite a bit four months ago when SRB2 was up for AFD. Infact, I am quite certain that had SRB2 been put up for AFD on it's own (instead of being lumped together with a long dead project under a blanket term), the result of this vote would be pretty much identical. BlazeHedgehog 10:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        What matters is sources. The long-dead game is pretty much a non-issue; most of this discussion seem to be about Robo Blast, which is apparently somewhat popular but about which there isn't enough verifiable content to say anything. Come up with that content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I just find it confusing that, here at Wikipedia, whether an article like this gets kept or deleted depends soley on which side of the bed you guys woke up on that particular day. What was a nearly unanimous keep turns sharply into a unanimous delete for what seems to be absolutely no reason whatsoever. It's like a roll of the dice, and unfortunately for SRB2, this roll came up snake-eyes. BlazeHedgehog 23:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Frankly, I think it's the ramping-up of WP:V. Four months ago I wasn't seeing it anywhere NEAR as strictly enforced as it is now. I swear, it's simultaneously the best and worst thing to happen to the website; I can respect it keeping genuine non-notable drivel off the site, but lately it seems that people have been applying it to various things that absolutely nobody had any problem with before. --Shadow Hog 05:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course everything in the world is going to be "notable" to somebody. We don't guess whether something will be notable to anyone in the world, we use objective criteria such as those outlined in WP:V and WP:RS SubSeven 03:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cave Story is different. A PSP version is being created, and a homevrew DS version has recieved the blessing of the game's creater. TJ Spyke 23:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, so, if SRB2 was ported to the PSP and the DS, that would make it okay? It's already been ported to the Mac, Linux, and there was, at one time, ports for GPX2 and Dreamcast were in the works. BlazeHedgehog 23:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - IF Sega allowed them (which I doubt would happen) to and they could find a publisher willing to to it, then yes. TJ Spyke 23:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that really means a whole lot, seeing as I doubt the PSP version will really get off the ground, and the DS version's mere homebrew. How is THAT particularly notable, then? The article I'm reading doesn't cite many, if any, major sources about its notability, and using ports of the title as notability seems pretty tenuous at best. Maybe we should nominate it, just to prove a point. --Shadow Hog 05:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whispering
Keep You do not know how popular SRB2 is. The forum has 1,607 members as of edit time. That number grows every day. And if Time Attacked goes off Wikipedia, it will virtually have died. I'm gonna save the ZIP right now... --Blah2 23:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 1600 members is not impressive. Also, WP is not fro advertising, if something wouldn't exist without an entry on WP then it's not notable. Also, popularity is not the same as notability. TJ Spyke 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, Blaze, what about your own fangame? --Luigifan 00:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about it? I already told you that the project isn't anywhere near notable. If G4TV dedicates a segment to TFH once it's done, as they did with my MarioWeen, then maybe it deserves an article. But right now? Nope. BlazeHedgehog 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These desperately need some evidence for their notability, which - if they're actually notable - should be trivial to provide. We'll also need to take a closer look at Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels at some point in the future, as I imagine many of those articles are similarly without sources demonstrating notability. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. SubSeven 03:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:V, WP:RS. Wickethewok 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woof. The nominator says it all. WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, WP:RS.. No sources, no outside claims of notability, etc. --Kunzite 04:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel.Bryant's all-encompassing rationale. Garrett^Talk 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't the articles be marked with {{subst:afdx|2nd}} as it say in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates? Logan GBA 19:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a MUST DO kind of thing, just a way to use a special template to automatically create a "second nomination" AFD page, that's all. I've linked and mentioned the old AFDs, and made it clear that this was a renom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as fails WP:SOFTWARE Timkovski 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nom. Andre (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First off, I'll save the zealots the time in stating that this is a single-purpose account and I am involved with the project. Honestly, I don't give a damn whether or not there is an article or not, but it just doesn't make sense in the internet age to immediately delete anything that doesn't have a specific licensed publisher for a console. I've met two random freshmen that came onto my college campus that knew about the game, one even playing it frequently, without me or any of my friends mentioning it. If the word of mouth is that strong, I simply do not see how it isn't notable, despite not being all the rage at Gamestop in bringing in the pre-orders.

As I have said before, the article sucks. It keeps getting more and more fancruft added onto it every week, it seems, and its obviously subpar in terms of writing and setup. However, personally I'd consider that true on many articles about official parts of the Sonic series, and even worse, in many parts of the encyclopedia in general. Look at the article on Super Sonic. There's clearly an excessive amount of fancruft with no citations or any standard Wikipedia policy. I agree that passing mention in magazines is not assertion of notability, and neither is decent results on the Google test, however, if the main thing that decides whether or not something is notable at this point is whether a company made it or not, then Wikipedia has seriously dropped from its ideals. Whatever happened to good faith and old fashioned common sense? If policy is the only reason this article should be deleted, feel free, but please make sure to delete the rest of the fancruft swarming around the wiki, starting with the deletion of the articles on practically every video game character, feature, and backstory on here. They're clearly fancruft with no assertion of notability. I don't care if this article lives or dies as long as I see some consistency around here. -MysticEsper 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll just respond to the last part. Believe me, we are trying. But as you can see here, it's not as simple as just nominating something. The fancruft is getting out of hand, and there a dedicated few patrolling trying to scrub non-encyclopedic content from good articles, but remember that pretty much everytime someone removes some cruft, two more people add some to other articles, making it an uphill struggle. Don't take this personally, as it's neither an attack on you or this game, it's about whether or not the article conforms to Wikipedia polcies, and some people think it does and others think it doesn't. The problem is that people seem to get hung up on one particular policy and ignore the fact an article fails on other issues besides that. (WP:N is a good example of one that people focus on exclusively whilst ignoring other issues.) The Kinslayer 10:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policies? I thought most of them were just guidelines, including the ones cited for reasons this article should get the boot. BlazeHedgehog 19:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly, I don't see why there is so much enforcement of WP:N to begin with. Obvious vanity needs to die, but simply because something isn't the biggest thing in the world shouldn't nullify as it as important enough for an article. The real incredibly problematic part of notability, especially with web content, is how incredibly difficult it is for even genuinely notable internet material to find legitimate press coverage, especially in areas that simply aren't as gigantic as others. Unless something is some kind of gigantic runaway hit such as YouTube or another similar phenominon and gets tons of press, I simply have no idea where I'd look to find sources. For instance, I have no idea where I'd find some press coverage, of, say, 8-Bit Theater, but I wouldn't imagine going and trying to delete it for notability, because it's clearly popular and well-known in many circles, but even it only has the official website and forums linked as sources. The issue is that I'm sure someone who doesn't read webcomics at all could easily come and find said article and try to delete it as vanity/fancruft because they simply aren't familiar with it themselves, despite being a very well-known website. Where would one draw the line between notable and non-notable on internet projects/websites? The entire system seems incredibly vague here, and it's obviously clear that even Wikipedia doesn't know, as something that was a complete blowout as notable one AfD is now a nearly complete blowout in the opposite direction, when honestly practically nothing has changed in terms of the article content (and in fact, I'd say it's vastly improved in structure since the first time it was put up on AfD). There really needs to be some kind of tangible way to determine what is notable and what is not that isn't based on anyone's opinion, and as far as I'm aware, that simply doesn't exist. -MysticEsper 05:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems signifigant enough to me, and I don't get this "fangames must be Baleeted!" rule. This game always seemed pretty established, and to have a good fanbase, to me. Also, I thought it was a lot better than any official 3D Sonic game... Darien Shields 02:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AMIB. Hbdragon88 21:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I can see how a fangame could be percieved as being better than an official product, seeing as Sonic Team's allegedly been doing a pretty poor job lately... --Luigifan 02:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Why would this page be deleted, when there are far less worthy things included in Wikipedia. Granted, this is the type of thing that wouldn't make it into Britannica, but isn't that the point? 206.165.137.194 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting Keep by saying there are other things that shouldn't have articles is a weak argument. If you see another page that you think shouldn't be here, you can always nominate it for deletion. TJ Spyke 02:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a weak argument, which is why it isn't my argument for conservation. My argument is that this article is interesting AND something Britannica wouldn't include.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.165.137.194 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep, renominate separately I disagree with the lumping of these two articles together, which is totally non-standard; this is going the wrong about deleting two separate articles. SRB2 is a lot more notable than Sonic: Time Attacked, but both were notable last time I checked. That aside, making the presumption that fan games are automatically non-notable is a fallacy of definition and is simply not correct. Can one prove unequivably that it something is not notable by lack of evidence? No. Can one prove unequivably that something can be notable? Possibly. I would've thought that 5,400,000 google hits [24] would've been sufficient for keeping, unless our standard of notability has suddenly risen to eliminate Qubit Field Theory, which only has 2,700,000 google hits [25]? The subject that these two articles cover is more notable than most articles on Wikipedia. --DavidH Oz Au 02:58, 30 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. --Core des at 05:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlogExplosion[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:CORP. Another linkspam attempt methinks — Moondyne 07:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. — Moondyne 07:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't establish notability. Trebor 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was tempted to suggest speedy per G11, but initial creator seems to be Wikipedian in good standing, so I don't think it was actually intended as spam. Xtifr _tälk 22:22, 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 SPEEDY DELETE, see also original AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chonga. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chongas[edit]

No references, Original research , see Chonga above.Markb 07:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per cited AfD. JIP | Talk 09:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Let's not refight that war. Perhaps we can get it out of the way before the army of sockpuppets arrives? --Brianyoumans 10:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not even a hesitation. This was already decided. BusterD 11:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Buster. And protect. BTLizard 11:42, 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. --Core des at 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TattleMail[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:CORP, linkspam — Moondyne 07:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. — Moondyne 07:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bah, you beat me to it. I was just about to nominate this also for the very same reasons. I have investigated this company and it fails WP:CORP. Wrs1864 16:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article for this AfD was created at the same time and by the same person as the article in the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shotgun reporting. The TattleMail article contains one of the few references to the Shotgun reporting article. Wrs1864 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP and lacking credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 12:57, 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. --Ezeu 01:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehog Heaven[edit]

Non-notable fan work. The article fails Verifiability, Reliable sources, and No original research, as well as a simple Google test. Most, if not all, of the internal links to the article are from templates. Wikipedia is not a directory of fan works. --Slowking Man 08:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about fan works created by the same group, and the above criteria apply to them as well:

Relics of the Chozo
Kong in Concert
Repercussions of Fowl Lamentation
Rise of the Star
The Dark Side of Phobos
Chrono Symphonic
Blood on the Asphalt

--Slowking Man 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I just found out (after digging through the articles' edit histories) that may be of interest: all of these articles appear to have been created by Liontamer. --Slowking Man 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I started Kong in Concert. No hard feelings, though ;). -- Rmrfstar 10:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT is specifically clear on this issue of a "directory". Also, as Slowking has cited, policy interlinks and makes me lean towards delete heavily. Daniel .Bryant 09:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, series of articles about nn fanwork covering video game music. Wikipedia pages look good, content fails. Deizio talk 10:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel Bryant. Danny Lilithborne 13:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan music is roughly the equivalent of fan fiction, which always gets deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Of interest only to fans. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Since OverClocked ReMix is notable in-and-of-itself, it doesn't seem wrong to potentially Merge some information with the OverClocked ReMix article, rather than delete the articles outright. OC ReMix started using MediaWiki to host its FAQ and other information a few months ago. Wouldn't be opposed to being pointed in the right direction (at my userpage) to learn how to properly apply the various templates in these articles in MediaWiki, so perhaps the articules could be ported there. In any case, I've got no problem with deleting the article per the nom, BUT would rather see a merge. - Liontamer 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fails web inclusion guidelines. I also don't see how the parent site is notable. It doesn't seem to make its case for passing WP:WEB and any article referencinig a website's mission statement in the lead reeks of conflict of insterest. I will nominate seperately. --Kunzite 04:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please see the AfD of Kong in Concert from April 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kong in Concert. This one at least, is a legitimate album, based on its popularity. I agree there is a lack of quality references, but it is useful enough that to have it is a Good Thing: this article is of high quality and is a useful resource to those who might have heard of the album. -- Rmrfstar 10:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since that AfD in April 2005, we've gotten much, much, much more serious about requiring quality references from reliable sources. Plenty of articles from that era got kept as "interesting" or "cool" that would never pass muster today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but meanwhile, I'm worried that "has no reliable sources" is used as a catch-all "Hsssh! ...and I've got more hssssh where it came from" kind of excuse for deleting content. Lack of sources is foremost a cleanup criterion, not deletion criterion. I hate it when people bring articles to AfD when it's obvious that articles have at least a good possibility of getting sources. Everyone gets terribly excited when they see "hey, if it's unsourced, you can delete it"; No one gets excited when they see "anyone can and should be constructive and add sources when they doubt the article's statements". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even though these songs were inspired by games, it doesn't necessarily mean it would only be of interest to fans. That's like saying, for example, if a music is inspired by a popular artist, it would only be of interest to fans of that artist. Or saying "This jazz album is up for deletion, since it would only be of interest to people who want to hear jazz." In short, I see no reason to delete this article. .V. 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of an argument to actually "keep" (let alone "strong keep") the articles there, nor an assertion of the notability of the content, just a disagreement that fan fiction is only of interest to fans, which is pretty well established on Wikipedia. Any ideas re: WP:MUSIC or WP:WEB? Deizio talk 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, add headers requesting improvement. You could always just place headers requesting sources and/or establishment of notability, rather than impulsively moving for deletion. Primary sources are in fact available. I'm mildly deletionist myself in my view of Wikipedia, as I see a lot of fancruft added all the time, but have also respected the fact that notable articles which are either stubs or do not contain the necessary sourcing typical of top articles have been kept with the intention of improving them, rather than deleting them as a knee-jerk response. I've struck through my earlier comments, specifically because of Kunzite's comments of OverClocked ReMix itself not meeting notability guidelines.

If you Google "OverClocked ReMix" (with quotes), there are about 186,000 results, and "OC ReMix" (the common abbreviation for the site used in its music tags) lists 135,000 results. Google the word remix, and OverClocked ReMix is the second result out of 76,300,000 behind Remix Magazine. However, keep in mind Google is not a be-all-end-all litmus test ("In some cases, articles have been kept with Google hit counts as low as 15 and some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive"). That is specifically why search engine tests are not a factor in Web notability guidelines.
While merely a sub-culture (amateur video game music arrangements), OverClocked ReMix is the most popular and influential site related to that culture, with the largest collection of video game music arrangements on the internet. Especially given the additional information below, I would argue that it is a viable instance of genuinely notable fan culture rather than non-notable.
Support from video game industry professionals - OverClocked ReMix has received praise and support from several notable musicians/professionals in the video games industry not limited to Video Games Live co-creator Tommy Tallarico, Secret of Evermore composer Jeremy Soule (who has contributed an arrangement to the site), Doom lead designer John Romero, Donkey Kong Country series composer David Wise, 7th Guest composer The Fat Man (who has contributed 2 arrangements to the site), and Secret of Mana composer Hiroki Kikuta.
OverClocked ReMix press clippings - I'd argue that coverage from Salon, G4/TechTV, Electronic Gaming Monthly, 1UP.com, and MP3.com are sufficient in terms of point #1 of the Web notability criteria.
In terms of Music notability criteria, I believe OverClocked ReMix satisfies the first and fifth bullet points of the "Others" section in regards to the video game music arrangement genre, which is outside mass media traditions: "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre" and "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" (in this case, magazines, television, and leading websites devoted to video games [Electronic Gaming Monthly, PC Gamer, Game Informer, Edge], technology [G4techTV], and online music [MP3.com], respectively). Though it's easy to do and looks convincing I'm sure, there's no excuse for Slowking Man flippantly linking to the same music notability page in the deletion nom if a proper explanation isn't given as to why the albums would fail the linked criteria.
By extension, my conclusion is that since the music entity is notable, the albums created by it are notable. As noted in the Albums section of the music notability guidelines, it is viewed by some as a controversial extrapolation, but one that I support in this case (and all other cases).

If the album articles are deleted and/or OverClocked ReMix is nomimated for deletion, I will have the decision taken up at Deletion review. I believe that the nominating admin is assuming bad faith on both the group's notability and the potential verifiability of the information listed in these articles, that the group's notability is legitimate thereby permitting the existence of these articles, and that the procedural action being taken should be to label the articles as needing improvement rather than deletion. - Liontamer 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-emptively threatening to take something to DRV is not, imho, terribly appropriate. Cross that bridge if-and-when. And instead of "Keep, add headers requesting improvement", how about "Keep, I created / love / cherish these articles and I'll be happy to add the citations, notable press coverage and whatever else needs to be done to demonstrably bring these articles in line with WP:MUSIC"? My opinion was certainly offered in good faith, and if the articles (rather than the AfD discussion) demonstrate that these topics pass the bar, I'll happily change it to keep. Deizio talk 02:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely felt your specific observations were in good faith, Deiz, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. My issue is with the nomination and most of the conclusions drawn in the discussion being in bad faith, particularly the intention to AfD OverClocked ReMix's article. Which is why I kept it in mind to use 'if' regarding deletion review. Since it seems not many here are even familiar with OverClocked ReMix or video game music sub-culture, it would have been more appropriate to discuss questions of notability in the appropriate Talk pages first. The articles can be improved, I agree. My end of the discussion aims to clarify that the subject matter of the articles is notable enough where the articles should be flagged to be improved by attaching proper cleanup headers. With my points stated, that's now left for others to decide. Contrary to your thinking, however, if the AfD discussion demonstrates that these topics pass the bar, the articles should be left to be expanded upon and better formatted. You're criticizing the nommed articles for not demonstrating notability enough, and that's fine. But there's no sense in taking any article on a potentially notable topic, especially if the attempt to clarify notability is in this discussion, and deleting it because it's not the perfect article. If an AfD established notability despite it not yet being established in the article, I find it hard to believe that the resolution would be to delete rather than to keep and subsequently establish notability within the article as well. - Liontamer 04:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have to be familiar with a topic to nominate it for deletion. Such things need to be looked at thought clear eyes, not the rose colored glasses of fans of a website or forum. The article currently reads like a press release and the usual "forum drivel" that tends to be amassed in articles about websites. i.e. "The site's mission statement explains how its members seek to prove that such music "is not disposable or merely just background, but is as intricate, innovative, and lasting as any other form...." and "Site-related sub-forums include Reviews, where members can discuss ReMixes posted to the site, ReQuests, where members can request particular pieces to be arranged, Judges Decisions, where the Judges Panel posts their decisions on submitted arrangements, and Site Projects, where members organize community projects and collaborative efforts that benefit the site." The nature of an internet forum is certainly not encyclopedic.... "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" I researched the topic prior to mentioning that I should nominate it for AFD. I always do a through search of the Lexis Nexis newspaper and magazine databases for multiple countries and regions of the United States. I found one "trivial mention". I also went through the citation list that you provided, most of them are blogs and do not meet the criteria listed in WP:RS. Your google results are also bloated: "Results 361 - 361 of about 121,000 for "OverClocked ReMix" -Wikipedia . (0.15 seconds)" and "Results 271 - 277 of about 113,000 for "OC ReMix" -Wikipedia . (0.17 seconds)". This means that there are a few internet sites which mention the OC Remix multiple times. i.e. forums, blogs, and the like. If the article passes notability by citation, it's only by relaxing the interpretation of the reliable source guidelines to include blog entries. --Kunzite 00:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya, but it's still important that notability is asserted and established in the article. Otherwise the next deletion-hungry random page patroller could start the process all over again. The WP:xx notability criteria apply to articles rather than AfD discussions. Deizio talk 12:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I would like to point out that OverClocked ReMix is the second result that appears in Google when one searches the word "remix," even before the wikipedia entry on that subject. That in itself should be proof enough that the website is, in fact, quite notable. But of course the comments provided by Liontamer above help too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.23.78 (talk • contribs)

The Google bombing effect does not indicate notability. --Kunzite 00:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please. OverClocked ReMix doesn't google bomb at all. Furthermore, the amount unique google hits can be used to indicate notability, but it can't be used to indicate un-notablity. Read up on denying the antecedent, please. --DavidH Oz Au 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always AGF. I never accused anyone of was google bombing. I said the effect does not indicate notability. I also do not beleive that Google searches can be used to determine notability--that's done by the methods listed in WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC, etc.. --Kunzite 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or failing that Merge into one article ("OverClocked ReMix album projects" or like), or back to OverClocked ReMix article, with some trimming. Some of these have gotten media mentions (Slashdot articles for Kong in Concert, Relics of the Chozo (I think) and The Dark Side of Phobos, at least), so we're not exactly talking of an insignificant phenomenon here; OCRemix is famous among game music fans, and their projects do attract attention within the community. Like I imply above, we should rather try to clean these up and add references where needed; we're clearly not talking of an utterly marginalised phenomenon here and I believe the information could survive somewhere. I agree that these are not "real" albums and as such it's debatable whether or not they need articles of their own - some of these just don't, like RoFL - but merging them could be right in any case. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, add headers requesting improvement or Merge I agree with Wwwwolf and Liontamer. I think that OCRemix, and on that, a lot of the albums listed there are notable, and that they should be kept and fix them up, and if they fail that, merge into a less detailed 'OCReMix projects' page/pages. Yadaman 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One shouldn't assume that all the links on a page are from templates at the bottom. That's a joke. Could it be that those very links were removed from the main article because they simply reappeared in the navigation box at the bottom. Yes, because the Manual of Style stipulates that we shouldn't replicate links in a see also section if they appear else where. Don't kill the article for following good practice! Furthermore, have you actually downloaded the music for yourself? It is free after all, the community is not gaining anything for having it up here, which I believe the whole "not a directory" thing was about in the first place. Lastly, Hedgehog Heaven has been referenced by IGN in an article. What more reliable sources do you want? Articles served up on a silver platter? For the record, we used to have five or so fan-related articles under {{SonicFeatures}}. The only thing accomplished by deleting this and the other two fan-related articles that are left will be to alienate [[the community that is helping to improve this article. Please don't delete it, this is a joke of deletion policy, and smells a lot like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. —DavidH Oz Au, feeling somewhat annoyed at 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. OCRemix is probably noteworthy, but we're not talking about OCRemix. Every single album on OCRemix is not noteworthy; fan albums are almost never noteworthy, and there's no commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. WP:ILIKEIT still doesn't trump WP:V or WP:RS. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wwwwolf, but delete those which cannot be reliably sourced. Yamaguchi先生 06:48, 1 November 2006
Merge unless professional reviews and sources can be found. A shame these weren't commercially released, or they'd have some kind of immunity. But notwithstanding, most aren't even good enough for commercial release, so meh. They also don't get too much attention at all; I had an external link on the Chrono one that barely saw a couple hits a day (I eventually took it down). But I'd caution OCR forumers reading this against voting DELETE, since you'll probably be banned for it. After all, they banned tens of people for criticizing the addition of a sidebar to the site's layout. --Zeality 19:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brother please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.36 (talk • contribs)

Keep All There all legit albums and a part of OCRemix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.66.204 (talk • contribs)

This vote was this user's first edit. -- Rmrfstar 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Mentioning all OCR's side-projects couldn't hurt, but w/o sources these articles aren't going anywhere :( Roffler 18:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. Since the websites are verified as existing, and the research and information regarding them appears to be accurate, they are worth keeping. It also raises awareness of works based on other works, such as videogames, as in these instances. These fan works are notable for their very nature. Warwolf 08:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Metal[edit]

Non-notable fan work. Little verifiable information in the article, and no reliable sources that I can find. Ergo, the article is mostly original research. A Google test shows few hits, and most, if not all, of the internal links to the article are from templates. --Slowking Man 09:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-ish delete, although I agree strongly on the lack of notability and the reliable sources, I am not entirely compelled that the whatlinkshere argument is sustainable. OR is debatable, however it is apparent, especially with no sources (which derives from an apparent lack of notability). If someone doesn't come up with some sources stating it's notability, consider this a strong delete. Daniel .Bryant 09:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel Bryant. Danny Lilithborne 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn
Weak Delete OR Merge Perhaps mention of them and specific songs could be mentioned in the appropriate game articles. I hate to say delete since I really like their work, but they really aren't notable enough. Koweja 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Uh, didn't know they were interviewed in Nintendo Power. That said, this is not a hugely influential work and probably worth discussing somewhere - perhaps put a brief chainsaw-trimmed mention in Metroid series, along with an xlink. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:27, 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. --Michael Snow 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personality Forge[edit]

Non-notable web community; few Google hits. Nehwyn 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as AI is concerned, PF is by far the biggest web community, with 27438 members. A link to it is provided in the already existing article internet bot. PF has recently teamed up with Hanson Robotics to provide the artificial intelligence personality for an Albert-Einstein-like android at WIRED NEXTFEST 2006. If Hanson is a major player in robotics, as wiki's article about it suggests, PF is a key player in AI. stammer

