Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 28 October 30 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Dakota 00:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlasticsWiki[edit]

This article proposed for deletion with a folowing reason: "Advertising for a non-notable wiki that is being spammed on multiple wikis. Same text has 131 hits in Google". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sasha l (talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7, unremarkable Web content. This appears to be a procedural listing, as User:Sasha l (also the original creator of the article) created this nomination as she de-prodded the article. —Caesura(t) 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. --Masamage 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7--TBCΦtalk? 18:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unlike this one, I've seen several wikis out there not like this that are an actual wiki with an actual article, but these wikis are just keywordspam and javaspam with no content and you only even see this if Javascript is off. With Javascript on, it redirects to their commercial site they are spamming. Anomo 11:11, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European triode festival[edit]

Very small gathering of vacuum tube audio enthusiasts. Appears to have little media coverage, and the article itself indicates it only draws about 100 participants per year. ghits: [1] NMChico24 23:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems notable within its field. The article does need some cleanup, but this is an annual event. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 00:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. I couldn't find any mention of this festival in any non-trivial and notable published works. Also, note that being "annual" does not make a subject any more notable than if it was biyearly or semiannual.--TBCΦtalk? 03:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 2004 Festival was mentioned in a notable publication here. But your point about annual ≠ notable is well-taken. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 04:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that, as quoted from WP:N, an article needs "multiple non-trivial published works". One isn't enough.--TBCΦtalk? 06:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Spam. Article was created by the user which is mentioned in the article, so the conflict of interests is obvious. But if it is cleaned up, maybe it could stay. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I cleaned it up a bit so it doesn't read so much like a promo, and categorized it. Hope that helps. This not the only article on vacuum tube audio that needs cleaning up, but apparently the tube buffs are too busy listening to their systems to attend to these details ;) Tubezone 23:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Mentioned in a notable publication, but not "multiple non-truvial published works", which is what I am after as far as notability is concerned. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Weak Keep I certainly recognize a number of the speakers as notable in the field of vacuum tube audio, but it needs cleanup and to be linked from other articles. Tubezone 20:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Wait for additional sourcing. Right now there is mention in only one, but not notable, publications, and the one mention found is now a couple of years old (is it still notable?). Criteria for notability haven't been met. If additional evidence is found, article will likely have to be trimmed to conform to only what the reliable sourcing says, as the article currently appears to be based primarily on the event's own web site. If sourcing isn't found, Delete. --Shirahadasha 03:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cleanup, notable for a specialised field. IA (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't have easy access to the magazines mentioned in the article, but they're a pretty fair collection of magazines devoted to the hobby and apparently they published whole articles on this event, not just passing mentions. If this was just another audio swap meet, I'd say, sure, ditch it, but they're flying speakers in from the USA and the attendees aren't just locals. I did contact the principals and asked them to help clean this up and add some sources. Tubezone 08:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (though a close call). I looked at a bunch of the ghits, and it was enough to convince me that the festival is sufficiently notable. In addition to the Steriophile article, I found another (possibly) non trivial mention in this Italian online magazine. -Kubigula (ave) 16:47, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girraween High School[edit]

Non-notable high school TJ Spyke 00:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Please note: WP:SCHOOLS has been rejected as a policy, so please no not base your votes on that and consider changing your vote if you based it on WP:SCHOOLS.
More precisely, User:JoshuaZ added a "rejected" tag to WP:SCHOOLS at 19:46, 29 October 2006. I am not certain that adding the tag at this time was appropriate. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Note to closing administrator: There has been criticism of those who have supported retention of this article who have made reference to WP:SCHOOLS, an effort to create clear objective standards for which school articles should be retained, and which should be deleted. While the guideline did not achieve consensus, it is light years ahead of any other guideline, and stands in stark contrast to the utter lack of any meaningful Wikipedia guideline used by school deletion voters, who have resorted elsewhere to rather insightful "arguments" for deletion, such as "Secondary school, ergo not notable" or "Delete all schools below the university level" or "a random public high school", with the helpful suggestion that redirecting from the schools "to really offensive sex acts" would be an acceptable alternative. It's time that we stopped the staggering waste of time playing AfD Roulette, in which nearly every single high school article (with minimal exceptions) with any meaningful content is retained, demonstrating a clear consensus and explicit precedent for retaining such articles. I recognize that there are those who prefer some arbitrarily high standard for retaining such articles, but unfortunately we have no consensus on these self-imposed made-up standards, let alone anything that approaches the comprehensive, good faith effort to do so at WP:SCHOOLS. If WP:SCHOOLS is unsatisfactory, let's see an alternative standard that will achieve consensus in the community, or even the faintest evidence of an attempt at achieving such a consensus guideline. Alansohn 17:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per precedent on high schools. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - at least one alumna (is that the feminine?) is notable, regardless of the fact I wish she wasn't. Independent sources should be scared up at some point, but I'd say it gets over the proposed WP:SCHOOL as is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Even following the rejection of the policy cited in my original rationale (regardless of its misrepresentation later on in the discussion), I still incline towards a weak keep, due to its status as a selective (and therefore harder-to-get-into) school and the fact that at least one former student went on to bigger and better things. It's barely a step above the average school, but that near-step is enough for me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good thing I didn't change my vote based on the pretend-rejection of the policy, then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google News Archives confirms the claim about Jana Pittman see [2]

Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highschools have been deemed notable by consensus. Resolute 00:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the fact that nothing in WP:SCHOOL says that. I have to disagree with the statement that all high schools are notable, because they are not. TJ Spyke 00:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said they are notable per WP:SCHOOL, I said they had been deemed notable per consensus. There are probably 100 AfDs that reflect this. Resolute 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a "selective" high school, rather than a regular one. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify get rid of unverified information, and cite only reliable sources. If it remains a stub for a couple of months, merge to the appropriate suburb. Andjam 01:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough to me. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As mentioned above, the school has notable alumni like Jana Pittman.--TBCΦtalk? 03:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. Yawn. -- Necrothesp 03:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even read WP:SCHOOL? It says POST-Secondary schools are notable. I can't believe a non-notable school is getting so many keep votes. I guess it's true, the problem with giving people the right to choose is that sometimes they make the wrong choices. TJ Spyke 03:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, first of all WP:SCHOOL is a proposed guideline. Learn and understand the difference and don't attempt to quote it as established policy and expect to be taken seriously. Second, as should be obvious, many people do believe that all secondary schools are notable, and given the fact that most such articles are kept, they appear to be in the majority. May I suggest that you remember that your opinion is just that, an opinion. Because it's yours does not make it correct. We are all entitled to our opinions, and because you disagree does not make us wrong. -- Necrothesp 14:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't quite say that. What is says is that a school may warrant a separate article if it verifiably meets one of a series of criteria. It would be worthy of "comprehensive coverage" if it's a post-secondary school or part of a series on a particular school district (I assume "comprehensive coverage" means "an article the size of those we have on the major universities of the world"). Given that it verifiably meets the criterion of having a notable alumna (Jana Pittman), that may explain some of the keep votes. Not all, mind you, but certainly some. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability asserted to students does not assert notability to school.--Húsönd 03:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. WP:SCHOOL isn't policy, and is possibly too vague if it allows this sort of argument all the time, but it's all we have in terms of objective criteria for schools and there's certainly sufficient leeway there to say that having a famous athlete graduate gets the school over the line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your disagreement but I maintain my position. When (if) WP:SCHOOL becomes a policy, I will abid by the criteria consensually established therein. Until then, I think that my argument is as valid as the familiar and antagonistic "all schools are inherently notable".--Húsönd 04:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair cop. At least we both agree that "all schools are inherently notable" is a bad idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I think notability is a bit thin on the ground here, but it might just, and only just, fall over the line. Lankiveil 05:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep I agree with Lankiveil it is just short of falling notable, but it is just notable enough to keep. Hello32020 11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since WP:SCHOOL has been rejected as a policy, we need to go back to the core policies, WP:notability and WP:RS. This article, as it presently stands, fails that test. No reliable source has been presented independently establishing the school's (as distinct from an alumna's) notability. School publications are cited, but we can't use them -- we have to ignore them -- because an organization's own communication organs are not independent evidence of notability. They aren't reliable sources for this purpose, just as the school's own website isn't a reliable source for the school's notability. Find multiple independent media publications that mention the school and we've met the bare minimum criteria. Otherwise, we haven't and we have to delete. For an organization like a school, we should expect the proponents to take the initiative and provide evidence of notability, as the policy requires. I suggest the school's proponents look for evidence of notability in regular publications if there is any, cite them on the article, and bring them to the attention of this discussion, and quickly. --Shirahadasha 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N and WP:RS are not core policies. They're not policies at all, as a matter of fact. JYolkowski // talk 23:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - where has this policy been rejected? I agree that WP:SCHOOL is flawed, but I can't seem to find any mention on the page that it's actually been canned. Lankiveil 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Right on the front page of WP:SCHOOLS. It says "This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so" TJ Spyke 05:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - A selective high school, and thuse the subject of fierce entrance examinations - DYK that parents send their kids for weekend coaching to get into this school. PArt from that, there have been guys from this school who were chosen for national selection camps for the Australian team for International Chemistry Olympiad, etc,...although there are no news reports for that...and it comes from teh back of my head...but they are doing well.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's a common argument, which I'm very reluctant to accept. I think that we should separate the waters: if there are notable alumni from this school, then we should have articles about them and their notable achievements, not their schools. I can't also regard the fact of this school being selective as notability. There's thousands of selective schools and that is really no big deal. Besides, if we were to keep only elitist schools then it would pretty much turn Wikipedia into a vehicle for advertising those institutions, while at the same time discriminating other not-so-selective schools. --Húsönd 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Well, it's a government enforced selective school, so they aren't just making it up. For most schools the median graduation rank is over 90 - It's not like some random school just declared themselves "elite". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be some misunderstanding about whether a school's own website is a reliable source of information. In fact, WP:RS states:

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote it, and where the material is:

  • relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
  • not contentious;
  • not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
  • about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

On that basis, a school's website can be a useful source of information. Sometimes school administrators lie or try to cover things up, but in general the enrolment figures or the history of the school are likely to be described accurately if incompletely on the site. (By "incompletely", I mean that a school's own history may ignore or gloss over past misconduct by students, teachers or administrators that may be relevant.) --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was going to give up on voting down non-notable high schools, but WP:SCHOOLS has been rejected and it seemed to be the only thing making these articles the least bit legitimate. There are thousands of high schools in the US alone and when you take in all secondary schools across the globe (can't even imagine how many there are in India or China, for example) do we really need to have articles for all of them? This is not a directory, we don't have articles for every hospital, every business, every police station, etc. nor do we need them for all high schools. High schools are are relatively the same and Wikipedia is not the proper source to look up there differences. Certainly, there are going to be some (very few) exceptions, but this isn't one of them. --The Way 08:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable high school with 500+ students. bbx 09:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, why on Earth would somebody want to delete this article? This school is a part of the pride of the New South Wales education system and is home to hundreds of students, thier parents, staff and even the local neighbourhood surrounding the school. How can someone be so blatantly ignorant to no see this. May I mention that a few valuable editors like Phanatical went to and some are still at this school. If this page is deleted they'll be betrayed and we might lose valuable help. Strong keep dosen't describe how much this article should be kept, it should be more something like super strong keep or something. Also, TJ Spyke did you not also want to delete the article for Morristown West High School as well? All schools are notable and if you don't agree to that, maybe you (I'm talking about all those anti-school editors) should stop worrying about schools on Wikipedia altogether. What if someone wanted to find a neutral source of information on a particular school but found that page was deleted. Result: Person does not trust Wikipedia anymore and tells everyone he/she knows not to trust Wikipedia. Surely that can't be good. Atlantis Hawk 09:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, is there any reason to assume that the deletion of an article on a school would result in editors from that school packing up and leaving the project? Deletion of an article on a subject dear to someone's heart is hardly a "betrayal", regardless of what some contributors might want to claim at various times, and neither is a hypothetical betrayal of a group of editors particularly likely to see them leave en masse. As far as the claim that "all schools are notable", that isn't something that's been determined by consensus - flawed as it was and rejected as it is, WP:SCHOOLS was an attempt to codify exactly which schools were notable, and it certainly didn't result in every single school being deemed notable by a long way. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Verifiable notability asserted. Barely. AKAF 15:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a thorough, complete and well-constructed article for a secondary school, with explicit and verifiable claims of noatbility. This is a perfect template to be used as aprt of the process of creating articles for each and every high school in the English-speaking world (I haven't yet found an appropriate model for Chinese schools). If we waste all this time on fruitless AfDs for secondary schools, we'll only be further delayed in creating articles for every such school. Alansohn 17:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the more time I waste in AFDs like this, the more it spurs me to create new school articles to help redress the balance. Kappa 01:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the many above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Has possibly notable alumni. JoshuaZ 18:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the arguments listed above!! Audiobooks 20:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and for a very good reason, at that too. This school has produced notable alumni, so it's obviously noteworthy for this reason. The reference to Jana Pittman proves this article should be kept. SunStar Net 23:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An extensive, informative article that could almost serve as a model for the genre. Has had input from many editors over the last 12 months. That far outweighs a four word deletion nomination. --JJay 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, tedious and unverified article about a non-notable school. —ptk✰fgs 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important to its local community, and being a selective school which evokes fierce competition, important to a wider area as well. Not really helpful to merge a substantial article like this one. Kappa 01:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't even see a clear assertion of notability for the school in the article. There is certainly no use of independent sources that are reliable to establish any notability. We can't have an article that simultaneously adheres to WP:V and WP:NPOV without independent reliable sources. These are policies, so deletion is required. GRBerry 03:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Reliable Sources were added to the article backing up the claim to fame that Jana Pittman attended (frankly, I'm surprised they've not been added yet), would that be enough? I'm guessing from the rest of your rationale that it wouldn't, but it's always handy to know these things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have to see the sources that are hypothesized to give a definitive answer. My general belief is that the sources would need to contain significant discussion of the school itself. If they had some discussion of its affect on her life, that might merit inclusion in the article on her. But I am a firm non-believer in notability by association, so merely having a notable person that went to a school (or married another person) does not make that school (or spouse) notable. GRBerry 13:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is demonstrated within the article and meets the proposed WP:SCHOOLS as well. Yamaguchi先生 03:43, 1 November 2006
  • deleteیا چیٹنگ میں اردو زبان کا سہادہ لیتی ھے پر عربی رسم الخط میں لکھنے سے قاصر ھے، لھزا رومن رسم الخط کا سھارا لیا جاتا ھے۔اور اس بات کی امید کرنا بیوقوفی ھے کہ ھماری عوام آسان رومن رسم الخط کو چھوڑ کے مشکل اردو رم الخ کو اپناۓ گی۔ نتیجہ یہ نکلے گا کہ آج سے دس سال پعر کمپیوٹر اور انٹرنیٹ کی دنیا میں اردو کی حیثیت ایک معمولی زبان کی ھو گی۔ اور نئ نسل انگریزی زبان پہ اور زیادہ منحصر ھو جائیگی۔ اور یہ مسائل پاکستان کی دوسری زبانوں (پنجابی، سنرھی، پشتو، بلوچی، سرائیکی، کشمیری) کو بھی درپیش ھیں۔ ھمیں چاھیے کہ ھم زبان کو بچانے کی سعی کریں، نہ کہ رسم الخط سے محبت کے چکر میں زبان کو نقصان پہنچا بیٹھیں۔ ویسے بھی عوام تو رومن رسم WP:SCHOOLSالخط کو کمپیوٹر کی حد تک قبول کر ھی چکے ھیں، اب ھمارا فرض بنتا ھے کہ ھم باقاعدہ رومن رسم الخط کی توضیح کریں۔ ورنہ عوام اردو الفاظ کے بے تکے رومن متبادل تو و‌‌‍‍ضح کر ھی چکے ھیں‍‌، جیسے جیسے وہ ذہنوں میں راسخ ھوں گے زبان کا اور نقصان ھوگا۔ میری گزارش ھے کہ ویکیپیڈیا پہ ہر صفحے کا ایک رومن متبادل ھو۔ اردو کے رومن حروف تہجی میں اپنی فہم ناقص کے مطابق ترتیب دے چکا ھوں۔ جو حضرات اس سلسلے میں میری معاونت کرنا چاھیں، بندہ ھر ممکن تعاون اور رہنمائ کو تیار ھے۔ آپ کے خیالات جاننے کا متمنی ھوں۔ (سید فیاض عباس) Teresa Isaac 04:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on Earth did that mean? Atlantis Hawk 04:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It means that she has a sense of humor. :-) --Húsönd 05:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is that real Persian? Babelfish doesn't support translation for Persion so I can't check. TJ Spyke 05:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, High schools are inherently notable, this one is such a school. -- Librarianofages 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Do you have some justification for the claim that highschools are inherently notable? Keep in mind that under precedents, not even countries are inherently notable. JoshuaZ 22:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not even countries are inherently notable? Atlantis Hawk 07:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been meaning to nominate Equatorial Guinea for a while - one or two swimmers do not a notable country make. Andjam 12:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Guinea and Equatorial Guinea, I'd delete them both. And why not toss in Guyana for that matter. What on earth does a story about someone trying to delete countries have to do with high schools? Besides wouldn't the more relevant precedent -- the fact that about 99% of all high school articles with any meaningful content survive AfDs -- justify retention of this and all such articles, based on precedent? Alansohn 12:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • First of all, the deleted countries have generally been microstates with only one or two inhabitants - the point remains that if even countries don't get inherent notability it is hard to see how schools (which generally lie within countries) should. Furthermore, surviving AfD is very different than being kept. The AfDs frequently close with no consensus and are even occasionally deleted. This is despite the fact that the keeps sometimes result from borderline votestacking. Furthermore, precedent is by itself a very weak argument for keeping something - there is nothing wrong with revisiting it when necessary. JoshuaZ 16:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • So if I understand correctly, precedent is that any microschools with one or two students should be deleted, but larger schools should be retained. And if precedent is "a very weak argument" for retention, why would you just use it to justify deletion? I agree that issues should be revisited, but we seem to be revisiting these issues two or three times each day, and the precedent that we're setting is that high school articles with a bare minimum of content are kept as a matter of course. If you look through most AfDs, the overwhelming majority of articles are deleted, often based on the votes of a relatively small number of individuals who spend much of their day participating in such AfDs, deciding if articles meet their own personal preferences. And while your general opposition to most such articles may lead you to see votestacking, what I see is that the fact that schools generate so much strong interest, with substantial numbers of people taking the time to vote for their retention, is evidence of broad support for schools. Alansohn 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • My point was that if precedent matters then one has the issue that not even countries are inherently notable. Once we have gotten to the point that entities are not inherently notable, Librarians above claim fails and therefore would require at minimum more justification. As for the votestacking issue, even at least one user in favor of keeping schools in general User:Forbidden Word, thinks that it is votestacking as well (only he seems to see that as a good thing). That schools are continually being AfDed would indicate at minimum that that there is a substantial minority which disagrees with the process. Indeed, when non-school editors comment on a school AfD they are more likely to go with deletion than retention, indicating that the prevailing consensus among Wikipedians is not to keep all these schools. JoshuaZ 17:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Good grief, your last sentence is one hell of a leap of logic! Incidentally, I'm not entirely sure how you're defining votestacking here. Is that anyone who registers a vote you don't agree with? Because I see the same names voting for deletion on pretty much every school AfD as well as the same names voting for retention. Therefore if anyone is votestacking, the deleters are doing it every bit as much as the keepers, except they're demonstrably not getting so much support. -- Necrothesp 18:30, 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 delete - and Ray isn't notable either. DS 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudorealism in Indian Art[edit]