Note - The above comment is from the article author.  --Nehwyn 10:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Can you provide any proof of notability as set in the WP:WEB criteria? (for the website, not one of the member of the community) --Nehwyn 10:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" 1. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." -> ALICE's creator and PF's competitor Richard Wallace lists PF among a handful of "major online bot communities" + in his Salon article about the Loebner Prize John Sundman refers to Benj Adams and the Personality Forge as key players. "2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation" -> PF-based bots Brother Jerome by Peter Cole and Bildgesmythe by Patti Roberts have won silver and bronze respectively at the ChatterBox challenge in 2006. NB: PF-based bots relie on PF's AI engine. "3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."-> The site content is proprietary and hence it cannot be independently distributed, but the joint venture with Hanson Robotics demonstrates its relevance to current applied AI endeavours. IMO Point 2. alone should settle the issue. -- Stammer 06:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if notability re:WP:WEB cannot be established. MidgleyDJ 10:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Mukadderat 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I invite those recommending deletion to state their case in the light of my reply to Nehwyin's post.Stammer 06:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Alexa ranking of 646 580. Was not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (sorry, Stammer, but a brief mention in a single magazine article does not make it the subject of the article. Neither does occurrence in a list of links on a website.) As for the awards, that argument would be applicable if we were discussing deletion of Brother Jerome or Bildgesmythe, but we're not. Finally, this may be a vanity article, as Stammer's only Wikipedia contribution at the time of this AfD was the creation of this article, and he is currently the only one opposing its deletion. —Psychonaut 06:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to stress that I did not make a keep recommendation, since I realise that this would be inappropriate for the article's author. I regard it however as legitimate to argue in favour of the article. I may also repeat that PF-based bots relie on PF's AI engine. Roughly speaking, their intelligence is provided by PF. It would be pretty strange to have articles about certain bots without an article about the AI engine behind them. Stammer 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. But since the PF bots in question seemingly aren't notable enough to have their own articles, what makes you think that the engine behind the PF bots is? —Psychonaut 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that Brother Jerome and Bildgesmythe aren't notable enough to have their own articles? They got silver and bronze at the ChatterBox challenge in 2006. Are you suggesting that I add articles devoted to them? I may well do it, but that would not make much sense without an article about the AI engine that they share and about the development model that spawned them. -- Stammer 08:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that. I was presuming their non-notability on the basis of their absence from Wikipedia. Of course, if you want some more rigorous evidence, go ahead and create the articles and see if they survive. At any rate, your using this argument in support of retaing the Personality Forge article is still flawed; it's entirely possible for an entity but not its ancestors to be notable. That's why, for example, there is an article on Stanislaw Lem but not on his father Samuel Lem. —Psychonaut 08:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point there. --Nehwyn 07:55, 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. --Core des at 05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chrono Trigger Mixtape, Vol. 1[edit]

Non-notable fan work. Unverifiable information, and no reliable sources that I can find, so the article is mostly original research. A Google test gives 912 hits, the first of which is the article. Very few internal links. --Slowking Man 09:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree strongly on the lack of notability and the reliable sources. OR is debatable, however it is apparently there, especially with no sources (which derives from an apparent lack of notability). If someone doesn't come up with some sources stating it's notability, consider this a strong delete; if they do, consider this a swing to concensus regarding the current state of notability, derived by comments on this AfD. Daniel .Bryant 09:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bedroom mixtape disguised as something connected to a notable game, verging on hoax. Fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. Deizio talk 10:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls under the category of "so what". Danny Lilithborne 13:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - by Queen Zeal's orders. Anomo 07:35, 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. --Ezeu 00:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testatika[edit]

Contrary to the impression one may get from a first look, there are no reliable third-party sources for the subject. Yes, there are reliable sources given, e.g. "Grossner, Nathan R., "Transformers For Electronic Circuits". 1967" -- but that book doesn't mention the Testatika, let alone give hints to build over-unity devices. OTOH those sources which mention "Testatika" are private homepages like http://website.lineone.net/~aarekhu/index.html and http://members.fortunecity.com/geoffegel/testats.htm or a web forum at YahooGroups.

Wet boxer-short contest[edit]

Non notable cultural phenomenon; yes, they exist, but do we really need an article on them? Previous prod removed. Brianyoumans 09:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivia. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wet t-shirt contest as a variation and redirect. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wrathchild's suggestion. Section9 01:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect should work. Alba 13:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. per Wrathchild. With a tantalizing title like this, pitty there were no pictures. ;-). Carlossuarez46 20:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect, and add pictures. Pretty please? ;) --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect, and add pictures per JaimeLesMaths Ksax 02:38, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Chronicles[edit]

Non-notable video Non-notable Violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V Violates WP:BLP and more. NBGPWS 09:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at history of AfD nominations for similar Conspiratorial books at the Conspiracy Noticeboard for reasoning, precedent and stare decisis. Conspiracy Noticeboard NBGPWS 09:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I do think it should be mentioned in the article on (and merged into) The Arkansas Project NBGPWS 09:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did occur. Article is not strongly written, but doesn't detract from notability as smear tool. One of first viral-type videos (copied and shared amongst believers). Is part of American political heritage of the 90's. No sweeping it under the rug. If merged this will be whittled away by partisans and good faith editors alike. BusterD 11:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Arkansas Project, after editing for brevity and source checking. - Crockspot 14:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 13,000 ghits and is clearly a significant item in the history of smear tactics. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable video. No proof of wide viewership or major sales. Although I feel that this afd violates WP:POINT, I also feel that the article does not establish notability. --Strothra 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable video even if it's [overly-]biased and wrong. Two mentions of the video on the "Clinton Body Count" Snopes page (which obviously means it's "featured at length"). Jinxmchue 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator's past actions suggest that this nomination may be a violation of WP:POINT. NBGPWS has been trying to argue that a noticeboard for AfDs on my userspace - User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard - is a tool for votestacking by right-wing "malicious POV pushers". (See User talk:NBGPWS). Yesterday the nominator was blocked for 24hrs for repeatedly adding a homosexual sex position to User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Today, he added this AfD to the noticeboard with the following comment: "I added a new Afd that meets ALL the requirements of the goals here and also follows past precedent by this noble group of editors! I hope we can join together to fight this scourge!" (See [26]. )GabrielF 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please remember to AGF. Even yesterday's actions were in accordance with WP on user project pages, although I inadvertently violated 3RR, and POINT. (which was a judgement call anyway) Thanks. NBGPWS 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You know, I was also going to include that I suspected this was a bad-faith nomination when I made my earlier entry. Had it all typed out, in fact, but I backed off on it. I think that was a good decision on my part as I now think it's better that you brought it up, since it's you he's focusing on and your page(s) that he's vandalizing. Jinxmchue 06:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GabrielF's evidence that this is a bad faith nomination. --Aaron 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GabrielF, bad faith nomination and an obvious lack of understanding of Wikipedia to state "fight this scourge", Wikipedia is a colaboration, not a battle zone. --Nuclear Zer0 16:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the noticeboard's history: "I suspect that these articles have been created to legitimize and promote this movement and I feel strongly that this undermines wikipedia's credibility and legitimacy and violates some of our most important principles." AGF. Thanks NBGPWS 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your point is. "Fight this scourge" sounds to me like someone about to charge a horde of monsters or wage a battle, that is not appropriate for wikipedia. We are here to colaborate, not fight some epic battle. Your tone is confrontational. --Nuclear Zer0 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's you interpetation which I dismiss. The noticeboard now says: "These AfDs primarily targetted articles on subjects with little or no notability, which violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Vand which were created (in my opinion) for the purpose of promoting people, ideas, and books rather than for furthering wikipedia's mission." This article 'fits the bill' and is why I posted the AfD to the group, and here. NBGPWS 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanky ou for clarifying, however after your past antics, I cannot assume you added it there in good faith. The spirit of AGF is not to be blind, but to assume at first the person is making a good effort, after your last stunt that presumption is gone. That is why I stated what I did, I believe Gabriel makes a good point and I do not wish to see an article get deleted simply because you are bitter, as per your past comments on the group you now are claiming you are attempting to contribute to. I think the proof above has already been laid out so I will not be responding to you anymore, no point in making this AfD a mess. --Nuclear Zer0 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about debating this one on the _merits_? I see absolutely no productive purpose whining about who made a nomination. People could easily make similar charges against every nom you make Zer0, and I'd tell them it's irrelevant too. Derex 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in your arguements either, considering you were also noted as reverting back to that WP:POINT violation. I have stated my case and unless you have something compeling, you may as well stop responding. --Nuclear Zer0 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not interested in arguing on the merits???? btw, I have made exactly one edit to that page ever, and the admin who gently noted it then apologized for failing AGF. If only everyone here had the class of that admin and the belief in AGF. Derex 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we blow that more out of proportion? I am not interested in discussing merits with someone who reverts without even checking what they are reverting, I am not sure you understand Wikipedia policy well enough to have such a debate with, if you just go around reverting pages during edit wars without checking the content, or so you claimed. There are lots of people who may want to entertain a debate with you over this topic, choose one of them. Considering my decision is based on the nominators actions being in violation of a policy/guideline, I really do not see how you are even debating me as you are going about this as if its a normal AfD. --Nuclear Zer0 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearDude, Calm down! You're gonna get in trouble if you keep on attacking other editors like this! You keep removing my NPA warnings from your user page too. Is that even allowed? NBGPWS 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giggle, I almost got sucked into that one. Yes it is allowed feel free to ask at AN/I, they will explain to you that constantly putting back the templates is actually harrassment/vandalism. But thats an entirely different issue, you should address it there not here. --Nuclear Zer0 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have some tea, NuclearDude? You're getting pretty bent! NBGPWS 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very bent, I buy my tea in bulk and it helps me get bent --Nuclear Zer0 20:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note I found this page through the noticeboard as I originally removed the addition NBGPWS added because I knew it was yet another WP:POINT violation. However I am voting to make sure this violation doesnt cause an article to get deleted. --Nuclear Zer0 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, albiet I know that many of these editors, based on their edit histories, if there was an attack video againt Bush Jr. for example, they would actively support its deletion. Travb (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd heard of this well before I ever came here. It's a notable element among the fringe of Clinton-haters. (I dislike Clinton, but I was never extreme enough to buy into this video)--T. Anthony 18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (see below) ... unless some evidence of notability is provided. I see no links to any mainstream news source for example. Having "heard of it" doesn't so much count here; I've heard of a lot of things that get deleted. There is Salon, but that's a little boutique magazine. Has this thing not been mentioned in any major newspaper even as a passing reference? If not, and that's not documented here, I don't see how it passes notability. Further, if there are no mainstream references, then how can we possibly satsify WP:V and WP:RS without violating WP:OR? At present it just isn't up to snuff. Open to changing my vote upon identification of some mainstream reliable sources. No problem with a merger per above comments, as its existence is at least verifiable. Derex 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep After a fair bit of digging, I found two mainstream sources that mention it. Washington Post, and NYTimes. The latter is Times Select, so I can't read anything more than excerpts (someone here must have a membership). Neither seems to make much of it, but at least it's a mention. Derex 08:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the NY Times article you mentioned. They say the "Clinton Chronicles" is " a hodgepodge of sometimes-crazed charges that are thrown off with an air of knowingness but little documentation." Bill Duncan, who is shown in it , says "It was used by people for purely political purposes." The article refers to the people who made the film as "the Clinton crazies." Nothing in the article lends credence to the absurd and libelous claims made in the film. The Washington Post article calls it a "bizarre and unsubstantiated documentary." Both articles , therefore, argue for the deletion of the article as a gross violation of WP:BLP.Edison 05:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think those quotes would be a fine addition to the article. Well-cited reporting of libel, slander, and smear by others is not a BLP violation as I understand it (haven't re-read it lately). If it were, we'd pretty much have to AFD Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, & Rush Limbaugh. Derex 05:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable though appalling bit of lies which has received sufficent media attention to warrant inclusion. Gamaliel 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read this article before reading this discussion. I notice several things: 1) The article seems to be almost wholely WP:OR. 2) Almost nobody here has actually addressed the article when offering an opinion. This isn't really the proper place to discuss a user disputes, and even trollish nominations occasionally accidentally hit something. This isn't the first time I've seen that happen, and it likely won't be the last. Therefore, pending reliable sources to document the notability of this, I have to say delete. I would feel much more comfortable with this if mainstream coverage were demonstrated. GassyGuy 03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And protect against creating it again. "Largely discredited account of circumstantial evidence and coincidence," per Tbeatty, 18:07, 25 March 2006, who created the article. It accuses a living person of murders and violates WP:BLP. Please apply the same standards here as when deleting Lori Klausutis or Andy Stephenson. Edison 18:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure what you mean. LK and AS are non-notable and deletable as such. I believe I accurately described the video as a "largely discredited account." What you seem to be comparing is the "truth" of these articles rather than their notability. If we simply look at truth, LK was not killed, no votes are stolen by electronic voting machines and Bill Clinton didn't kill anyone. But if we talk about simple notablility, the publci spat between Joe Scarborough and Michael Moore is notable (LK is not). The Black Box Voting org and movement is notable, Andy Stephenson is not. Clinton Chronicles is notable, the producers/directors/accusers are not. If we treat CC like the 9/11 conspiracy articles, we could spawn off 10s or hundreds of articles on anyone who has commented or contributed to this video. --Tbeatty 08:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Edison wrote "It accuses a living person of murders and violates WP:BLP." The video accuses living people of murder, but the article does not. We can (and currently do) have a good article about this obnoxious video without endorsing the claims it makes. To expand on my vote below, if we keep this article we have to make very sure any edits that endorse those claims get reverted PDQ. CWC(talk) 12:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - When in doubt, don't delete. Let people gather facts for themselves, no matter what standards (or lack thereof), or even utter ridiculous ideas may come from it. — 66.16.19.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep well-known piece of 1990s history. --Groggy Dice 06:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as an article about a video propounding some nutty conspiracy theories which sold(?) 300,000 copies. (Wikipedia should document that fact that the anti-Clinton CTs were just as nutty as the anti-Bush CTs are today.) Weak because we need to ensure that the article is not edited to endorse those conspiracy theories.

Please note that I've added the WaPo and NYT links that Derex found to the article. (Thanks, Derex.) CWC(talk) 07:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stupid, biased, and inacurate as it may be, it is as noticable as Loose Change, the Moon Landing hoax, and other "conspiracies". Koweja 00:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Derex's research. JoshuaZ 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable and encyclopedic. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 02:02, 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. --Core des at 05:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article was restored by CBDunkerson after it was found that the article used to be a perfectly good disambiguation page. Good catch. --Core des at 01:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambar[edit]

Query notability, seems like a game guide rather than an encyclopedia article MidgleyDJ 10:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, purely a game guide. No assertion / evidence of significance of the game. Deizio talk 10:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ but remove original research. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.--Hús ö nd 16:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Weak delete unless reliable third party sources are provided to assert the notability of the game.--Hús ö nd 16:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless someone can demonstrate notability (it's worth noting that it has an Alexa rank of ~260,000, but this really needs sources). Oh, and tag it as needing a complete rewrite. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of sources, large amount of OR game guide info. Wickethewok 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally indiscriminate information and a game guide. The Kinslayer 10:12, 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. --Ezeu 00:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BNR Metal[edit]

Owner-operated website that fails WP:V and WP:WEB. Useful for metal fans but not sure it belongs on WP. Deizio talk 10:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The site is very well-known within the metal scene and even beats Wikipedia on Google results pretty often, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank: 86,046. Prolog 12:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--this site is very well known and gets a lot of traffic. Plus it is a great resource. --Eastlaw 23:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB, nn in scope of human knowledge, and who cares if it's a great resource, WP is not a directory. Tony fanta 03:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question : what makes Encyclopaedia Metallum worthy of an article and not BNR? IronC hris | (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are judged against the relevant guidelines & policies, not other articles. Deizio talk 23:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to judge the article, I was trying to understand what the guidelines & policies say about web pages that makes Encyclopaedia Metallum notable and not BNR. It wasn't a rhetoric question and I wasn't implying that if Encyclopaedia Metallum is notable, then BNR is, nor that if BNR isn't then E.M. isn't either. IronC hris | (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, EM have been covered in a published magazine, have 80,000 members and 40,000 bands. Their Alexa traffic rank is also pretty good, 4,373. Prolog 10:12, 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. --Ezeu 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airboat World Magazine[edit]

Too specialised to be encyclopaedic; reads like an advert. Firi e n § 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable magazine. Circulation figures not available but number of ghits is small suggesting low penetration. Reads like WP:SPAM. QuiteUnusual 12:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox

Delete no notable. Cbrown1023 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Too much of a niche market to be notable for WP. Also, agree with QuiteUnusual that it reads like WP:SPAM M a rtinp23 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G1, hoax, used fake picture, totally unsourced. NawlinWiki 16:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donna D'Allison[edit]

This person may not meet WP:BIO standards, and even WP:V, but if people can verify this, then it won't be deleted. Hence the nomination. Gloyne 10:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A small time theif is not worthy of an article. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 10:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She got attention on radio and TV in the UK, even the press - she's notable. --SimonTheFox 10:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where, exactly? Gloyne mentions our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. The article cites no sources and I for one cannot find any mention of this person. So please cite these press articles that you say exist. They don't turn up in any of the usual searches. BBC News has never heard of this person, for example. In fact, this person garners the magic zero hits on all Google searches. Uncle G 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Donna's fifteen minutes ran out some time ago. Also, the picture is a blatant copyvio.BTLizard 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete "National attention"? I missed that 15 minutes. But consider this. According to the article she was under 18 when convicted. This means she would have been tried in a Youth Court. Restrictions on reporting from Youth Courts mean that the press may not report details including the name of a juvenile who is a defendant or witness in any proceedings before the youth court or any other details including the printing of a photograph which would identify him or her. (Information from the Magistrates' Court Guide). So this article is either a lie or a criminal offence. Emeraude 12:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the birthdate is fixed, she was born in 1980 not 1986. --SimonTheFox 12:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Donna was born in 1980, not 1986 as stated - this error is fixed. She is notable, visit 96 Trent FM's website. --Pajnax 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my earlier note above. I have just received this in my talk box: "The birthdate of her has been fixed, so your comments on the AFD while worthwhile, were slightly off-the-point. --Pajnax 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)" Now then, User:pajnax, according to his user page is "Range High school student.... 16 yrs old! /Briefsism" That's it in full. I vaguelt remember briefsism being deleted a week or so ago. I leave others to decide, but I think we are dealing with adolescent angst here, not encyclopaedic integrity. Emeraude 12:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pajnax was one of the ones that nominated it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Briefsism (3rd nomination). Uncle G 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - this appears to be hoax vandalism; at best it is unverifiable and non-notable and could be speedied as A7. Note that the picture added to the article is sourced from here [27] and is actually of a Canadian model named Sabrina D'Amour. -Big Smooth 15:15, 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 CANCELLED. Massive sockpuppetry here [28] making the debate basically meaningless. A re-run in a sock-free environment is needed. -Splash - tk 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S. Jithesh[edit]

Non notable political cartoonist. No google hits at all. All the external links in the article are from blogs. The articles earlier AFD can be found here. The magazine Chiricheepu was also deleted and its Afd. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 03:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a little reluctantly, because he's obviously a talented cartoonst, but more evience needed of notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evaluating an article where the references are not online is frustrating, but references are references, online or not. I confirmed one of his books at the Library of Congress, which uses a different transliteration for his name. On that basis, I think notability and verifiability are established. Is there a Cartoonists' Association of India which has awarded him a prize or in which he has held office? That would be worth mentioning. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment LOC's and S jithesh's link [29]

But the library has a book on every author. Does this make him noteworthy--Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Not every author of a book in the Library of Congress' collection is notable. However, since list of books in the article didn't include ISBN, I wanted to verify that the books exist. I was able to find one of the books listed in the article. The Library of Congress listing establishes verifiability rather than notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep-I'm a journalist in Malayalam. I'm very familiar with his name.He is highly notable in the field of cartooning. His cartoons and anatomical sketches reveals his mastery over the art. Please see the external links [30]. Those who have firsthand knowledge in fine arts can easily judge his skills. He used to draw and write for all major Malayalam Publications. -- Nileena joseph 18:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment great to have local input, but I'm afraid that the issue here is not what we make of his skills (and he looks good to me!), but how notable he is. Can you offer any evidence on his notability? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Google contains more than 30 results on him. I have found his name as a journalist in an official website of Kerala State Government. Please check it out.[31].[32] Most of his writings and cartoons are in Malayalam Language. I couldn't know whether English translations are available or not...? S. Jithesh is also famous as the editor of noted Malayalam Cartoon Monthly Chiricheppu. Readers and artlovers of Kerala know him very well.Nileena joseph 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please check out your first link. It shows that s jithesh works as a special correspondent for Mangalam in New delhi. But this S jithesh as written in the article works in Kerala. The two are different jitesh's.--Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment-I got an article to prove his notability from our press club library Kottayam. Jeevitham Enne Enthu Padippichu?(What the life has taught me?)is a popular philosophical column in Samakalika Malayalam(Famous weekly published by The Indian Express Daily). This column publishes the philosophical views and visions of noted personalities in different walks of life. I have found philosophical views and biography of S. Jithesh in that column.(2004 october 1st issue) I'm uploading a scanned copy of that page.Those who know Malayalam language can read this.[[33]]Nileena joseph 08:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well known cartoonist in Kerala. When there was a controversy over Chiricheppu last time, I asked few guys who were on a training in AIMS and they told that he is fairly well known in Kerala Doctor Bruno 22:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cartoonist.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep-Excellent wellknown cartoonist of Kerala. Ihave seen so many cartoons drawn by Jithesh.Nooranadu mohan 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a majority of the keep recommendations indicate this is a notable cartoonist, but without any sort of references or reliable sources to back up that assertion per WP:BIO. Similarly, as an author, I don't see any references or reliable sources indicating that his book meets WP:BK. Geocities links do not satisfy WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have checked the links.Highly reliable. Chintha is a noted Malayalam online Magazine.Please see:[34] [[35]].Malayalam is an important vernacular Indian language.But News reports from Malayalam newspapers or periodicals are not available in Google search. Jithesh is a writer cum cartoonist in Malayalam Language. I have read his latest poem in Onappathippu 2006 of Veekshanam daily . Joshygeorge 06:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep- This user is a Kerala Cartoonist. So I can affirm easily that Jithesh is a noted Kerala Cartoonist. His cartoons are used to appear in almost all Malayalam periodicals. In addition to that I have watched his interviews in Malayalam Telivision Channels like Doordarsan, Asianet etc. I have seen 8 or 9 external links provided in the article. All are reliable.His anatomical drawings are of superb quality. It reminds the quality of great masters in art.But only a diamond merchant recognises the supreme quality of diamond. Joshygeorge 08:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep Article contains objective and worthy informations about the works of a notable Indian Artist/Cartoonist.Dr.khan 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Strong KeepS.Jithesh is a noted cartoonist and is a noted figure in Malyalam Cartoon field. i have seen his interviews and programmes in all leading Malayalam tv channels.His cartoons and interviews appear in all leading malayalam newspapers (like Mathrubhumi,Malayal manorama,etc.) regularlyAdv. P. R. Bijuchandran 08:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy Keep As per all Kerala wikipedians said this article is about a famous kerala cartoonist. Recently he was a chief guest in DoorDarshan's (thiruvananthapuram)Nisagandhi live programme. I had watched it. I read his cartoons in Mathrubhumi newspaper's Narmabhumi. I have verified the external links and references added to the article back up that assertion per WP:BIO.I'm sure this artist is highly notable .All are reliable links and sources.As per TruthbringerToronto said enlisting in Library of Congress already prooved verifiability part. Devapriya 17:03, 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.

Keep He a noted cartoonist in Malayalam cartoon field. No google hits does'nt imply that he is not notable or famouse. That is waht we Wikipedians are for:)!! Kjrajesh

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

The result was Delete. While it certainly appears to (verifiably) exist, simply not enough claims to notability were submitted. The entry needs more reliable sources. The arguments brought by those who favour keeping the entry appear to range from sloppy, grossly unrefined google hits analysis (i.e. you do need the quotes to narrow the search), including the echoing these distorted/inflated findings — to anecdotal, presonal experiences and similar reiterations. This falls bellow our notability standards. El_C 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yamanote Halloween Train[edit]

Article appears to be based on personal experience and rumour (see article talk page). Unverifiable. Exploding Boy 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, to my surprise. I thought that this was going to be a clear delete, but a Google search throws up a surprising number of hits. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a lot once you add a leading quote. [36] Regards, Ben Aveling 05:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a noteworthy event. Needs more sources, though. Shimeru 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blogs, forums, and Flickr pages ain't reliable sources, especially for something as non-notable and small as this. Could probably be deleted as db-spam, to boot. And speaking as a gaijin living in Tokyo, I've never heard of this, but it'll remind me not to ride the Yamanote that night. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speaking as a gaijin living in Tokyo five years now, I heard about it when I first arrived and I even rode on it last year. I've talked to a number of gaijin who have either heard about it, known someone who has ridden it, or have ridden it themselves. It's quite an established bit of Tokyo lore. Though the article says it started in the early 90s, the event may very well come back some years before that so it's a fairly well established event. The Ohmynews article in the link is not a blog, by the way, and I would think the pictures and video show that the event does indeed exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by on 87.75.6.127 (talk • contribs) 23:28, October 25, 2006. User's only edit, and for which oddly enough for someone living in Tokyo, the IP traces back to the UK. From the Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies people, "Also, 87.75.6.127 is a pretty odd case; I'm not quite sure how someone managed to edit Wikipedia from what appears to be DVR appliance. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2006"

*-Oddly enough people living in Tokyo tend to travel to other places such as the UK (duh!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.102.91.65 (talk • contribs) , at 03:44, October 27, 2006. This one, at least, is from Japan. But again, user's only edit.

Right, and while in the UK, spend their time looking for articles in Wikipedia to defend. Pull the other one. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From OhmyNews: OhmyNews (hangul:오마이뉴스) is a South Korean online newspaper with the motto "Every Citizen is a Reporter"...It is the first of its kind in the world to accept, edit and publish articles from its readers, in an open source style of news reporting. About 20% of the site's content is written by the 55-person staff while the majority of articles are written by other freelance contributors who are mostly ordinary citizens. OhmyNews' citizen reporters now number 41,000...
And this is distinguishable from a blog or wiki HOW, exactly? --Calton | Talk 04:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is the article in question a blog exactly? You have yet to clarify that. You mention that blogs, etc... were not realiable sources - realiable for what exactly? - That the event exists? Are you aware that Ohmynews and Wikipedia are quite similar in nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.102.91.65 (talk • contribs) , at 03:44, October 27, 2006. This one, at least, is from Japan. But again, user's only edit.

Kindly don't insult my intelligence. In case you're actually serious, start here for the scoop on "realiable sources". --Calton | Talk 08:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the very fact that even those who claim to have heard about it can't really say whether it's real or not is really a good indication of the reliability of this article and it's sources. The pictures in the blog (or whatever) linked are interesting, but prove nothing except that a few people in costumes were once on a platform at Shinjuku Station. I've never heard of it, and neither has anyone else I know who lives in Japan. This is a trivia section gone wild, and needs to be culled. Exploding Boy 06:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this article is true. It is happening. If you say it isn't happening, you obviously aren't much in touch with the culture here in Tokyo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.187.93.210 (talk • contribs) on 17:24, October 27, 2006. Now blocked as an open proxy.
Keep Why exactly is this article in debate for deletion? It is an event and a phenomenom that has been held almost every year for well over a decade. As the reporter for the original article (not Blog, mind you) linked from OhMyNews - not the wiki article - I can assure you that said event exists as I have witnessed and participated in it and later reported on it for OhMynews. Like the above UK poster who lives in Japan (why the identity of the ISP address became a minor issue is beyond me to fathom unless certain people don't beleive in travel anymore than they do in Yamanote halloween trains), I have lived in Tokyo for almost 5 years. While I didn't hear about it the moment I arrived (I arrived in mid-December), I did hear about it my first Halloween here and every year after until 2005 when I witnessed it myself. Before and after that event I spoke to a number of people to gather info on the background of the event and learned that the event had been held semi-annually for well over 10 years. I recently got an email on my Ohmynews account from someone who said they rode the Halloween Train in 1992. They had heard from participants that the tradition had started sometime ago before that - so the event could almost be close to 20 years old for all we know. For those living in Tokyo who haven't heard of this event, I suggest you get out more. Most people I know have heard of the event, participated in it, or know friends who have. In short - the Yamanote Halloween Train DOES exist and debates to contrary are ridiculous seeming to reveal more a biased prudishness to the antics of foreigners (and Japanese) on the Yamanote rather than a legit concern about the integrity of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossfire (talk • contribs) at 13:45, October 27, 2006. First edit since April. Man, all these different editors, none of whom (coincidentally no doubt) have figured out how to leave a signature!

And I repeat, oh brand-new person, OhMynews is distinguishable from a blog or wiki HOW, exactly? --Calton | Talk 15:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, brand new person? What are you babbling about Calton? Keep your remarks confined to the article in question and let go of your smarmy remarks that do little to further this (and I use the term lightly) debate. As to your question, how is OhMyNews not a blog, it is a citzen journalist newspaper. People report on events and the like then submit to OhMyNews who decide to publish their article or not. There is an editorial process. It's not a print up anything under the sun. Now my question - what have you got against this wiki article exactly? The event exists and has existed for over a decade and will continue to exist. As for the Ohmynews article, I reported it by speaking to a number of people before and after witnessing and participated in it myself. What I gave was an eyewitness account accompanied with photos and videos. You have yet to present a case for deletion other than your blind refusal to accept the reality of a proven event. Crossfire

Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do you plan on adding links to your website to that, too? --Calton | Talk 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting a bit abusive there, Calton. There was no call for that remark as does nothing to further this debate. Crossfire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.129.153.83 (talk • contribs) at 09:26, October 28, 2006. This IP's only edit. And this one, at least, is from Japan.

It is if the vote is merely disruption to prove a point. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read some of the blog entries/forum posts that come up on a google search, there are several references to the Tokyo police officially discouraging the practice, or to police involvement in breaking up/monitoring the event. It would seem that all is necessary for more references to and validity for the event is to find the official announcement by the police, or to look up old police blotter records (do Japanese have those?) for references to the party. I would do this, but I am Japanese illiterate. ~C, gaijin in Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.248.76.241 (talk • contribs) on 06:11, October 28, 2006. Yet ANOTHER anon who hasn't figued out the signature thing. Also, what is someone living in Japan doing logging in from Bangkok?

Again, you'd be surprised that a number of gaijin living in Tokyo actually (gasp!) travel outside of Japan from time to time. Why this is so shocking to some people here is beyond me. Put two brain cells together and think why someone from Bangkok (just a short flight from Tokyo BTW)would know or care about this matter unless they were someone who is currently living in Japan or has lived there in the past and witness or heard about this event. Crossfire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.129.153.83 (talk • contribs) at 09:26, October 28, 2006. This IP's only edit. And this one, at least, is from Japan.

Right, a vacationing gaijin in Bangkok -- this being high season for it -- cruising Wikipedia at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, just so he can leap in a defend this poor article from a fate worse than death. Putting two brain cells together gets me the word "ludicrous". --Calton | Talk 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smarmy remarks aside and ISP detective work that proves nothing except that gaijin travel outside of Japn, what exactly is the issue here? Is it the existence of this event that is in question or is it the disapproval of the event that ultimately bothers certain people? Crossfire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossfire (talk • contribs) at 09:42, October 28, 2006

You know, much more handwaving from you and we can put up windmills, harvest the excess power. So this AfD is attracting an unduly large percentage of gaijin who just happen to be on vacation at the time. QUITE a coincidence, there, And as for motivations, don't make up nonsense about them, because no one ever buys it. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RichardInSF here: I saw this event in real life one year when it was closed down by the police. It is now back and tolerated because no damage is done by the revellers. This is definitely a real event and part of the gaijin culture of Tokyo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.236.66 (talk • contribs) at 12:17, October 28, 2006, who, despite his name, seems to be logging in from the offices of a hotel in London.

Comment: So a group of anonymous IPs and one fairly dormant named editor (you), with few if any edits, with the same verbose style and claims of personally witnessing this, from widely separated areas despite claims of living in Japan, and ALL with the identical unwillingness/inability to leave signatures (see, you do THIS: --~~~~)? I'm NOT willing to swallow that as a coincidence. So here's a word I'd like to introduce to you: "sockpuppet".

One other note: when examining the discussion, admins who close these debates give VERY little credence to IPs, and none at all, really, to those who suddenly appear without any history on Wikipedia. Vote-stacking -- especially by anons -- doesn't work, so any more appearances by eyewitness gaijin who happen to logging in from anonymous IPs around the world are just going to drive the final nails in the coffin holding your credibility, is all. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a non-notable event (though real in a trivially small way) that does not rise to the encyclopedic level — WP:HOLE is intended for biographies, but the principle applies here ➥the Epopt 14:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Epopt. This may be real, but it clearly is not important enough to have received mainstream media coverage. Lots of people have Halloween parties every year, and lots of them are even broken up and/or tolerated by the police. The fact that this one allegedly takes place on a train does not automatically make it an important subject that requires an article in an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 18:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an extended interpretation of WP:NOT. Per The Epopt and Haeleth, too - I won't bother refactoring their points, as I totally agree with them. Daniel .Bryant 01:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is an actual, real event. I rode it last night, accompanied, might I add, by several members of the local Police Force. It seems that the Tokyo Police know that this is real. The fellow gaijin (and Japanese) on the train (which would have numbered well into the hundreds at the peak of the ride) also obviously knew of its existence. I can't see how two self-appointed expert gaijin can shoot down this article based on their inability to discover any "verifiable" evidence online. If they were in fact in Tokyo (it seems like location has been the central part of this debate) they could have come and seen for themselves. Lushman 03:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You rode the Yamanote line last night, as in October 28? Not Halloween? And there were hundreds of people aboard? How exactly is that different from any other night on the Yamanote? Exploding Boy 08:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt. Real isn't the issue. Notable is the issue. Would life be noticably different without this particular party? I dont't think so. It's just a party. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, 'Exploding Guy' it was held last night and the difference from any other night would be all the people in Halloween costume and the general party atmosphere. If your only objection to this entry is that it is unverfiable, I can tell it does exist and I was there (along with a LOT of other gaijin). Perhaps you should have popped along and seen it for yourself. I apologise if I haven't followed the correct procedure for logging this but I have never before felt the need to comment on an entry and don't have a login and also thought this way my IP shows and you can at least verify that I am in Japan. To those of you who were there, we are the Moet Sisters 124.39.69.253 08:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see any reason for deleting this, anyway if the article is deleted but the event continues to take place every year then wont someone eventually just re-create this article? Look around, there are a lot of 'cultural' articles of WiKi that would never make it into a normal encyclopedia. I for one see these articles as a good thing, wikipedia is now a one-stop-shop for information and part of that success is because of it's huge store of 'limited interest group' articles like this one. Anyway thats my two cents... or yen.

Regards Oliver

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

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

The result was delete both. --Core des at 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Strikers series and Wrecking Crew (video game) series[edit]

(Breaking out the old-school deletion reasons) this is an idiosyncratic non-topic. This isn't a series; it's two games, one of which isn't even released yet. There's no content here; just some release dates, a brief lead, and a GameFAQs-esque list of characters appearing in these games.

Additionally, if this article is deleted, the associated {{Mario Soccer series}} should also be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Wrecking Crew (video game) series for the same reasoning; it's just one obscure game and its equally-obscure remake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mario Strikers' and Delete Wrecking Crew. TJ Spyke 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wrecking Crew, since the second game was indeed released in Japan. Strikers is much less of a clear choice, as the second game isn't released and won't be until next year. I'd say Merge the sourced info into the main Strikers article for now until the game is released (or at least closer to release). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to make it absolutely clear: each game in these non-series already has its own article. These articles are in addition to the game articles, and have no useful content whatsoever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Man in Blacks latest comment. The Kinslayer 10:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To my mind it seems to be a notable article. -- Sensenmann 16:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you're a bit new to Wikipedia, but not ever AFD is about notability. I'm not arguing that these "series" aren't notable; I'm arguing that they don't exist. They're two games long, and one of them has only one game released and the other is a single game and its enhanced remake. They're not series in the traditional sense, and their articles have no useful content at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Combination 17:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, or redirect if necessary. Andre (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Glorified needless disambigs. Similar to Dragon Quest Heroes which I feel was erroneously kept. - Hahnch e n 03:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they are redundant with the already existing game articles. - Lex 07:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete glorified disambiguation pages. Two games don't make a series and there's not much to discuss about them in context of "series"; you can discuss the similarities and differences in the game articles themselves. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to delete the Mario Strikers series, then you might as well delete the Mario Tennis and Golf series. A series consists of more than one game, so the article is acceptable. -MattCHarris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MattCHarris (talk • contribs) .
- A series involving two products is called a Duology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.165.214.173 (talk • contribs) .
  - There are four Mario Golf and Mario Tennis games each. Granted, I don't think those series articles are very good, but it's not totally unreasonable to describe them as series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:33, 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. --Core des at 05:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Rowe[edit]

nn actor Eusebeus 11:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, two minor parts in non-notable films, see [37]. I was the original prodder. Accurizer 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the two parts were in Cow Stories Part I (1998) and A Goat's Tail (2005) -- perhaps Mr. Rowe is in danger of being typecast as a farm animal movie actor. NawlinWiki 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, two small roles in films does not constitute notability. Hello32020 19:51, 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 delete. --Core des at 05:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tae Su Jutsu[edit]

Unsourced article on on-notable new hybrid martial art, with about 20 unique non-wikipedia ghits, and most of those appear to be on discussion forums. See also separate nomination for the sport's "creator" Deborah R Williams. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just to clarify my nomination. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity and advertisement - not notable.Peter Rehse 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. --Alvestrand 16:47, 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. --Core des at 05:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah R Williams[edit]

Unsourced article on non-notable practitioner/instructor of new hybrid martial art (see separate AFD for Tae Su Jutsu). Only 4 unique ghits on what seems to me to be an appropriate search. Delete. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity and advertisement - not notable.Peter Rehse 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Seems she completly fails notability to me -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD A7 or G11 (either could apply). Otherwise, Delete per nom. Xtifr _tälk 22:31, 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 Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 16:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Alsop Cole[edit]

I'm in two minds about this. Cole was related to or friendly with some very important people, stayed at the White House, etc, but doesn't seem to have anything noteworthy herself despite these connections. She was mother to some people who don't seem notable. All in all, I can see no reason for her to have her own article. Emeraude 11:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she meets WP:BIO because she is claimed to have been a member of the Connecticut State Assembly and to have a significant role in Connecticut politics. It's a nicely-writtern article, but unsourced, so I have tagged it as {{unreferenced}}. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BHG, sources added. NawlinWiki 15:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I misread the part about the State Assembly and thought it referred to someone else. In this event, I withdraw the nomination. Emeraude

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Assertion of notability? Not here. Deizio talk 12:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Wakefield[edit]

This article has asserted notability so cannot be got with CSD A7, however I do not think it is important enough to be on Wikipedia. Casmith 789 12:03, 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. --Core des at 05:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BATRacer[edit]

I believe that this website is not notable according to the guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability (web). Gasheadsteve 12:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - article contains no assertion of notability. Percy Snoodle 12:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Clearly fails WP:WEB, lacks assertion of natbility. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I actually am a member of this site, and enjoy the game, it does not meet WP:WEB. Wildthing61476 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:WEB and no credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 16:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:WEB. Hello32020 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-sourced advertisement. The Kinslayer 10:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. -- Sensenmann 16:58, 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. --Core des at 05:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chibot Ultra Battle[edit]

Non-notable chatroom game, fails WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE. Prod removed by Zeno McDohl with edit summary "rv, notability is not a policy of Wikipedia". Percy Snoodle 12:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft foolishness. L0b0t 14:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you try to be a little more civil? You're attacking the work of someone, "foolishness" isn't exactly a positive term. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Notability is a policy, and this article doesn't even claim to try to meet it. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not a policy, it is a guideline. There is a difference. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE or WP:NN are actual policies. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all three of those. Let's just follow the guidelines, then, shall we? Shimeru 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't think WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE are even guidelines. Correction, WP:SOFTWARE is not. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 00:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:N and WP:OR. And two of these ARE policies. I'll leave it up to you to find which ones. Also, Fancruft foolishness. Pretty much Vanispamcruftisement.The Kinslayer 09:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but {{Verify}} and {{OR}} exist for a reason. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 13:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So does WP:V#Burden of evidence. If you've got the necessary details to fulfil the articles shortcomings, add them to the article and ask the nominator if it's now at a quality that would warrant withdrawing the AfD. The Kinslayer 13:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could gather some details, which would take me some time. But I'm pretty busy now with college work and the like, no time to do much until semester ends. I don't exactly agree with Burden of evidence or NN in certain situations, either. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 22:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can argue over policies and guidelines all you like, but your managing to completely avoid the fact that this article fails nearly any guideline or policy you care to name. It since your the only person to vote to keep it (which is raises questions in my head) it WILL be deleted. And as for not afreeing with NN and BOE, all I can say is tough. They are there for a reason. I think the article should be deleted, you don't. Therefore the responsibility is yours to provide evidence for why this article should be allowed to remain. And I haven't seen anything so far. All you've done is acted pedantic over whether things are policies or guidelines, then said you don't really agree with the policies. You've not once stated anything about the article itself or Chibot to convince us to change our vote. The Kinslayer 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I already stated, I do not have the time to add refs and the like. Thus I am expecting the article to be deleted. I do not see how I acted pedantic either, I had already said I would add refs if I had the time. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 03:45, 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 Redirect to Toronto's name. Non-admin closing. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muddy York[edit]

An article for a nickname? I don't think so. There is already an article for York, Upper Canada that mentions this moniker. Either delete or redirect because there is no reason to have what is essentially a duplicate article. Suttungr 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this fascinating gobbet of information really is interesting then add it to some other article, presumably Toronto. BTLizard 13:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. L0b0t 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't need a separate article unless there is so lot to say about the history or usage of the term that it needs to be split out of the main article. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the most appropriate place for this information is Toronto's name, which has an etymology, historical context, and past and present nicknames. Mind matrix 14:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toronto's name per Mind matrix -- Satori Son 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mindmatrix. Bearcat 18:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mindmatrix. -- Whpq 21:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mindmatrix -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mindmatrix How about closing this one? Bejnar 17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been open for a bit more than 24 hours; although an admin can close early if a clear consensus has already emerged, the standard is to leave AFD discussions open for a week. And as an admin, I certainly wouldn't deem five-to-three as the kind of consensus required to close it this early in the process. Bearcat 19:13, 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. --Core des at 05:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girly[edit]

This has been tagged for a month now, and no external sources attesting to its notability (per WP:WEB or otherwise) have been forthcoming; having some 600 registered fans, IIRC, isn't a valid criterion of notability under any guideline I'm aware of. Since it only cites the strip itself and some Livejournal pages, it's also mostly WP:OR due to lack of WP:RS. Sandstein 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you are going to delete this one, you might as well delete all webcomic wikipedia entries. There are some that are far less as noteworthy as Girly, and their pages aren't considered for deletion at all. Girly has a significant presense in the webcomics community. Here are some links to reviews for the published Girly book, if this counts as 'notablity'. 1. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/57077/josh_lesnick_webcomic_god.html 2. http://www.websnark.com/archives/2006/07/this_has_nothin.html 3. http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/news/113954992729164.htm
Delete Fancruft foolishness. L0b0t 14:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in credible, third-party publications as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 16:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a blog with a few hundred subscribers is not notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't often find myself voting to keep webcomic articles, but this one does at least have a print edition from a notable publisher (Radio Comix). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's no indication that this print edition meets WP:BIO notability standards - "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work", because the article has no reliable sources at all. Sandstein 04:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still having trouble ascertaining how notability is judged here, but it seems like significant mainstream attention is now required for all forms of entertainment, and while I sort of understand this, webcomics -- and comic artists in general -- often have trouble getting such sources to recognize them, even if they've done enought to warrant it. Artists will frequently have to settle for doing good things without becoming media darlings. That being said, Girly's a culmination of a lot of years of skill building and ballbreaking endurance in the field of comics, and I honestly don't know if it's actually noteworthy, or if it just feels noteworthy to me due to all the work it took to get here. In any case, it should probably be noted, in case this gets deleted, that this is certainly not a fly-by-night fancomic; it has over 15000 readers and I'm one of the few web artists making a living solely from his comic work. --SuperHappy 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (If you're having trouble with discerning notability, please see Uncle G's essay User:Uncle G/On notability.) Comic artists in general? I disagree; with effort, creativity and luck, you can be recognized by mainstream book press; Gene Luen Yang (who doesn't have an article yet)'s American Born Chinese was nominated for the National Book Award, one of the highest literary honours in the US. Kazu Kibuishi et al's Flight is published by Ballatine Books, a mainstream publisher, and Jeff Smith's Bone is published by Scholastic. Does it take skill, talent and luck? Sure. But writers have to go through the same process, and it's just as hard. I don't see how web publishing makes a comic more notable than other self-published efforts, so they should go through the same process (and I realize that you may see this as harsh. I didn't intend this.) We currently have some leniency for online sources (to address your concern that that mainstream press doesn't report on webcomics, even though it does; Megatokyo, When I Am King, Derek Kirk Kim's Same Difference have all been reported on), but they should be recognized as reliable (Gamespot can be a source for games; some comics news sites are used for comics). ColourBurst 02:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, but I've been doing comics long enough to know about the mainstream comics and critical darlings. I hear the names you said repeated often enough and it's always the same names, and I stand by my opinion that the media's focus is extremely narrow. I know it's easy to dismiss this, saying I just feel this way because my own comic doesn't get the attention I feel it deserves, and I completely understand this. I stand by this conviction anyway. I don't see other decidedly notable comics like Scary Go Round and Sam & Fuzzy get talked about much either. Incidentally, this AfD really should get linked to WikiProject:Webcomics, or is that project totally dead now? (it does seem that way) --SuperHappy 11:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying and even agree up to a point, but surely you understand that what the media chooses to cover or not cover is not our fault nor is it within our control. As an encylopedia, all we can do is present verifiable facts culled from reliable sources. It's not an encyclopedia's job to "stand up for the little guy" or give a platform for those who want to get the word out about their cartoons. The alternative is far worse: imagine if our policy read as follows: "Articles on topics within the arts and sciences must be fully referenced using reliable sources, except for webcomics where it's enough to find five people who think your strip kicks ass." Simply put, if an article about a congressional scandal needs reliable sources, then so does an article on a webcomic. We can't make exceptions. However, don't forget, the reliable-sources policy isn't there primarily to make it tough for cartoonists, it also protects cartoonists (and everyone else) from innacurate and unsourced claims. To remove it would be a libel suit (or two, or thousands) waiting to happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do commend you for having the restraint to not edit the article heavily due to conflict of interest. I, however, disagree with "mainstream" - Gene Yang, Derek Kirk Kim, and Kazu Kibuishi are hardly "mainstream", and they're not even in the "main webcomic culture" (to me that seems to be comprised of Keenspot and its ilk, and Megatokyo + Penny Arcade). This is a bit of an account of when Derek won his triple crown of comics awards and what that meant for the webcomics community (at least in the opinion of the commentators). ColourBurst 22:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yang, Kim, Kibushi aren't mainstream, but they're certainly critical darlings, and yes, critics do talk about these same artists over and over. Girly's not exactly a "little guy", as I repeat, it has over 15000 readers. I don't know exactly how many other webcomics can claim this, but it's certainly a small percentage of the tens of thousands of webcomics out there. --SuperHappy 20:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful detail in the article; I wish that editors could put that kind of loving attention into notable articles. The comic was just published in June. It hasn't had time for notability. Why are people in such a hurry to rush things into the Wikipedia? Maybe there should be a 24 month rule on current events. Anyway this is not notable, however nice it is. R. Crumb was not mainstream, but he was notable. Comeback in five years and we can see if Girly has acquired any notability by then. Wikipedia is not an advertising forum for new works. Bejnar 18:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You guys need to research the page a little harder. Girly is over three years old. The print collection is what came out last year. So we'll try again in two years, I guess. --SuperHappy 20:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unverifiable through third-party reliable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per first keep voter. Use of the work itself as a primary source for uncontroversial facts, such as cast data, is hardly OR. --Kizor 02:21, 30 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; oh yes, he just went there. Proto::type 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi's 40 Go There-ist Moments on The-N[edit]

This is a fancruft article about a promotion for a television show, consisting of nothing but a list of "shocking" moments from Degrassi. All this info should be covered in the Degrassi: The Next Generation article L0b0t 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ ~~then~~ Delete this is just a list of moments used as a promo for the American rebroadcast of a Canadian kid's show. Should be merged with main article Degrassi: The Next Generation. L0b0t 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote due to new information. L0b0t 18:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge. This is too crufty even for the main article. --Aaron 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge as per ~~L0b0t~~Aaron. Merging such material would seriously degrade the quality of the main article. -- Whpq 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then Delete. This article refers to a four-episode miniseries of relevance to the original series. Including the info as a subsection of the main article does nothing to degrade the quality of the main article. -- sethmad 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's more of a clip-show than a miniseries. L0b0t 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to merge- i.e., no reason to add listcruft to an OK main article so as to make it considerably worse. -- Kicking222 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these events are already covered in the Degrassi article as important topics that Degrassi has addressed. L0b0t 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything that ought to be merged has been merged. No redirect needed from this title. Bejnar 18:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everything except the fact that this miniseries exists. Even if it doesn't warrant its own article, it warrants having its existence acknowledged. Also nb the Soundtrack section of the main article. sethmad 18:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again I must stress, this article is NOT about a miniseries, it is about a promotional clip-show made up of plot elements from the actual show, edited together as a lead in to a new season of Degrassi. We should have articles for promos and commercials now?L0b0t 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You cannot "merge and then delete" per the GFDL; if information is to be retained in the other article, it has to be merge and redirect, to maintain author history. If nothing is salvageable, then you can delete it outright. Whatever happens, I do not support Keeping this as a separate article, but this should probably be relisted for clarification. -- nae'blis 17:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PopFusion Radio[edit]