[Nomination; ed. DB] delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devajyoti Ray 4.18GB 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources whatsoever, no evidence of WP:Notability. The article mentions the work of only a single individual . Agree there's no reason not to simply fold the discussion into the Devajyoti Ray article. --Shirahadasha 03:55, 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 - Yomanganitalk 10:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ClutchFans[edit]

Asserts notability (and Alexa rank is 23,655, not too terrible), but only source is a broken link to the Sports Illustrated website. NawlinWiki 00:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The link has been fixed. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It has been mentioned before by Sports Illustrated, but other than that I couldn't find any other non-trivial published works.--TBCΦtalk? 03:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some work, but it seems to (barely) pass WP:WEB. --Transfinite 03:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If I need to fill this page up, should the sources be from outside the particular website I'm writing about (Clutchfans) or is it alright to put information from the site itself (for instance, from the 'About Us' Section on Clutchfans)Brantonli 07:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Sources independant of the subject are always prefereble, look for such things as news sites, which are known to be the best sources. Also look for reputable sources, maning, no blogs basically :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What if the source is from an article on the said website, but that article is citing a major sports article? Like this: [[3]] It's on a SI article that writes about ClutchCity (as it was known a couple of years ago).Brantonli 17:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Multiple sources evidencing notability are required, but given the strong mention in the Sports Illustrated article, the age of the site, and the modest nature of the present article, it's not unreasonable to believe that additional sources may be forthcoming, and to allow a little time for them to be produced. --Shirahadasha 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and review in one month per Shirahadasha and assurances of author Brantonli. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 05:42, 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 speedy delete CSD G7 [4], A7 -- Samir धर्म 07:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Narshe[edit]

Contested prod - non-notable musician, clearly fails WP:MUSIC, 15 year old kid with one self-published record and a Myspace. Stormie 00:38, 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 speedy delete. —Xezbeth 18:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molecularpedia[edit]

ZERO google hits! Entirely non-notable wiki failing pretty much every guideline/policy. Pretty much just an advert for a site that hasn't even made Google yet. Wickethewok 01:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: So, you are seeking to eliminate a page to a site that is new...simply because it is new? Which guideline/policies does the page fail, other than being new? --MBurbank 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is for stuff that is already notable, not a place to advertise and help something become notable. TJ Spyke 01:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Site appears to have been launched just today[5]. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform or web directory. Fails WP:WEB. Bwithh 01:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Non-notable, one day old wiki with only one active contributor.--TBCΦtalk? 03:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One day old wiki, that's probably record. Pavel Vozenilek 03:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. DoomsDay349 04:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whqt is molecularpedia?Bakaman Bakatalk 04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just check its stats - Only 1 user, only 5 legit pages (probably less)... Massive fail. -Masamunemaniac 04:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These things are why I am not dead set against expanding speedy deletion criteria. -Amarkov babble 05:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-non notable. Nileena joseph 06:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable site. Wikipedia should not be used to gain notability, it should document already established notability. JIP | Talk 06:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. --MaNeMeBasat 07:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Being a wiki is not inherently a claim to notability. A wiki that consists of only four pages of content, all copied under GFDL from Wikipedia, is not ready to publicize itself yet anywhere, much less on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 07:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A website that returns 0 google hits cannot possibly be notable. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above and WP:SNOW. MER-C 11:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Metropolitan90 and others. A day-old wiki with 4 pages and no original content is a speedy for sure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7, unremarkable Web content. So tagged. —Caesura(t) 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per nom.Devapriya 16:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete kill with fire. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:05, 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. W.marsh 00:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Anderton[edit]

The page history reveals that this began as an autobiography to promote the subject in his election bid. While the page has since been cleaned up, the subject is a non-notable candidate; standing in a seat he has no chance of winning. While I am happy to have pages for candidates with a reasonable chance of winning, Anderton needs a swing of around 25%. It is true that he briefly came to attention with his racist remarks, it did not blow up into a scandal, and he has since faded back into obscurity. Teiresias84 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Teiresias84 01:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The controversy means that he is more well-known than most candidates, and thus notable. If he fails to win a seat in parliament, and does nothing else to warrant inclusion, then perhaps he will cease to be notable, but he is certainly notable now. Raffles mk 03:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The racist remarks had the potential to cause a controversy, but they simply didn't - they were only mentioned in two newspaper articles at the time, and it was very quickly forgotten. He never emerged from obscurity, has no chance of winning, and this is persistently getting edited by what appears to be his campaign stuff, so it'd be nice to be able to put this one out of its misery. Rebecca 03:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Raffles.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable political candidate. The article even says the comment was removed before it caused any real controversy. TJ Spyke 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TJ Spyke. "He is notable for something that never became notable" is not exactly a winning argument. --Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable polititian.Nileena joseph 06:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes him notable? TJ Spyke 06:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Making racial slurs might raise a few eyebrows, and result in few news articles and few blog posts. But, they don't make a person notable. utcursch | talk 09:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's gained notoriety outside his state. I'm in Canberra, and he was a topic of conversation, so I came to Wiki to learn what might be learned. That being the case, I think he's now sufficiently notable to warrant keeping.Afrohally 11:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unelected racist candidate with no hope of winning. Lankiveil 14:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rebecca. JROBBO 01:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google News Archive search shows the only coverage he got was when he was nominated as the Liberal candidate in local newspapers. [6]. A search for Gary Anderton on EBBSCO's Australia and New Zealand database comes up with no mention of the candidate but comes up with articles from the Geelong Advertiser as there is a Gary Anderton active in Geelong local cricket. As a Canberran, I had never heard of him and I follow Australian politics with a keener than average interest. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Let WikiNews handle news reports. Being a minor candidate is not sufficient per WP:Notability, and the sole other source of arguable notability seems to be a highly ephemeral event. --Shirahadasha 04:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Raffles. Elomis 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rebecca. --124.254.121.175 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (says Roisterer 04:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC) while momentarily logged out).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - the existence of other similar articles isn't a basis for keeping this one. Yomanganitalk 10:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verdicts Of Video On Trial[edit]

  • non-notable, listcruft, unencyclopedic, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, etc. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or be sentenced to watch them all ➥the Epopt 02:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant listcruft. L0b0t 03:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Argh, listcruft! delete. I must however say that I do like the neat table :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but if this site is allowed to post episode guides & results for other television shows (such as Celebrity Deathmatch, for example), then I fail to see why this really needs to be deleted. Now I'll admit that some of the verdicts couldn't be worded 100% like the one's on the show, & that the spirit of the show could make it seem as though some of it is vandalism, but having seen every episode myself (& editing it weekly with the latest verdicts), I can assure you that I always make sure to post the verdicts as accurately as possible. Still, if any one here actually has links to the episodes as well, that'd definitely help. But I, for one, being a big fan of the show, enjoy this article & would like to keep it up. SlyDante 16:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, SlyDante makes a very good point, however I am concerned about the lack of context and verifiability. No vote either way at this point. Resolute 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much, Resolute. And I am actually worried about the context & verifiability as well, because as far as I know, no episodes have been released on DVD yet, & very few have been posted on the Internet. If it would help, I could try e-mailing MuchMusic for help in filling in the missing verdicts & verifying/fixing the others. But aside from all of that, all the info here pretty much comes from the memories of fans like me, & once again I assure you all that I try to make sure that it is all as accurate as possible. Also, I do not believe this is "listcruft", as much like an episode guide, this helps to inform the reader as to what videos have been featured on the show. SlyDante 2:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Strange but interesting Timb0h 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is nothing wrong with this article

  • Delete. WP:NOT a TV guide. Sandstein 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've already made my case before. "WP:NOT a TV guide." Okay, so what do you call all those episode summaries of Invader Zim, Friends, South Park, Drawn Together, The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc., etc., that Wiki has? This is just hypocrisy. SlyDante 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:AGF. You're free to nominate these for deletion, too. I'd support deleting them, except where the episodes are individually notable for their cultural impact etc. Sandstein 05:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least one Canadian show is getting some form of documentation........ NeoAC 1 November 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artists for Charity[edit]

Non-notable charity organisation. No reliable sources found on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 01:55, 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 - Yomanganitalk 10:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gabriel Church (Windsor)[edit]

non notable church in fabulous Windsor, Ontario Brianyoumans 03:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Very minor, non-notable church. Google shows only 95 relevant Google results.--TBCΦtalk? 03:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 03:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Imoeng 07:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Per the article saying that it has a low enough attendance for the church to be closed, I personally do not see this as notable. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the article says that a different church is being merged into this one, so this church is a going concern. Deet 03:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of ntability. Very little information of use in the article. Chris Kreider 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the useful information into Windsor, Ontario. JYolkowski // talk 20:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 03:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the useful information into List of Windsor churches or similar. Rob Russell 16:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. No use of sources of any type, much less ones meeting WP:INDY. GRBerry 03:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it stays in current state. Arbusto 09:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I acknowledge that it's not that notable, and the article isn't filled out, but it's a real church. Do we need to reserve this name for another church in Windsor called St. Gabriel, and if not, what harm does it do? I am obviously more of an inclusionist and like the ability to find obscure topics in Wikipedia. Why not just label it as a stub? Deet 03:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I was a kid, I had a cat named "Penny", sadly now deceased. Penny was real, and is now obscure and non-notable - should he have a Wikipedia article too? I admit the church is much more notable than Penny, but lines do need to be drawn somewhere. --Brianyoumans 05:06, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two-by-four technology[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:NEO this is a phrase from a television show that is not in common usage.L0b0t 03:39, 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 Merge to Westpoint Corporation. Yomanganitalk 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayview Apartment[edit]

Either real estate spam or conflict of interest. No assertion of notability. Húsönd 03:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nomination. Merge per new evidence. L0b0t 03:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are millions of apartments in the world, and this one isn't anymore notable than the rest.--TBCΦtalk? 03:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most likely real estate advert. DoomsDay349 04:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable building -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable building. JIP | Talk 06:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Not too notable, but seems to be a large building, and the artice seems quite good. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the original author makes an assertion of notability on the talk page. This is not well covered in the article and is currently unverified. In the spirit of not biting the newcomers I've suggested he work on sourcing this assertion in the article and will withold judgement until we've had some time to try and do so.--Siobhan Hansa 13:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:DUMB is a humourous page, not an official policy. Agree with the rest of your comment though. Lankiveil 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment: This is neither a real estate spam or conflict of interest. It is only a record for the historical page regarding the Wespoint collapse and the herigage buildings' history of the apartment. Of course, the apartment itself is the evident that the remaing investors survied are enjoying their life style with the facilities and environment of the apartment. The combined unique features of the apartment cannot be found in all other apartments in Port Melbourne. 30-Oct-06 220.238.76.132 06:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The developers might be worth an article, but one of their otherwise unremarkable -- and adding vague handwaving adspeak ("due to its location, convenient shopping and dinning environment, and enjoyment of the leisure") doesn't make it remarkable -- doesn't. --Calton | Talk 07:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments against deletion The primary purpose and goal of Wikipedia is to provide free education and knowledge exchange. The article of Bayview Apartment may sound like a real estate spam if the people read the article at the surface. Actually, the Bayview Apartment is a window opening to a broader explorer to the heritage buildings, which indicates the historical economy, culture, community in Port Melbourne. More information will be added regarding the heritage buildings if this article could be kept for future viewers. In the past decade, Port Melbourne has been dramatically and rapidly transformed from a working class slum to a very attractive and livable suburb closing to the Melbourne city. That’s why these words such as “due to its location, convenient shopping and dinning environment, and enjoyment of the leisure” were inserted into the article. Bayview Apartment contributed a remarkable and significant influence to the transformation of Port Melbourne, especially to the Bay Street, which is virtually a heritage street. The retail shops of the Bayview Apartment make the Bay Street more variable and vibrate the Port Melbourne community. Then the article mentioned the collapsed developer Westpoint, who built the Bayview Apartment, inevitably Bayview Apartment become a historical mirror of the collapsed Wespoint. Westpoint went to under became one of the biggest news in the financial market in Australia history. Westpoint originally organized two schemes to investors through either buying the unit of the apartment or the promising notes through the financial planners and its sales network. The investors who bought the promising notes ended with the tragedy of their life saving lost. Those who bought the unit eventually are survived because today they still own the property and keep the market value and may enjoy a moderate capital gain in the current property market situation. The article paid attention to the investors survived. Does it sound like an investment scheme promotion seminar? The purpose of this article does not promote any sort of the investment but gives to a future viewer a recognition that “bricks and mortar” make more common sense than “promising notes and mezzanine companies” if a future viewer may not be a sophisticated or astute investor. Therefore, the article itself is very educational to the future viewers, which exactly is in compliance with Wikipedia’s policies and objectives. Obviously, the notability of the Bayview Apartment speaks itself. After 10-20 years, people may forget the lesson of collapsed Westpoint (one of the most notable financial collapsing in the Australia history). However, if people walk pass the Bayview Apartment building and read this article in the Wikipedia, free encyclopedia; Bayview Apartment has full of the historical stories in a very broad aspect. 31/10/06 220.238.76.132 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge into Westpoint company article and redirect. The bankruptcy appears to be a very notable event making the company worthy of coverage on Wikipedia, but the apartment complex is just one of their projects. --Siobhan Hansa 13:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is no doubt that Bayview Apartment is a window to those notable events. If the window was shutted, the viewers might not be able to see the insight/outsight. People may not be so enthusiastic and interested in finding the history for the sake of the history. But if people see the heritage buildings of the apartment, that may trigger their curiosity to type the words “bayview apartment” in the search box of Wikipedia. Then all the stories will be revealed and Wikipedia reached its objective.(Note: the Bayview Apartment is a huge complex which occupied a whole block of the land by multiple buildings. Two heritage buildings are a visible attraction) 01/11/06 220.238.76.132 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. spam for non-notable apartment block. By all means include an article about the class-action lawsuit but this does not belong here. --Roisterer 11:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The class action is involved by about 2,000 investors, which is the largest class action in this country. Notably and resourcefully, the Australia reputable lawyer firm Slater and Gordon has a specific webpage in dealing with failed Westpoint. 02/11/06 220.238.76.132 14:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Please sign your posts. See WP:SIG. L0b0t 13:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Undisclosed conflict of interest. User:220.238.76.132/User:Donaldtong created the article up for deletion. L0b0t 13:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Please see signed user above. (previously did not know how to useDonaldtong 14:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC) to sign. It is a learning curve for editing comments).Donaldtong 14:15, 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Mountain (disambiguation)[edit]

Disambiguation page with two entries, both red links. DoomsDay349 04:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The only reason I see for keeping it is to acknowledge that there are two Laurel Mountains. On the other hand it is close enough to being blank that it might qualify for a speedy. Hyenaste (tell) 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep -- per below, makes good sense to me. Thank you. Bubba hotep 20:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC) frivolous dismabig page. Laurel Mountain redirects to the Pennsylvania article (which is incorrectly linked at the disambig page). Thinking the page might have been a failed attempt to be helpful. Bubba hotep 12:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Laurel Mountain. I have made some pages like this, and they are very useful in making sure links point to the right place. Without this, someone linking to the mountain in West Virginia will probably link to Laurel Mountain, which points to the Pennsylvania one. Someone realizing it links to the wrong place will probably then remove the link rather than fixing it to point to the West Virginia one. --NE2 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep now that one of the links is not red. Hyenaste (tell) 20:25, 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 05:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATL 2 (film)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No links turn up in a Google search for ATL 2, no IMDb entry. The article claims T.I. is confirmed to appear in the film, but there is no source, or even any indication of a script, director, etc. for the film. FuriousFreddy 04:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The film does not exist yet. TJ Spyke 04:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dar-Ape 17:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 18:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veinor (ヴエノル) 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked myself, and there doesn't seem to be anything out there that indicates that there's even an ATL sequel in consideration. Delete on basis of unverifiable speculation. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 05:14, 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 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Medal of Honor Guild[edit]

Non notable online community with 30 original members and 40 active ones right now. Article includes list of current members, and can't be speedied because it claims notability in the fact that they won The Honor League. Prod removes without comment.[10] -- ReyBrujo 04:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It sounds like a ad for a non-notable community. Also, 40 memebers is a pathetic amount. TJ Spyke 04:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another gaming clan; hopelessly non-notable. Yawn. MER-C 08:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above--Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't broken this gem out in a long time, but... DELETE ALL CLANS! -- Kicking222 14:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Nothing at all sets this guild apart from the millions of other guilds out there. Resolute 04:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, this page fulfills one of the notability requirements. "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 clan is hosted on an independent and well known site at http://www.forumplanet.com/PlanetMedalOfHonor/ and has it's own specialized section within the forums. Though a majority of the guild members are members of this forum, the actual site is neither owned nor run by any of the current guild members, and is run by Gamespy. Winter04 06:59 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Addition This page also fulfills the notability requirements as the guild and its server are mentioned in multiplayer section of the Medal of Honor: Breakthrough game guide. Winter04 07:15 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete web hosting is not distribution for notability purposes. Eluchil404 08:52, 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 No consensus, so kept by default. Yomanganitalk 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Lamenessing Engine[edit]

It seems to not meet any of the criteria under WP:SOFTWARE. GinaDana 05:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. --Brad Beattie (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though WP:SOFTWARE is a still-evolving proposal, not a guideline, and should not be treated as an actual guideline yet, this article fails any reasonable test of WP:NOTE, which is a guideline. see below Xtifr tälk 12:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page is still quite new (far from complete). Subject is GPL software used in many Linux and FreeBSD distros. Not clear how it should be categorized. Could be as Software Application or as Software Component, as it is both a stand-alone command-line tool and a compiled-in part of ImageMagick