Fails WP:NN (station less than three weeks old), essentially WP:SPAM, if not deleted, could be merged into Fusion Radio Chicago or MakRadio, contested speedy SkerHawx 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a new station and member of a new network they are building, I feel as though it is deserving of its own entry and not added on to the entrys for Fusion & MakRadio. The founding members of this station do meet the WP:NN guidelines and I still contest that those interested in internet radio would have an interest in knowing about this collaboration on an informational level. Additionally, there is no promotion of the station in this article. It states mere facts. Internetfignewton 15:03, 24 October 2006

It is because its a new station and new network that it doesn't yet deserve its own entry! The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote (or even document) promising new things; it is to document already famous and well-known existing things. Xtifr _tälk 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, clearly not yet notable. Xtifr _tälk 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Fusion & MakRadio are famous and the collaboration between these two entities is noteworthy. If Google would merge with AOL to form a new company, that new company would be *notable* enough for Wikipedia. Fusion and MakRadio are no Google or AOL I understand, however, to the internet radio community and those interested in internet radio they are, thus making it a worth while entry. Internetfignewton 17:17, 30 October 2006

A collaboration may be noteworthy or newsworthy, but that does not necessarily warrant an article in an encyclopedia. It may be important in the Internet Radio community, but "PopFusion Radio" only garners 6 google hits -- one is the site's homepage, two are at Wikipedia, two are at fusionchicago.com (the parent), and that leaves only one unaffiliated hit [38] at a database where you can "add your radio station to our database". It has zero Google News Hits. It has zero newsgroup hits. That's simply not enough notability, or even Verifiability for an article. As Xtifr noted above, the subject of the article already has to be famous or notable on its own. Then it warrants an article here. Peace. SkerHawx 00:20, 31 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 is a Secret ^account 22:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nefarian[edit]

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

Archive 1

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Doctorfluffy; this is nefarious plot summary, with no sources, primary or secondary. --Gavin Collins 10:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable POV page. Decoratrix 03:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as part of this, I've moved Santori Son's sandbox as a disamib page. Yanksox 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page boy[edit]

Information already contained at Page (weddings). Only difference is an external link to a fetish site. SigPig 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this all already convered elsewhere. I've deleted their 1 external link to a fetish pr0n site as it fails WP:EL. L0b0t 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more than a dicdef. Emeraude 15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Page (weddings). -- Satori Son 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I agree with Satori Son. —Encephalon 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oy! Xdenizen 01:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge any unique content and redirect to Page (weddings) as a sub-topic of the merge target's topic, or delete outright as duplicate article. Do with the image what you will. -- saberwyn 04:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no unique content in this article. L0b0t 13:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also,it was my understaning that a "page" is the little boy at the wedding, a "page boy" is a type of "bob" haircut for the ladies. L0b0t 13:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You're right, I forgot about that. And I also missed the medieval term at Page (servant). How about a disambig instead? I've created a sample at User:Satori Son/Sandbox and would appreciate comments. -- Satori Son 13:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That looks pretty good. Nice Job. L0b0t 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Page (weddings), or merge if there is any unique content that can be salvaged. Yamaguchi先生 07:22, 1 November 2006
- What about a disambiguation page (see above) instead? -- Satori Son 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to disambiguation page per Satori Son; nice solution for the overspecification shown here. However that picture looks like copyvio... -- nae'blis 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong[edit]

Article about a Hong Kong charity, but the article seems to be a university class project (see its talk page). Very unencyclopedic with phone numbers, donation appeals, etc. Should we even be allowing class projects like this? NawlinWiki 15:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This would be better off as a webpage on their own school server. L0b0t 15:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with above comments. Emeraude 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD A7. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally speedied the article. Probably was a little too harsh in a prior communication. But the bottom line is that the entire page is a class project to create a 'home page' for the organization which is more or less just a suicide prevention call center in HK. While the goal may be laudable, that doesn;t make the organization notable. Montco 16:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I wouldn't apply speedy deletion to this page, I do not think it is suitable as an encyclopedia entry and support its removal. —Encephalon 16:42, 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.

Carolyn Hughes[edit]

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD G10 and WP:BLP, because it contained a defamatory allegation against a living person, supported by only a single reference which noted that the allegation had been denied. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is nn and does not meet the criteria for WP:BLP.MSJapan 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written tripe. L0b0t 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as above. Losing your job in that way is not a test of notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:46, 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. Proto::type 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Denton[edit]

No assertion of verifiability other than to do original research by checking amazon (as suggested by the talk page). Notability only extends to being a textbook author, but no assertion of awards or multiple independent reviews of any of his work making him no more special than any other professor/academic; thus failing WP:BIO. ju66l3r 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. To keep, would need evidence of the notability of his textbooks. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & BHG. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something of a pile on but wikipedia should not be a repositry of authors' book jacket blurbs. Once that has been taken out this article looks exceedling short. --Spartaz 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not remove non-nonsense text from the discussed articles while the vote is going. May be useful for research. If an article is not overly hyped or patent nonsense, one has to assume a good faith of a newcomer contributor. `'mikkanarxi 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The autor of a dozen books with 22 reprints by notable publishing houses, meaning that the books do sell, unlike various e-printing and self-publishing, and therefore are used by people, hence notability. The article is surprizingly small to call it a "vanity page". I'd say it is a "modesty page". Also, just a little research would have shown some third party recognition, too for his shareware. `'mikkanarxi 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 <head shaking> It doesn't stop to amaze me how a pornstar shot in a dozen "nonstop fucking" films is notable but an author of 10+ educational books is not. `'mikkanarxi 18:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 It also amazes me a zeal to vandalize this small bio page under ridiculous pretexts. `'mikkanarxi 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved an unsourced comment that has no chance at verifiability given its source to the discussion page for discussion. That is not vandalism. Please do not misclassify other users' good faith edits at keeping the article clean under the tenets of wikipedia as vandalism. Please don't add personal attacks to the discussion infering or insinuating other editor's mindsets. Thanks. ju66l3r 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. You (all of you) completely deleted a significant piece information about the person, namely his software projects, as well as a 3-rd party link to confirm the info. I can explain this only by the dedsire to bend your POV that the person is nonnotable. `'mikkanarxi 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The link is not 3rd-party. It is Denton's own website. There is already discussion of how it fails WP:RS on the article's talk page. Therefore the reliability and verifiability of the awards listed on the site are suspect without independent sourcing, like the award sites' own statements of recognition for the software. I am trying to discuss this issue on the article's talk page (as I created a section there to discuss the removed text when I removed it..not just deleting it), but nobody seems interested in discussing it there. There is a true explanation, which is my desire to see WP:V withheld, not bending anything to my PoV. ju66l3r 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suggest all you to read the reliability rules when a person's website is a valid source information about this person. `'mikkanarxi 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, poor grammar, unsourced claims...et al L0b0t 16:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep borderline notability. Grammar is to fix not to delete. All notability claims (not so many of them, though) as I see are sourced. Mukadderat 17:39, 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 redirect to List of characters in Totally Spies!. --Core des at 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy (Totally Spies)[edit]

I have copied everything that is needed into the TS character article. As it stands right now, not even Sam, Clover, and Alex have their own articles GrandMasterGalvatron 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable TV character. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect, as 1) merge and delete is a violation of the GFDL, and 2) redirects are cheap. I'll do the redirect. ColourBurst 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect has been done so I think this can be closed. I also agree with the decision. --67.71.76.168 22:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Mukadderat 17:42, 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 speedy delete. Please tag articles like this with {{db-bio}}. Check out WP:CSD for more. Deizio talk 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnulfo gembe[edit]

Article about 13 yr old kid. Not encyclopedic Jvhertum 15:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. In the future, such an article can simply be tagged with {{db-bio}}. Thanks, Satori Son 16:02, 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. --Core des at 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob Webs[edit]

A kid's article about SpongeBob Squarepants Jvhertum 16:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per nom Budgiekiller 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cute though. -newkai t-c 16:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS/WP:NOR. Anything factual on this article is surely redundant with the vast information that Wikipedia already contains about SpongeBob.--Hús ö nd 16:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I agree it's pretty cute. Not a likely redirect, either. NawlinWiki 16:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:per above. Adorable:use of colons though. Dina 18:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above WP:RS/WP:NOR. Hello32020 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no comment. Danny Lilithborne 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really, what can I say?-- danntm ^T _C 23:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio--Weird format suggests it was copied/pasted directly from another source, (and the info is surely already covered under Spongebob Squarepants) and Comment I don't understand the title. Wavy G 00:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's already an article about SpongeBob SquarePants and it's better written than that. Squirepants101 14:32, 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 Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 04:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer & Kevin McCoy[edit]

Contested PROD. {{prod}} removed by SPA without comment, though he did add a few lines to the article; however, the lines don't meet WP:V. Basically, these are two nn artists; article lists a lot of artwork they've made, but provides no evidence that they've achieved any particular notability outside of "interactive media" social circles. Aaron 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: From the article: Articles about their work have appeared in Art in America, Artnews, Artforum, The Wire, dArt International, Spin Magazine, Feed, and The Independent. They won a Wired Magazine Rave Award, in the Art Category for 2005. Their work is held in collections including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, MoMA, and MUDAM. A quick search of the Met site reveals this. That seems a little big larger than '"interactive media" social circles'. Put a tag in the article to get solid, reliable, references in there. Putting it up for deletion is wrong step at this point. *Sparkhead 18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing "claims" with "sources" there with your quote from the article. --Calton | Talk 02:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I included the claims and sourced one of them (the Met), stating the remainder could probably be sourced and the time should be given to the article to expand sources (once a references tag is placed within it). *Sparkhead 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Mukadderat 17:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep I forgot to log in before I did it but I've added references to the purchases by MoMA and MUDAM, and I think it's fairly safe to say that any 'interactive artists' who have sold work to the Met, MUDAM and MoMA should be considered quite notable indeed. Also I'm not an SPA, I've written one other entry as well. That makes me at least DPA. Also, actor Bill Paxton wants this article to stay too. Thousandsofcolors 18:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep I created the page because these guys are awesome artists. Now that smart, hard-working folks have gone through and actually backed this up with research, it's unassailable. - JustinHall 23:53, 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. —Cryptic 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piggy bankrupt[edit]

Suspicious article and a web search for "Piggy Bankrupt" turned up zero hits. Appears to be self-promotion of a non-notable subject. Delete unless good verification available to establish notability. Dugwiki 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy Delete (A7) Conflict of interest and spam.--Hús ö nd 16:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a self promoting article. Piggy bankrupt when typed into Google brings up the blog as the first result. In the UK Mark Davis is well known and has spoken about his personal bankruptcy a number of times in the press. I feel that having a wiki page can provide background information on him that may not be available on the blog or on other web pages. (posted by 2006 Bill4793611 (Talk | contribs) 16:32, 24 October )
- Assuming for the moment you're correct about his fame in the UK, it still needs to be established in the article using independent, verifiable sources. Anybody can create their own blog and claim to be famous. The hard part is actually being famous enough that you are talked about in a major, reliable, independent publication. If the article can be expanded to provide such references, it will go a long way toward verifying notability preventing a possible deletion. Dugwiki 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Esperanza and Dugwiki. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable blog about a non-notable person. Montco 22:41, 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 withdrawn on good faith that editors claiming that this is one of the most famous mods will actually add some of these sources they possess to the article. Wickethewok 13:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Selection (computer game)[edit]

Almost all of the article is a game guide. There may have been some articles written about it at some point, but a short review or two is hardly enough for this full-blown piece of original research that keeps expanding and expanding without any sourcing. Borderline notability at best. Delete as an original research game guide. Wickethewok 16:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if independent sources added The article might need to be trimmed or cleaned up, but that's not a reason to delete. Also, a quick search for "Natural Selection" produced many hits, so it's quite possible this is a notable product with a decent size fan base. I suggest an editor with some knowledge of Half-Life mods take a closer look to verify whether or not this is a notable mod expansion, and also check for independent articles or reviews of it from reliable gaming sources. There were a lot of hits, so I wouldn't immediately rule out there being such a source. If no sources are found, though, then delete and only recreate when the information can be independently established. Dugwiki 16:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep! Natural Selection is the most played (from valve independence) modification of the game Half-Life link! There is no reason that this article has to be deleted! -- Sensenmann 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of notability, as Sensenmann says. Needs a little work, and I understand the possible original research concerns, but the information is accurate and notable. Endersdouble 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone here please show some of these sources? Wickethewok 17:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think http://steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html this was what he meant. I can't check it yet, but I know it's good for information (and Natural Selection is possibly the most famous mod after DOD and CS for Half Life.) The Kinslayer 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-known mod, but needs better sources and significant cleanup of game-guide content. --Alan Au 03:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Oh, and btw, AfD is not a clean up tool. Havok (T/C/c) 06:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the information is verifiable through the official site, which is due to go public soon.ChimpZealot 09:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Highly notable game mod. Merely needs some clean-up tags, not an AfD. The Kinslayer 09:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's interesting to compare the content about NS to the content about, say, Half-Life 2. After all, there is a whole separate wiki page dedicated to a List of weapons in Half-Life 2. You see the same pattern if you look at other games (Unreal Tournament has a list of weapons, Doom 3 has a list of levels, etc.). In other words, compared to other game articles on Wikipedia, this one does not stand out as being particularly bad. Bytecrafter 12:46, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTF Apollo[edit]

Wikipedia doesn't need an article for every ship in Freespace. That would be excessively indiscriminant information. Wikipedia is also not a game guide and still an encyclopedia. Fails WP:V as no independent reliable sources have written on the subject. Also listing...

GTF Apollo
GTF Ares
GTF Erinyes
GTF Hercules
GTF Hercules Mark II
GTF Loki
GTF Myrmidon
GTF Pegasus
GTF Perseus
GTF Ulysses
GTF Valkyrie
GTB Artemis
GTB Artemis D.H.
GTB Athena
GTB Boanerges
GTB Medusa
GTB Ursa
GTB Zeus
GTC Aeolus
GTCv Deimos
GTC Fenris
GTD Hecate
GTD Orion
GTD Hades
GTVA Colossus
GTS Centaur
Knossos
NTF Iceni
PVF Anubis
GVF Serapis
GVB Sekhmet
GVD Hatshepsut
GVD Typhon
GVT Isis
GVFr Satis
SF Dragon
SF Mara
SB Nephilim
SB Seraphim
SC Cain
SC Lilith
SCv Moloch
SD Demon
SD Ravana
SD Lucifer
SJ Sathanas
ST Azrael
SSG Rahu

Delete as unencyclopedic. Wickethewok 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All to one article Freespace ships or some such. FrozenPurpleCube 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's already List of ships in the FreeSpace universe, but I don't think we really want to see the biggest article in the world filled with indiscriminant information, dozens of claimed fair use images, and original research. Just because information is merged, doesn't mean it doesn't have to meet WP:V/WP:RS. Wickethewok 16:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a computer game, in a notable series, from a notable publisher. If somebody wants to source the information, the official game guide exists, as well as the game itself (which is a suitable source for simply factual matters from a game, book, or other such work, IMHO) so it's not a real problem for this article, or for any of the other computer game articles. Now that said, I agree that it seems like there are far too many articles on Freespace ships, and perhaps too much detail, but that's a cleanup problem, not an immediate deletion issue. Like I said, I prefer to merge as much as possible, though to where is an open question. Maybe it could even all be transwikied to the Freespace wiki at [39] FrozenPurpleCube 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships in the FreeSpace universe should be deleted as well. See examples of other similar AFDs for reason below. —Mitaphane _talk 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, WP:NOT a game guide, plus unsourced etc. Sandstein 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a merge to the main Freespace article ala the Wing Commander series? FrozenPurpleCube 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? To bloat it with unsourced unencyclopedic content? No. Sandstein 05:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki if some editor want to keep it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2 for reasons not to keep this article. —Mitaphane _talk 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Mitaphane. --Aaron 21:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few fictional properties need an article for every vehicle. I've never played these games, but I'd guess that with two games and this many ships, most of them must have had a pretty small part. This aint exactly the Enterprise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there is precedent for articles about fictional spacecraft, I don't think that the GTF Apollo has reached a comparable level of cultural recognition as, say, the X-wing or the Arwing. --Alan Au 03:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poster child of indiscriminate info, a walled garden as who other than a Freespace fan is going to look this up? The Kinslayer 09:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mukadderat 17:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft of a bunch of things that don't exist. Carlossuarez46 20:33, 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. —Cryptic 19:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Weisfelner[edit]

Asserts notability in television, but very meager IMDB bio. NawlinWiki 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not even close. Bejnar 04:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable Mukadderat 17:45, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tennis players who appeared on the David Letterman Show in 1995[edit]

Delete this non-notable list, only claim to notablity is due to an article on Meta, which is a self reference. Prod removed, so moving to AfD. Transfinite 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to violate WP:POINT. NawlinWiki 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Borderline nonsense. Really tempted to speedy. Creator is certainly violating WP:POINT. Wickethewok 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insanely over-specific. A person should try to see if a generalized List of tennis players who appeared on the David Letterman Show would work before dividing by year. (And I don't think it would even though I like lists)--T. Anthony 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. shotwell 18:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This one is just silly. 23skidoo 18:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I really hope that the creation of this list is an excercise in WP:POINT, not a genuine attempt at useful encyclopedic article. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to violate WP:POINT. Hello32020 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uhhh. Danny Lilithborne 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:DAFT. Grutness...wha? 22:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obscure, obscure, obscure... EVula 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an attept to make inclusionists look dumb, and reeks of WP:POINT. For what it's worth, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Meta article that it claims it's mentioned in. Delete either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that my opinion is needed here (I think the outcome is obvious), but this is f***ing idiotic. Delete. -- Kicking222 02:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strike this vacuous frivolity. Sm1969 11:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two entries don't make it a list. --- User:Docu

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 19:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Sobel[edit]

Delete. No indication of passing WP:BIO. Fails criteria for actors listed there. Also fails the general test "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" following a Lexis-Nexis search with zero results. 87 unique ghits, by the way. {{prod}} removed by anon. Pan Dan 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pan Dan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pan Dan. Mukadderat 17:45, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aikakone[edit]

People keep proposing this for speedy deletion or deletion. This has been done enough tiems already to warrant a proper deletion discussion. The band has had 5 releases over 11 years, which is sufficient evidence of notability not only to me, but to other users as well. Even though I am not personally a fan of this band, I have heard of it in many places in Finnish media. The original Finnish article has much more information. Keep. JIP | Talk 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stub article with no assertion or evidence of notability. It sounds as if a decent article could be written by someone translating from the Finnish, but this is not it. 5 releases, but on what labels, and what sort of sales? This article has been on wikipedia for a year, and still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep and expand. Monni 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as above. The band has sold triple platinum (debut album), double platinum (2nd), platinum (3rd) and gold (4th) in Finland, and was possibly the most popular pop band in Finland in the mid-1990's. I've added the record sales to the article also. Prolog 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE 5 releases over 11 years..ok, ANYONE can release an album...are we talking about any recognition on a "top hits" chart (like a billboard charts) 4.18GB 03:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They were notable on a top hits chart - in Finland. Billboard only charts American bands. Charlene 21:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user's point was not the billboard specifically, but any Finish equivalent. At the moment, no source exists to prove this. --Robdurbar 11:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. While I'm no fan of the band myself (like JIP), there is no reason to delete this band who has made it into the Finnish charts time and time again. If you would like the Finnish article translated, please post it under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation_into_English#Finnish-to-English and we will get around to it when we have time as there only seems to be two of us translating these articles. -Yupik 07:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Easyas12c 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable band in Finland, numerous top ten hits and top ten albums. Needs better sourcing, not deletion. --Charlene 21:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:MUSIC to me. - Lex 09:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep, so long as the above assertions of charted hits can be sourced and proved --Robdurbar 11:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the current link provided mentions nothing about charted hits or the claimed sales levels. Robdurbar 11:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference that shows the exact record sales for the first three albums. [40] Prolog 14:44, 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. —Cryptic 19:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic architects[edit]

WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information (or a list of lists). This is an "article" about notable people who were architects (to some degree) and Masons, but these people already have bio articles where this information rightfully belongs. The talk page for the article also implies that the author is looking for help with research in this area rather than knowing about the topic, and I don't think WP is meant to be a collaborative research group that one person can then take credit for. MSJapan 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:NOT. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Hello32020 19:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mukadderat 17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst I would take issue with MSJapan's comment that 'the author is looking for help with research', infact I was looking for other contributors to edit and if neccessary completely rewrite the article, I do agree that the article does not fullfill the criteria of a standard entry and it could perhaps molre properly be included within the main entry on Freemasonry. My main reason for writing the article is that there is very little information on Freemasonic architects on the web that is both objective and verifiable, and I do think the subject matter warrants an article or sub-entry at least.bamboodragon 18:16, 29 October 2006
Delete It's listcruft, but it could always be transwiki'd using Special:Export to another wiki (if someone wants to set up their own wiki on Wikia that could be a place for this!) SunStar Net 19:21, 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 no consensus, leaning towards keep. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eben Donges High School[edit]

Besides the article having almost no content, this school is not notable. See also guidelines on schools notable enough for separate articles: Wikipedia:Schools Deon Steyn 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No evidence that it meets WP:SCHOOL. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Normally I wouldn't say this, but WP:SCHOOL is a proposed guideline that hasn't gathered consensus. There's still quite a few people who think all schools above elementary grade are inherently notable (I'm not sure why, but they do). I'm perfectly happy to have this deleted on verifiability grounds, but not on a proposed guideline that's in contention. ColourBurst 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:SCHOOL also specifies that schools that don't meet its guidelines should be merged, not deleted, unless they appear to be unverifiable (which this one may or may not be, haven't really looked at it yet). JYolkowski // talk 22:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kraaifontein; the information in the article appears to be verifiable but it appears unlikely that the article will expand anytime soon. Also, Kraaifontein desperately needs content of some sort. JYolkowski // talk 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The school is notable; the article is a stub. It needs to be expanded, not deleted. — RJH (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notable how? JoshuaZ 04:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, failing that merge. It's always nice to see my articles show up on AFD, LOL. Anyway this article improves our pitifully inadequate coverage of schools in Africa, if not much. See also wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 04:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what my opinion should be in this case. The school makes no claim of notability nor is it clear that it even meets WP:V- at minimum it will be very difficult to find reliable sources. I have some concerns about deleting this reinforcing problems of systemic bias. However concerns about systemic bias cannot overide WP:V. JoshuaZ 04:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A district school board/education department directory listing is a reliable source, even if it doesn't say much about the school. Merge into the appropriate region's article. ColourBurst 16:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a List of High Schools in South Africa that include this and other schools, but most with separate pages are just stubs and definitely not notable, I simply chose this one to start the delete process with (keep list, delete separate stub articles). --Deon Steyn 06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not how the "delete process" works. Kappa 06:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tried to follow these procedures: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion, apologizes if this was incorrect or were you referring to some other aspect of the nomination? Any help will be appreciated. --Deon Steyn 07:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you want to talk about this school somewhere else, it's a WP:MERGE and deletion is not involved at all. Kappa 08:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh yes, I understand what you mean. No, once it is delete I would remove it from that list too. --Deon Steyn 09:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school, notwithstanding the bald assertions of notability above. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Pardon me, but isn't that every bit as bald an assertion of non-notability? -- Necrothesp 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No. notability is something which by default entities lack in so far as the vast majority of things in the universe are not notable, the presumption is non-notability. Thus, for any claim of notability the burden of proof is on the one claiming it is notable. JoshuaZ 02:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nothing in the article resembling an assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. Article does not say much. Vegaswikian 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the appropriate locality per WP:SCHOOLS, WP:BIAS, WP:LOCAL, et cetera. Silensor 06:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor. - Lex 09:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not asserted. Secondary school, ergo not notable. AKAF 16:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To clarify from discussion swith Akaf, Akaf means that secondary schools are not inherently notable. JoshuaZ 16:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets all content policies. Merging such articles pending expansion is of course fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets all of Wikipedia's content policies. WP:SCHOOLS is an irrelevance because a) It has not achieved consensus support and b) It is a guideline, not part of the deletion criteria. Cynical 21:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the school has 851 students and is thus notable. Article just need some expansion. bbx 00:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cynical. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Nothing gives the school any notability. Nothing about this school makes it any more special or notable than a run of the mill school. It has no athletic teams of note, no alumni of note, nor anything else that might make it notable. Furthermore, the lack of sources makes it meet the most basic notability criteria of having multipe non-trivial sources. Indeed, the lack of sources makes there be a WP:V problem as well, and WP:V. JoshuaZ 22:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It helps to only "vote" once. I struggle to understand your interpretation of WP:V. Kappa 02:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing that out. I must have forgotten I had already given my opinion above in that regard. As to the WP:V concern the issue is simple, with a single source we can't do much of anything that meets WP:V, all we really have is existence and not much else. JoshuaZ 02:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I'll abandon my attempt to understand that interpretation. Kappa 06:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kappa, you do see how we only have directory type information, location, number of students, etc? That doesn't make an encyclopedia entry. JoshuaZ 06:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Your interpretation of WP:V is getting increasingly bizarre. Kappa 06:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok. I'll be as explicit as I can(it is possible that I'm simply not explaining things well since I'm running under little sleep): If we stay subject to WP:V we will have only a very tiny set of details that consistute nothing more than a directory entry. Any attempt to expand will run afoul of WP:V. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, this is not an acceptable status. JoshuaZ 06:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article is acceptable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All it has is the name, location, and the number of students and teachers, plus a vague assertion that its facilities include indoor plumbing. Have you read the article? There's nothing even resembling an assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 07:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cynical. --Myles Long 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoshuaZ, no claim of notability, and what he have at the moment does not appear to be an article or a stub but a directory entry. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep a good article!! Audiobooks 20:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- May be a single-purpose account; user is 3 days old and half of his/her edits have been to post this message to school-related AFDs. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:41, 30 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 09:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Harvest[edit]

George Harvest seems not notable. Thegn 12:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being an eccentric vicar who drank a bit (or even a lot) does not meet WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is pleasing that a drunk can be remembered fondly more than 250 years later, but I agree with BrownHairedGirl that he lacks notability. Bejnar 04:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Jarvis[edit]

Not notable. History doesn't even record his year of birth or death. Thegn 12:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article makes little assertion of notability. Being related to someone who married a titled gentleman is not enough to pass WP:BIO. Caknuck 21:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This George Javis does seem unnotable. But I seem to remember a Victorian painter by the name of George Jarvis, a hundred years or so later. George Wallace Jarvis Bejnar 04:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bridges[edit]

Not notable. A figure of unknown birth or death, of local history interest only. Thegn 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del absolutely nonnotable. Mukadderat 17:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. -- Satori Son 01:40, 31 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:CSD G7. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jose de la Cruz Franchez[edit]

The page Jose de la Cruz Franchez should be deleted, I created it by mistake with a misspelling in the article title, sorry. BruceHallman 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Bruce, if this happens again in the future, you can tag the article with {{db-author}}. I went ahead and did just that. -- Kicking222 17:44, 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 keep. --Ezeu 00:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Henry FitzGerald[edit]

Not notable. Interesting (slightly) only by marriage to Baroness de Ros. Thegn 12:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutelky noonotable Mukadderat 17:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable both by birth and by marriage. Proteus (Talk) 08:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. After checking Leigh Rayment's database, I find he was Member of Parliament for Kildare, hence automatically notable per our criteria. Choess 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notable. Room for expansion. - Kittybrewster 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep based on Choess's reason Alci12 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Choess and Proteus. He is also notable as brother of Lord Edward FitzGerald. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Rosenberg[edit]

I don't see the relevance of this article. The guy writes newspaper columns...but is that really worth a Wikipedia entry? If it is decided that this entry has value, it at least needs to be wikified, and the sources cited. Trjumpet 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he does not seem to be the primary subject of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. Pan Dan 15:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Mukadderat 17:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable based on lack of coverage by multiple, third-party, reliable sources; see WP:BIO and WP:V. -- Satori Son 04:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily kept ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policide[edit]

Extremely POV article on the Arab Israeli conflict that is beyond repair Count Iblis 12:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I'm now satisfied that the article can be maintained in a NPOV state. User:TheronJ has done a great job rewriting the article. I trust that this article will continue to be improved by editors like User:TheronJ and others who are interested in this topic and who don't have an agenda in the Israeli-Arab conflict or some other POV motive. Count Iblis 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Seems like a WP:POV nomination without any reasoning. The article is well sourced and very encyclopedic. Speedy keep. Amoruso 12:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is the Urban dictionary a reliable source? The other sources you quote don't support the content of the article at all. The article gives a very narrow view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I won't call such articles pro-Israel, because these sort of extremist/paranoid viewes are hurt Israel too. Count Iblis 12:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since always, policide is a generally used word [41] common and encyclopedic. It has nothing do with paranoia and in fact doesn't focus only on the Israeli Arab conflict, and there are other examples and historic ones which can be expanded. It's a scientific definition. The comments all support what policide is - destruction of a state - all very explicit and WP:RS, WP:V + WP:CITE. You seem to have no wikipedia argument here. I would have liked to assume WP:AGF but it seems Count Iblis has went around to recruit notorious WP:POV pushers [42] [43] to try to censor this well sourced article. Amoruso 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does the article only mention an alledged intention to destroy the state of Israel and not the many cases where this has actually happened? I'm sorry, but if I write a new article on the Atomic bomb and only write about Iran's (alledged) intentions to use it against Israel (e.g. "An Atomic Bomb is a powerful weaopn under consrtruction in Iran with the purpose of wiping Israel off the map...")then that article should be promptly deleted. The fact that there exists such a thing as an atomic bomb and that it is encyclopedic etc. is then not relevant. Count Iblis 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "alleged" about this intention as the WP:RS show. The destruction of Israel is of course the classic modern example of intended policide - note that this policide might be justified per other arguments, this is not a POV statement but a factual one. Article was just created and other examples can be added. Amoruso 13:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Israel hasn't been destroyed. Tibet, perhaps has been destroyed. If this article were made NPOV, then the Arab-Israeli conflict would become a mere footnote. You'll get an article that you didn't intend create. Articles should be on specific topics, not as tools to be used to promote propaganda on other articles as you did on the Hezbollah and Hamas pages. Count Iblis 13:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amoruso. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs to be expanded, but not necessarily unencyclopædic Avi 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Per Wikipedia's guidelines on neologisms, articles about neologisms must be able to show, at a minimum, that (1) reliable secondary sources discuss the usage of the term, rather than simply using the term, and (2) that use of the term is sufficiently wide-spread as to render it notable. Google books shows 29 published books using or discussing the term,[44], almost all of which are the use currently discussed by the page, and google scholar show 39 hits,[45], about 2/3 of which refer to the term in an engineering context, and 1/3 are the polysci. Give me an hour or so, and I'm confident I can edit the current article to meet WP:NEO. Thanks, TheronJ 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've substantially rewritten the page, and encourage people to take a look at the current version before voting. It's not a great article yet, but I think I've established notability and added verifiable sources. Thanks, TheronJ 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are many instances were governments attack other governments to undermine their functioning. It is clear that this has been done by both sides in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I think the article will be valuable. --Ben 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Seems like a pure POV nomination with little attempt at good faith editing. Now that another editor has stepped in to make such edits, even the nominator agrees this can be NPOV - he should change his vote above or try to withdraw this from AfD.--csloat 17:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not the nomination but the creation of the article was POV. The VFD was necessary to solve the problem, as I've explained on TheronJ's talk page. Also, note that I didn't vote, I only nominated the article for VFD. Count Iblis 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has now been expanded to include other usage and even more sourcing. Any of the problems that might have existed at the opening of this AfD have since been dealt with (which the nominator has acknowledged). Tewfik^Talk 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All problems seem to have been addressed. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article remains primarily an attempt to apply the term to the Israeli-Plastinian conflict. I would support a keep if the focus was on the concept rather than the application, or if the application examples were balanced, but this still reads as a POV article. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove all the POV whenever found. As per BHGirl, the article should cover everything. -- Szvest 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Benjamin Netanyahu has used the term to refer to arab attempts to destroy the state of israel (cnn transcprit), the article is not "unbalanced" simply because there aren't any arabs using the same term. Jon513 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't there be two different articles here, one about the poly sci term and one about the engineering term? --Aaron 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I would recommend not splitting them, because (1) per wikipedia's length guidelines the combined article isn't very long; (2) frankly, unless there is better sourcing, the engineering term isn't sufficiently sourced to survive an AFD vote on its own, because I couldn't find a reliable source identifying when and how the engineering term was coined; but (3) I think the existence of the engineering use is relevant and relatively notable within the context of an article about the poli sci use; and anyway (4) the paragraph about the engineering use doesn't make the article distracting or confusing, and it adds some verifiable and encyclopedic information. If future editors expand one or both sections to the point where the article gets too long, however, that would be a good place to split. TheronJ 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit if some feel langauge is POV Elizmr 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its good. --Shamir1 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Count Iblis has proposed this article for deletion due to POV issues. According to Wikipedia policy WP:DEL this is NOT an appropriate reason for proposing deletion. The policy states:

"Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept". I am assuming that the Count did not read the policy fully before posting the article for deletion, but would request that he do so in the future and avoid frivilous and politically motivated requests.Elizmr 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. There is nothing political about this AFD. The article in its original version was so nonsensical that it should have been speedily deleted. I did mention POV issues but actually the core of the problem was something else. As I mentioned above, the problem was related to POV issues on other articles about the Mid East.

It's like someone starting an article on an in principle legitimate topic like the Atomic bomb for the sole purpose of making propaganda by writing that "an atomic bomb is an extremely power full weapon that the Arabs want develop in order to wipe Israel off the map". Putting such articles on AFD is not an abuse of wiki policies at all. Such articles are sort of "POV Forks" that according to wiki policies can be speedily deleted. In this case the situation was more complicated because the the topic itself in in principle legitimate but it was used as a POV FORK nontheless.

Anyway this AFD nomination has led to the problem to be rectified. So, it was the right thing to do. Count Iblis 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count, please refer to Wikipedia policy WP:DEL. It says specifically that AFD should not be used for NPOV disputes. I'm not making this stuff up. Elizmr 00:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know but this wasn't a mere POV case as I explained in detailhere Count Iblis 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: POV (while needs to be fixed) is not a valid reason for deletion, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:16, 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 - whilst the web is a real poor source of 13th references the article itself does not assert notabilty except for a few trivial happenings.

Ralphe de Imworth[edit]

Not notable. Of local history interest only. Thegn 12:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the events described in the article set some sort of notable precedent (and they might have, I can't tell), then subject may be notable. As it is, it seems like they didn't. 1 non-Wikipedia GHit, but that's not a good metric for 13th Century landowners. - Richfife 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Mukadderat 17:57, 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. Looking at the opinions of established editors, and looking at the points raised, there would appear to be a consensus to delete. No arguing it on my talk page please, WP:DRV is that way. kingboyk 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empires[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Non-notable game mod. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Doesn't seem to be written about by any reliable independent sources, at least, not in a non-trivial way. (Wow triple negative, go me!). Anyways, delete for lack of verifiability without OR. Wickethewok 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a notable mod for a very notable FPS. References appear to be legit for the subject at hand. Caknuck 18:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep! A very interessting Half-Life 2 mod with an innovative gameplay. The mod is very close to the release of version 1. And there is of course an active and growing community! I see no reason for a deletion. -- Sensenmann 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (vote changed, see below) unless there is sufficient evidence of notability, which there currently is not. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete I am returning to revise my vote from "Delete" to "strong delete" after being canvassed by Nuka5 (on my talk page: see 'Empires' Wiki, Which you have opted for deletion).
  Nuka5 says that "what we do not need now is for our Player Manual to be deleted" (which breaches WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, item 4). Nuka5 also says "we are still developing a fan base" (which possibly breaches WP:NOT a social networking site). I have checked the article again, and it seem clear to me that the article is structured like a manual, rather than as a guide to the game's significance and history.
  As pointed out elsewhere in this AFD, there are plenty of free wikis available if the gaming community wants to use a wiki to develop their manual, but wikipedia is not the place to do it.
  I think that this is a useful opportunity for us to stress to gamers that we do mean what we say in WP:NOT: if you try to use wikipedia as a repository for your manual, the article will be deleted. Good luck with the game development, folks, but wikipdia is the wrong place for it. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where does the article itself say anything with regard to "instructions or advice , suggestions, or[...] "how-to"s," barring those nescessary for the description of its subject? I would also like to point out, for the sake of some continuity in this discussion, nuka5's post near what is now the bottom of the page, where he retracts his statement. FalconXVI
Comment': A huge amount of material which belongs in a manual was removed a few hours after I wrote the above: see diff of edits by Mlittle 22:49, 26 October 2006, and the artucle is now much further from being a manual. However, it still contains neither an assertion of notability not evidence of notability, and we have repeated statements here from the game's fans that the purpose of the wikiedia entry on the game is to attract more users. I believe them. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless if it was created to "attract more users", that's not the point now. The article is on Wikipedia, and could use a cleanup, but all in all it breaches no policy. And what little it does breach can be easily cleaned up with the use of different cleanup tags like {{cleanup}}, {{fact}} etc. Havok (T/C/c) 08:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I see no evidence this is a notable mod for Half-Life. It won "mod of the week", but that isn't much in the way of notability in my opinion.--Isotope23 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there aren't any reliable sources in the article, and the article is mostly game-guide material (types of units avialable, cost to build each, etc.) anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please review the edited article for added sources. --Chahk42 18:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a NN game mode. 20:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable game mod. Actually, might be better to just redirect to Empire. --Alan Au 03:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was featured in PC Zone a few months ago, I'll try and dig out a reference for it later today. The Kinslayer 09:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Following the canvassing of votes off-site, the sock-puppetry, the harassment of people who have already made their decision and the comments made by people who have come from the Empires forum just to say 'Keep' here, I have also revised my decision to a strong delete. Wiki is not google, Wiki is not a game guide, wiki is not a directory, wiki is not indiscriminate information, in addition to the numerous reasons given by Brownhairedgirl. Blame yourselves Empire players, you and your conduct brought this turn-around on yourselves through your thoughtless actions. The Kinslayer 15:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please remind yourself Kinslayer, that this is a discussion about the notability of the Empires article, not a discussion on the conduct of Empires players. Your comment "Blame yourselves Empire players, you and your conduct brought this turn-around on yourselves through your thoughtless actions." reflects poorly, I feel, on your ability to focus on the actual discussion. When you judge an article, do not judge it based on the actions of any antagonists you come acrossm judge it on the contents.MLittle 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)MLittle[reply]

Comment Appears to hold some sort of grudge against the game and it's fanbase as noted by his preference of deletion of article instead of improving and as can be derived from where one, The Kinslayer, irrelevantly states: "Blame yourselves Empire players, you and your conduct brought this turn-around on yourselves through your thoughtless actions."Deepowered

Reply - Not true at all. The more of the people who comment on this AfD, the more you make it look like it's been created for advertising, garnering more fans (social networking) and as a game guide (WP:NOT). So by thoughtless I mean 'Due to your inability to actually understand any of Wikis policies, you are digging the article an even bigger hole to climb out of.' Next. The Kinslayer 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has been featured in the german magazine PC Action (June issue), receiving their "Super Mod" award. It was featured in GameStar magazine (issue No. 07/06) and was placed on their cover disc. It has received two "Mod of the Week" awards from Planethalflife.com, once in March and the other in July. It is an entrant in the Independent Gaming Festival's 2007 Modding Competition with a good possibility of winning. Last year's winner was Dystopia, another Half-Life 2 that was nominated for deletion several times and successfully retained its right to exist. Krenzo 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above is the only contribution by Krenzo. The Kinslayer 15:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're incorrent. What are you basing this on? Look at this article's history and discussion page. I've contributed to this article. Krenzo 17:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thank you for proving my point. The Kinslayer 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning undeclared COI in a comment below at 01:06, 30 October 2006, Krenzo also acknowledges being a developer of the game. It appears that Krenzo has anonymously edited an article in which he/she has a clear conflict of interest, and has also cast a vote here without declaring that COI. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some sort of witchhunt? The information provided by Krenzo is all verifiable from different sources and does not make the subject seem better then it is and his points made here are still valid. First you accuse him as being a sock/meatpuppet by claiming he did not contribute and now he's being hanged for doing so? You just swing everything your way as you like it. L3TUC3 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "Undeclared COI" is not important in this discussion. The only possibly relevant parts of COI are that "If you write in [an article] about yourself [et al.] you have no right to delete or control its contents:" Krenzo is not trying to control or delete the article's contents, and that when writing about oneself et al. one might overestimate their notability- again irrelevant because third party references had been provided. FalconXVI 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's a remarkably narrow reading of COI. There is no witch-hunt here: I am just pointing out that when some admin comes to close this AFD, they may wish to consider how to weight the input of someone who has only just registered on wikipedia, and who also has a vested interest in the article, a vested interest which was not declares upfront. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Regardless of how narrow the interpretation is, krenzo's argument is valid whether or not there is a conflict of interest. We must assume that the person who does close the AFD is going to judge the validity of the arguments within the context of wikipedia. Therefore character when posting the arguments should be irrelevant. FalconXVI 03:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: from WP:AFD: "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article". --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because krenzo is a god and he says so! Also I thought that wiki was a just a knowlage base that is intended to keep growing. There is no need to remove this artical it just need to have some differet stuff put into it. supaste 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above is the only contribution by supaste. The Kinslayer 15:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You thought wrong. Please look at WP:NOT (though I doubt you will.) The Kinslayer 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep THIS mod has a growing community, and as it is a more complicated mod, seriously requires a database whereby new players can learn how to play. Non Notable? http://www.steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html is evidence that it receives almost a million player minutes per month, and is more widely played than The Battle grounds and Half Life 2 Capture the flag. At highest, I have seen this mod generate almost 2 million player minutes. but this is a growing mod, and to introduce new players to it, they require an accessable source of information. without this, the mod, the community, the several clans, and the hours and hours of hard work will die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuka5 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: This vote is the first of only two contributions by Nuka5, whose only other contribution has been to canvass me to change my vote because "what we do not need now is for our Player Manual to be deleted" an (which breaches WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, item 4 -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although somewhat lacking in information relating to the actual gameplay of this mod, the point of a wiki is for anyone to edit and add to the article so that the relevant information is displayed. To delete this article instead of improving it is nothing short of a failure of the wiki system. As far as notability goes, I can only add to krenzo's entry that it has also been mentioned in a few weekly steam news updates. - Deepowered
Comment The above is the only contribution by Deepowered. The Kinslayer 15:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a great mod and I look forward to trying it out. However, the encyclopedia is not the place to develop the user guide. L0b0t 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a major player of this mod myself and this should be kept. The way it is now though should be chanced into a more fact and about the game. The current wiki layout is alright but still can be fixed. This should be kept though. My Empires name is Cyber(Gunners_Yeyz) JoseSkinner
Comment: the above vote is the only contribution by JoseSkinner. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definately worth keeping, the mod has a worldwide playerbase and is by far one of the best Half- Life 2 mods. It is currently entered into the Independent Gaming Festival's mod competition, hence i would regard it as a noteworthy mod. Jabbers_01
Comment - The above is the only contribution by Jabbers_01. The Kinslayer 15:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the only argument for deletion is the fact that this article contains user guide-type material, than you will want to delete these pages as well: Weapons_in_Half-Life_2 and List_of_Weapons_in_Halo_2. Although the article could use some heavy editting, I see no reason for deleting it alltogether. I'll echo others by saying this mod is innovative and "notable" in every meaning of this word. In terms of verifiability, please see their own Wiki --Chahk42 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Note: The above users only contributions have been (in chronological order) this AfD, the Empires article and their user page. The Kinslayer 15:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Note: The above user seems to be discriminating against new wikipedia users. --Chahk42 17:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, just discriminating against blatant votespamming. L0b0t 17:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought this wasn't a contest, but rather a discussion on the topic of validity of this article. Why then the user in question feels necessary to point out the "post counts"? Is this a new Wikipedia policy to disregard valid points from "red names" or folks with few contributions? --Chahk42 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No problem with low post counts. It's meatpuppets that are against the law. The Kinslayer 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Name-calling, disregarding the facts and avoiding direct answers. Did I miss anything? I still have not received a reply as to why pages such as Weapons_in_Half-Life_2 and List_of_Weapons_in_Halo_2 are allowed existance over the Empires article. --Chahk42 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Because I judge articles on their individual merits, not in comparison to another (equally dubious) article. And this article fails on more than just notibility, (Which we're still waiting on the evidence for). The Kinslayer 20:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Re: Apparently this is not true, since you have changed your mind about this article's notability solely based on actions of other users and not on the article's content or any other appropriate reason. Personal squabbles have no place on Wikipedia. --Chahk42 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's verifiability page states that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Conversely, if an article does reference reliable third party sources, Wikipedia may have an article on it. Even if the official website and the material that can be found through it do not meet the criteria for reliable third party sources (which, according to WP:RS, they do), the other references already mentioned here certainly do. Granted the article has its flaws, but that in and of itself is no cause for deletion. --FalconXVI
Comment - The above is the only contribution by FalconXVI. The Kinslayer 15:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Though I fear it might be lost amidst the rapid additions to this page, I would like to point out the obvious. As anyone can see from the large attention box at the top of this page, "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)." Forgive me for thinking that this applied to all, rather than simply those who regularly edit wikipedia.--FalconXVI

Keep Though the page could certainly use improvement, it is an important entry as it gives information about the game, and directs them to where they can get further information. Empires has a game guide already, and a wiki to support players who wish to learn more. This page does not need to be deleted, it needs to be refocused to explain what the game is, and it's roots. For this reason, and the game's recent accomplishments, deletion is the wrong policy. M Little 03:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) MLittle[reply]
Comment - The above is the only contribution by MLittle. The Kinslayer 15:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, there's a Wikipedia spam drive post on their forums. I won't bother linking to it, but thats the reason, of course, for the massive number of new users. Wickethewok 04:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply That should not be relevant; "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)." --FalconXVI

Keep - This mod, is very worthy of its spot. Not just because of the lack of entry, if its lacking, there are hundreds of people who could just edit this Wiki entry. But the game itself isnt what keeps me coming back, its the people who play. The developers are among the greatest, the back story is solid. This mod, even if its in infancy, deserves its place among. If this article is making you pee your pants, then you have no life and require a diaper. Cause you have no right to say this mod is so-called NN, cause you have never looked upon the Empires Community. No matter how big or little we are. We'll F*****g pwn your n00b asses on this mod.