  • Keep Neutral (see below), I didn't recognize the package because I've never seen its name spelled out before! As ALE, however, I'm quite familiar with it. It is indeed a standard component of a wide variety of systems, and as such, fully meets at least one WP:SOFTWARE criterion. Xtifr tälk 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we perhaps relist this to get a more in-depth discussion about the article's notability now that a more common name for it has been established? GinaDana 08:46, 28 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, Titoxd(?!?) 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if a reference can be found to backup the Linux/FreeBSD claim. --- RockMFR 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote but some data points: I checked the status of "ale" in Debian. It exists there, but in an old version that has not been updated in 2 years. No popular outrcy at this has materialized, save for a single polite nudge from a single user [11]. The Debian "popularity contest" statistics, based on about 18,000 users who vonlunteer automatic information about their installed packages, estimates that the "ale" package is used regularly on 30 of the 18,000 systems. There are about 5,700 packages in Debian that have higher estimates. Among packages with with similar scores we find nn, slashem and sendmail. (For comparison, a small program which I hacked together 9 months ago to scratch a personal itch and never advertized widely, certainly not notable, ranks at 8,400 with an estimated 12 regular users). The Imagemagick packages in Debian show no traces of including "ale" as a compiled-in part. Henning Makholm 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ah well, in light of that, I've changed my vote (again) to neutral. It has been around for a long time, but I haven't used it in years, and it sounds like nobody much else is using it any more either. It might be worthy of an article for its historical interest, but I can't offer any references or sources, which is really what would be needed to justify saving it. I know I read an article about it once, but that was long ago, and I can't say where. Xtifr tälk 09:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Well, many ALE users (including myself) compile it from source to get CPU-specific optimizations, so popcon isn't particularly useful. popcon is especially useless since the package is that far out of date. ALE is still useful, and I know a few people who use it regularly (including myself) -- it just seems that nobody writes about it when they do. 21:28, 2 November 2006 (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 keep in a somewhat speedy manner, the disambig is used for several articles. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BVS[edit]

Delete all link is a red links. this page is not disambiguation. Zanghgn 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Interesting, almost a speedy delete A3 for only having links, but none of the links in this dab page go anywhere. We delete empty categories, should the same follow for an empty dab page? --Daniel Olsen 06:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might call this housekeeping, since csd g6 covers disambiguation pages with only one link. Then again, maybe not. MER-C 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, speedy if possible. MER-C 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - now a useful disambiguation page with many blue links. MER-C 12:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A blue link was added to the list, so I suggest a redirect to that one page, preserving the history as a start for a dab page later. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep normal disambiguation. Sasha l 14:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; there are now three blue links. —Caesura(t) 16:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and remove the redlinks and their links (which may be linkspam) ColourBurst 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep disambig. Veinor (ヴエノル) 23:03, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Edward Andrew Colligan II[edit]

Don't think this is quite speedy deletion material, but nn all the same. Also huge POV problems -Amarkov babble 05:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete not sure why this was not speedy delete tagged - it seems like a total hoax to me. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure about it. I'm tired, so my judgement on what is obvious is a little bit impaired. -Amarkov babble 05:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Arm. TJ Spyke 06:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cj and chaz at work[edit]

Was on Speedy as (A7 - notability not asserted). I think it should go on AfD Alex Bakharev 05:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete No Assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 06:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:TJ Spyke. JIP | Talk 06:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable; the film is not listed on the IMDb and the title garners no Google hits. --Metropolitan90 07:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to be eligible for speedy deletion. (A7 does not cover films.) —Caesura(t) 16:15, 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 speedy delete. —Cryptic 12:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting to Inhale[edit]

Article is about a documentary created by Jed Riffe; the article was created by User:Jedriffe. Violates WP:WWIN and WP:VAIN. "Resources" section copied from here. Much of article written in the first person suggests copy-and-paste. AED 06:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 11:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar (film)[edit]

Finishing an incomplete nomination by User:81.104.170.167, should now be complete. No position yet from me. Daniel Olsen 06:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To finish the job: Pure speculation. References cited include IMDB, which happily tells you that *they* aren't sure about it either (yes, IMDB is not a reliable source this far away from the target date), and an interview with Spielberg in which the project is mentioned in passing towards the end. Film is supposedly due in 2009, not that this is confirmed anywhere useful. We can be almost certain that the US will have a new president by then, and almost certain that the memory of the Olympics in Beijing will be fading from our minds. We can't say the same about a film, no matter who's running the show. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Geogre's Fourth Law - the absence of an article does not make something bad. It can come back once we have some solid information, which is something we don't have. 81.104.170.167 07:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I uncovered a citation mentioning Interstellar (see article) from October 25, 2006 that's independent of IMDb and the SpielbergFilms.com interview, the Wikipedia article's two initial citations. This may reflect that the film is not too speculative in nature. Otherwise, however, there do not seem to be any other follow-up sources that are independent of those already included in the article. I find it a tough call to determine the validity of this article, since Spielberg is a very noted director. Is it reasonable to take into consideration whether a director has consistently followed through with announced projects in his/her Hollywood history? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 07:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because we're still too far off completion for their record to be relevant. If Spielberg made a passing reference to some project he has conceived for 2012, 2015, or even 2020, would not be grounds to start an encyclopaedia article based on it. The Variety "article" (more of a sidebar to me) is about someone being promoted, and again makes only passing reference to it. All we seem to know at this point is that the project exists, and our baseline is verifiability, not truth. IMDB isn't reliable this far away, and SpielbergFilms.com is nothing more than a fansite. Variety may indeed be a reliable source, but to suggest that this project needs an article right now purely on the basis of a throwaway comment at the end of a sidebar piece is pushing the policy just a little too far. 81.104.170.167 08:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC
    PS - this isn't final. Having the article deleted now does not mean that it can never come back - when there's enough information available to actually write an article about it, then one can be written. Remember, AfD is about the article, not the topic. 81.104.170.167 08:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell, SpielbergFilms.com is a fansite that can absolutely count as a reliable source. The site takes itself seriously, and the interview with Spielberg is a primary source. Furthermore, you've tried to downplay the interview by saying that Spielberg mentioned Interstellar in passing, when he actually gave reasonable detail about it for a film in development -- who is the brain, who is directing, who is producing, who is scripting, and how he doesn't want to compare it to 2001. This isn't a project that's faded into obscurity -- the Variety article I cited in my initial comment above shows that it's still live, despite the "sidebar" nature. In addition, since lack of references was one of your arguments, I found this Variety article from June 2006 that announces the yet-unnamed project (obviously Interstellar). It's been edited into the film article to flesh it out further. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviewing the crystal ball policy, Interstellar is not "unverifiable speculation" as reflected by the newly added citations (see my comment above). Furthermore, this film can be considered of "sufficiently wide interest" to merit an article being that Spielberg is one of Hollywood's most notable directors. The same couldn't be said of a film under a first-time director. Also, reviewing notability on unreleased films, Interstellar is certainly not just "expected to be made", as the October 2006 citation reflects that it is a live project at a production company. In addition, the June 2006 citation reflects that the project would self-admittedly spend "several years" in development, so it's a matter of arguing the interest in a Spielberg film and the recency of production news, both of which I've explained here. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking over the policy link Erik provided, this is verifiable and of sufficiently wide interest. SpielbergFilms' interview at the Chicago International Film Festival seems credible, and IGN [12], Dark Horizons [13], Cinescape [14] and BBC [15] based stories on it. Showing multilingual interest, there's articles on German [16], Dutch [17], Spanish [18] [19], French [20] and Italian movie news sites [21] also based on SpielbergFilms' interview. And IGN [22] and RottenTomatoes [23] based news stories on the Variety article. I think this is a small, verifiable article of sufficient interest which would undoubtably grow. Balsa10 10:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is support and interest in the article. It clearly states it is for a "scheduled or expected film" and is therefore not misleading. In addition to the supportive comments above I cannot see any benefit in deleting this article. In my opinion a stub being here will encourage more frequent updates (keeping the article accurate and relevant), especially by newbies who may feel nervous about starting a full article from scratch but feel confident enough to add a line here and there. GQsm 17:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The attention it has received means it doesn't meet WP:NOT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Spielberg project is notable. Has made trade news (i.e. Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety). --Marriedtofilm 16:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article in Variety[24] suggests that Paramount have acknowledged its existence. --Sonance 18:36, 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. Punkmorten 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filmfare's List of Top Ten Actresses[edit]

The article purports to be dedicated to a list of top actresses published by an Indian film magazine since 2003. However, the article doesn't give any of the lists, but consists of a lead para arguing that Rani Mukerji is the top actress in Bollywood, followed by slighting mentions of other actresses. As it stands, the article is biased, and an attack on the other actresses and should be deleted for that reason. (The creator of the article has been linking this article to other actress pages, as a subtle attack on their standing vis-a-vis Rani.) However, even if the article were what the title would lead one to expect, a list of the ten winners for each year, it would still be trivial and non-notable. Newspapers and magazines publish lists of favorites all the time, none of which rate WP articles. Nobel Prize winners yes, Filmfare magazine, no. Zora 06:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Firstly, Filmfare's List of Top Ten Actresses is not notable enough (unlike Filmfare Awards). Secondly, If the article includes the complete list, it will be a copyvio. From the Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service case: "In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data.". The names or the list of the actresses are not copyright by Filmfare, but the creative choices Filmfare made in producing a ranking are copyrightable by them. The ranking is a creative invention of theirs—they did not simply publish the names of schools as in a directory. If the entire list is published, it won't be re-arranged and the title already indicates that the list belongs to Filmfare. It is not legal to take their list—published in their commercial magazine and website—and simply publish it on Wikipedia under GFDL. utcursch | talk 08:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this article does not actually do that. Read it. You won't find a list of ten people in it. The problem with the article is not that it violates copyright, but that it appears to be an original analysis of why various actresses have held the positions on the list that they have, over the years. This article would be acceptable if such an analysis could be sourced, but from reading it, and seeing the personal bias of the author that is obvious from the content of the article, I strongly suspect that this analysis is a new analysis, being constructed firsthand by a Wikipedia editor directly in Wikipedia in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. The way to rescue this article would be to rewrite it from any sources that exist, if they exist. (I haven't looked.) Uncle G 12:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I know. I mean "In case the article includes the complete list, it will be a copyvio." -- I specified that because in the deletion nomination, Zora said that article doesn't give any of the lists. 14:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Filmfare Magazine is a gossip magazine and really not notable enough. Also, it only includes a facet of Indian Cinema, namely the one based in Mumbai. What about the other industries? Besides the copyvio issue, also, we had to accept every regional list from every country and every gossip magazine and Wikipedia isn't about gossip, I think. --Plumcouch Talk2Me 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you attacking the NO.1 If next year, someone else is No.1, we will talk about her too. What's wrong with the list when I didn't or you didn't make it but a reputed Filmfare Magazine did so. It's not just one mag but all five big mags have named Rani the top actress of 2004 and 2005. It's not her fault. It's a great accomplishment. As for the rest, other actresses feel proud to be on this list and thus, this article should not be deleted. User:shez_15 06:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- -- Lost(talk) 06:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT DeleteIt has clearly been a worth while aricle on wikipedia and it is not creating any contreversy or havoc, so therefore it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Dracula (talk • contribs)
  • Delete POV essay + nonnotable list Bwithh 13:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per, among other guidelines, WP:NOR. -- Kicking222 14:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per UncleG's points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
  • Delete non-notable fan/listcruft. Elomis 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Filmfare is widely considered the "standard" for film-news/interviews/views in India. Of course, I am not talking about regional cinema. I have edited the article to reflect Hindi cinema. Another point I want to make is, remove all the 'original research' but keep the list. Unless it is copy-vio... though I don't see why it is. Finally Zora: If Bankable star and Sexiest Man Alive are notable, despite the fact that they are "regional" to USA, and do not consider Indian/Chinese/Bhojpuri superstars, why not Femina's list? Anagha 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are over a million articles in WP and some of them are junk that should not be imitated. Bankable star and Sexiest man alive should be eliminated too, as non-notable ephemera. As for Filmfare being "the standard" -- that's your personal opinion. The only metrics that can be defended are objective -- circulation figures, in the case of print media, and Alexa rankings, in the case of websites. How does Filmfare stand by those measures, and how does it stand vis-a-vis its rivals?
    • Any real information in the article, as opposed to Rani-glorification, could easily be folded into the article on Filmfare magazine. Title should probably be changed, to Filmfare (magazine) to make it clear that it's a magazine. Right now the article is stubby. Just add a section about the magazine's lists of the bests, and link to the magazine's website if that gives the lists. Hmmmm ... do we have articles on the top Indian film magazines and websites? With circulation and Alexa figures? That might actually be useful. Then all the various polls and such would have proper homes. Zora 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's frustrating to state the obvious Zora. But have it your way. Filmfare with a circulation of 1.47 lakh and a readership of 44.9 lakh, enjoys the second largest readership among all English magazines in India and is the largest film magazine. Here's the link: [25] And before you question Economic Times's credentials The Economic Times, started in 1961, is India's largest and among the world's top three English business dailies. The Economic Times is published simultaneously from seven cities across India, has a circulation of 400,000 copies, and is read by over 1 million people every day. here's the link: [26] Anagha 11:05, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 10:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real soccer tips[edit]

Non-notable gambling website. Fails WP:WEB. A Google search for "'Real Soccer Tips' -wikipedia" offers 75 results. The first link is the official site, and the remaining metions come from "partners" or "link circle" sections of other sports betting websites. The absence of verifiable information from third-party sources suggest that this article is spam, and should be dealt with as such. Consequentially 06:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshop tools[edit]

This is an unencyclopedic how-to article, and in my opinion of insufficient quality to warrant a transwiki. Caffeinepuppy 06:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unencyclopedic article, as well as being an orphaned page. --Lmblackjack21 14:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:NOT a help file. This sort of thing might be more suitable for Wikibooks, but I can't imagine they'd want this particular "article". —Caesura(t) 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic, and I can't see who'd want it. If Wikibooks wants a photoshop manual they could probably find a better one. Hut 8.5 19:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a software manual. =Axlq 00:53, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dp1[edit]

This page was prodded and de-prodded, yet I don't think it is notable enough (Googling "DP1 Dennis Palatov" gets only 224 hits). Scobell302 06:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: well, to be fair, Dennis doesn't even have his full name easily accessible on his website. I found his name on another site that mentioned the car (hmm, i suppose i should cite that). given that he doesn't have his name on his site, i wouldn't expect his name to turn up too many Google results. Pik d 07:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe so, but a search for DPcars will show near 4000 hits, as well, the first 5 links of the Google search for "DP1+Dennis" are to discuss the dp1 from the DPcars.net site, of 25,500 results. Lone Lobo 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Google hits here. Article does not assert Palatov's work in his field. I will change my decision to keep if someone find a reliable source that asserts Palatov's importance. —Mitaphane talk 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, in a future update that I'm planning out, I'm going to talk about how Palatov believes AWD is necessary for superkarts with as much power as he's planning on having in the selling version of the kart. He's personally stated that people putting 200-500hp in 4 wheeled automobiles of this size are not addressing a major concern of his, putting the power to the ground. would this assert his importance, given that he is trying something new for the purpose of bettering superkarts? Pik d 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Pik d, is there any secondary sources(like magazines, papers, news reports, etc.) that have reported about this superkart outside of this website? The work you're doing is good, but we need reliable sources to verify information that you have placed in the article, otherwise the information in the article might be considered original research. —Mitaphane talk 22:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: one here, focusing on the future powerplant of the dp1: http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/11/01/hayabusa-v8-for-the-dp1/ here's another article about it: http://www.gadgetopia.com/post/5538 I'm new to editing wikipedia, and i realize i haven't cited anything yet, but for now i'm really trying to organize WHAT i think should be in the article, not everything else. Pik d 22:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: that's a good start, but just so you know, generally blogs aren't consider reliable sources(see link above). If you want convince other editors, it would be best to find a news source like a superkart hobbyist magazine. This article is pretty young and these two sources are enough for me to stay neutral for now and let other people who know more about superkarts decide this. —Mitaphane talk 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: i emailed him asking if he's been featured in any magazines. he replied saying that he's been featured in MAKE magazine, issue 4, and also the Croatian EVO magazine. neither of these have articles (that i can find) have anything online. also i don't know Croatian. he's been featured in jalopnik here: http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/dp1/ (yes, another car blog), and car&driver plans on a future article. also, i may have been incorrect in calling it a 'superkart'. Dennis did call it that on his site a few years ago, but looking at the wikipedia article for superkarts, it doesn't fit that at all. Dennis suggested "Miniature Le Mans Racer" in an emial, but i haven't found a real definition for that. It may be best to call it a "sports car/track car" Pik d 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems notable enough. Kavadi carrier 08:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD G3 -- Samir धर्म 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where Did My Luck Go![edit]

The usual hoax by this user. See [27] Mad Jack 07:00, 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 speedy delete CSD G3 -- Samir धर्म 07:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcrossed 2: Going for the Cup![edit]

The usual hoax by User:Smallvilleboy. See [28] Mad Jack 07:01, 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 to delete. W.marsh 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to be: Emo[edit]

Contested speedy and prod. Student internet video that cites as its notability mention in Re:Genenerator magazine and on YouTube's top 50 art/animation videos. Unfortunately, I don't think that meets the encyclopedic threshold. Samir धर्म 07:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per WP:WEB, policy is that third-party coverage should be non-trivial. The magazine mentioned in the article is a run-of-the-mill speciality blog, founded in 2005. It certainly doesn't qualify as a reliable source, and it's the only evidence they're willing to offer. A YouTube rank is barely on the radar for notabilty. The system is based on views and user ratings, biasing itself towards whatever can be forwarded around message boards or blogs. WP:FILM is also worth taking a peek at -- this article goes zero for four. Consequentially 07:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Per above. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (A7) per nom.--Húsönd 13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---Charles 17:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, not a speedy canidate, sources cited (controversial as they may be). In addition, this does meet the requirements for web content. The sources have been cited, it's clearly been redistrubited well beyond the orginal creators websites. I can't help but think this continual cycle of deletion requests isn't started by the numerous vadnals that keep degrading the article since there is plenty of web content that doesn't cite anything and doesn't even get blinked at, like Teen Girl Squad for example.68.63.158.133 19:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)TIinP[reply]
    • Verifiability isn't negotiable. If there are other articles that don't cite sources, then those articles need to be changed to cite sources. (And, for what it's worth, Teen Girl Squad is actually a rather horrible article.) Zetawoof(ζ) 20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recently Add a short review by an Entertainment editor and the IMDb article. Since this is pop culture the follow statement of reliability should apply Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not specifically address the reliability required with respect to popular culture such as celebrity gossip, but it is unrealistic to expect peer reviewed studies.
    • Comment This article is also three days old, it's not like I've had months to gather the best information or attract others to help update it.TIinPA 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice; if this is cited by mainstream publications, then I might be interested, but YouTube ranking counts for nothing.TIinPA 20:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Zetawoof(ζ) 20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:DONOTMAKEANARTICLEABOUTEVERYYOUTUBEVIDEO --- RockMFR 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good point, why didn't I think of that. Every 20+ minute video shot in 2002 and still be circulated in a subculture doesn't matter. Please remind me why Numa Numa will be remembered by an encyclopedia.TIinPA 23:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the New York Times devoted print space to it. And Good Morning America gave it air time. So did The Tonight Show. And the Newgrounds site alone has accrued over thirteen million views. Which of those has this movie accomplished? It's all about WP:RS, WP:FILM, WP:WEB, and WP:N. Consequentially 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
300,000 unique hits on the orginating site is not 13 million, but still signifigant. The video has spread signifgantly without the creators help. In addition, it's kinda hard to find sources in the 3 days the article has been up since I've had to face one prod, one speedy delete and now this fun process. All on my very first article in my first three days as a user.TIinPA 00:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google test for the phrase "How to be: Emo"+Billy+movie turns up 12,000+ pages by the wayTIinPA 00:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by 12,000 you really mean 721, then sure. And if you take out the Wikipedia mirrors, that number drops to 544. Of that 544, the first two are IMDb listings, which cannot establish notability because the site does not follow any kind of inclusion criteria. The next two are internet forums, also no good for WP:N. Then there's Urban Dictionary, a wiki that cannot be used for WP:N, and two YouTube links. Then you get two articles from a non-notable site which states "a friend of mine is making this sweet video," a violation of WP:COI. Shall I go on? Consequentially 00:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my bad I didn't literally use '+' in my search the first time. But to saythis link doesn't have anything important in it's nearly 300 links is untrue. Nothing like this and who knows what those forigen language sites have to say. Lets also be fair and remember I included the main characters to make sure I only got links that are definetly about the movie.TIinPA 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete As someone who was trying to understand more about the concept of "EMO" subculture, I think that this inclusion added a lot to my understanding. I think it was be a shame to delete it as future wiki searchers would be missing out on a better understanding of the meaning. I also think it is one of wikipedia's strengths that you can find something like the google video link from searching for info on there, it is exactly what you would never get from an alternative encyclopedia source.
  • Delete it with an emo's razor blade: and remember it's down the road, not across the street per nom. Anomo 11:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. 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. Some people have valid concerns about this article and I can appreciate that and as such I don't expect a Speedy Keep. However, comments like the one above should not be considered when trying to obtain a genuine consensus.TIinPA 17:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard about it. Toppler 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I've heard about it too, not the point. Elomis 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this has already been submitted to and removed from speedy delete. Since Notibility is the main issue here, I think that fact you've heard of it does in fact matter. Also, if you happen to remeber where you heard about it I'd appreciate the help. TIinPA 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has been improved and expanded significanly since this AfD started. Once it's existed for more time than it has, perhaps a full week or two, I think it will undoubtbly meet the requirements for web content. TIinPA 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you quite understand the policies we use for notability. Per WP:WEB, internet content is notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." What makes a source non-trivial? For that, we can take a peek at WP:RS, which explain reliable sources. The first cite in the article is a link to a web forum. Per WP:RS:

"Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment.The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown."

That also eliminates the IMDb link as potential indicator of notability. Your second link goes to Danielle Belton Online, the personal blog of an entertainment reporter for the Bakersfield Californian. While this might be an acceptable source per WP:RS, I'm going to argue against it. WP:RS makes exception for self-published sources if "a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material." I would not consider Danielle Belton a well-known professional journalist. The fact that she writes for the Bakersfield Californian is somewhat irrelevant, because that newspaper did not give column inches to the movie. To say that she gives the movie notability because she talks about it and she writes for the Californian is an appeal to authority. Her statement was not published by the newspaper, and thus relies only on her authority alone, which isn't exactly that of a national-level entertainment reporter. Consequentially 04:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. This item has been distrubited through a ton of well know sites, absent of the creator. TIinPA 14:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable with sources cited, including reviews which make it notable. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 04:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Meets basic standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per above. Also, Re:Generator is a well-known arts and culture blog unaffiliated with the creator of the film in the Coachella Valley and is moving to a print version November. 216.250.43.205 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Joseph Archer[reply]
  • Keep per above, although not a particularly strong keep. 92,300 Google hits for this exact term, IMDb listing, and some of the references place me in the doubt category (if in doubt, don't delete). The blog-like references should be removed though, since they are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Yamaguchi先生 08:04, 1 November 2006
  • Keep although barely. My rationale is that it's referenced by Re:Generator, a real (albeit very new) printed magazine which was not published by the author of this article. This one is borderline, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. Ariah 18:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lot of you are willing to pin this on an article that isn't even published yet in a magazine that is barely not a blog? Eh. It would appear the rest of us are outnumbered, but if the entrance exam for questionably notable and unreferenced articles is going to be this easy, the door is wide open for a whole lot of the same. The sum total of this films critical value is expressed on a message board. It has had no theatre run, no published reviews, and no affiliation with a notable producer, director, etc. What on Earth makes it meet the notability requirements, aside from a local scene blogazine? Consequentially 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It did premiere in a theater in 2002 and as soon as I can find documentation to prove that it will be added. TIinPA 23:44, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Valletta[edit]

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not, nor should become, a gazeteer. As the list stands only two street warrant an article. This, if needed is more suited to a category. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streets in Malta Nuttah68 08:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If only two of the streets are notable enough for their own article, then they should be split from the article itself into separate ones, but otherwise, this is suitable for deletion. SunStar Net 08:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's next - phone numbers in Monaco? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a gazeteer. Emeraude 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is simply a list with no relating articles attached to the list. This contrasts with List of London roads, which on the other hand provides detailed and professional description on each road. This does not mean that an article on every road in Valletta should be done. Therefore delete as per SunStar Net.Maltesedog 10:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a gazeteer/directory. Hello32020 11:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, list of major streets and squares in a capital city. If we can have one for NYC, we should have one for Valletta. Provides structure for future expanstion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment could lead to my agreement ONLY because Valletta is the capital city of Malta. 13:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Wikipedia is not a directory or Transwiki to WikiTravel.--Húsönd 13:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't Transwiki to Wikitravel, they use a different license then we do. JYolkowski // talk 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 20:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's someone who is an expert about Valletta around, it might be worthwhile to rewrite this in sentence format and merge this into Valletta. JYolkowski // talk 20:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would involve a lot of time and effort but we can even dedicate a whole article to for instance Republic Street, Valletta's main street. Maltesedog 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a directory. =Axlq 00:55, 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 speedy delete. —Cryptic 11:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Rognan[edit]

Blatant advert by user:Lloydrognan for this Artist of the Wild West. With the twist the guy is dead. Assume advert by his estate. -- RHaworth 08:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 10:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as spam. I agree with tagging it. Hello32020 11:27, 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. — CharlotteWebb 02:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Edwards[edit]

This individual may not meet WP:BIO or WP:NOTE, so rather than WP:PROD'ing it, I have nominated this at AFD. SunStar Net 08:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to these notes by SunStar Net, I will now present my full disagreement to them for the Wikipedia Adminstration:

    Kara Edwards meets the following criteria from WP:NOTE

    Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions.

    Kara portrayed three major roles in the last third of Dragon Ball Z: Videl, Goten and Gotenks.

    A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. Again, DBZ's fan base is large, even though it started out as a "cult" following.

    Kara also meets the following criteria from WP:Biographies of living persons

    Verifiability: All information in the article was gleaned from Kara's official webpages, major metropolitan newspaper articles, or through conversation with Kara Edwards herself.

    Neutral point of view: Although I am a fan of Kara's work, I did my best to make the page neutral. All biographical and career information was, again, provided by Kara Edwards herself with no embellishment; I had to add some "writing" to her resumé so that it would be more than just a bald list of her jobs, with no timeframe. Some might disagree with my calling the "Tanner in the Morning" show "popular", but by virtue of ratings and community response, it WAS/IS popular; therefore, I feel this invalidates any claim of non-neutrality.

    I hold that any creation of a page that does not exist could be said to SUBJECTIVELY involve a certain amount of "original research", although this would really be closer to "fact gathering". There was NO ORIGINAL REASEARCH involved in my creation of this page; everything on it(Kara's basic biographical information, her filmography, her broadcast career, details of her wedding) was a matter of public record.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 12:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment "through conversation with Kara Edwards herself" cannot be verified so any information of this nature should be deleted QuiteUnusual 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "through conversation with Kara Edwards herself" — Interviewing the subject directly, firsthand, is original research. Uncle G 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "through conversation with Kara Edwards herself" refers only to the exact date of her wedding. If it makes any difference, I've removed it. Now the ONLY information on the page is from her official webpages or major metropolitan newspaper articles.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- Deletion? Really? It could be worked on, and deleting it is a bit too much wouldn't you say?--SUITHalloween? 05:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Voice actress of primary characters on internationally popular show. That's notable. --Marriedtofilm 06:34, 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. DS 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Indian paintings[edit]

Listcruft created by a single-purpose account to accomodate Devajyoti Ray's In Despair; should be replaced by the category Category:Indian paintings. Firstly, the title is subjective (no wonder it has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} and {{npov}}). Secondly, the article has been merged into Indian painting. None of the links to the listed paintings actually work. Delete. utcursch | talk 08:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 08:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vhive[edit]

Contested prod for a web forum that doesn't establish notability. Alexa rank is in the 500,000s. —Xezbeth 08:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. So tagged. MER-C 10:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this a speedy candidate, there are plenty of members and a few hundred google hits. If no-one objects then I'll speedy it myself. —Xezbeth 11:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent verification of "spawn[ing] such a large number of comics professionals". —Cryptic 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like nonsense: "The triple-headed nemesis of The V is John Byrne /"Eric" Omar "Altice" /Chris "I <heart> Millennium" Oakley.", fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glamorgirl, Glamorgirl magazine, GlamorGirl magazine[edit]

Previously speedied as advertisement, not improved since recreation Seraphimblade 09:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like a advert for a non notable magazine to me QuiteUnusual 12:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching the on-line archive of the San Fernando Valley Business Journal, I can find no mention of this magazine at all, let alone a feature article on it three months ago. Searching elsewhere, the only thing that I can find about this magazine is, ironically, a press release from its founder touting its coverage in the SFVBJ, an article about the distribution of "personal privacy protection cards", and an article about activities at a trade show, both of which latter mention this magazine as an incidental. The only source for information on this magazine is its autobiography. The PNC isn't satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 12:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Spam. -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Spam, or merge to Dirty Magazines and then delete that. \o/ Elomis 21:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article was created by User:Richsala, and it says that the magazine's publisher is named Rich Hansen - you figure it out. Note also Glamorgirl magazine and GlamorGirl magazine. GregorB 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G's research. Nothing against pornographic magazines, but they have to show notability like anything else. Also adding Glamorgirl magazine and GlamorGirl magazine, substantially identical articles per GregorB, all of which are created by User:Richsala, and are that user's only contributions. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:41, 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 redirect. W.marsh 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bengt Helldal[edit]

Contested prod. Insufficiently notable as has done nothing except for exist QuiteUnusual 10:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 11:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep until decease. Notability is likely asserted for the current status as oldest man in Sweden.--Húsönd 13:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Living national longevity recordholders. He's already mentioned there, and that seems to be all there is to say about him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They may have done nothing except exist, but the popularity of the Guinness Book of Records proves that such people are of interest to many and therefore notable. -- Necrothesp 01:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Living national longevity recordholders. This man has no notability except his age. bbx 09:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No matter how long you live, you'd better do something interesting in order to attract enough editors that your article can be competently reviewed. --M@rēino 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In that case, you'd better also nominate the article on Robert Pershing Wadlow. He never did anything notable apart from being the tallest man in history, which was presumably just an accident of nature. Is there a difference? -- Necrothesp 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that Wadlow was #1 in the world. This guy is just #1 in a particular nation -- making his existence a hundredfold less notable. Every country is going to have a #1. But they add nothing to the conversation. --M@rēino 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You misunderstand. I was answering your assertion that you need to do something interesting in order to get an article. Wadlow did nothing interesting except grow, just as this chap has done nothing interesting except live. The fact he was the tallest man in the world and Helldal is only the oldest man in Sweden is irrelevant according to your own logic. -- Necrothesp 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Starblind. Being the oldest living man in Sweden is notable, but a one-sentence article is better in a list; also note that when he dies, what is left? "Was once the oldest living man in Sweden?" Compare the Wadlow article which has scads of details, photos, and coverage by independent sources. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Import classic[edit]

This was deleted back in December 2005, and little seems to have changed. Neologism, I couldn't find a single relevant google hit, despite the article's claim that the internet is spreading its popularity. —Xezbeth 10:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and previous AFD. Dar-Ape 17:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has changed some from previous article, but still seems entirely non-notable. The phrase is an obvious neologism, as a google search turns up that few, if any, references use this phrase in the context described in the article. It has NO reputable sources, and the FIRST hit is the Wikipedia Article itself. That is ALWAYS a red flag. Original Research is not allowed, and so it must go --Jayron32 20:02, 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 Orphan article with multiple breaches of WP:NOT; unencyclopedic. Userfied.. kingboyk 10:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeware alternatives for commercial software[edit]

Was correctly tagged for speedy deletion, but the user writing the article has clearly got hold of the wrong end of the wikistick as has spent many hours working on a mix between an article, a wikiproject, a list and a private web page. Because of all that work, there might be something to salvage here. But I don't think so. Opinions?➨ ЯEDVERS 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic. I'll userfy it and delete the redirect. There's nothing to salvage. --kingboyk 10:27, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitarists plus List of bass guitarists, List of contemporary classical double bass players, List of jazz bassists, List of double bass players in other popular genres, List of drummers[edit]

This list has a ridiculous scope: "guitarists for whom there is an article in Wikipedia, or who are mentioned in articles on bands". That's gonna be 100,000 people then? This is redundant to categories and is just clutter. Delete. kingboyk 10:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to this nomination the following related pages:

*List of musicians and the myriad of other lists branching from this.

All of these (and I'm sure many, many others) suffer from the faults mentioned in the nomination. A list, to be encyclopaedic, must be exhaustive, it must have finite boundaries (e.g. List of the United States, or List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates) so that every possible item is included. This cannot possibly happen with any of these lists. Delete. Emeraude 10:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote delete. I like lists and lists of lists, but inside wikipedia this is what categories are for. Slavatrudu 08:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to have them added to the nom, but you'll need to get them tagged up with AFD notices pronto. --kingboyk 11:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some others added, but not List of musicians because this links to hundreds of other lists and the task becomes too big for one discussion. Emeraude 16:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First non-exhaustive lists have a purpose. In certain cases they can be a tool for countering systemic bias. For some examples List of Brazilian writers, List of Indian architects, and List of Bangladesh-related topics. Second an advantage of Wikipedia, possibly the only one, is it's ability to do things encyclopedias would not. You're not going to find most anything in Category:Animated character stubs or much of what's in Wikipedia:Unusual articles in an encyclopedia. So the "this wouldn't be in an encyclopedia" is irrelevant. Third they can provide information on the topic categories can not. Fourth my encyclopedia has a list of naval terms and I don't think it's exhaustive, but I'll have to check. All that said List of double bass players in other popular genres should likely be erased as cryptic.--T. Anthony 11:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain to me what you mean by 'they can be a tool for countering systemic bias'? I've looked at the examples you've quoted and I'm none the wiser. Emeraude 16:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certain subjects are going to be disproportionately less interesting to Wikipedians than they would to the public or encyclopedias. The articles listed for deletion here aren't good examples of that, but examples do exist. I gave examples of lists relating to Bangladesh, India, and Brazil because these are large nations with low internet access per capita. Although in retrospect Nigeria would've been a better example than Brazil. Anyway lists on those can be "worked on" allowing for expansion. In addition I think many nominate lists just because they don't like lists rather than for legitimate reasons to delete lists. (For example the list is based on a POV, the list is focussed on intersections that are never notable like say a hypothetical List of Lutheran ornithologists, etc) See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for when lists are accepted.--T. Anthony 16:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See List of musicians for a list of mostly non-exhaustive musician related lists.--T. Anthony 11:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Category:Lists of musicians by instrument. Lists provide info without cluttering main articles, and per above -- ßottesiηi (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find these lists useful as an index, and I have been introduced to a lot of personages I hitherto knew nothing about as a result. Ralphroysterdoyster
  • Keep. As long as the lists are limited to those musicians for which a Wikipedia article exists, I find them useful. I read about, say, a jazz guitarist I like. I may then wonder what other jazz guitarists are covered here, I click the link, and I know instantly, and can read about any of them. It's a convenience that I see no reason to delete. --Alan W 00:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what categories for. The lists are basically impossible to maintain, and don't offer any advantage over categories. Compare this with, say, a discography: a discography can be illustrated, sorted by year, and annotated. It has a function way beyond the simple automatically-generated-list of a category. These lists don't. --kingboyk 10:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is factually inaccurate. List of drummers already includes annotation about what genre they're in and what band they're associated with the most. Show how a category does that. In addition to that list of drummers is over three years old and has had almost 1500 edits. List of guitarists also lists bands the musician is associated with and has annotation a category can not do. List of jazz bassists is also 3 years old with annotation on birth year in several cases. Read Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for more information on when lists are acceptable.--T. Anthony 15:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • List of guitarists (which is the only one I nominated) ought to be 10,000, maybe 100,000, entries. What use is such a woefully incomplete list, and how could we manage such a large list if it were completed? That, repeat, is what categories are for. --kingboyk 17:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ideally it's going by notability so there's not going to be 10,000 names. If it gets to huge you divide into sublists. Besides which even if you're correct do you think a category with 10,000 articles is any more workable? Category:American actor stubs has maybe 1,200 or so articles and it's on a "very large" warning. It even has subcategories.--T. Anthony 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the objections, but I don't think they warrant deletion. People obviously find these lists useful. Wikipedia is not paper and the presence of these admittedly trivial lists doesn't affect the validity of the real, substantive articles about these musicians. Cribcage 06:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what categories are for. Jay32183 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a reader I find lists like these useful, so as an editor I would support leaving it in. Vpoko 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a musician, both bass and guitar, I find these lists invaluable and easy to access. I have discovered some amazing artists through these lists that I would have missed entirely without them.Hollowbody49 22:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely. Lists such as this one are the reason I use (and contribute to) Wikipedia. T. Anthony covered the salient arguments already. I move the discussion be closed and we move on to editing the article for style and content conventions. Thank you, Ekbeale 17:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consider the audience. Casual wikipedia users find these lists more approachable and readable than categories. Also, I personally try to keep them well pruned for notability.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems like just a repeat of a category. It would be different if the article actually had more content than just a list of names by alphabet. --plange 19:14, 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 Merge to List of cities in Malta. (There seems to be an argument for merging that article to Malta, so you may want to skip the intermediate step.) Yomanganitalk 10:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese Cities[edit]