Also wicket, dont mess with a well established community, even though you never fit into anything and must post articles for deletion, we stand for whats right of our beloved Mod. [[User:DeadReckoning|DeadReckoning]

Comment: the above vote is the only contribution by DeadReckoning. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously non-notable game, which has now been given a boost only through block voting and desparate pleas. This is not a notable game, it is not a notable service, it is not an encyclopedic article, and is violates WP:RS amongst others. doktorb _words^deeds 11:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Sock-puppeting and canvassed votes aside, this article still warrants keeping. It's ranked highly on Valves played games list, it's been featured in PC Zone and other magazines, (I'm pretty sure it was included on a PC Zone DVD too) and as long as we source this information, then the article should be wikiworthy. I don't have access to any scnas of the PC Zone article, but I can at least find the issue it was covered in (or try to find something in their online database. And FYI DeadReckoning, threatening (veiled or otherwise) another wiki user for disagreeing with you opinion really isn't going to help your case. The Kinslayer 11:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I have since changed my mind. The Kinslayer 15:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep - A usefull introduction and guide to a still growing mod. Planet Halflife thinks this mod is noteable, so does Halflife2.net and many other Halflife2 related websites. How can a mod that has over 3 years of development, very strong gameplay, regular bug fixes and a growing community not deserve one page on Wikipedia about itself? Incomplete, maybe, but definitly worthy of its own page. Dizzyone99 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the above vote is the only contribution by Dizzyone99. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can always tell the people who have been canvassed into voting from off-wiki. They never know how to argue successfully. It's not enough to just say that. If you want to actually help save the article (due to this NOT being a vote, as stated at the top), then how about providing a few links to news sotries or awards so people can put them in the article and address the reasons it was nominated. How can a mod that has over 3 years of development, very strong gameplay, regular bug fixes and a growing community not deserve one page on Wikipedia about itself? Incomplete, maybe, but definitly worthy of its own page. - None of this, unfortunatly, is considered a valid arguement for allowing an article to continue. We need news articles, awards, official Valave rankings, on and offline sources, not people saying 'But it's popular, and a lot of time has been spent on this mod,' The Kinslayer 14:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that all the red-linked usernames above appear to have made no contributions to wiki other than to 'vote' in this discussion. The Kinslayer 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not according to this: "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)." FalconXVI
Delete or at the very least stubify because Wikipedia is not a game guide. GRBerry 15:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GRBerry - and may I speculate that all the one-contribution-voters have the same origin: writing style, expression and text are too strongly alike anyway. Phoe 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another comment - Further proof of the lack of notability is the 'verifiable download counts' which when combined is 52,400 downloads. That is truly poor. The Kinslayer 15:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what is your measure of greatness? That number is only counting the first version. There have been seven releases thus far and many more mirrors host the file for download. Krenzo 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - EXCUSE ME? this is vague speculation, and for PROOF that these people are individual then please visit the Empires Mod Forums. http://forums.empiresmod.com/. you will notice that all of these new posting people are seperate members of this forum. we are here to have a debate, you are not trying to "win", to delete the page. we are trying to come to an agreement on the best course of action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. you're job here is not to discredit the sources of this information. SIMILARLY, you should not base any judgement whatsoever on the newness of the people, they all have valid views. Rich and poor, black and white, young (16 +) and old can all VOTE in a general election. even as an admin, you have no more valid a view than any of these new posting people.
  - Reply The Kinslayer, please review the editted "Verifiable download counts" section. The up-to-date count is well over 126,000 downloads. I will update this section as I find more online file repositories hosting Empires installation files. --Chahk42 18:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT, notability etc. Thanks/wangi 16:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per nom, GRBerry and Kinslayer.--WilliamThweatt 16:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verifiable international on and offline media coverage (Computer Games Magazine June 2006, Issue 187, page 86 section 2 seems to be missing). Independant Games Festival Mod competition 2007 entrant http://www.igf.com/php-bin/entries2007_mod.php. Reason for deletion aren't unfounded at first glance, but pass WP:RS, WP:V and notability after research. Vote for WP:CU and WP:RFE for the missing articles. L3TUC3 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to nitpick btw, but it looks like a very brief couple sentences and a link. Contest entrant really isn't a big deal either (I assume many mods enter). Wickethewok 16:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exposure and review by industry professionals counts towards notability. That the site does not go into detail is irrelevant. L3TUC3 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added the sources to the article that I can verify. I have scans of the sources cited. It'd be against copyright, however, to post images within the article. If you want to see the proof: [46] and [47]. According to Uncle G's guidelines for notability: "The primary criterion for notability is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject, which applies to all classes of subjects." These two sources meet this requirement. This nomination for deletion was not about whether the article is a game guide. It was solely based around the "notability" of the subject. If other things about the article need correcting, then the polite way of bringing this to attention is to mention this on the discussion pages. According to Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, "Before nominating an article for AFD, please: ... first invite discussion on the talk page if you are at all unsure as to the article's worth. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable!" As you can see, Wickethewok nor anyone else has proposed any problems this article needs to correct in the discussion page before it was nominated for deletion. As for questions about my credibility, if you checked the discussion or history of this article, I've contributed to it before and did not create a new account solely to post here. Are you basing my credibility solely on whether I've created my own user page yet? The Independent Gaming Festival had 35 total mod entries for 2007. Krenzo 16:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, but unfortunatly the article still fails on just about every WP:NOT policy going. The Kinslayer 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Krenzo, thanks for the links. I have checked them out, but they only confirm my conclusion that this article is a "strong delete". First, they prove to my satisfaction tht the game does exist. Good, but I never doubted that.
    However, all we have is two links. One is a half-page story, and the other in German. Sorry, but that small a media footprint does not amount to notability in this field. The news-stands are stashed with mags on gaming, and there apears to be a lot of online coverage too: in that field, I would expect that a notable game would have at least dozens of articles, preferably hundreds or even thousands of readily-accessible coverage. The fact that we have had so much discussion in this AFD but only two references is, to my mind, rather overwhelming proof that whatever its intrinsic merits, 'Empires' is a long, long way from notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Please bear in mind that the subject is not a retail product (it's freely downloadable user created content as opposed to a $50 professional developed and published game) and a feature (be it half a page in a foreign magazine) is a very big thing. I feel the footprint should be regarded in proper scale. Reviews and features are fairly uncommon for mods save for the few niche sites that are available. L3TUC3 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know this won't be accepted, but i'd like to say that if the article is cleaned up (the article rewritten to a small description and a link to the Empires wiki added), that it should be a lot better than it is now. It's obvious that somebody wrote it without knowing much about the mod (the release date is listed as july 1, 2006, instead of march 3, 2006), and that this may even be vandalism. Just because this is my first edit also doesn't mean i'm a meatpuppet, i just want justice to be served properly. The link to the Empires wiki is http://www.empiresmod.info/

Solokiller 16:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinslayer, please be more specific. Krenzo 17:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the first post (made by Krenzo) taken from the Empires forum wikipedia thread in it's entirety: Our article on Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion. I'd like it if everyone could go over to the discussion area for the article (via the tab at the top of the article), and voice their opinion on whether it should remain or deleted. It is an important issue as we get a decent amount of traffic from people who discover the article. I think it speaks for itself (especially the last sentence.) The Kinslayer 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think you're right. People want more information about Empires, and they reasonably assume Wikipedia would have some sort of information on it. Krenzo asked people to voice their opinions, not blindly support the article, not indiscriminately flame. I do not see a problem with a Wikipedia article directing interested individuals to places where they can get more information. For the reason you pointed out, that much of the interest gets funneled through here, I can't help but agree that this article is a keep.MLittle 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)MLittle[reply]

Keep It doesn't matter weather its a game or not, wikipedia is a encyclopedia the wikipedia article on encyclopedia's actually states that "An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." All this is, is just a record of the history and a rundown of the game and how it works. Which in turn is a part of a particular branch of knowledge. I fail to see how it doesn't belong here. Wikipedia IS an enyclopedia yes but this is a useful article FOR a particular branch of knowledge, I don't know about you but gaming is a particular branch of knowledge last time I checked, or at least a sub branch under technology. Ta16 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote Nuka5 says that "what we do not need now is for our Player Manual to be deleted" (which breaches WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, item 4). Nuka5 also says "we are still developing a fan base" (which possibly breaches WP:NOT a social networking site). I have checked the article again, and it seem clear to me that the article is structured like a manual, rather than as a guide to the game's significance and history.
As pointed out elsewhere in this AFD, there are plenty of free wikis available if the gaming community wants to use a wiki to develop their manual, but wikipedia is not the place to do it. I think that this is a useful opportunity for us to stress to gamers that we do mean what we say in WP:NOT: if you try to use wikipedia as a repository for your manual, the article will be deleted. Good luck with the game development, folks, but wikipdia is the wrong place for it. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Brownhairedgirls says it best. The Kinslayer 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it seems there is a misunderstanding then. This isn't the manual and was never intended as (there is in fact a wiki manual out already as pointed out by Solokiller). The article we're discussing is however poorly written, poorly structured and too specific, but those aren't reasons for deletion. Hence my vote for WP:CU and WP:RFE. L3TUC3 21:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information on these pages CLEARLY is important to many people. why do people want to destroy this, when there are so many other subjects that matter little to people. I admit here that I WAS ENTIRELY WRONG. this is not a player manual. it is introducing people to the subject of Empires, giving a brief outline (perhaps it should include a "spoilers follow" tag). I am deeply sorry to have created this confusion. Please recall me saying "this is a player manual", because i was wrong.Nuka5 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is indeed a popular mod and lots of work has gone into making it. I don't understand the sudden wave of deleting game modification articles from Wikipedia on the basis of some nonsense bureocratic principles, which have nothing to do with the subject's popularity, necessity or the amount of people looking for it in Wikipedia. JJ45 22:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is a "nonsense bureocratic [sic] principles"? Well then... Wickethewok 23:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability and reliable sources are a foundation for objective articles, but not a proper reason for deletion if there hasn't been an attempt to improve the article first. In this case they are being used as a tool instead of a basis for deletion and clean-up. L3TUC3 18:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per. JJ45. Well said. Havok (T/C/c) 07:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Mod. It looks promising, but it's not there yet. The strident efforts of meatpuppets work against it, I fear. Using Wikipedia as a promotional tool is against the mission of the project. Wikipedia only deals with things that are already famous. When it wins "Mod of the Year" come back and see us. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because Empires isn't famous, doesn't means it shouldn't be listed here, otherwise our own user pages are non-notable. Solokiller 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. Our user pages are just that, user pages, they are not articles. Please confine your edits in this discussion to the matter at hand. Does this article meet the requirements spelled out in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? That should be the only topic of discussion here. L0b0t 18:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am noticing that, and this is not meant to belittle anyone, despite the large numbers of people claiming that the article does not meet WP:XY, there is very little solid argument that it does not. Claims in favor of the article mention references and other evidence as support. Claims against seem to be just that. Here is a characteristic response: "This is not a notable game, it is not a notable service, it is not an encyclopedic article, and is violates WP:RS amongst others." This is an acceptable claim, but the poster does not offer evidence in proof. If the question of the articles remaining on wikipedia is to be answered "on the merits of the arguments," then I feel that, despite the number of heads mentioning a certain claim, there is no solid argument behind them. The only solid argument used supporting its deletion, as far as I can tell, is in reference to mentions of the article as a game guide- which noone is claiming that it is- and the concerns of BrownHairedGirl on the subject's notability. --FalconXVI
Comment Please bear in mind that the burden of proof is on those who wish to keep the article. If you want to keep it, the onus is on you to provide evidence that the article satisfies the objections raised in the AfD. L0b0t 23:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Important information for discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-notability. here, it states that wikis need not be notable. I will not debate any longer which perspective of notable is correct. Nuka5 16:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: That article referenced by Nuka5 is a proposal which was rejected. The relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Notability and policies include WP:NOT. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just wondering, if you have only one contribution, your arguement is null? How is that fair? Like the above disclaimer says, this is a discussion about how we should handle this article. Not to try and discredit others. Also Keep, the article now has reliable sources, it definately isn't a players manual (if it were, we would've dumped our empires wiki XD), and non-notable? I think being on magazines is notable enough. Makiyu 08:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to mention that I have gone through the article... twice... in order to put strike throughs where I have been quoted as saying "Please do not delete our game guide". This is not because i did not say it, but because i believed at the time that this was to try and delete the Empires own wiki, and not just the Wikipedia Page on empires. I also included this note to try and clear that up: nuka5 has edited to cross out this quote as he realises that it was made entirely wrongly, about the Empires own Wiki, not the Empires Wiki Page.
Why twice? because someone... who i deeply suspect is an admin trying to win their arguement, went back and deleted the changes i had made, meaning that it looked again like i had meant the comment. Note to whoever so deleted my changes: i have saved this comment to my PC, and will reprint it if my changes get removed again without so much as a reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuka5 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 October 2006.
- Nuka5, whoever removed those changes did so correctly, and I have just removed your second attempt to edit other people's comments. Please do not edit other people's comments: where someone else has quoted you, that is their writing, not yours. and please remember to sign your own comments. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment I am still waiting for argument, and evidence, supporting the "delete" position. After having read through WP:NOT again, I am still hard pressed to see how the article violates anything there: The article is not a definition; it is neither origional research, nor opinion, nor discussion; it is neither propoganda, nor self-promotion, nor advertisement (or, at the least, no more so than is necessarily associated with presence on wikipedia); it is not a collection of links; it is neither a personal webpage, nor file storage area, nor dating service; it is not a directory; and it is not an FAQ, guide, or instruction manual. As for the other objection, notability is an inherently subjective requirement which I expect will be evaluated based on the references already mentioned, by whoever posesses the final say in this matter. --FalconXVI 17:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Falcon, since this discussion started, the article has been edited to make it less of an instruction manual, and to fix some of its other flaws. Howver, the lengthy discussion above contains lots of evidence of how this game modification is non-notable, and that is not a inherently subjective test: the game's fans can find only two mentions of it in the specialist press, only one of which is in English, and that one is rather short. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, how is this mod non-notable? It has been spoken of a lot over the internet, and noted a lot as well. Solokiller 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Solokiller, please read WP:NN, and then re-read the lengthy explanations above. "spoken of a lot over the internet" is not one of wikipedia's tests of notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Actually, it seems to be in certain cases. For example, the precedents page says that google is a reasonable test for discovering how widespread an programming language is. A google search seems, in this sense, to be an acceptable measure of how much something is "spoken of over the internet." FalconXVI 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply BrownHairedGirl, how about the WP:GOOGLE? Is that not an example of "spoken a lot of over the Internet" being a valid test of notability? A Google web search on "Empires Mod" brings up many forum posts on the subject, as does Google image search and (to a lesser extent) Google groups search. --Chahk42 15:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment And AGAIN I must remind the folks who want to keep this article, that the onus is on them to prove to us that it is notable outside of the specialized world of Half-Life mods. We do not have to prove that it does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia, rather, you have to prove to us that it does. L0b0t 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That doesn't even make any sense. You just suggested that nothing can be considered notable unless it is notable outside of the area in which it is notable. Carrying that argument to its logical conclusion suggests that nothing is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, because nothing is notable outside of where it is notable. FalconXVI 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've suggested nothing. Rather, I stated that the burden of proof is on those that would see the article kept. If this mod becomes notable outside of the modding community for your particular video game, then you might have a shot at an article. Do schools not teach sentence diagraming anymore? L0b0t 04:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "...prove to us that it is notable outside of the specialized world of Half-Life mods" you want proof from other fields. I don't know if you realize it, but Empires is a mod for Half-Life 2. By definition it exists in that world specifically, and in computer gaming in general. There are now 8 sources in the article supporting our claim, all of them being computer gaming-related magazines and sites. There is absolutely nothing in WP:NN suggesting that sources supporting notability must come from outside of the article's area of interest. Otherwise like FalconXVI said, no article would ever be included in Wikipedia since very few things are noticed outside of their area of influence. Please review the recently added footnotes. --Chahk42 04:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete present content at will and re-create into a redirect as the plural of Empire. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 04:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pardon my newbiness to Wikipedia administration, but is it possible to simply rename the article to "Empires (Computer Game)" to signify that it is a mod? --Chahk42 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Welcome and no pardon is needed for being new. The problem with this article is not the name but rather the content. This is an encyclopedia, not a game guide or a list of software mods. If this mod wins some major awards and gets some press outside of the mod community it might be worthy of inclusion but as it is, it fails for notability, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:RS. L0b0t 15:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Arguments based on WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOT have been refuted. If you wish, post some solid argument against the refutations. On those issues evidence has been provided, and the burden of proof is then on you to show that those arguments are invalid. Unless, of course, you are so sure of your position that it does not bear argument. As far as WP:NN, numerous references from outside of the Empires mod community have been posted. Are they outside of the Half Life 2 community in general, or the video game community in general? Possibly not but then, they don't need to be. If they did, then, as I already mentioned, nothing would be notable enough to be included, as it would not be notable outside of where it was notable.

And an additional comment, as BrownHairedGirl said, "Please do not edit other people's comments." Removing ad hominem attacks might be justified, removing their associated points is not. FalconXVI 15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If i recall properly, Counter-Strike, a half-life mod, also means the act against counter-terrorism, yet that article never gets any of this "delete and recreate into that", so why is this article about a mod of half-life 2 nominated for deletion? if it was the Counter-Strike article VALVe themselves would come over to prevent it. Solokiller 12:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently do not recall correctly. Counter-Strike means nothing of the sort. You may perhaps be thinking of Counterattack which is a standard tactical doctrine for defence. Your example is apt however, as Counter-Strike is a well written article about a game that started life as a mod and has gone on to be very notable outside of the modding community. That is just not the case with Empires. If and when Empires gains the notability and worldwide presence of Counter-Strike, then it should have no problem surviving the AfD process. As it stands, this mod is just not well known outside of the modding community the way Counter-Strike and Red Orchestra are. L0b0t 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I point your attention to another Half-Life 2 modification Dystopia_(computer_game), which by your definition does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. Just like Empires, Dystopia is a mod rather than a stand-alone game, and does not have the "worldwide presence" of commercial titles you cited. P.S. By the way, the "download count" on the Dystopia article is a total number of all relared files including game updates and media such as trailers. Should we use similar criteria, the total number of downloads of Empired mod would be doubled. --Chahk42 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, selective pointing out of things. You forgot to mention that Dystopia WON an award at the Independant Games Festival recently (as opposed to a mere nomination.) Being nominated in a batch of 30-odd other mods isn't notable, but beating the lot of them to the award IS. The Kinslayer 09:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, selective pointing out of things. You forgot to mention that Dystopia was first nominated for deletion (the first time, not the second time around), on solely the issue of notability. I'd like to point out that at the time [[48]] there was no mention of third party awards, nor of magazines, nor of player statistics. When the AFD was resolved there was still no mention of third party awards, nor magazines, nor player statistics. In the AFD itself there is no mention of third party awards, nor concrete magazine references, nor concrete player statistics. The result of this first Dystopia AFD was Keep. (As the second Dystopia afd addressed questions of verifiability, it is irrelevant for the notability argument.) It seems that it would be irrational for an article with similar notability status to be deleted. FalconXVI 05:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tidied: feel free to edit.Nuka5 15:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, DO NOT edit existing text on a talk page such as this. Add comments afterwards if you wish, but as per policy, Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiki should be kept unless it fails one of the following :
-WP:RS/WP:V
Rebuttal: much of the information about the game itself is written by the developers. This is the equivilant of the makers of a movie writing their own plot summary. Thus, the information there is reliable/verifiable
-WP:NOT a social networking site
Rebuttal: Any wiki is likely to generate attention for the subject it is about, and this is one of the reasons that . however, it is certainly (and obviously) not the sole reason for the article, and so is not grounds for it's deletion.

If any of these fail, then the artical should be edited

The artical should not be kept at all if it is not Notable WP:NN. To know what level of notability is acceptable, we must first look at what wikipedia classes as notable. As wikipedia is unbias, it will be assesing all of it's wikis by the same line, above which level all wikis must be a certain notability. thus, to find the notability required for an article to exist, let us first examine other articles that are undesputedly notable enough for wikipedia, to see what level is acceptable.

These are just some random examples, but if any of these are less notable than the game (not mod, as empires is a total conversion, meaning that all data is new, and only runs off the source engine as many seperate games do) "empires", then the empires wiki should be allowed.

Further evidence for notability:
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires#Awards_and_Press
-http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v678/L3TUC3/EmpiresmodPCgamesjune2006-1-1.jpg
-"mod of the week", Twice.
-featured in PC Zone a few months ago (source citation required)
-Featured in "Update News" several times, for steam, a program that gives information only about key mods, as it automatically opens up to every user of steam, worldwide. (source citation)
-http://www.steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html
--showing that the mod has aproximately 1 million player minutes per month.
-This is the same size as counterstike started.
-Quite Popular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires#.E2.80.A1_Verifiable_download_counts

Please feel free to add to any of the topics concerned, though do not delete information please. Nuka5 15:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, DO NOT edit existing text on a talk page such as this. Add comments afterwards if you wish, but as per policy, Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I cant even believe this was nominated. Robinoke 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nuka5 has kindly provided us with another yet reason for deletion, with the comment above: "much of the information about the game itself is written by the developers".
  From WP:SOFTWARE: "Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work."
  From WP:COI: "Don't write about yourself or about the things you've done or created.". --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The first guideline says that it's STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. The second guideline is null, since the creators of Empires didn't start up the article, the community did. The authors just added more details.Makiyu 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Neither I nor any of my fellow team members have contributed directly to the ORIGINAL article (before it was nominated for deletion). I thought I had (see above comment where I futilely tried to argue that I was not a "meatpuppet"), but instead I have only given suggestions/comments to those who had started the article (in the discussion area and off site). Krenzo 01:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, check the edit history [49]. Krenzo wrote the Awards section. L0b0t 02:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you proved Makiyu's points and made it clear Nuka5 (again) made a wrongful assumption. BrownHairedGirl blindly took that statement as truth while not checking the facts. L3TUC3 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was talking about the original article before it was nominated for deletion. The one that me being a "meatpuppet" was based on. Yes, I did add the two sources in that section in response to the original push for deletion being lack of notability (measured by appearance in published works). No, I did not violate the Wikipedia guideline "Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden" as I had not created the article. Krenzo 04:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Krenzo, when it was notes above that your contribution to this discussion was your first contribution on wikipedia, you replied that you did make substantive contributions to the article. The only way to reconcle these statements is that either you ae not being truthful somewhere, or your earlier edits were made anonymously (or under by a sockpuppet).
L3TUC3, I took Nuka5 on credit ([[WP:EGF[]), but Krenzo has just confirmed Nuka5's claim. And to add to the fun, Nuka5 then edited his/her comment above to remove the source of the quote. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean I think that the article should be kept but, that some of the information should be removed. Instead I would suggest the creation of a "Gameplay" section which would talk about the general gameplay without going into specifics about each weapon, class, etcetera. --Credema 05:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search for "empires" on Google will yield Empiresmod.com, the web site for this mod, as the #1 result. Wikipedia's article for "empire" appears as the 6th result for the search. It'd be rather backwards to have the article about the #1 result link to the #6 result for those wishing to delete the Empires article and have it redirect to the "empire" article. Also, a Google search of "Empires" Half-Life 2" yields 3,540,000 results. Krenzo 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Empires is a plural of Empire. The word itself deserves urgency over the game and should reference to empire before the mod. But that's not what we're discussing here. L3TUC3 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It surely goes to show notable the mod is though. I would like to remind everyone reading this page that they are free to add to the cleaned up section that i started, further up the page. It is not a comment of mine, it is the entire summary of this debate. do not delete from it. Nuka5 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - text struck out, per warning below. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have Updated the Tidied section again. One of the edits is to change: "written by developers" to the true "written by game Experts". This is why earlier brownhairedgirl has a part saying that this should not be written for developers. remember, that Tidied section is the precise edition of the points made here. if you have any addition to make to it, feel free to edit the section! Nuka5 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: I have struck out the previous para, which invites editors to breach wikipedia policy. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, DO NOT edit existing text on a talk page such as this. Add comments afterwards if you wish, but as per policy, Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia. If you want to make a freely editable summary of the discussion in userspace, feel free to do so, but it is unacceptable to edit a talk page, because it disrupts a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are users on this page using their powers of confusion in creating the stupidest hard to follow AFD ever? This mod is not popular as you can tell from the Steam stats. However, it has been featured in a Steam news post [50] as well as the press mentions in the article. - Hahnch e n 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We certainly seem to be. One almost wishes for a new AFD to use, to make things make more sense. FalconXVI 02:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tidied: UPDATED WITH DEBATE, other "tidied" further up the page, which is not allowed to be changed on request of brownhairedgirl, is now out of date. Nuka5 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this section (comment, if you will) shows the outline of the charges against this page, and the reasons why the charges are not legitimate. This

This Wiki should be kept unless it fails one of the following :
-WP:RS/WP:V
Rebuttal: much of the information about the game itself is written by the game experts. there is also edited information from the manual (purpose: to describe how the game functions, important to any wiki). This is the equivilant of the makers of a movie writing their own plot summary. Thus, the information there is reliable/verifiable
-WP:NOT a social networking site
Rebuttal: Any wiki is likely to generate attention for the subject it is about, and this is one of the reasons that . however, it is certainly (and obviously) not the sole reason for the article, and so is not grounds for it's deletion.
-WP:SOFTWARE Rebuttal: much of the information about the game itself is written by the game experts . there is also edited information from the manual (purpose: to describe how the game functions, important to any wiki). Thus, it is not violating this rule.
-WP:COI
Rebuttal: This page WP:COI states that there is only a conflict of interest when the following occours:

1 What is a conflict of interest?

   * 1.1 Self-promotion
   * 1.2 Autobiography
   * 1.3 Close relationships
   * 1.4 Campaigning
   * 1.5 "Who's Who" directories
   * 1.6 Citing oneself
   * 1.7 Where "vanity" is allowed

As none of this occours on the article in question, this is not grounds for deletion. Furthermore, much of the information about the game itself is written by the game experts, and little directly written by the developers for wikipedia.

If any of these fail, then the artical should be edited

The artical should not be kept at all if it is not Notable WP:NN. To know what level of notability is acceptable, we must first look at what wikipedia classes as notable. As wikipedia is unbias, it will be assesing all of it's wikis by the same line, above which level all wikis must be a certain notability. thus, to find the notability required for an article to exist, let us first examine other articles that are undesputedly notable enough for wikipedia, to see what level is acceptable.

These are just some random examples, but if any of these are less notable than the game (not mod, as empires is a total conversion, meaning that all data is new, and only runs off the source engine as many seperate games do) "empires", then the empires wiki should be allowed.

Further evidence for notability:
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires#Awards_and_Press
-http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v678/L3TUC3/EmpiresmodPCgamesjune2006-1-1.jpg
-"mod of the week", Twice.
-featured in PC Zone a few months ago (source citation required)
-Featured in "Update News" several times, for steam, a program that gives information only about key mods, as it automatically opens up to every user of steam, worldwide. (source citation)
-http://www.steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html
--showing that the mod has aproximately 1 million player minutes per month.
-This is the same size as counterstike started.
-Quite Popular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires#.E2.80.A1_Verifiable_download_counts
-A search for "empires" on Google will yield Empiresmod.com, the web site for this mod, as the #1 result. Wikipedia's article for "empire" appears as the 6th result for the search. It'd be rather backwards to have the article about the #1 result link deleted.

You cannot add to any of the topics concerned, but I will update this when new evidence comes though do not delete information please. Nuka5 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to note that the majority of posts made here in favor of deletion consist of logical fallacies and ad-hominem attacks.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's ad hominen attacks, the rest of what you posted below is one of the worst I have seen in an AFD. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarification: I mean that in Niarbeht's comments below, I see not a single new piece of information relevant to the discussions, nor any reassessment of existing info. It is just a long series of attacks on other editors. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wickthewock states "Doesn't seem to be written about by any reliable independent sources." Obviously, Wickthewock does not believe in doing his own legwork, or asking in the discussion section or the article itself for relevant sources. BrownHairedGirl states "I am returning to revise my vote from 'Delete' to 'strong delete' after being canvassed by Nuka5." Last I checked, this page was a place for informed debate concerning whether or not an article of Wikipedia truly belongs on Wikipedia, not a place to take out personal vendettas. Nuka5's comments outside of this page do not have any bearing on the illegitimacy of this article, especially since he isn't a contributor to the article. --Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the information contained in those comments most certaibly is relevant. How relevant is a matter for discussion, but given the number of accounts created solely for the purpose of participating in this AFD and the canvassing on other websites, the external evidence is one factor to consider. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl goes on to say about the article, "However, it still contains neither an assertion of notability not evidence of notability, and we have repeated statements here from the game's fans that the purpose of the wikiedia entry on the game is to attract more users." Yet anyone who can be bothered to read can see that on the 27th of October, the day before BrownHairedGirl posted that statement, the article included information concerning "Awards and Press," both of which are notable things. --Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The awards and press cited there were trivial mentions, and came nowere near any of the criteria of [[WP:NN]. There was no assertoon of noatbility in the opebing apra, hich is where it should be. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you can only accept comments concerning the article's purpose if they come from the originator of the article or from major editors. Anything else is extraneous to the issue at hand. --Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's what you believe, please cite the relevant wikipedia guideline or policy. AFD repeatedly uses both internal and external evidence. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Next, The_Kinslayer proceeds to go off on a mini-rant, saying "Blame yourselves Empire players, you and your conduct brought this turn-around on yourselves through your thoughtless actions." Ad-hominem attacks have no place in logical debate.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Comment: canvassing, sockpuppetry, etc are all deprecated behaviour. Pointing out their existence here is not an ada hominem attack. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The_Kinslayer furthers his foray into fallacies --Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- what was that about ad hominen attacks? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...with "The more of the people who comment on this AfD, the more you make it look like it's been created for advertising, garnering more fans (social networking) and as a game guide (WP:NOT)." Prove this point. Do it. That looks like the thesis for an essay, not a stand-alone statement. Back up your arguments.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PLenty of such evidenvce g=has been posted here. Whethe or not you is a different matter. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we can all appreciate BrownHairedGirl's statement where she declares that Krenzo editing an article about his own total conversion mod is a conflict of interest. Now, had he posted information saying something along the lines of "OMG TIHS MOD AER TEH LEET j00 AER NO CAN PLAY ANY OHTER," I could see her point. However, he posted changes relating to the history of the mod, and adding footnotes concerning relevant sources of information. Who would know better the achievements of a child than a proud father? Who would be better to categorize the trophies on the wall than the creator of the mod himself? COI is there more to prevent politicians deleting unflattering information than to prevent someone pointing out actual fact.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so. Read the guidelines, including WP:AFD. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl then continues to use information unrelated to this discussion itself, Nuka5 nagging about BrownHairedGirl's deletion vote, as "evidence" in favor of deletion.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so. I used the evidence provided in that canvassing. Of course, the canvassing itself is a further problem, but if you read back you wil see that I chnaged my vote oin the basis of information provided. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, Nuka5 was NOT in the list of those who had contributed to the article itself, and as such his behaviors are irrelevant to the deletion discussion itself.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, not so. Nuka5 is one a nunber of new editors who have mounted a massive campign here, as a result of external canvassing. The capaigning has raised serious doubts about the commitment of the editors involved to following wikipedia guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there ANY chance that we can keep this discussion concerning deletion about the article itself, or is one of the main criterion for being an admin on Wikipedia an inability to keep personal issues outside logical debates? As ad-hominem as that last statement of mine is, it is most assuredly a valid question.
On another occasion, BrownHairedGirl goes out on a limb and says, "One is a half-page story, and the other in German." Does she mean to imply that an article in a German-language magazine (Germans not being native English speakers, the primary language the mod exists in) is worth less than one in an English-language magazine?--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. This is an English-language encylopedia. If a subject is mostly notable in Germany, that may make it less relevant to an englishlanguage encyclopedia. If thev game mod is reaalaly notable, why is there is so little covergae in the English-language press? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I don't know of any German documentation for the mod. It may exist, but if it doesn't then an article in a German-language magazine is actually worth a HELL of a lot more than one in an English-language magazine. I doubt most mods get that kind of coverage. But I'm not done yet! I've still got a few quotes to go through! I would bother to post some of The_Kinslayer's comments relating to Chahk42, but Chahk42 closed the argument nicely with the statement, "Personal squabbles have no place on Wikipedia." But let's keep on the positive notes, with FalconXVI's successful ability to read the obvious red box at the top of the deletion page! "'deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).' Forgive me for thinking that this applied to all, rather than simply those who regularly edit wikipedia." Reason voices itself! Indeed, as you go further down the page, we hit a plague of comments concerning "is the only contribution by such-and-such." Are those in power blind to their own rules? Are words of wisdom spoken by a newcomer less important than words of wisdom spoken by your best friend? Words of wisdom are words of wisdom, regardless of who speaks them. --Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Please read WP:AFD, where it says: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight."
  Here we have canvassing, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, an undeclared COI: the AFD rules are very pertinent here. It's a great pity that the many newcomers to this discssion did not take time to read wikipdia's guidelines and to explore the reasons for their existence before launching into this sort of diatribe against those who have sought to uphohld them. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it seems the most common arguments come in the forum of accusations of meat puppetry and sock puppetry.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, there are good grounds to suspect widespread [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry] in this AFD. It is important to wikpedia's functioining that this sort of misbehaviour be noted. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Brownhairedgirl? meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry would influence this decision in any way. so far all new users have posted valid comments that add to the discussion. What is your POINT by continuing to mention sockpuppets and meatpuppets? what have ANY of the new members done (with the exception of me, whose incorrections I've done my best to rectify) that is not a problem. Furthermore, COI is only a problem when it's in an article. there's no problem in a group of people defending themselves.
I am sorry to say this, but the behavior of several of the administrators has severely shaken my faith in the validity of much of the content on Wikipedia. Now, can we keep this discussion about the relevancy of hundreds of thousands of accountable program downloads, unaccountable (yet undoubtedly numerous) downloads through torrent, magazine articles, and website mentions?--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am here just to further my thoughts on this absolutely ridiculous AFD, I share these sentiments with Falcon and seriously believe that this AFD should be rerun. This page is full of worthless comments that belong to the talk page, just above this comment is an attack on the "validity of much of the content on Wikipedia". Yes, you've had some magazine mentions, but look at the stats, it's NOT a popular mod, less players/servers than Sven Co-op and less player minutes than BrainBread, which probably should have been deleted anyway. How Empires, can in its current state even begin to compete on notability compared to Front Line Force is beyond me. I would have voted keep, had the press mentions turned into player numbers, but this has not happened. Verified download counts are meaningless, if we went by them pretty much every single player half-life map would smash all notability rules. On a positive note, I commend User:Chahk42's improvements to the article, and even given the incredible ill will the Empires community has generated here, it's why I didn't vote to delete. Please re-run this AFD. - Hahnch e n 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This mod doesn't exists as long as Sven Co-op or BrainBread, it's doing better than those when compared to the player numbers and player minutes. Solokiller 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Only when you look at the stats, you'll find that they don't. Oh no, facts! - Hahnch e n 17:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard College Rankings[edit]

De-proded (with an "appeal of fairness" by the author, a "poor, African American man endeavoring to make a decent, honest, scholarly living" removing the POV diatribe, implying that jealousy and/or racism might might lead one to object the validity of the rankings). While I respect anyone trying to make a scholarly living, this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The article is unsourced, failing WP:V. There are no claim to assert why Vanguard College Rankings are notable, failing WP:WEB or any other notability guideline. "Vanguard College Rankings" gets only 130 unique Ghits & nothing in Google News. -- Scientizzle 18:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable yet. Taking information found by other and rescaling the weights isn't anything to write home about. - Richfife 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No claim (let alone evidence) of notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this does not meet WP:WEB and has some WP:V problems as well. Other than the website of the rankings, I see only trivial mention elsewhere and nothing that reliably sources this article. I wish the author luck in his endeavor though.--Isotope23 20:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also note that the author added a section on the VCR at College and university rankings that should be removed if this article is deleted.--Isotope23 20:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT for things invented in school one day. ~ trialsanderrors 21:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for promotion per the author's comment he's trying to make a living. ColourBurst 02:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peace I considered defending this, my article, on James A. Johnson's behalf, but considering the overwhelming support for deleting it, my defense would undoubtedly be useless. So go ahead, delete it. Ajagu P.S. How do I delete my account?
Delete nn by any stretch of the imagination. Carlossuarez46 20:38, 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. --Ezeu 00:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castlevania timeline[edit]

Per precedent[51]. Largely unverifiable and redundant as each of the games already has its own article and a umbrella series article to describe its story. Combination 18:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete part, merge the rest The summary table should be included in the main series article, but the rest of it is an overly detailed in-universe explanation that is far too redundant with most of the individual games' pages. Also, it's WP:NOT. Cliftor 18:35, 30 October 2006 (PST)
Redirect to that article. Danny Lilithborne 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game descriptions could be better sourced, but the timeline itself is sourced and verifiable. TJ Spyke 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The precedent doesn't apply here. Half Life is two games. Castlevania is more like two dozen. it makes it much harder to cover this material in a series article. Ace of Sevens 04:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful overview of the series. Too large to merge into the main article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no problem with this article. The Kinslayer 09:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, a verifiable and useful overview. — brighterorange (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is a massive lump of plot summary written in in-universe style. It's redundant with the individual articles, and involves a ton of original research in deciding which facts are canon and which aren't. This isn't an encyclopedia article; it's a (bad) fanpage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It isn't original reseach as to what isn't canon. When the company that produces the series says "this game is not canon", the it is hardly original research. It should be sourced, but that's not the same thing. Koweja 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIt's validity as an encyclopedia artice is just as valid as any Star Wars wiki. Every sentance in your comment is an opinion. The only relevant point you make may exist with redundantcy in the sub pages that expand on sub-topics. However, expaning on topics with words linked to other information is a function of most articles.McDanielMichael 15:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Not quite sure what I was thinking when I voted to keep! This article is just a large regurgitation of plot.The Kinslayer 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Interrobamf 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of unsourced fictional happenings in a fictionalized world; I also agree with Interrobamf. I always find these pseudochronologies puzzling, especially in wikilinking the years and dates of fake events, do readers of this article care what really happeneded in any of those periods or are their minds deep into the never, neverland of their fictional setting. Carlossuarez46 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So are you saying delete because you don't think the article is appropriate or because you look down on people who care about a fictional timeline? Koweja 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been extremly helpful. I have referenced it every day for about a month while I work on my D20 campaign that my players are currently playing. Without this time line of events, it would have been more difficult to piece together from the other articles. The Konami timeline verifies this, and further details from other sources help clarify these events. I spend more time here than in the other wiki page. McDanielMichael 22:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)— McDanielMichael (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
- "This is useful to me" isn't a decent argument. "Usefulness" is not policy. Interrobamf 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "usefulness" is referencing that this resource has valid data not referenced anywhere else in the wikipedia. The timeline is officialy verified. The main Castlevania wiki that links to this shows what year the games came out, but not individual games duration in cronological order with sited start/end dates. This story will expand, and this data is unique. My vote for KEEP is valid. Merging would also be acceptable, however I consider it merged due to the link from the other wiki page.McDanielMichael 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Castlevania after cutting out a lot of informatioin that is available in the game specific articles. Koweja 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a source of information, this timeline is information. I thought Wikipedia was a place where anyone could go to learn about anything, not some "Just Us" club for intellectual elitist. If people use it, then it has value.FANTASTIC0PHIL 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the following so that you can avoid making more mis-informed statements. WP:NOT, paying particular attention to Indiscriminate information, Game manual, Plot synopsis. The Kinslayer 15:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the link. The timeline contains useful information for those seeking knowledge. The timeline does NOT contain "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes". I guess I'm just not seeing what other folks problem is.FANTASTIC0PHIL 16:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This part, Number 7 under 'Indiscriminate Information': Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. The Kinslayer 13:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, I think most people could assume that 1000 years of European history to be real-world context even if a fictional story is set in the middle of it. Since it's been sourced, well, that covers that. And it is an aspect of a larger topic, Castlevania. Again, thanks for the great info, I don't know what the problem is either.24.32.229.151 03:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as plot summary per WP:NOT. — Haeleth Talk 18:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plot summary, WP:NOT. It's a huge barely organized plot summary, nothing close to a timeline. The chart is useful however, I suggest that gets added into the series article. --ScythedRunner 05:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought a timeline was a series of dates and then an a telling of what happened on those dates? I think adding it to the article would be fine, but do you add it to all the Castlevania game articles or is it just easier to create a link in all the articles to referance one page?24.32.229.151 20:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant with the other articles mentioned and per Scythed. Wickethewok 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced information pertaining to the chronological sequence of the games into the Castlevania series article. People need to be able to learn about the revision to the timeline in a place free of POV. Most of this article should be deleted. 68.162.176.250
keep I like this artical because I like knowing the cronoligie in a series of movies or games.Alex 1991 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not merge per WP:NOT. Whisp e ring 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but exclude Legends.172.189.195.66 15:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kfir Alfia[edit]

not notable webmaster JBKramer 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are current proposals to merge this article into Protest Warrior. As I understand it, the GDFL requires us to keep this article (because we need to retain the edit history) if this merge happens. Therefore, a vote to delete is a vote against that merge. CWC(talk) 11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not just a webmaster, he's the co-founder of a political group. He was interviewed by the Newsweek magazine (here), and references about his activities are abundant from third party sources.--Hús ö nd 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Article's history page shows this is a content dispute [52]. --Aaron 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Why delete it? It has some interesting info.--S U I T ⁴² 00:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a content dispute. The decision over whether or not to merge this article with the main Protest Warrior should be made after other editors have arrived at a firm consensus position. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Politically motivatied AFD. --Neverborn 06:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, the webmaster of the Protest Warrior website is someone else entirely. Just to point that out. Rogue 9 08:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notable for cofounding Protest Warrior. Has appeared on Rush Limbaugh's show[53]. Mainstream coverage includes The Washington Post ([54]) and Newsweek ([55]). Also covered by The Washington Times ([56]), the Dallas Observer ([57]) and FrontPageMag.com ([58]). CWC(talk) 11:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definite merge I don't care whether this is deleted or redirected, but he has no notability outside Protest Warrior (which isn't particularly notable anyway), and that article already contains almost every word in this one. This is almost wholly redundant. Derex 12:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per the abundance of links provided by CWC. It seems as though he is famous for founding that political group and should have an article based on the fact that he himself has recieved much of the news attention. Nice work CWC, if noone does I will attempt to add all of that information into the article, or at least a mention of his news coverage as founder of the group. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 12:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Add in some of the sources from above, if anyone wants to add more feel free, switched the external linking to cite news format and added a references section, so far 3 of the above sources in use, also added the Newsweek interview with Alfia to external links section. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete or merge. No notability outside the barely notable Protest Warrior. Gamaliel 22:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldnt that be like arguing Bill Gates isnt notable outside of the things he has founded, Microsoft, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation etc. The fact that he was interviewed once by himself on the group, and another time with the co founder, would symbolize an importance as the leader of said group. Usually Newsweek doesnt go around interviewing people who they do not find to be notable. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An absurd comparison. It is pretty standard procedure to merge articles on barely notable things and their creators. Or should we undelete Dylan Avery on the basis that you suggest? Gamaliel 03:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an analogy, not a comparison. CWC(talk) 03:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment First of all, it's not obvious. Secondly, if press coverage from The New York Times, Washington Post, MSBNC, Fox News, as well as the most popular and third most popular talk radio hosts in the country is "barely notable" I'd love to see what your definition of extremely notable is. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, as per User:Gamaliel. Keep. Travb (talk) 12:25, 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 keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Johnson (weatherman)[edit]

No references, seems like an autobiography, and doesnt seem like an encyclopaedic figure anyway. Runningonbrains 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like if I had done a quick google search, I would have found that it was a copyvio as well, copied from one of those sources! However, it does appear that the article can stay...I am concerned about the notability, as keeping this might make us keep a bunch of bios whos only source of notability is being a rich broadcast meteorologist who has a lot of websites written about him. -Runningonbrains 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment It appears more obscure bios are floating around Wikipedia. I change my vote to keep, I'm pretty sure theres no way to withdraw a nomination, but I'd just like to say the improvements made have been more than satisfactory. -Runningonbrains 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It certainly does need tidying and rewriting (tone problems), but he certainly is well known in North East England as an established broadcaster. I'll have a stab at redoing this (hmmm, example fo AFD as emergency clean-up). The JPS^{talk to me} 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just done a massive rework on this, and I think it's now of an acceptable standard. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmmm, yes there is... The JPS^{talk to me} 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He still doesn't appear notable though. TJ Spyke 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has plenty of references, which should be enough to glean information from and form a good article. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:47, 24 Oct, 2006 (UTC)
Keep He's a fairly well known local television celebrity in NE England. The article could make this clearer, though. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While usually I consider notability a criterion for deletion, the amount of referencing makes me pause. While the assertion of notability is minor, it is plausible. Tito xd^(?!?) 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Most US television weather personalities have articles, so we should not be US-centric when we don't need to be. CrazyC83 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's pretty darn famous. Its not just America-centrism thats a problem here its also southern England bias--Josquius 15:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is very well known throughout North East England, I definately say keep. --GracieLizzie 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - how can such a fine upstanding member of the dying breed of good quality broadcasters not have a Wikipedia article? Superbfc 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bob Johnson is a household name in North East England. SAFCjl 22:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm sure he's a nice person, but the references in this article are not sufficient for me, as I saw no indication of his being notable outside of his immediate local area, and most of the references looked like corporate press releases instead of legitimate press. A Google search seems to be fairly weak as well, with fewer than 1000 hits [59]. Just how exactly are people saying that he meets WP:BIO? --Elonka 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Elonka, I take - maybe not offence - but certainly disapproval of your reference to "immediate local area" - you might come from a fanatastic large country and think that a British region of some "few" millions of people is only an "immediate local area", but in the real world, i.e. the non-American corporate media bubble, the North East of England is a fairly significant area with proud history and people, and Bob Johnson is one of its most respected broadcasters and a household name to millions. And I say all this as a non-native resident of the region. At the end of the day, I certainly think Johnson qualifies under the "cult" status of the WP:Bio rules, and furthermore, people who are famous enough to meet the criteria, are probably too notable to be truly worthy of a WP entry anyway, as most people who want to know anything about, say, Madonna, probably would refer to other sources. Wikipedia is a great tool for finding out more esoteric than ubiquitous information - that is my attraction to the whole project - so to delete articles like this would be a real travesty. It is local colour and characters which make the world a great place, and to corporately wipe these people from Wikipedia would be a travesty. - Superbfc 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean no disrespect to Mr. Johnson, nor to England (where I myself lived for three years, and enjoyed it very much). However, in order to prove a subject's notability, we need more than statements such as "household name". On Wikipedia, a verbal vouching is not sufficient to prove notability -- it is necessary to provide verifiable external references, per WP:V. To my knowledge, no such references have been provided, to prove that Mr. Johnson is "famous", or that he has a large enough of a fanbase to qualify for notability. I've looking through news sites, I've Googled, I've been doing my own research, and I just haven't found anything. If you can provide verifiable references which prove his fame, I am open to reviewing them, but until then, my opinion stands. --Elonka 20:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't tend to include forums as ELs, but [60] is at least one where he is asmiringly discussed. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - And a half a dozen messages on a forum from three years ago, are not convincing. Show me multiple fansites, with thousands of fans discussing him on a daily basis, and I'll change my mind. --Elonka 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        lol. How did I know you were going to respond like that ;) Someone doesn't need multiple fansites to be notable; the existence of some geocities or myspace page is a poor second to the reliable sources cited. That link to the forum is sufficient for proving that he's notable enough to be discussed. Check out Category:Television meteorologists and look at all those articles, such as Storm Field, for instance. Most have no references, or even links, at all. Wikipedia is not paper. There are sufficient references in the article to verify Johnson's existence and that he's been covered by independent sources. He's broadcast regularly to around 2 million viewers for over 15 years. That is notable. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right, the Storm Field article is inappropriate, and I have proposed its deletion. If you see other articles that lack references, please add the {{unref}} tag to them, and if you think they should be deleted, tag them with {{prod}} (proposed deletion), or mention something on their talk page. --Elonka 21:27, 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. --Ezeu 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Huemer[edit]

Associate professor; the article makes strong claims of notability which I'm unable to confirm. An ISI citation search puts his most-cited paper at 15 citations. Everything else is in the single digits. ~ trialsanderrors 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete however there are a ton of these almost but not quite notable in the category Objectivism scholars in wikipedia. this guy might be one of the more notable ones, but does not meat WP:PROF as best as i can tell. --Buridan 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Trialsanderrors 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Associate professor at a major university, with numerous publications in scholarly journals, plus scholarly books. Seems adequate notablitity for a professor. If the artical gets deleted, I hope he remains philosophical about it and keeps editing Wikipedia. Edison 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable (WP:BIO) and created by subject (WP:COI). Cbrown1023 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject is borderline in terms of notability and his creation of the page seems to violate (WP:COI). --Giddytrace 04:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 07:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a normal—i.e. non-notable—academic who's done some good work, but isn't a major name in his field. Sam Clark 10:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail the professor test. Worthy, I'm sure, but I can't find enough reliable secondary sources to ensure neutrality in the article, which is especially necessary since the subject has been involved in writing it. Guy 13:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Mo[edit]

Bio with little context. Despite claim of notability, I find no indication of such recognition for either "Maureen Duncan" or "Just Mo." I do not believe this meets WP:BIO, it lacks citations/reliable sources, and no other pages wikilink to it. Prod was removed by author without comment. Shimeru 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. No references, Google search for "Just Mo" didn't reveal anything relevant in the top 50 hits. Caknuck 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Just plain nonsense.--S U I T ⁴² 00:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mukadderat 18:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Coaching[edit]

Contested prod. Unencyclopedic, probably vanity/advertisement. Khatru2 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly redirect to Life coaching. Tarret 20:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unverified, almost certainly OR. From the creator's edit history[61], this is at best COI, at worst spam. -- IslaySolomon | talk 00:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — or at least remove the links at the end of the article -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to life coaching (which could be merged with personal coaching as the proper term, to but an end to the confussion here). The article, now moved to Relationship Coaching, has changed and increased in quality since nomination, but still the information given is covered in life or personal coaching, which need to be expanded and cleaned up anyway. Also the redirect from Dating Coaching needs to be fixed, and the redirect from Toni Coleman speedyed. --VirtualDelight 21:00, 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 Speedy deleted (4th deletion) by admin Physicq210 (reason: CSD G11 and possibly G1, since it seems like the company's HQ is so uncertain). Non-admin close of orphaned AfD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advameg[edit]

Delete. The article was originally prod-ded (by me) with the reason No need for articles on every Wikipedia spammer or vandal, and there are no outside sources that discuss it. The prod tag was removed with an edit summary of this is a real company with a top 3K Alexa rating - just so happens they spam too. It is in fact a real company, and Google lists over 10K results for the name. The Alexa ranking for city-data.com is just over 2,000. However, this article, as it stands, looks more like a "watch out for this company" warning than a legitimate Wikipedia entry. ... discospinster _talk 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this not a legitimate entry? Because it lists bad things the company has done? It also gives an inventory of its holdings, its place of incorporation and contact information. Seems legit to me. Don't think you're promoting a spammer just because you have an article on a company that spams. By your logic we should delete the Enron article too. Mjk2357 01:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most speedy of deletes per A7 and G11. Auto-referential in any case, no notability asserted beyond its own spamming activity on Wikipedia. Ghits in the 10K but 36 unique! Spam spam spam... Pascal.Tesson 03:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin User talk:Firsfron has told me let this go through normal AfD as long as the first sentence was changed and the spam allegations were NPOVed, which they were. Pascal, if you had actually bothered to read the article it is not pro-Advameg by any means! In fact it was put up for AfD for being anti-Advameg, so reconsider your view. At any rate it is against policy to unilaterally delete articles with ongoing AfD. Mjk2357 03:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has now been zapped by three people, so I'm going to leave it deleted. However, since the reasons each deleter gave were totally different (and contradictory), should someone else want to re-create the article I believe pretty strongly that it should exist. The admin position is that it should go through normal AfD. The deleters have not been admins.