The content of the article is already included in other articles. The article is highly unstructured and frankly pointless. Vide talk page of the article. Maltesedog 10:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Malta is a beautiful country and deserves wider coverage in Wikipedia. It seems that someone with an attachment to Malta is adding as much information (mainly in the form os lists) as they can, which is not what is wanted. See the relevant ongong discussions on "List of streets in..." While I would hate to curb enthusiasm for recording information about Malta, this is not the way to do it. Emeraude 10:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because we have List of cities in Malta. However some of this information might be added to that list if relevant and verified.--T. Anthony 12:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong obvious merge to the List. Nobody has demonstrated yet why the data in this messy article should be deleted. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is duplicate information - already included in other articles. See the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltesedog (talk • contribs) 2006-10-29 12:54:54
      • Then Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should have been your first stop, not AFD. Uncle G 13:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uncle G, that link recommends merging. It is obvious that merging to the Malta article as requested is not relevant, the content of which is already included in the article of the villages. For this reason, deletion is more appropriate. Maltesedog 15:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That the article contains duplicate information is not an argument that Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should not be the first stop. Indeed, precisely the contrary. Uncle G 19:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The content is already there. I don't get your point Maltesedog 17:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not a complex one. "The content is already there." is synonymous with "This article duplicates another article.". Hence Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, not AFD, should be your first stop. Uncle G 03:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sorry but it was actually my first step. If the content has already been merged, its pointless to retain! Even speedy delete would have been fine. Maltesedog 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you have merged content, then that is an automatic keep. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Deletion and merger are mutually exclusive, as required by the GFDL. Remember this principle: If you had wanted this content deleted, you wouldn't have merged it into another article. Uncle G 21:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I simply mean that the content of the article was already there! It wasn't merged now that this article has been discovered. Anyway. Maltesedog 14:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Then step #2 of the procedure at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles will be a short one. Uncle G 16:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I am sorry, but the "List" does not say that Qormi is surrounded on the East by Santa Venera, Marsa and Ħamrun etc etc etc, and therefore does not have all the information the Cities has. So no, there is what to merge, and the above discussion is therefore ridiculous. - crz crztalk 13:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete. The List of cities in Malta could be made better. Pavel Vozenilek 16:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the ever-vigilant M.D. whose judgment I trust when it comes to All Things Malta Eusebeus 20:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge and redirect It's a very plausible search term for List of cities in Malta. Mereda 07:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There's no need for a list of 'cities' in Malta, and most right-thinking people in more commonly-sized countries would scoff at the idea of calling these cities, except possibly Valletta and Mdina, by virtue of being the capital and former capital. The list of local councils serves perfectly well for a simple listing, and the actual content in this article is better placed within the articles for each particular municipality. Rhialto 22:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect is the logical thing here. Guy 12:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Measure[edit]

Someone suggested this for AFD and I looked it over. It is completely not notable and fails WP:WEB. Since "last measure" is a common phrase and whenever I search google I find it is case insensitive, I searched lastmeasure.com -wikipedia and found 283 google hits, mostly from people spamming the shock site around. It has no media references or anything. It also fails WP:DENY. Anomo 10:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


leave it i kinda like it lol its pretty cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.238.6 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 31 October 2006

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CTYI Culture[edit]

Utterly non-notable and unverifiable article about the antics of bored teenagers at the CTYI summer camp. Demiurge 11:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree I think it should be included with the main CTYI article but apparently thanks to the infinite wisdom of User:Demiurge we cant.

Also User:Demiurge look at the CTY page. The have a section on traditions and culture. And if you try and delete that I wouldnt recommend trying it. Exiledone 14:35, 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. Punkmorten 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics-Angels rivalry[edit]

Non notable sports event. Contested prod QuiteUnusual 12:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Speedy Delete (A7) NN, unsourced original research.--Húsönd 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Original research; any such material, if sourced, belongs in the pages on the Anaheim Angels and the Oakland Athletics. Alba 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: OR might be stretching it, but there is nothing at all that makes this divisional matchup any more unique than any other. The crystal balling added in an attempt to add notability didnt help either. Resolute 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if references added before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 20:42, 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. The article flagrantly violates WP:NOR. The page on the history of Clergy Sexual abuse covers the topic more than well enough. The argument for keeping this article fails to look at policy, argument for deletion is slightly stronger, and yes, I do anticipate a WP:DRV. Yanksox 14:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clergy abuse[edit]

Fork, linkfarm, author is a single-purpose account with an axe to grind. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think this is a POV fork? Is it because you think that clergy abuse is primarily related to Catholic priests and that any attempt to document abuse outside that scandal is POV? --Richard 05:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual abuse as a sociological notion does not exist in clergy and non-clergy subflavors. Events, such as the Catholic sex-abuse controversy, merit their own articles for having been covered by the media, and individual confirmed/prosecuted molestors do as well, but this article was not about any specific events. At the time of nomination the article existed as a "clergy" fork of sexual abuse with a fat linkfarm at the bottom. Indefblocked users DinaTamar (talk · contribs) and Ruth Celeste (talk · contribs), who wrote it, also heavily edited The Awareness Center, Inc. (as did many of their other socks) and committed several grievous BLP violations against rabbis (which is how I discovered their nefarious deeds, since I have half the rabbis watchlisted). This article is a fork and part of a concentrated effort of promotion and wiki-besmirching w/o evidence. - crz crztalk 12:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Now, I understand the context and motivation for your original AFD nomination. I also get the point that "Sexual abuse by clergy" is not necessarily much different from "Sexual abuse by people in positions of authority" from a sociological point of view.
However, due to the Roman Catholic sexual abuse cases, there has been some focus on this question in the popular media and in religious organizations. In essence, people naturally asked "Is this phenomenon limited to the Roman Catholics?". Yes, it's true that there was a POV desire on the part of some Roman Catholics to say "No, it's not." And there was probably a POV desire on the part of some Protestants and Jews to say "Yes, it is". The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between. It's not just a question of whether sexual abuse has occurred in non-Catholic religious organizations. The key problem that the Catholics had to grapple with was a willful organizational tolerance and cover-up of the sexual abuse across a major portion of the U.S. Catholic church.
The current article is much changed from the one that you nominated. However, it DOES treat "Sexual abuse by clergy" as a topic separate from "Sexual abuse by persons in positions of authority". I would like to hear your opinion on whether it would be encyclopedice to have an article such as the current revision under the title of "Sexual abuse by clergy" or "Sexual abuse in religious organizations". --Richard 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant POV original research.--Húsönd 14:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank The subject itself is notable enough, but I can agree this page is problematic. Is there an option for a redirect? FrozenPurpleCube 20:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. This is a POV fork of Sexual abuse. A redirect would be unhelpful. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I don't know about where it's a fork from, but I think it's likely that some people are going to search for clergy abuse, and I feel it'd be more helpful to have this point somewhere, even if I'm not sure where would be the best choice. I do think there is some potential for an article though, given that it is a fairly notable subject. FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Roman Catholic sex abuse cases is a notable subject, clergy abuse is a POV fork and a linkfarm. - CrazyRussiantalk/email 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, but directly linking to that article might run into the problems mentioned below. Still, I don't think it's completely out of line. Unless there's actual articles on sexual abuse in other churches anyway...in which case maybe a disambig would serve. FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to it's original article. JASpencer 22:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly redirect to sexual abuse. Though users who search for "clergy abuse" are probably most likely to be looking for Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, it would be highly POV to redirect there, implying that abusive clerics tend to be Roman Catholics. Note also Category:Clergy abuse which I assume is part of the same fork (and should go for the same reasons), but its history seems to have disappeared. Henning Makholm 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I saw the cat. All from the same user. The cat makes a little more sense actually, even though some things included there earlier were frivolous. Developing... - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly POV original research. Furthermore this article has no citation to support its argument and also falls under WP:NEO not to mention Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary which would be enough grounds to delete the article in the first place. It's a slang definition to summarize. Mkdw 05:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR WP:POVFORK. Sandstein 06:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand I would even say "strong keep" except this article is so light on content that I can understand why it was nom'ed for deletion. The topic is encyclopedic and important. It is not just a POV fork of Sexual abuse but a major subtopic, especially in light of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. What's needed is a more in-depth discussion of why clergy abuse is a special case of more general sex abuse. --Richard 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, O.R. (stemming from a lack of reliable sources), POV fork. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is in the news frequently and has been for many years. I added to the talk page for the article a bibliography of 19 appearances of the term I found in a search of the New York Times back to the 1990s and the Washington Post for the past few months. "Clergy abuse" appears to be a regularly used term to refer to sexual abuse of minors by clergy, so hardly OR, and quite notable. Editing should be used to correct anything POV. (edited)Edison 18:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The phrase is notable enough and receives over 4 million Google hits. metaspheres 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per Edison. Dionyseus 08:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been dramatically improved since the AFD began. Adding citations would be a good further step. This is definitely a legitimate topic, and the new version is not a WP:POVFORK. Still an unbalanced article as it doesn't yet have sections on abuse of confession (and equivalent practices), financial abuse, etc..., but definitely making progress. GRBerry 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the Crazy Russian. Firstly, I take issue with the title, which is a neologism. The article's creater has confused subject with object. It should, if anything be "Sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy". Secondly, I see the scope as being too narrow for an encyclopaedic entry: It is better grouped under the broader descriptive of "Sexual abuse committed by persons in positions of authority". Deletion is not to hide the fact that sexual abuse cases are not perpetrated by people of the cloth, but to remove a divergent thread of opinion and the singling out of clergy as sex offenders, as opposed to teachers and doctors, just to give some examples. Ohconfucius 04:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a decent article, if there are elements of POV then we'd be better dealing with them than deleting the article. Agree with possible rename to "Sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy". wimbledon andy 11:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Comments by alleged socks-- The following comments were made by recently created accounts with few edits other than to the article in question or this AFD.

  • KEEP As we all know clergy abuse is a problem in all religions. All one needs to do is pick up any newspaper. It's vitally important for those who were abused by Priests, Nuns, Rabbis, Cantors, Monks, Pastors, etc. I think it's only those who try to cover up for those who offend who would want this catagory deleted from Wikpedia. For those of you who don't know, the term clergy abuse relates to not only sexual abuse, but also physical abuse, and other forms of manipulation for the gain of the individual doing the offending. talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ner Israel (talk • contribs)

email 02:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep This is an important topic. Maybe someone can expand it so if fits the protocols of Wikipedia. I don't know what you would redirect this to? I think it's a topic of it's own merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by pokrov1 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This is an important page. Why would someone delete a topic that we hear in the news every day? I do agree it needs to be expanded. Mary Anne Wilson
  • Keep I just read the excellent information on this page. I can't imagine anyone wanting to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by meshugana (talk • contribs)
The article has been expanded substantially since it was nominated for deletion. The original article was very short and warranted nomination for deletion. --Richard 07:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Poskin[edit]

WP:BIO - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Scattered mentions on Google do not assert notability beyond an eventual local notability.--Húsönd 14:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems a worthy worker in the field, but there is nothing to suggest notabilty. (Is it me, or does the article read like part of a CV or staff directory?) Emeraude 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 back to The Boondocks (TV series) where this character is already mentioned. Concerns about the validity of the info here means I will not merge anything. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel H. Stinkmeaner[edit]

The page has been previously deleted and redirected as shown here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel H. Stinkmeaner. As the rationale for that discussion, Stinkmeaner is at best going to be a recurring character (judging by the titles of Season 2) but so far has only appeared in one episode and has never appeared in the comics strip. I vote for redirecting this Boondocks-cruft to The Boondocks (TV series). Gdo01 12:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is articles for deletion, not articles for redirection. Article merger into a parent article, per WP:FICT, does not involve deletion at any stage. Only come to AFD if what you want actually involves an administrator hitting the delete button. Uncle G 12:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that but I just wanted to see if others wanted this merged or deleted. I personally prefer merging but deleting would be the better way of preventing this article from being recreated. Gdo01 00:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the last discussion ended in "no consensus" and was redirected, not deleted. —Mitaphane talk 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. The article is just completely full of observations and speculations of the character. —Mitaphane talk 20:38, 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 merge to The Boondocks (TV series). I'm just adding the tags since I've no idea where to merge it in the target article. - Bobet 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigga Moments[edit]

This page is essentially a reopening of Nigga moment which was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigga moment but was later redirected. Despite being applicable to many situations, this neologism has not caught on and no sources are given in the article so this falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. As suggested by the previous discussion, I vote for deletion or a redirect. Gdo01 12:24, 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. W.marsh 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ingo Dammer-Smith[edit]

Can it be said that someone only three years old is an 'actor'? The page on Aaron Aulsebrook-Walker (also an infant appearing in Neighbours) was deleted for just this reason and I don't see Dammer-Smith's case being any different Analog Kid 12:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the kid is barely notable and he hardly ever appears in Neighbours anyway. jd || talk || 12:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jd. David Mestel(Talk) 12:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article should be kept, because he does get more and more of a 'part' in Neighbours now. And what if, when he is older, he bocomes a proper actor or continues on Neighbours?
    • If that happens, the article can easily be recreated. There's only a date of birth and the kid's current acting role, so it's not as though any recreations would be of an inferior quality. jd || talk || 14:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article should at least remain here until he leaves Neighbours with Janet Andrewartha in December. 124.177.210.91 04:39, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4-4-1[edit]

This article was previously deleted through AfD here. A DRV consensus overturned in light of new evidence, for which, see the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 12:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the DRV info. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete per my original nomination and JzG's sterling argument in the deletion review. I have been insulted and denigrated since I joined Wikipedia, with accusations of vandalism and bad-faith editing (and yes, that is a bit of a non sequitur, but it has relevance because much of the discussion has revolved around alleged misconduct on my part, none of which has been proven, or indeed exists other than in the minds of the people complaining). The 'new evidence' in the DRV does not amount to much, and I think that had people not have attacked me from the very beginning, the article would have been deleted more convincingly the first time round. The Crying Orc 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in the DRV, the editors working on this article need to take this opportunity to get the sources they pointed to into the article to indicate that this was indeed a notable member of the Christian rock genre; the fact that they shared a record label with such names as Amy Grant and Randy Travis is a pretty good start, but that needs to be sourced in the article immediately. If sources are provided, then keep; otherwise, let it go. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The following links verify the content in the article as 441 being notable in the CCM/Christian alternative movement and identified as a part of a group of bands as noted in the DRV. Words used are "pioneering," "beloved," "trendsetting," and verifies the three album releases, chart positions and national distribution. Entry for 441 in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music by Mark Allan Powell. Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. p.337 Review of Broken Records Reunion Concert, CCM Magazine, October, 2005 Story on Broken Concert, Christian Examiner Album review from Contemporary Christian Music magazine, August 1985. 441's Mourning Into Dancing at #2 chart position, Musicline Magazine (The CCM Billboard at the time), Aug. 1986 Gh228 23:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Gh228 One more - Reunion concert story in Orange County Register, Aug. 14, 2005 Gh228 23:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Gh228[reply]
  • Keep Somewhat of a borderline case, but I think the references are enough to support an article on the band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article does need to cite its sources and it could probably use some better sources, but so do plenty of other Wikipedia articles that aren't ever nominated for deletion. --Limetom 10:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you saying you'd like citation footnotes within the article? I can do that. As you may have seen, I edited the article for better format and included the sources listed above and certainly want to make the item conforming and effective. As for the credibility of the sources, the CCM Enclopedia, CCM Magazine/Musicline, Christian Examiner and The Orange County Register (mainstream newspaper) are authoritative for this genre. "Mainstream" press, as I mentioned in the DRV and seconded by an editor, is sporadic for this genre. I'm working on finding additional sources for the latter album release, but they will be the same sources (CCM magazine, etc.). One issue of notability here is that there are many current acts (Switchfoot, Jars of Clay, P.O.D, Joy Electric and Relient K, to name a several) who got their opportunity/inspiration from the work of bands such as 4-4-1, Undercover, Adam Again, Altar Boys, Lifesavors, Crumbacher, and The Choir. These groups have far exceeded the popularity of the original acts. Seminal groups hold a valued part in any genre, even if they aren't widely known or wildly popular. Gh228 15:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Gh228[reply]
  • Keep The sources are presumably legit, despite the fact that the online links are only to 4-4-1's website. Since there weren't many websites in the early 80s, the odds of content originally from that era being on the original publisher's website is essentially zero. It would be better if someone can find the original sources in a library and do a citation to the print sources, leaving the URLs as just convenience links. However, the sources do demonstrate meeting the WP:MUSIC standards. GRBerry 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As you mentioned, online archives for these sources don't exist, AFAIK. I attempted to contact CCM Magazine but their email box is full. The items hosted on the 4-4-1 site were scans that I made of the items I still had as well as contributions from others who still had hard copy archives of these publications. The simplest place to put them for viewing was on that server/domain. The CCM Encyclopedia is a currently an in-print book. The OC Register article is active. This has all certainly been in good faith - with the amount of time I've already spent on this, fabricating references would take many more hours and is not in my nature. Thanks for everyone's time on this, it has earned from me an even greater respect of WP and the process. Gh228 21:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Gh228[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gal Rasché[edit]

Reason in a nutshell: This is in all likelihood a paid translation of an autobiography of a person with no verifiable accomplishments.

This article appeared on multiple major Wikipedias on the same day in precisely the same form and shape (compare de.wiki, pl.wiki, fr.wiki, hu.wiki, nl.wiki, sk.wiki). Other than de.wiki where the text originated, on some Wikipedias there was a substub on this person prior to that day, but it did not establish the notability of the character other than by having several interwiki links (which is probably how the substub eluded deletion).

On most Wikipedias, the translation appeared as the only major contribution of a new user named Djiggy or IP 84.113.1.108. The author tagged the edit as "translation from german", even though on some Wikipedias, he explicitly said he can't speak the language he supposedly translated the article to (see userboxes: hu:user:Djiggy)

The person described in the article is herself ungooglable, so is her "proper" name ([29]). It is also impossible to find any references to the international prize she won in Yugoslavia - see here, which makes one wonder how notable could this throphy be.

All in all, it seems like a promotional article of a person that does not seem to have any verifiable claim to notability.