This company (Advameg) uses some pretty underhanded tactics, which were detailed in the article. They have left negative messages on the user page of someone who's been fighting their spam (not me). If you recreate this page be prepared for them to ask that you should be banned, etc. Good luck. Mjk2357 16:16, 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 redirect to Halloweentown (film). --Ezeu 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marnie Piper[edit]

Previously speedied once, nn fictional character, adequately covered in Halloweentown.

'redirect Mukadderat 18:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halloweentown (film) per nom. Jesussaves (talk -- contribs) 01:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge the information, if possible, and add spoilers. P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 19:19, 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. Proto::type 10:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Red (movie)[edit]

Article about a nonexistent Power Rangers movie. The article creator has a history of creating hoax articles. I declined a speedy deletion since hoaxes don't fall under any of the speedy deletion criteria, but I'm more than happy to list this here. Core des at 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I'm sure that there's got to be a CSD for this article, if not WP:IAR.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not actually a hoax, so much as it is miswritten. There is an episode of the Power Rangers called Forever Red which actually already has an article. A much better written one. So, either delete, or redirect. FrozenPurpleCube 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article implies that it is a direct-to-video/theatrical release, not the episode that already has a page. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be why I said it's miswritten. I'm being charitable and assuming that it is not deliberate, but merely confusion. FrozenPurpleCube 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The author originally linked this page to the page of the episode. I know it's ABF, but based on his history of edits, I'm saying it's deliberate. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, whether it is or isn't, that's not something to be handled here. Still, you might get a CSD by noting that this is a duplicate of another article. FrozenPurpleCube 02:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment If it were a duplicate (which it isn't, if you compare it to Forever Red), I wouldn't have brought it here. The article specifically says it's a direct-to-DVD movie, which it is not. It doesn't help that the article mentions an unverifiable extra. --Core des at 04:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I say it's a mix of duplication and inaccuracy, and am reserving judgement on whether or not it is a deliberate hoax, but whatever, the real point was you really should have mentioned that original Power Rangers episode in your nomination. It would have added some useful clarity. FrozenPurpleCube 14:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No IMDB listing for movie. No other reference. Not notable even if not a hoax. The episode "Power Rangers Wild Force: Forever Red (#1.34)" does not seem to be relevant to this discussion. Bejnar 05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The episode from which this article seems to be borrowing its content is not relevant? Coulda fooled me. FrozenPurpleCube 14:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that you're trying to WP:AGF in all of this, but "Forever Red is a 2006 direct-to-DVD movie based on the Power Rangers episode of the same name" is an obvious and deliberate attempt to introduce false information.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I agree it is misleading information, but without mindreading, I can't say it's deliberate. It probably is, but AfD isn't the place to deal with it anyway. WP:RFI would be a better choice. FrozenPurpleCube 01:06, 30 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 09:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descent: FreeSpace units[edit]

This is a listing of every unit's stats in the video game Descent: FreeSpace. The content looks like it could have been copy/pasted right off of GameFAQs. There is no salvageable content from this article at all. Delete as a game guide, which Wikipedia is not. Wickethewok 21:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also the Afd for GTF Apollo and others bundled with it. For one thing, this article is redundant to List of ships in the FreeSpace universe, so I'd say merge is worth considering. FrozenPurpleCube 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whispering 00:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. This can only be a game guide. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 01:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suppose I wouldn't mind a merge, but surely there's a better place to transwiki this instead, isn't there? In any case, the game-guide listing of ship stats doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Alan Au 03:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have no idea if this is actually useful to players, but I've kept a copy at StrategyWiki regardless. Garrett^Talk 07:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Yeesh, talk about indiscriminate information! The Kinslayer 09:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TransWiki? Technically not TransWiking but it should go on StrategyWiki. Koweja 00:57, 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. — CharlotteWebb 05:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dufus (band)[edit]

I'm not familiar with this band, and came across a speedy on one of their albums: The Last Classed Blast, which I add to this AfD. They have an allmusic entry [62] and a heap of GHits. I abstain procedurally. Samir धर्म 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, add Ball of Design, which was speedied already, to the above -- Samir धर्म 20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I initially submitted this for speedydel, then added prod2. I happened to come across some information though, that was not asserted in the stub initially. This band will be touring internationally in support of its new album. This should satisfy WP:BAND and therefore establish notability. ju66l3r 21:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: they seem to have toured before and have a European tour and American tour scheduled to support their latest album. --Walter Görlitz 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article. I have added a bit more info on the band, as well as links to PopMatters album reviews. The reason I created such a bad article is because I don't actually know that much about the band, so I was expecting other fans to contribute to the article.
Another of their albums, Ball of Design was speedily deleted, before I was even aware that it had been tagged. I have a link to a PopMatters review of the album. Would this enable the wiki to be reinstated, and if so, can I retrieve the info that I had already wrote (it's not much but it was annoying).--Macca7174 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll undelete Ball of Design and add to this AfD. -- Samir धर्म 20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep: AMG only lists three albums, but two on ROIR seems like enough to qualify under WP:BAND. Less sure about the album articles—perhaps those should be discussed separately. Xtifr _tälk 23:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: opinion seems pretty unanimous now, especially given that nom abstained. Xtifr _tälk 10:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND. - Lex 09:34, 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. Argument for deletion is much stronger than opinions in favor of closure. Yanksox 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azlea Antistia[edit]

Prior AfD result was "keep". The article was subsequently deleted as a copyright violation, and then restored without copyright violative content (as far as I can see). However, as I see it, the person fails the proposed WP:PORNBIO, and there's no current guideline that makes her notable per se. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - A notable porn star. Article exists both in es.wiki (Spanish) and in pt.wiki (Portuguese). She has 76+ films. 243,000 Google results [63] and 1,290 Google Images reuslts [64]. --Haham hanuka 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep - otherwise there would be a number of adult actors/actresses which would merit deletion as well. --anonymous
Comment (negative) - The Spanish and Portugese Wiki articles are just translations of earlier versions before this one was deleted. IMDb lists only 42 films for her, probably because the others in which she "appears" (along with 15-20 other "stars") just contain clips from her other films, and do not represent any original footage. (That's why the number of films is not a criteria for porn "stars" - no way to get an accurate count of "original" footage.) She has not won any awards, or made any "unique, noteworthy contributions" to the industry ... meets none of the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. And, yes, many of the adult actors/actresses do not rate a page, but most editors have more important things to do than waste time with them. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 01:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Starring in 76 films is good enough. WP:PORNBIO (a proposal! not real policy) threshold is 100. If we delete this article we should dozens of porn stars article. --Haham hanuka 09:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then propose those articles for deletion. "There's an even less notable person who has an article!" is not a good defense for an article's existence. --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del she was not "starring" in these films. Mukadderat 18:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a public figure and deserves a page on wikipedia. I am learning that this guy Nlu is very quick to delete pages that he has not even read. He is a 'wikipedia deletionist' (there is a page on that, ironically, even though it violates the self-declared vandal police's anti-neologism policy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.37.99 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 October 2006
Delete does not meet the "notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia" for porn stars. Then what is this discussion really about? gidonb 12:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time that the AfD was brought, WP:PORNBIO was only a proposal, not yet an official guideline. I think in light of its status change, I am hoping that the "keep" people will consider changing their minds. --Nlu (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, it is official and therefor the article should be deleted. This is not 10 movies off. gidonb 04:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) (WP:PORNBIO) guideline. The number of films criterion is in the Noting dubious methods of establishing notability section of WP:PORNBIO. Her IAFD bio lists her in 69 original films and 8 compilations; her website filmography lists her in 104 (none of which seem to be, or are identified as, compilations). She doesn't meet any of the six qualifications in the Criteria section of WP:PORNBIO. Furthermore, she most likely meets a strict interpretation of criterion # 7 in the Articles section of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. As there is no assertion of her importance or significance in the article it could (should?) have been speedy deleted.—Chidom ^talk 11:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real porn star. --Qwerty1234 12:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There have been many pages for porn actresses that have less overall info than Antistia. Why aren't they up for deletion? They even lack pictures and say nothing of how they have contributed to the industry.

See the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay, particularly "What about article x?":

"The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't."

In other words, just because other articles that don't meet the criteria of WP:PORNBIO haven't been nominated yet doesn't mean that they shouldn't (or won't) be.—Chidom ^talk 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn nomination, speedy Keep and move to P.C. Sanal Kumar. Nishkid64 22:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. C . Sanalkumar[edit]

Non notable public official. Former Collector of Kasargod, Kerala. 125 google hits [65]. But only 10-20 of them are relevant. Most newspaper hits just mention him as attending a function. The Sahitya Award is unreferenced. Can't find it in any malayalam or english newspaper. Delete. Also see the persons wiki user talk [66] Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. The references have been provided in the article. Clearly, A kerala Sahitya Award winner is notable --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 10:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I._P._Gautam regarding notability of IAS Officers. If you feel that IAS officers are non notable, then let us AFD I._P._Gautam as well along with this Doctor Bruno 22:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Doctor Bruno 22:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - notable.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His name in the Sahitya Awards newspaper article is spelled P.C. Sanal Kumar, the article now references the award in the paper The Hindu, and it does mention his humerous book Collector Katha Ezhuthukayanu. Bejnar 05:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep- Wellknown satirist and orator in Malayalam. President of Narmakairali, Thiruvananthapuram( Popular organisation of Satirists in Kerala state).Regular contributor of Mathrubhumi daily's Narmabhumi.Nileena joseph 06:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep. :People will laugh the moment he opens his mouth. Best IAS officer of Kerala. Became a District Collector at the age of 50. Can be moved to the entertainment section of wikipedia.Dakshayani 09:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Move to P. C. Sanal Kumar (that's the correct spelling according to official website of Kasargod[67]). "P C Sanal Kumar" has some better Google results. Also, he's winner of Sahitya Academy Award. By the way, there is a user called User:P.C.Sanalkumar.I.A.S (nothing to do with this article -- just for information). utcursch | talk 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK if he has won the sahitya award and somebody can provide references, I am willing to withdraw the nomination. But it is to be said that IP Gautam or Amit Shah are exceptions to the rule. See [68] Mahesh Pathak's Afd, he's the DC of Bombay, yet he was deleted. In fact, most public officials unless notable are deleted. I would say that this article is kept because Sanalkumar is noteworthy author --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 02:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would like make Mahesh Pathak as an exception, (in my opinion) a mistake that has to be corrected. Just because one mistake had taken place, we need not repeat that. Till today, I am not able to understand as to how Mahesh Pathak is non notable when I.P.Gautam is notable. If properly searched, we can show the press coverage for Mahesh Pathak. We should have some degree of consistency in an encyclopedia. Any how, it is a plain truth that Sanal Kumar is more notable (Sahitya award winner, which per se is a notable fact) than I.P.Gautam who apart from being the commissioner (which means they have a press coverage - coverage for commissioner and not for the individual) has nothing more to add. The opinion at that time was decent press coverage, chief bureaucrat/manager of a city of 5 million people(district collector also manages that amount), Doctor Bruno 10:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please note that NO ONE who voted for keep in I.P.Gautam can say why the person was notable for reasons apart from being the commissioner. The only reason given was press coverage and managing 50 lakh people. Managing 50 lakh people is something like a Governor's job in many American and European countries and hence the value tilted the vote. But every collector does the same thing here Doctor Bruno 10:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNoted humourist of kerala and an efficient administrator.Nooranadu mohan 03:04, 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. --Ezeu 23:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Commander Seven[edit]

advert for NN-toy delete DesertSky85451 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Comment[reply]

Advert? For a toyline in the 70s? Bit hard to believe that. Still, I'd suggest this go in the Japanese Wikipedia unless more can be done to establish its prescence in the US. FrozenPurpleCube 22:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article at the time of its nomination was a copyvio from [69]. I'm not making a judgment on whether the subject is notable right now. I'm going to go ahead and delete the copyvio and replace the article with a stub. --Hyperbole 23:19, 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 09:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Blood[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This film was announced in summer 2005, and there has been no activity since. There is no indication that this film is going to be made. Article can be re-created at a later date if production actually starts up. Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ThuranX 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are at least five existing films called "In the Blood" ([70]), and every one of them seems more notable than this one. --Hyperbole 23:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but if it has to go, merge the most relevant details into Steve Niles. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable and lack of non-trivial coverage by credible, third-party sources. -- Satori Son 20:19, 30 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. — CharlotteWebb 05:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Pelzer[edit]

As there is been some question Re: the validity of his claims, and given this authors penchant for shameless self promotion, I say delete it and let someone willing to quote sources write a replacement. Notability is asserted, but I still it's at best marginal. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not thrilled about the article, but he has published six books. It's borderline, but I think that's notable enough. Natalie 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - A Child Called It was an immensely popular book and appears in 3,171 libraries ([71]). Pelzer has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial articles in major press, including controversy over the accuracy of his work. This guy is a bona fide famous author. --Hyperbole 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hyperbole; Pelzer's books have spent months on the bestseller lists. However, the trivia in the article should be removed. --Metropolitan90 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is assigned reading by the juvenile courts here in certain child abuse cases. He is definitely notable, and well-known. Bejnar 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, it was created three years ago. By Danny, no less. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 08:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Best-selling author. Catchpole 10:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow. Per above, pretty clear cut. Suggest the nom withdraws. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - We need to keep it. He's a strong example of what child abuse can do, and his story has saved many lives. Taking him off here would be wrong.
Strong keep. No question about his notability - significant author whose books are sold all over the world. Ohconfucius 01:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - We should keep it.. it's important to have such information, as it has influenced (and could) many peoples lives. Child abuse is an important issue, and should be dealt with and maybe, through keeping such an article - one or two lives could be made better due to public awareness.
Strong keep - Bestselling author. Definitely meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). SWAdair 08:31, 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 no consensus to delete it. May be merged or kept as a separate article, which can be decided on the talk page rather than AFD. — CharlotteWebb 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full Moon Fever (film)[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This film was announced in 2004, and there has been no activity since. There is no indication that this film is going to be made. Article can be re-created at a later date if production actually starts up. Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any verifiable information into Joe Casey and redirect - I couldn't find any indication that this project has been greenlighted, and the lack of an IMDB entry (although IMDB does mention this minor film: [72]) makes this article too crystal-ballish for my taste. --Hyperbole 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but if it has to go, merge into Joe Casey. ---- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hyperbole, although I don't see anything worth merging, MMV. Bejnar 05:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep! --Mycroft.Holmz 05:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update as more information becomes available. Mr. Brigg's Ink 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?[reply]
Comment: Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette. It says, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, lacking sources and references and a highly probable {{hoax}} (aeropagitica) 04:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volkovsky Mikhailov[edit]

Nearly everything in the article borders or crosses WP:BLP issues (if this even is a real living person). No evidence anyone by this name exists or that their nickname is "Patches". This seems to be an elaborate hoax with faked sources (what is "article 7" of a newspaper page?) and numerous sockpuppets protecting the article and talk page continue to remove any attempt to question the content or verifiability. My vote is Delete. ju66l3r 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: There is no trace of this man anywhere on the web and other articles on the Russian Mafia make no mention of him. I've asked an admin to come and have a look at the repeated reversion of templates, the talk page etc.--Edchilvers 22:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax (that would likely violate WP:BLP even if it weren't). --Hyperbole 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as one of the biggest loads of rubbish I have ever seen. if this Mihailov is Russian, then he is a particularly stupid one since he hasn't even masterred the art of using patronymic names. Montco 23:09, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden Room[edit]

Non notable corp; prodded and de-prodded. Given username of creater, may also be an advertising attempt Natalie 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local businesses are not inherently notable, and this article makes no special assertion of notability. --Hyperbole 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Mukadderat 18:05, 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. CharlotteWebb 06:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foetry.com[edit]

Delete nn website alexa Traffic Rank: 2,878,367. GlowFox 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - fails WP:WEB, but I'm not sure we should look at this as purely a website; it's really a loosely-knit organization trying to combat dishonestly in poetry competitions. It's received multiple, non-trivial mentions in major press, and has uncovered at least one poetry competition scandal. It's well-sourced and NPOV. I'm tempted to keep this one based on Wikipedia is not paper. --Hyperbole 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable organization covered in multiple non-trivial publications, per Hyperbole. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 00:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage of Foetry.com in the press has not been trival, nor is it just a rehash of press-releases. Foetry.com has had a real impact on the poetry establishment in the US. Bejnar 05:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable and well-sourced. A good article, I'd say. - Lex 16:31, 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 speedy delete. —Cryptic 02:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PoliceFireEMS.com[edit]

nn website. Alexa Traffic Rank: No Data GlowFox 23:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB. --Hyperbole 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 Spam, spam, spam. -- IslaySolomon | talk 00:32, 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 from List of Diagnosis: Murder Episodes into List of Diagnosis: Murder episodes and redirect the former to the latter. Closer note: Most AFD "merge and redirect" decisions result in the article being evaluated merged into another and becoming a redirect; however, this case was unique as it was the reverse. Don't be confused :). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Diagnosis: Murder episodes[edit]

A Similar Page has been in exsistence for sometime with more complete information and links to individual episode pages. Pat 11:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Diagnosis: Murder Episodes and redirect the other article to this one, which has the appropriate capitalization. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Mukadderat 18:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wrathchild. 23skidoo 19:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wrathchild. Carlossuarez46 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. -- User:Docu

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::type 10:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars Sith characters[edit]

Delete. A small list of links. A complete repeat of Category:Sith and so on. Completely unnecessary, as one can clearly see. — Deckill e r 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yes, this is clearly redundant. Andrew Levine 05:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mukadderat 18:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes which clearly states that the generally accepted consensus is that "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." None of the red links in this list are in the category (nor can they ever be), which demonstrates their non-redundancy. The fact that lists CAN have red links for articles that have not yet been created, is a strong argument in their favor. Alansohn 03:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am pretty sure the purpose of the text bolded there is not to say that we should have overlap within a given subject. It's saying that some subjects are best served with catgories, some with lists, and some with series boxes, and Wikipedia as a whole should not universally favor one over the others. Further down on the guideline, it says that lists "may be redundant with categories if not formatted, annotated, or equipped with invisible links," which is true of the present list. (Also, both "Darth Imperius" and "Darth Xio Jade" have been previously deleted and should probably not be recreated as articles.) Andrew Levine 05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, it's pretty clearly stated that These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other. I agree that lists may be redundant with categories, but the inclusion of red links of articles to be created (even allowing for the removal of deleted articles), means that this list is NOT redundant. Categories AND lists; perfect together. Alansohn 05:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of those redlinks are fannon or hoaxes, so they are unencyclopedic in the first place, and don't belong on a list anyway. Furthermore, because of the cruft dam strategy, any encyclopedia-worthy character will appear in the true sith list, List of minor Sith characters, which will in turn make that list all blue links, and therefore make it obsolete. If an individual sith is not listed in the category, it will be on List of minor Sith characters; it's that simple. (As an aside, redlink requests should be done on the WikiProject page) — Deckill e r 13:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. It does seem that this list is redundant with List of minor Sith characters, though if someone can give me a good reason why this list provides some unique benefit that the other does not, I might be willing to change my mind. --Elonka 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/expand. I'd tend to redirect it to Sith#Dark_Lords_of_the_Sith, but there should be place for an alphabetical and annoted version combining it with List of minor Sith characters. -- User:Docu

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ezeu 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airline destinations[edit]

The logical conclusion to this page is a list of every airport in the world. IIRC MS Flight Simulator 2000 had over 20 000 airports, so draw your own conclusions. Insane cruft! Dave 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We've already got Category:Airports and several lists of airports. We don't need this...I'm not sure what a good redirect might be...maybe List of airports? -- Scientizzle 23:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A category is not a list and a list is not a category. The article serves several purposes. One is a list of airports that have had commerical service and not all airports. This is covered in the intro. The other is a source for listing an airport in other articles. Because of location and naming issues, it is not possible to create a guideline that covers this. So this list functions a source for this information. It also serves as a common point on the location of an airport in other destination articles. The order in this article is still being adjusted after several months of discussion as consensus is achieved. Vegaswikian 06:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Vegaswikian. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of cities with commercial airline service or List of airports with commercial airline service, probably the former. And no, it's not going to grow to 20K items; only a small subset of airports have airline service. --MCB 07:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keeps above seem to have the rationale that it will aid standardisation/creation of other wikipedia articles. In that case would it perhaps be better moved out of article namespace? Dave 10:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but split the page up. It's too large and it will only grow over time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to splitting. I would like to wait a while longer to make sure that we have all of the countries in the correct place. This is easier to see and discuss if everything is in one place. I suppose my concern could be addressed with a nav template that lists countries by continent. Maybe that would be the way to go. Vegaswikian 04:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep My only concern with this article is the constant changing of services in the airline industry and that this page would have to be rigorously updated or it would risk inaccuracy. --Marriedtofilm 17:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Once it's complete, it will need little updating. It's not like new airports are being built all the time, or that lots of airports without commercial service are constantly gaining it. From time to time it will need changes, but upkeep should be easy. Furthermore, it serves as a standard for other destination lists (most airline articles have destination lists now, but many do not follow a standard format). I would support moving it to project space, however. DB (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found this list useful, in part because many of these countries do not yet have their own list of airports and the existing country lists don't always indicate which airports have scheduled commercial airline service. We already have airport lists by country, by IATA code and by ICAO code, so why not this one too? Since it is getting rather large (192 kb), splitting it up would be a good idea - perhaps one list for each continent. - Zyxw 01:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the only advantage the article could provide over the categories – that of including unintended destinations like Mount Erebus (see Air New Zealand Flight 901) and the Atlantic Ocean (see Air India Flight 182) etc. – is not being used. Carlossuarez46 20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble understanding your argument to delete. I don't think "unintended destinations" were ever to be listed in this article. Those examples are tragic catastrophies in which hundreds of people died and have nothing to do with this article. --Marriedtofilm 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to be funny with the "unintended destinations" comment, you failed miserably. That's really sick. DB (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, list is rather long, but well lists are not categories. List is useful with some information other articles do not have. I do support a split as the article is way too long, such as for every continent. But still, this list should no go, and if it stays, it will be good for the encyclopedia. Article always can be clean up some how, still needs some fixing though. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 03:40, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Hale[edit]

nn artist, zero google hits on this person, assertion about exhibition is an extremely well-kept secret if actually true, since there is nothing on the internet about it. page utterly devoid of references, just myspace pages. Montco 00:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC) I am from the west of scotland and have recently purchased work from this artist. I have also seen some of her textiles being sold by felix and oscar. she is illusive but all the information seems to be correct.[reply]

David Adam: I am from the other side of Scotland, but became aware of Hale as an artist whilst living in Russia. She seems to have great links in the art world, and many have spoken of her potential to have great impact with her range of new ideas. She just seems to be unsure about how to progress her work- which areas to specialise in.

Vikki Miller: I have been aware of this artist long before I started moving in the same art and design social circles. As a designer myself I have come to appreciate her work and her thinking process first hand. I have known of her multi-disciplinary talents for many years with her work being sold from a prestigious west end store.

She has travelled and lived in London, America and Russia, and uses these experiences to influence her artistic flare. She is a genuine artist and designer with a humble approach to attention.

Delete not notable. Page says it all "is an little known, although much loved".... loved but not known equals delete QuiteUnusual 13:39, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xmailharddrive[edit]

not notable User24 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but as I noted on the talk page for XMHD, I am related to the topic, so I'd like impartial discussion from people other than me.--User24 00:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not sure of the procedure from here - should I just wait for an admin to pick this up, wait for more votes or... what ? --User24 03:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN and reads like an advertisement. TJ Spyke 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified, non-notable spam. --Transfinite 01:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified, most likely spam. Xdenizen 02:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally outta here - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definatly, Non-Notable and if you need another reason the user who created it is User:Xmhd witch if you havn't noticed already is an accroynym ←^{yes that is spelled wrong} for (Xmailharddrive). Also if you look at the users edits the edits made are only in realation to the article.--†hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa ^{Talk to Me} 02:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, i'd noticed that also. --User24 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Blatant advertisment -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is verifiable. only sort of spam, and seems notable. 37.2k ghits isn't notable? Needs rewriting though. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 02:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Google hits tend to strongly overrepresent internet-specific search terms. Andrew Levine 05:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Keep in mind that this is a third-party gmail product- you should expect some Google hits. --Wafulz 03:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it needs to be moved to Xmail Hard Drive. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 02:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with those who say it's nonnotable and probably spam. 129.98.212.67 03:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 blatant advertising. Author's only contributions have been to push Xmailharddrive. Spam should be killed on-sight, always. EVula 04:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of what's out there on Google relating to this product is promotional stuff just like this article. Andrew Levine 05:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I {{prod}}ded it once). --RobertG ♬ talk 07:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -looks like an advertisement,so delete.Nileena joseph 08:51, 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.