I'm a sysop on pl.wiki, making a guest appearance to share our findings with others. Our AfD for this article is here. lcamtuf 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Regarding your comment that "It is also impossible to find any references to the international prize she won in Yugoslavia". The link to Interfer 99 was also posted in the article -> Interfer 99
  • DELETE - notability issue 4.18GB 13:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, astroturfing. There's only one mention of her name in Russian (apart of Wikipedia clones) and it lists her among several others and gives no futher details on her. See also AfD for Anatoli Vassiljevitsch Ivanov (also placed into several Wikipedias). Pavel Vozenilek 15:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also activity of user "Galrasche" on Russian Wiki [30], editing her own and Ivanov's article. Slovak and Czech Wiki notified, respective their AfD process started. Pavel Vozenilek 15:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • User Galrasche is my former nickname--Djiggy 23:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom QuiteUnusual 18:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, but i've posted this article in all this languages -> because my firends have done this work for me to translate this article to all this languages -> translation from german (thi article is already since a quite long time in german wikipedia, and there was already a pretty large disussion about a deletion of this article, it will be very sad if my job and this of my friends will be rejected. And one more time, i dont know how should i verify all this articles now, after all these AfDs are starting to roll out on all wikipedias. It has been already verified on german wikipedia, and guys it took me a pretty much of time to verify it there. --Djiggy 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • about a google link -> you will find more links about interfer if you are looking like this -> [31]--Djiggy and ybout gal rasche like this -> [32] 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: as far as your articles are considered, there was a single AfD on German Wikipedia, and the result was delete, not keep (here). After this voting you first attempted to re-create the article under the same name, which resulted in speedy deletion ([33]), and then the same day you posted it under a slightly different title, which wasn't noticed. There was no voting on Gal Rasché, as far as I can tell. I managed to find AfD for this particular article under a different name: see here. The result was indeed keep, my apologies.
      As for verifiability - the first URL you've provided finds a couple of hits for the festival itself, but past the first pages, it's mostly a bunch of instances of mistyped "interfere" and hyphenated "interfer-ence" on various English-language pages. The other search is identical to the one provided in my original submission, except that it includes copies of the article on various Wikipedias. On a personal note, given the timeframe of your edits on various Wikipedias and the quality and nearly identical appearance of the translations you've posted, I have a hard time believing the explanation you've provided - although that's just my sentiment, and I can be wrong. --lcamtuf 00:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I know that there are very few references for Gal Rasché and it will be very hard to verify this article. But it is also a quit unusual profession for a woman and you cannot compare her with sombody like Claudio Abbado, Riccardo Muti or Seiji Ozawa but i think it is a fact enough to keep this article. There are also enough print articles about her in different newspapers. If you want i can scan them and upload somewhere. Here is an article announcing her past concert in Musikverein in Vienna. --Djiggy 02:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:V and WP:NN. all the Ghits referred to are either wiki mirrors or to events listings. First attempt at international astroturfing I've seen, so far. Must nip this practice in the bud. Ohconfucius 04:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per Ohconfucious. Montco 15:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, this looks to be spam. Yamaguchi先生 05:13, 4 November 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about depression[edit]

  • DELETE - the ongoing struggle to eliminate the "list of songs about"....this would be a never ending and arbitrary list. 4.18GB 13:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List is unmaintainable and arbitrary.--Húsönd 14:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOT a directory. Furthermore, it isn't verifiable. We can't adequately determine if a song is about depression or not. --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. Another useless list - how depressing. Emeraude 16:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, somewhat subjected, and of little added value.-- danntm T C 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMO, all articles whose titles start with "List of songs about" should be cobalt bombed. Danny Lilithborne 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When it comes down to it, aren't most songs fundamentally about depression? Fan-1967 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listing songs by topic is not very useful. Jay32183 23:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 13:11, 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. An astounding ammount of argumentation spun up by one user, but no evidence that the subject actually meets WP:BIO... this article is in question on nearly every Wiki. W.marsh 15:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoli Vassiljevitsch Ivanov[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gal Rasché for a primer on the author before voting.

This is a yet another multiple-Wiki contribution by Djiggy / 84.113.1.108.

This person's notability seems to be impossible to verify (0 in Google), which is odd for a modern, acclaimed composer of international fame, and a headnoted member of several professional organizations; if you Google for him without the middle name, Anatoli Ivanov yields a couple of film producers and other possibly notable persons, but nothing that would match this bio.

The ISBN referenced in the article seems to be bogus ([34], [35]).

Update: as noted below in my response to Djiggy, contrary to his claims, this article was deleted on de.wiki after AfD in January (links below), then he attempted to re-create it (which resulted in speedy deletion, again references below), and the same day finally managed to post it under a different name with one admin deleting it, but restoring it several hours later (with no comment and no talk page entry).

  • I think you may be going a bit too far in this, see my comment below and look closely at the German AfD page. Bansp 01:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite possibly. At this point, I'm simply confused, so all, please read the discussion below and draw your own conclusions. --lcamtuf 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lcamtuf 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete But I have to concede being slightly impressed the person was willing to create a hoax on 10 foreign language Wikipedias as well. The powers of Babel Fish? Or do we have a hoaxing polyglot on our hands.--T. Anthony 14:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No longer certain either way, although I still edge more toward delete. Still due to doubts I'm switching to not voting.--T. Anthony 15:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any translation company will be happy to serve you. Pavel Vozenilek 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For what its worth, I did a search on rambler.ru, a russian search site and found very little, maybe 173 hits. Keeping in mind of course that Ivanov is about as common as Smith, this is underwhelming. The Russian percussionist assocation (Российской Ассоциации исполнителей на ударных инструментах) pulled up exactly one hit and its to Russian Wikipedia. I wouldn;t say its a hoax, but a polyglot vanity piece for an unknown Russian musician. Montco 14:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, astroturfing campaign. Pavel Vozenilek 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sorry but this is not a hoax, please buy his book and read all this, you can go to your state library, im sure that you will find it there, and also in russian wikipedia, this article was editied by the students of prof. Iwanow. This article was also translated in all the languages by my firends, so that i can post it in the different wikipedias. I PERSONNALY know prof. Iwanow. So i dont understand, why should it be a hoax. And now i also do not know how should i verify my posts in all other wikipedias, which decided to delete this article, becuase i dont understand all of these languages, hmmh. And i dont understand why if this article has been verifyed in the german wikipedia, whould it be veryfied in all oithers? it is a translation guys 1:1!!! --Djiggy 22:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it is my understanding that for Mr. Ivanov, the result of de.wiki AfD was delete (voting here), after which you recreated the article under the same name, which resulted in speedy deletion ([36]), and then the same day, you uploaded it under a different name, where it was first deleted, then restored ([37]). As such, this might be a poor way to defend your article, unless further explanations are given by that admin? --lcamtuf 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The article which was deleted on dewiki, was completely another one. After i translated an article from ruwiki it was restored. Please contact an admin which restored it, if you dont belive me--Djiggy 00:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The article was openly restored by an admin, de:User:Schwalbe, as is clearly stated on the AfD page cited above. Bansp 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You can also approve this by looking at log - [38]--Djiggy 01:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is not "head of a couple organizations", just a member; he only heads the sadly ungooglable Russian Percussionist Association, which is a shame but it does not necessarily mean the whole thing is a hoax. Remember that Google is somewhat less effective as a verifying tool if you can't handle cyrillic and/or don't know Russian. I don't know your notability criteria guys, so I'm not going to vote myself, but let me give you a few addresses as a basis for whatever you're going to decide. The ISBN is well-formed, but the book is hard to find anyway -- here's one link, with a photo of the cover (not my find), here's one to his three books: [39], here are two that appear to confirm the ISBN: photo, no photo, and one more to round it off to 5. There is also a page where he is described as a prominent specialist and a professor of the Petersburg conservatory, and two where his rendering of Tschaikovsky's Children's Album can or could be bought. Happy voting, Bansp 01:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hoax was wrong of me. Still the notability is unclear. A search with even the Cyrillic name, subtracting Wikipedia, doesn't get much.[40] Many of those seem to be referring to a different person. The Russian version of the article was started by Gal Rasche.--T. Anthony 04:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I agree that verifying information about him is difficult, but this is something different from a hoax, and deleting the article need not be the best cure for that -- research is. Regarding google: Russian is a heavily inflected language and you have to search for him also in cases other than the nominative. Another thing is that while in the English part of the Web, you can sometimes find info even about your neighbour's dog, this isn't so for Russian, although the Russian web is much better developed than, say, its Byelorussian counterpart. Information is simply not so readily available on that side of the globe. Now about the ruwiki article: while you are correct that Galrashe started it, her self-promotion has been removed by another user, to whom I already wrote asking for sources on Ivanov. So there is some hope we'll learn more about him from an objective source. Once again: his notability is not that of a film star, he seems to be just a guy doing his job a bit better than others, in several respects. Whether to keep him or not will be your decision, all I'm asking is for him not to be treated on a par with the person who used him as a ladder, that just wouldn't be fair. Bansp 12:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here is an interview with him [41]--Djiggy 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't help adding that I share Lcamtuf's suspicion that we are looking at a rather massive advertising campaign of the Rashe gal. I think part of it was posting an article about someone real and reasonably notable, and hooking the gal's bio to it. As a result of bad timing and thanks to the alertness of our plwiki colleague, pl:User:Ziel, the wannabe-star is now falling down still hooked to her ladder (i.e. her teacher). I'd suggest leaving the prof be and burning the witch. Bansp 01:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I dont think that it is a good idea. Hmm, i dont think that you saw many women which are conducting. It is not a usual profession for women. Thats why this article was also left on de.wiki and thats why ive written this article there. I would leave both articles and maybe delete all crosslinking. --Djiggy 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yandex search yielded several dozen entries. The guy wrote a book about his work with Mravinsky, a dude who premiered six symphonies by Shostakovich, Symphony No. 6 (Prokofiev), etc. If you think Ivanov is not notable, why don't you prod Mravinsky? All these names may sound suspicious to an American ear, while in Russian Wikipedia 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) (the subject of a featured article in this project) would not pass a notability test. We definitely have different standards of notability. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding Yandex, the search results need solid sifting, cause there are several people by this name, including at least one pretty well known musician (like, this isn't our guy). While I agree with the general spirit of your comment, I'd suggest pointing at more specific sources (which of course we might need to delegate to Djiggy, as probably the most fluent in Russian among us here; finding a Russian speaker not involved in this campaign would be even better). Regards, Bansp 10:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some more findings, with picture -> here and here. And under this address you will find some concert records, which were conducted by Mravinsky and Mr. Iwanow as a solist. Unfortunatly his initial is mistyped in english trnaslation. --Djiggy 07:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One more finding here and here on Amazon--Djiggy 08:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When in doubt: keep. But change the title to the translit version we use here. //Halibutt 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious keep per Halibutt. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are his publications in a quite popular vienneese music store "Doblinger" -> [42], [43]--djiggy 13:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And here is the page of his student in Russia.--djiggy 13:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you, Djiggy, for reposting some of the links from plwiki -- I was too tired to do that yesterday night. Now, can we get you to show us something concerning Ivanov's presidency of that union/association? I understand it was you as ru:user:Galrasche who added this information to his Russian page, isn't that right? And let me add to the link depository: here are links that can be cross-checked against the one supplied by Djiggy, where it really looks like they misspelled Ivanov's initial: [44] and [45], repeated as [46], which additionally confirms that Ivanov played the timpani in the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra as early as '65. Those two "albums" from the Austrian shop (what kind of publication is that, anyway? paper or vinyl? any hints, Djiggy?) confirm the list of three publications I posted earlier: [47]. The interview that Djiggy mentioned earlier (it comes from a book by a Russian radio/press reporter) mentions that Ivanov's cooperation with Evgeny Mravinsky lasted 23 yrs, which also confirms the date of Ivanov's joining Mravinsky's orchestra, and also that he remained there after Mravinsky's death, under Yuri Temirkanov. It mentions further that he was a soloist and also headed a percussion section of the Orchestra, and that he composed a few pieces (ten are mentioned altogether, but it is not meant to be an exhaustive list). Bansp 14:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yes it was me who added information about Iwanows presidency of the association on ruwiki. I dont think that it possible to find any links which can confirm this at the moment, so i wasnt able to find any. The reason for this could be that the association was created only one year ago and Iwanow was one of the grounders. My source of this information was Iwanow himself. At the moment he is travelling much mainly in Russia to rucruit the members. I will search further, but i think my search for facts wouldn't be very successful because at the moment this organisation is simply to small. The publications in austrain shop are the same as here and here. These two volumes are the guide for the starters, who want to play percussions. But his main work is the transcription of Tchaikovsky's "Children's Album". Here is a link to the announcement of his concert in St. Petersburg's Phillarmony on 24.03.04.--djiggy 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I just want to correct - These(here and here) two albums are not cds or vinyls. These two volumes are collections of notes of Iwanow's compositions, which are based on famous russian folklore meldies, and have been composed for percussionists-beginners. --djiggy 13:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The guy may be for real, and has made at least one recording with the Leningrad Phil as a featured percussionist does not make him notable. Cannot see how he passes WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 06:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It' not only a recording, where you should look at. Moreover, do you really think that in his 23 years long carreer at Leningrad Phillarmonic Orchestra - the most famous orchestra in Russia - he has made only one reording? The reason for this, that you cannot find his name on other cds is just because that it is not usual to print a cast of the whole orchestra(About 200 Members!!!) in the booklet or even in the internet. --djiggy 09:33, 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 speedy keep for obvious reasons — FireFox (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2006

Houston, Texas[edit]

Poorly written article about a fictional city that people are led to believe exists. ZERO GOOGLE HITS --Railer 138 14:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? No google hits means complete nonsense. --Railer 138 14:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and tell you that YOU MISSPELLED IT IN YOUR SEARCH. -Amarkov babble 14:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep ridiculous nomination, and user should be banned for the below topic SteveLamacq43 14:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong, you know. It's a sin. --Railer 138 14:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually. I have no idea why an admin hasn't closed this yet... -Amarkov babble 14:35, 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Tiger Woods. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was keep. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her! Girl vs Pig[edit]

Comic fails WP:WEB. Fails to assert notability. --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Seems interesting. Only 165 google hits filtering out Wikipedia. Still, seems interesting. Claims to have been published. Might need sme cleanup though. Chris Kreider 18:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Cleanup does nothing for the article's concerns, as cleanup is only meant for grammatical and layout corrections. It doesn't have any provisions for fact-finding and sourcing. ColourBurst 22:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced article is unverified through reliable sources (which also means it fails WP:WEB). -- Dragonfiend 19:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, unverified webcomic that fails the WP:WEB guideline criterias. Also, note that being "interesting" does not make a subject any more notable that if it was dull.--TBCΦtalk? 00:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Kizor 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN webcomic. Appears to suffer from a derth of reliable sources. Resolute 04:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete nn cruft. Anomo 11:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but start over: The topic of this article is fine, but the unsoursed stuff seems to be a problem. I say we should revert it to a stub and start over. --Wack'd About Wiki 17:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment except for the fact that the unsourced stuff is, well, everything. You'll need to bring sources in if this is to be kept. ColourBurst 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 05:48, 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. W.marsh 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boltzmon[edit]

At the very least, non-notable. At the worst, complete bollocks. A Google search returns 616 results, and I think that most of those are due to a book named Boltzmon, which is possibly what the article is based on. A Google Scholar search returns 3 hits, all non-notable. The Arxiv returns nothing. Mike Peel 14:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This looks like an obscure non-notable black hole hypothesis that may not have even passed through peer review in the scientific literature. It does not belong on Wikipedia for many reasons. George J. Bendo 15:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails to be notable as a scientific theory. EdJohnston 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems not verifiable/notable since no peer-reviewed paper mentions it. Awolf002 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is clearly referenced (Ferris, Timothy. The Whole Shebang, 1997 Simon & Schuster), and here you can search inside this source (search for "Boltzmon") to see the passage from which the present text was derived. The source is not the book by William Sleator, who probably took ideas from the Shebang book, which was well known, as it had just been the main selection of the Book of the Month Club. Apart from notability and the neological character of the name of the hypothetical particle, this seems legit to me. Evidence that this is not purely the result of the imagination of the author is provided by this quote from a article inspired by a workshop in honour of Stephen Hawking: In the ensuing 20 years, opinions have split mostly along party lines. Particle physicists like Dr. Susskind and Dr. Gerard 't Hooft, a physicist at the University of Utrecht and the 1999 Nobel Prize winner, defend quantum theory and say that the information must get out somehow, perhaps subtly encoded in the radiation. Another possibility — that the information was left behind in some new kind of elementary particle when the black hole evaporated — seems to have fallen from favor. I don't have an immediate recommendation to the disposition of the article, but think that account of this should be taken. Perhaps this could be a paragraph in Black hole thermodynamics or Gerard 't Hooft.  --LambiamTalk 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the above information, I gather that the only reference that uses the word "boltzmon" is a popular science book that probably did not undergo a rigorous peer-review process. Do you have references from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that use the word "boltzmon"? That would demonstrate that someone has used "botzmon" as a name for something connected to a black hole. Anyhow, the fact that the only specific mention of "boltzmon" is buried deep within a popular science book further demonstrates that the term is non-notable. It is far more likely that someone will find this article when misspelling Boltzmann, and I think the aricle should be made a redirect to that article rather than be kept in Wikipedia. George J. Bendo 19:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The given excerpt from the book only states that some unnamed (!) theoretical physicists brought forward this boltzmon hypothesis. This sounds very much as if the book's author just happened to mention some fancy idea somebody overheard within some conferece gossip but that is ever made it into a scholary article. (Google Scholar has zero hits!) Wikipedia does not document scientific ideas in its larva state, not even if some more or less renowned science writer was so uncareful as to mention it with three sentences in a book. Furthermore: The text in the article is a literal excerpt from this paragraph in the book, hence it is also a copyright violation! Simon A. 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Naming this hypothetical entity after Ludwig Boltzmann is just confusing in my opinion. And there is no evidence physical or theoretical for its existence of which I am aware. JRSpriggs 05:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per User:Lambiam. I'm very wishy-washy about the article as currently written. The debate about information, entropy and black holes, however, is very notable, and so this idea deserves documentation somewhere, somehow. linas 15:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very interesting article. Also, I have the Whole Shebang, and this article is not copied from the paragraph describing the boltzmon. ♃ Dr. Yuriev 01:46, 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. Yanksox 15:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LeBron's Lightning Lemonade[edit]

Hoax. Totally made up nonsense. IronChris | (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable product. The article is nonsense, but the bubble gum seems to exist. I reverted the nonsense from Bubblicious. Prolog 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the product itself isn't an hoax (a google search [48] finds a good bit of information on the product), but it does fail WP:N and I suspect the quotes on that page are made up, so I say delete. --tgheretford (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Bubblicious. Lightning Lemonade is already listed on the Bubblicious page. Rest of the stuff on the page is brootal nonsense. Tubezone 16:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It appears that there are no sources to the comments. Nothing worth merging. Chris Kreider 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually, quite a notable product as shown by the link above. I oppose a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've stubbed it and expanded the article a tiny bit with what we know as opposed to the silliness that was there before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article makes no claims of notability; merge verifiable information to parent product if pertinent. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what is notable about this particular lemonade compared to others?? --SunStar Net 12:22, 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 delete. W.marsh 14:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CTY Culture[edit]

Neither verifiable not notable, also fails WP:NFT Demiurge 14:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is becoming pointless.

Exiledone 14:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tell me Demiurge are you trying to become an administrator.?

Exiledone 14:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, maybe slight merge into main article. I've been to CTY many times, but most of this article is a plain and simple WP:V violation. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be more appropriate on RealCTY - clcrhiggaeeermo
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 07:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Galen Hieronymus[edit]

Extremely biased, and subject is not very notable. Unfortunately, too notable for me to be comfortable speedy tagging it. Amarkov babble 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. My first thought was that this was a likely hoax, but it apparently is not. An obscure American duplicating the work of Wilhelm Reich, it seems. Surprisingly, this apparently made it into The Secret Life of Plants, that eccentric 1970s tract on the paranormal powers of veggies.[49] It may be more notable than this stub makes it out to be, but still not extremely so. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or redirect to Hieronymus machine. There's enough information that Wikipedia should carry at least one article about it, but the machine may be the best bet. The story about the "scientist" John W. Campbell who constructed one of the machines and claimed not only that the machine WORKED to detect psionic energy but that the schematic DRAWINGS worked as detectors as well... that's classic. Paranormal psychiatry / pseudoscience is a notable subject matter and this man or his machine are names that someone would legitimately want to research. OfficeGirl 01:29, 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 11:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 12986[edit]

This article is about an executive order, the legal details of which are of no particular importance or notability. There are currently relatively few articles about executive orders (full list here: [[50]]) and those that do exist are about orders of a great deal more significance (domestically and internationally) than this one. This was a very troublesome article for a time, due to the fact that it was based on highly erroneous information, from a disreputable source. Once the facts were established, and all of the POV content was removed, one is left with an article of no particular significance. I suggest, therefore, that it be deleted. Charles 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT indescriminate info, unless its importance is asserted. Mitaphane talk 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm a policy wonk by nature but this is insignificant. --Dhartung | Talk 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Richard 06:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all executive orders. I'm shocked we'd nominate any executive order, especially based on "importance" or "notability." What next? "Non notable piece of legislation?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to reconsider your thinking on this one. I don't care that much about keeping or deleting this particular article but I do think the idea that we should keep all Executive Orders in Wikipedia is something worth discussing.
Your "what next?" suggests that every "piece of legislation" should be included in Wikipedia. Surely you must be kidding. Every piece of legislation in what country? The U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia, Germany, Russia? After all, this is not the "U.S." Wikipedia, it is the English Wikipedia. So, assuming we did want to include every piece of legislation in Wikipedia, we would have no reason to include only U.S. legislation and not those of other countries, English-speaking or not.
But the real counter-argument to yours is that there are all sorts of legislation which are not worth documenting. Please review Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It might be useful to have a database somewhere that stores a description of every bit of legislation promulgated in the U.S. Wikipedia (IMHO) is not it. --Richard 17:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You read into my suggesiton quite well. I can't imagine a single piece of national (federal level for an idea of what level I'm thinking) legislation that shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. I also can't imagine a single executive order (or similar head-of-state action) that shouldn't be included. These are inherently "notable" if we want to use that measure, and they're easily verifiable as well. This isn't an "indiscriminate collection of information," but rather a very clear and focused information set that should be encouraged, not discouraged, especially since the source of such legislation/orders are often in difficult-to-understand legal terminology. This is exactly the sort of information an encyclopedia lacking space and scope limitations should be compiling and presenting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe WP:NOT includes in spirit things like "Wikipedia is not a compilation of headers for national laws". The article tells us nothing about what the Executive Order does, so it is not even up to stub quality, and contains no valuable information for our readers. GRBerry 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per not meeting WP:NOT TheRanger 22:21, 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, no chance of getting this deleted. Punkmorten 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Ellis-Bextor[edit]

I do not want to be in this encyclopaedia. Sophie Ellis-Bextor 15:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have no evidence that you are who you claim to be, SEBext1 (talk · contribs), and we have had enough past experiences with people disrupting Wikipedia to know that it is quite probable that you are not, especially given how apparently proficient with the AFD process you are with your very first 5 edits. If, despite the high probability that you are not, you are Sophie Ellis-Bextor, then you need to provide a proper reason for deleting this article. We have policies and guidelines on whom we do and do not have articles on. We neither include nor exclude people solely because they wish it. Please read our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines including our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies and our Wikipedia:Username policy. Uncle G 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Tough. You can't stop people talking about you (if you are who you say you are). If you're not, then this is a bad faith nom. Either way, this is not an AfD problem--Aim Here 16:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am Sophie Ellis-Bextor, yes, I am User:SEBext1 on here, and I don't want an article on myself. Just prevent it from being re-created. Uncle G, you are wrong with your assumption. Sophie Ellis-Bextor 16:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have carefully made no assumption. As I said, we have no evidence that you are who you claim to be. Repeatedly claiming it doesn't provide evidence, moreover. I've already pointed you towards the policies and guidelines to read, including two specific ones that you especially should read. Here are two more: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The former is our fundamental principle of not taking the sole words of Wikipedia editors for things. We don't accept "Trust me. I'm a doctor." and we don't accept "Trust me. I'm Sophie Ellis-Bextor.". I repeat: You need to provide a proper reason for deleting this article, that is in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Uncle G 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sophie Ellis-Bextor is a major recording artist in the UK, as far as I can tell. According to the WP:MUSIC guideline, that implies she ought to have an encyclopedia entry here. I didn't even notice any negative statements about her in the article. If User:SEBext1 is concerned about the content of the article about her on Wikipedia, she can direct her concerns to the noticeboard about biographies of living persons. But for her to say there shouldn't be an article about her at all is going too far. As a prominent recording artist, she is in the public eye. --Metropolitan90 16:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — "I do not want to be in this encyclopedia" isn't one of the criteria for deletion. Anyway, wouldn't Sophie Ellis-Bextor spell it "encyclopaedia"? Demiurge 16:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice stealth edit! Demiurge 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For proof it's me, visit [51] and if you really have a concern, join the on-site forum. But really, I don't deserve to be on Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia. Sophie Ellis-Bextor 16:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? You fulfill the notability criteria in WP:MUSIC quite easily. You may or may not like the fact you have an article but that's no concern of ours.--Aim Here 16:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this seems some sort of publicity stunt. Join the on-site forum for proof?? I followed that link; if in fact there is something about wikipedia in the forum (as opposed, say, to Announcements or Q&A or Questions), it's hardly apparent. John Broughton | Talk 17:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons stated. And actually, Sophie, you do deserve to be on Wikipedia. Emeraude 16:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Aim Here. As a side note, I'm the real Sophie Ellis-Bextor. --Brad Beattie (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I'm Sophie Ellis-Bextor and so's my wife. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now stop that, you're getting silly. ---Charles 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. John Broughton | Talk 17:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep "I thought I was the real Reggie." L0b0t 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Excellent form, grammar, consistency, encyclopaedic professionalism. What is more even if she is who she claims to be she is a very public and well-known figure, and can no more ask to be excluded from wikipedia than Cher or Madonna or Sting.HOT L Baltimore 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not Sophie Ellis-Bextor 17:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per HOT L Baltimore, who states the matter quite correctly. ---Charles 18:17, 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 So, let it be speedied... done. Tawker 21:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Cisternas[edit]

Non-notable person. No hits on google or other search engines, and the links to the "clubs" are usually links simply to towns, not actual teams JCO312 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as per CSD A7. Article fails to assert any form of notability. --Brad Beattie (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7.--TBCΦtalk? 18:55, 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 speedy delete, WP:CSD G4. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of British schoolboy pranks[edit]

Possible original research or hoax. Colbber 15:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Just plain old vandalism, not worth an AfD. Obviously made up in school one day. Creator has been warned repeatedly and should be blocked. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Leuko 15:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteand block - enough warnings given. Emeraude 16:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block per Emeraude. ---Charles 18:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFT QuiteUnusual 19:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, almost the definition of "not for things made up in school one day". GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and move to WP:BJAODN - none of the things mentioned in this article even seem like realistic schoolboy pranks. SunStar Net 21:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block per Emeraude. Danny Lilithborne 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whoever did this deserves to be covered in conkers. oTHErONE (Contribs) 08:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where are the reliable sources that prove these exist?? I can't find any. --SunStar Net 10:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members Law and Justice[edit]

I originally prodded for the article being in Polish. It is not now, so I had to bring this to AfD. Still seems to be useless to me. Amarkov babble 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article is still lacking in context. However, if Wikipedia identifies members of parliaments in other countries by political party, a similar practice should also be applied to this party from Poland. --Metropolitan90 16:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete info contained on the Polish Sejm's official website (here), or Move to List of Sejm deputies and expand to include the other parties represented.--Húsönd 01:02, 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 Speedy delete as non-notable band and recreation of deleted content. Creator should go to Deletion review if he disagrees with the deletion of his article. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ocelot (band)[edit]

Just some local church band. Self confessed case of WP:AUTO. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewfro.org[edit]

Nonnotable; vanity -- 165 google hits for "jewfro.org", 151 not from Wikipedia. The page doesn't cite any of its claims of media attention; it itself says "Strangely, it is quite a feat to find any record of these today", very suspiciously. --Adam Atlas 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following votes were posted by users who have only made edits related to jewfro.org, and therefore may be sock puppets or single-purpose accounts:

  • Keep Perhaps if content was edited more closely, it is a humourous website---Marykath (Contributions) 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Humourousness is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Adam Atlas 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree it is a humourous webiste, and the facts that can not be proven can be simply deleted or verified by e-mailing the owner of the site TxFcPoon (Contributions) 11:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Verifying" facts by emailing the owner of the website constitutes original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. --Adam Atlas 15:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eight-thirds[edit]

Disputed ProD. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Made up in school one day. Unverified. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NFT. Dar-Ape 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - If it is a legit game, that some kids dident make up in school, then it should saty. Unfortunatlry it does not sound like it. Would need sources if it were to keep. Chris Kreider 17:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:NFT. It's too bad A7 doesn't cover unremarkable games with no assertion of notability. --Daniel Olsen 18:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFT QuiteUnusual 19:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Echoing Chris, without sources, WP:NFT and WP:V apply.-- danntm T C 20:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made up. Quote: "It makes a fun game to keep children occupied." But not as much fun as creating Wikipedia articles obviously. Emeraude 23:22, 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. Yanksox 14:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Greenwood[edit]

WP:BIO, author is SPA with axe to grind. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She has testified before U.S. congressional committees, and the New York Times has published a letter of hers. I think that she is a notable activist. I tried to improve the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Effective pressure group activist it seems, but not notable. Emeraude 23:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the individual who suggested the removal of this page has an axe to grind. Looks like this woman is an activist and has done some great work over the years. Ner Israel
  • Keep This woman testify before U.S. congressional committees, she also received :The United Nations Association of the National Capital Area awarded Ms. Greenwood the "Human Rights Award" in December 2002". Mary Anne Wilson
    That's "The United Nations Association of the National Capital Area" - not the United Nations. Emeraude 10:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't fufill WP:BIO according to my interpretations, as well as precedents I have seen on AfD. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have found no established, reliable sources that can establish her notability. Yes, the New York Times may publish letters from everybody, but the writers themselves are (usually) non-notable. SunStar Net 07:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TT. Please refrain from incivil comments in AfD nominations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Low number of Ghits, but multiple testifying before Congress sways me. Open to a case that this is not as impressive as it seems. --Groggy Dice 01:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. as per Groggy, Truthbringer & the probable 'socks' acctually have half a point. while nominator may not have a specific axe to grind, we should wonder whether the argument for deletion is coasting along on the implication (i'm aware it isn't made explicit) that this person is some sort of 'trouble maker': a similarly 'minor' but innocuous person such as tv personality might well be oked. also bearing in mind there is no need to limit the number of entries as per WP:NOT (also the 'u n' thing needs editing to make Emeraude's point explicit) Bsnowball 12:43, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dratch[edit]

WP:BIO, author is SPA with an axe to grind. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - crz crztalk 06:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete at this point, being VP of an organization, I don't see it as being encyclopedic. If someone can show how he is otherwise notable, I'd change my opinion. -- Chabuk 18:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - 658 Google hits combined with the info in the article seems to indicate notability. --Eliyak T·C 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. POV of author ought to be irrelevant since any POV bias can be improved by further editing. Subject is clearly at least marginally notable enough to satisfy WP:BIO, and sufficiently so that WP:V isn't a problem. The Rabbinical Council of America is certainly a notable Rabbinic body, and the issue of clergy sex abuse has had notable implications for religious law and the intersection between religion and society, see for example the discussion in Role of women in Judaism#Women as witnesses regarding the impact of clergy sex abuse scandals involving the Rabbinical Council of America on the status of women in Orthodox Jewish law. (Disclosure: I wrote that section of Role of women in Judaism.) --Shirahadasha 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I think the person who is requesting this page be removed has issues with anyone who is addressing sexual abuse in Jewish communities. He also requested the term Clergy Abuse be removed. All we need to do is look at any newspaper in the US to see that we have a problem with some of our religious leaders being pedophiles. If you think this page is weak then add to it. Don't delete. Ner Israel
  • Keep - I've been doing some research and it appears that this person has some notability with in the Jewish faith. It also looks like he's trying to make a difference. Mary Anne Wilson
  • Weak keep per above, and please refrain from incivil comments in AfD noms. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see adequate evidence of notability to WP:BIO standards. A decent reliable source profile to use as a source is included in this [list of honored Rabbis from the Orthodox Union. An independent published reliable source primarily about him is at [52]. He picked up some international press trivial mentions when Senator Lieberman was nominated for VP. He also is, or at least has been, a teacher at Yeshiva University, but I see no evidence that he further meets WP:PROF. GRBerry 03:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, but be sure to add reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 07:03, 1 November 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Zoe: "No claims of notability". Zetawoof(ζ) 20:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd[edit]

Entry from a non-relevant company, only containing contact information. Sounds like advertising and might meet WP:SPAM dockingmanTalk 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteSpeedy Delete. As nominator. I think that article matches WP:CSD as spam. dockingmanTalk 17:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) (Updated by dockingmanTalk 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - This article is abut 3 lines. There is no real content of any use. Speedy delete on A1 little r no cntent with mo context or A7, no notable company. As stated above, seems like spamn. Chris Kreider 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G11, CSD A1, and CSD A7.--TBCΦtalk? 18:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A1/A3, lack of content/context. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 18:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a SPAM

This company is becoming a major player in the Fast growing Pharmaceuticals industry of Bangladesh.

Not only in Bangladesh but Internationally.

So it needs to be added to wikipedia.

So it should not be deteted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miahap (talk • contribs)

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Frog (2nd nomination)[edit]

User:Mapletip have requested this article to be deleted with the following reason: Dead software, website, and company. This is a re-nomination, please check the previous entry in here. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Nothing in WP:CORP requires the business to be active, e.g. British_East_India_Company was disolved in the 1800s. This company has the required noteablity to have an article. Wrs1864 18:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. By that logic Enron should be deleted. --67.71.78.37 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and keep. The concept was interesting and may yet be carried forward by others in a different form. Previous nomination for deletion failed on good grounds which remain valid. No good reason to delete. - Kittybrewster 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Per Wrs1864. Chris Kreider 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable anti-spam tactic --Aim Here 19:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Delete reasoning is invalid per Wrs1864's comment. Tit-for-tat antispam technique is notable per Kittybrewster's and Aim Here's comments. The effective implementation of this technique and its fallout are an important event in spam history.  —Raymond Keller 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wrs1864 - we have plenty of articles for things that no longer exist; it's called "history". Zetawoof(ζ) 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Shakespeare's dead too, big deal. Anyway, notable company and product, lots of press during its lifetime and demise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came here looking for information on Blue Frog and I found it. What's the problem? - JNighthawk 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly has a place as notable product TheRanger 04:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just today, wired published another article on blue frog and the DDoS attack. Wrs1864 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I just came here to read up on BlueFrog because of that Wired article. Even without the renewed attention it would be worth keeping because of its historical significance. Joe in Australia 19:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Wrs and Joe. Rmfitzgerald50 02:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is probably a spammer trying to remove any info on alternatives. neilmusgrove 09:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite a lot has changed since the last time this article was deleted. wtfunkymonkey 09:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Notable and effective approach to curtailing spam. Alex Pankratov 23:45, 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 merge into one article, I guess it'll be at Mercedes-Benz Mixed Tapes. - Bobet 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz Mixed Tape 11 and Mercedes-Benz Mixed Tape 14[edit]

Mercedes-Benz is certainly notable, but is everything they do notable by association? These mixtapes are a series of MP3 collections hosted on the company's official site, consisting of — and here's the main problem — songs primarily by unsigned artists. That means it's not particularly useful to list them on Wikipedia, since there's no way to discuss the musicians in any sort of context, since no verifiable sources have really discussed what they've done or influenced in the music world (other than "they submitted their demo tapes to Mercedes-Benz"). (The one notable exception I've found out of the two articles seems to be Tosca from 11.) Also, the past Mixed Tapes aren't even available on the site anymore. Unint 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pare down to one article I can accept that it's reasonable to have an article on this subject, but I don't think there's a need for 14 or so. FrozenPurpleCube 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one article I agree, having one article for Mercedes' Mixed Tape series might be good, not too sure about the benefits of 14+ individual pages. --Lijnema 15:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge down I like merging, and I am downloading mixed tape 14 right now. Maybe if someone figures out (possibly through contacting Mercedes-Benz) how to grab the others we could add links to those on the combined page. Driving music is an as-of-yet undefined genre, so information on it could be helpful. --TIB (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd call it "driving music". Most of the music on Mixed Tape is modern jazz, soul, lounge and other light electronica, I always think of songs like Radar Love when people talk about driving and music, but perhaps that's just me. As far as I know the "back issues" are only partially available from Mercedes Benz's iTunes music store (and of course floating around the net on P2P networks). I have all Mixed Tapes so far, so I can provide playlists for anyone who wants them. --Lijnema 20:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like Radar Love and Black Betty and other songs you might find on Need For Speed soundtracks (for example). But, this can be used for driving music in the country easily, as one might see in a Benz commercial. --TIB (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moke (Hawaiian slang)[edit]

Superficially a candidate for Wiktionary, only not in this form and not without references. Previously {{prod}}'d, tag removed without comment. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of Hawaiian slang. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As said, candidate fr wictionary. WP is not for neologisims and is not a dictionary. Chris Kreider 19:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should be in dictionary of slang, not an encyclopaedia. Emeraude 23:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It's a valid Hawaiian-local word, no different than "Haole", which is also here in Wiki, with no complaints. User:RW 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some words like Haole may be notable enough for inclusion. That does not mean that all words are. Vegaswikian 22:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT. its a real word in Hawaii.

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65535 (number)[edit]

non-notable number; see WP:NUMBER; two weak claims are not enough: It's a Fermat number, not a Fermat prime, and there are infinitely many of those. The fact that it's the highest unsigned 2-bit int is already in 10000 (number).Septentrionalis 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Mersenne number, you meant to say. It's a product of Fermat primes.Rich 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the first claim about the max points in a game is weak. However, the TCP ports is interesting, I think it has some merit. Plus, somebody put some work into the article. I think it should stay. Chris Kreider 19:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It one of numbers software developers should recognize immediatelly but that's about it. Any ordinal value limited to 2 Bytes will have 65536 possible values and using one such value as a reserved is quite common trick. TCP/UDP/IPX/zillion other protocols and APIs/game points are not unique in using 2 B sized data with 64k limit. Pavel Vozenilek 19:32, 29 October 2006
If it's a common trick then isn't it a piece of lore a software rookie would be glad to learn?Rich 20:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Last I checked, we werent all software developers. Perhaps something we may take for granted, somebody else may find fascinating, or need information on. Chris Kreider 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, despite the seeming narrowness of the examples, this is an important value in computer science in general. Also, if you see a factual error, be bold and edit away! Seraphimblade 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being the highest 16-bit unsigned int has a lot of significance for older computing systems. As such, two claims is just the tip of things related to this number. Also, notability is a guideline, not policy. Mitaphane talk 20:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its importance in computing is notable enough. --Salix alba (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mitaphane. Danny Lilithborne 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have very recently made edits to try to make 65535 seem more interesting and notable. Part of my reason for Keep is pedagogical-65536 is a concrete number so that a person who hates x's and y's etc can see interesting things without forcefeeding. For ex, I said 3x5x17x257=65535 is 2 less than the next Fermat prime, hoping the reader'll notice that 3 is 2 less than 5(second fermat prime),3x5 is 2 less thn 17(third Fermat prime),3x5x17 is 2 less than 257, and so on.Rich 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Highly notable Mersenne number. --- RockMFR 23:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mitaphane.--WaltCip 02:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Mitaphine. shoy 04:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Its 2^x - 1.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (even though I edited for formatting, which I hope clearly improves the article) and redirect to 10000 (number). Appears to fail the standards in WP:NUMBER and
    1. Wikipedia:NOT infinite. Not all 2^x - 1 deserve their own article.
    2. The 3x5x17x257 comment should be in Mersenne number or Fermat number, rather than under a specific number.
    3. The computer science (and gaming) referents should be in a computer science article. In fact, the line 65535 in 10000 (number) reads largest value for an unsigned 16-bit integer on a computer, which could be expanded by a word or two to cover the issue completely.
    So, delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You do make a strong case. However, from my experience teaching GE courses, I've found that concrete numbers have an important role in learning for nonmathies esp., and that would be at least in part taken away by your recommendation.Rich 00:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (original author - created on request) - Seemed notable enough in the first place, when I found it on the requested articles pages. Guinness 09:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge afterwards if necessary - uh... why should number 65535 be discussed in the article about number 10000? 65535 is pretty interesting from computer science pov, so keeping it is reasonable. If merging is absolutely necessary, it should be at least left as a redirect. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you look at 10000 you'll see it has a list of significant 5-digit numbers at the bottom of it. However, in this case, I believe 65535 has more content than can be well handled on a merger. FrozenPurpleCube 15:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:1729, it's not that interesting that 65535 is a Mersenne number. Anton Mravcek 16:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. On the contrary, 65535 is used in many more instances than 1729, such as in programming (65535 is naturally the highest integer that can be used in Visual Basic before an overflow occurs). Plus, WP:1729 is not a Wikipedia policy, but rather, an essay.
      • Comment. You misunderstood. 1729 is just the shortcut to that essay, which is not a policy but a very useful rule of thumb. If you run "65535 is a Mersenne number" through the questionaire in the essay, you should come up with negative points, meaning that it's not interesting that "65535 is a Mersenne number." If you can find three mathematical properties of 65535 that yield positive points in the WP:1729 questionaire, you might be able to get the members of the WP:NUM project to vote keep in this AfD. Anton Mravcek 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Please do keep in mind that, WP:1729 aside, a number may be interesting outside of the context of pure number theory. While numbers interesting to other fields (such as computer science and programming, in this case) are not covered there, that doesn't mean they don't count! Seraphimblade 19:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • CommentI think the 1729 article has interesting ideas but it is not yet a useful rule of thumb. For ex, too much trouble justifying a second odd perfect number, which should be close to automatic keep.Rich 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I disagree with Anton about the mathematical interest of 65535. I suggest he try the WP:1729 questionaire with the statement "65535 is a composite Mersenne number." But I think that those voting strong keep need to look harder for interesting properties of this number. CompositeFan 22:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has computing notability. Carlossuarez46 04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, for the same reason as Carlossuarez46 Armanalp 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, has computing notability and frankly can't see any valid reason to delete this. Yamaguchi先生 07:25, 1 November 2006
  • Comment While this article poses some importance, there are some out there which - in my opinion violate WP:1729. Check out, for instance, the year 10,000 problem, where the sources of this article are based solely on April 1st jokes.--WaltCip 14:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it's not just any 2^x-1, it is 2^16-1, and since 2^32-1 is too big to remember, it's the only large number of that form that's really memorable because of it.--Prosfilaes 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you don't remember 4,294,967,295?  :) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has sufficient computing notability. --Trödel 15:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It's computing interest seems to be just an accident of the 16-bit word size. Numerao 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Y2K bug was an accident of computation, and yet there's an article on that.--WaltCip 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the WP:1729 questionaire, it is interesting that 65535 is of the form 2^2^n - 1, with positive +102352 points. The constructible polygon item would most likely score higher. Plus just one of the interesting computing properties and we have three interesting properties as per WP:NUM. PrimeFan 23:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the first two "properties" here are almost identical. Septentrionalis 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Used commonly in computing throughout history. I'm actually a bit surprised something like this is up for deletion. --Czj 19:30, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:1729 questionnaire applied to 65535[edit]

Number N = 65535 is a number of the form .

1. How many n < 107 do NOT have this property in common with Number N? If it's too computationally intensive to calculate, a heuristic estimate is acceptable, or even a rough guesstimate. These are the starting points.

9999996 points.

2. Has a professional mathematician written a peer-reviewed paper or book about this property that specifically mentions Number N?

No. Deduct 107 points.

No, at least none that I can find. -4 points.

3. In a list sorted in ascending order, at what position k does Number N occur? Deduct k from Question 2 points.

65535 occurs at position 4. -8 points.

4. Might f(N) = False in a different base b?

NO. Skip ahead to Question 5.

5. Does the sequence of numbers with f(N) = True in Sloane's OEIS specifically list Number N in its Sequence or Signed field?

YES. Award the A-number of the sequence as points.

Yes, it's (sequence A051179 in the OEIS). 51171 points.

6. What keywords does the sequence have in its Keywords field?

core. Subtract the sequence's A-number from the A-number of the most recently added sequence. Award that difference as points.
nice. Award the A-number of the sequence as points.
hard. Award the A-number of the sequence as points again.
more. Award the A-number of the sequence as points again.
base. Make sure you did not skip Question 4.
less. Deduct the sequence's A-number as points.
Any others. Award a point each.

nonn, easy and nice. 102352 points.

7. How many points are there?

points > 0. The property in relation to the number is interesting.
points = 0. It's your call.
points < 0. The property in relation to the number is NOT interesting.

Positive 102352, the property in relation to the number is interesting.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 4's 100 Greatest albums[edit]

This is just another arbitrary ranking/list of perceived music quality produced by a media outlet. There is no evidence that anyone finds this list to be authoritative and it will in all likelihood be forgotten in 5 years. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - What is next, Chrislk02s favorite songs, or i will create a channel and do that! Chris Kreider 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable programme. There are a few more of these programmes floating around somewhere that may also need to be nominated. --tgheretford (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyright violation - these lists are copyrighted, folks, and we can't reproduce them under fair use. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in which case all the programmes within the category I said above need to be nominated a.s.a.p for copyvio. I can't do much myself at the moment because I have other commitments outside Wikipedia. --tgheretford (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prevent broadcast. I find it annoying that I finish up watching them. They're each 3 hours long. -Splash - tk 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I would support the same for similar articles. In over 20 years of broadcasting, Channel 4 has produced some truly excellent, notable programmes. This is not one of them! Emeraude 23:10, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Productions Movies[edit]

Amateur filmmakers. No assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 9 hits on google. No notability. Chris Kreider 19:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, a google search shows up only three unique hits. This shows that this production company fails to assert its notability. It is also difficult to verify the content of this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Essentially the Google hits boil down to just one: their presence on piczo.com. Strangely, they have not linked to their pages on piczo including this one - note the ages of the cast and the production values! Boys, you seem to be incredibly energetic but I am sorry, you don't cut it (yet) for Wikipedia. Good try though. -- RHaworth 20:50, 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. W.marsh 22:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Combat War Time Line[edit]

Redundant, unverifiable and possibly in-universe original research. Each of the games already have its own article (as well as an umbrella article) to describe the story. Additionally, plot summaries are prohibited by WP:NOT. Combination 19:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As redundant to the other articles. Wickethewok 19:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Instead of deleting this, delete storyline/history sections in AC game/country articles and add links to the timeline. Zaku Two 19:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with Zaku Nfreader 19:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely in-universe, irretrievably so, and there's already an umbrella article for the series AND articles for each game. This serves no encyclopedic purpose, and, per WP:WAF, is far from the ideal way of presenting these stories (so Zaku Two's suggestion is less than ideal). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm a huge fan of the series, and there is nothing encyclopediacally helpful in this article. Possibly violates copyright in some places for having lifted information verbatim from various games, and it is most definitly complete plot summary which wiki is not. As an aside, maybe some other wiki project might want it? The Kinslayer 10:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thunderbrand 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP-im a huge fan and this timeline has to stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.97.55 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Isn't presented in a real-world context. Interrobamf 00:45, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armor Games[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Flash games hosting sites with no claims of notability and no reliable sources given/found. Delete. Wickethewok 19:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable per nomination, low traffic as well. Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability. Have seen hundereds of such sites before. Chris Kreider 19:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually an above-average site with original games. Still fails WP:WEB though Bwithh 20:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martins Blums[edit]

This article is being proposed for deletion because it fails several criteria in WP:BIO. This is clearly a vanity page. Stangbat 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems like a vanity article. Talks about the guys job. Does not even have a PHD, or a higher degree. APpears to be a non notable person. Chris Kreider 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 19:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, is vanity. Hello32020 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and we're not supposed to say vanity anymore so I won't. Graduated last year and claims to be a "businessman and thinker about contemporary topics". Businessman on basis of starting up a small company (non-notable). And aren't we almost all thinkers about contemporary topics? Emeraude 23:08, 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. W.marsh 22:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SS Timothy Bloodworth[edit]

Contested prod. Appears to be a boat with little or no historical significance beyond that the creator's grandfather served on board (all respects to him). Stifle (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, the bar for inclusion for WWII ships is fairly low. While stubby, the article is fairly well referenced. I'd advise a look at SS John Stagg, uploaded by the same user. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The writers father was not the only person in the world to server on the boat. Appears to be well cited. May need so cleanup but think it is overall encylopdic material. Chris Kreider 23:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as boat was one of numerous convoy ships but apart from being hit with a rocket once was not individually notable. This in a conflict that routinely saw ~50 ships sunk or damaged every month. I fail to see the significance. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This does has historic value and the article is well-referenced. --Marriedtofilm 07:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Well referenced, obviously not spam, and Wikipedia is not paper. Category:Liberty ships has 78 articles, so we only need about 2,700 more to finish the lot. Ok, that makes me shudder a little. Mostly we happen to have articles on ships named after notable people. But I don't recollect any policy or guideline that would lead me to believe that this should be deleted under our deletion policy. GRBerry 04:10, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Front Line Force[edit]

Mod that doesn't seem to particularly notable. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Delete per lack of reliable sources. Wickethewok 19:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have to disagree with the nominator over this. Firstly, a google search shows more than 100 000 hits on this mod. Moreover, this mod is for a very popular PC game, Half-Life. There is also an impartial review of this mod on this website as well. In conclusion, this article meets WP:VERIFY guidelines. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNo claim of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come back when as notable as Red Orchestra or Counter-Strike. L0b0t 22:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I really can not be bothered to edit articles in the games-mod space, I've got more interesting things to do. But this is a notable mod. Valve Software hired Adrian Finol off this, Valve liked the mod so much, they donated a map for the mod team to use (Avanti from Team Fortress Classic). I have multiple reviews of this from PCZone. And just a google search will give you some more ammo [53]. The above gamespy link was pretty trivial, a list of 10 top Half-Life mods, but Gamespy also hosted 2 proper feature interviews with the FLF team seen here and here. If you want I can put in a list of PCZ print references into the article, but I can't be bothered to tidy the thing up. - Hahnchen 05:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Hahnchen. The Kinslayer 10:26, 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 as a non-notable programme. (aeropagitica) 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 4's England's Dream Eleven Poll[edit]

Non-notable programme on Channel 4 and listcruft. tgheretford (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into network that broadcasts it. Why does this need its own article? TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial, ephemereal. Don't merge, in more than 20 years of broadcasting this was not one of Channel 4's highlights. Emeraude 23:04, 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 löschen. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrall[edit]

seems to be a fake ported from the German Wikipedia Temp0001 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to German deletion discussion: [54] Temp0001 19:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • löschen! per WP:V, WP:HOAX. One google hit after filtering wikipedia, is just another wikipedia fork. —Mitaphane talk 21:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen per de:wiki. Punkmorten 12:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as did de: today - fake. --Schwalbe 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the de-article now admitted this being a hoax.[55] --Schwalbe 15:39, 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 delete as a non-notable musician, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswa[edit]

non notable artist. Seems self-promotion by that kid (two newly registered users whose only contribs have been creating this article and spamming its name on the Ambient music overview article) --LimoWreck 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC.--Húsönd 00:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely apologize for the add under ambient music, that was going too far (I'm still learning the do's and don'ts about Wikipedia). As far as the Saraswa article goes, please don't delete it. It is not purely self-promotion, it is edited from a review was not actually written by the artist himself, furthermore the page was created from request. Saraswa has interest from several major record labels and is in currently negotiating a deal for major distribution. Saraswa is a notable artist, and does not warrant deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mattsmawfield (talk • contribs)
  • i disagree, saraswa is a respected up and coming artist. i saw this kid playing at ginglik in london. superb
  • Delete as WP:NN. Also appears to be a conflict of interest. Exactly 5 Ghits for Matthew Smawfield. Of the 314 unique Ghits for Saraswa, there were few relevant. All those which were relevant pointed to wiki mirrors myspace and personal blogs. Does not pass WP:BIO or WP:MUS. Ohconfucius 07:01, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddyville Horrors[edit]

Per WP:HOAX, WP:NFT, zero ghits exc Wikipedia mirrors, unverifiable Tubezone 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per my original proposed deletion. ... discospinster talk 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing remotely like this incident in the New York Times for that year. It would probably have made the papers.Edison 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you are being kind. A multiple axe murder mystery like this would have eaten reams of newsprint in 1920's New York. I mean, only 2 people died in the Hall-Mills Murder, and there's 9 NYT cites in the article. Tubezone 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a hoax, and unverifiable. Hello32020 22:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- For the reasons stated above.--SUIT42 23:12, 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 as a non-notable subject. (aeropagitica) 22:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Rich, Still Lyin[edit]

Article is about a single song, which does not seem to have enough information for its own article. Contested prod. Amarkov babble 20:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect per nom unless importance(outside the feud) is asserted. 50 cent's article already has this information. Mitaphane talk 21:13, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. The author can develop and republish the article in a user sub-page when they find more reliable sources in order to reference information contained in the article. (aeropagitica) 22:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Brett[edit]

I could not find any information on him, although I'm closer to a weak delete than just regular delete. Contested prod. Amarkov babble 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Obviously biased but i would really appreciate my early post being kept. I had miniscule info to work with and i've left all the details on the article. If Brett was mentioned online i wouldn't have written this, i thought he made just enough impact to warrant a mention, i don't think it's fair to delete because he isn't in a google search. thanks all the same...please be gentle, suggestions VERY welcome Stuedgar 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Stuedgar[reply]

  • Weak Delete Seems at best an unknown artist who apparently flourished for a very few years and disappeared. With some sources and, ideally, information on galleris that have his work, he might move into the notable band, but I've not been able to find anything. Emeraude 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but he doesn't even show up on Google Books or A9. Just does not seem notable as an artist, no matter how interesting. --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again the best i can give you is what the text book says, which is New York galleries, nothing on current residence of work. I think he makes it into the text as much for the life story as his output in honesty, but if i don't overstate his importance and I give the solid details i think he is revelant enough for a short mention. No hard feelings if it HAS to go but i'd like it to stay. thanks for the suggestions Emeraude. I'm aware he hasn't had the impact for a mention in google searches but i'd be over the moon for his history to make the transition from text to web via Wikipedia. If anyone else has come across him in their fields or studies, or thinks he is interesting enough as a footnote for a quick mentions please lend your support. Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuedgar (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Dozens of people showing up to lend their support would not take the place of one Reliable Source and would be, in fact, quite counterproductive. Fan-1967 03:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, just desperate for him to be online somewhere Stuedgar 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC) stuedgar[reply]

When can i expect a decision/ make a final, desperate plea? Stuedgar 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)stuedgar[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Left Hand Path[edit]

Contested speedy... procedural Tawker 21:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bearing in mind that it is New Zealand group and I did came across it in European 'zines, it must be notable by subculture standarts. Also it is mentioned in academic sources (below). I know there are lots of trigger happy editors to delete articles like this, but actually article like this are very useful to people interested in New Religious Movements and subcultures. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zines do not establish notability. Leibniz 21:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable occult group.
  • Comment It (as Ordo Sinistra Vivendi, or as Order of the Left Hand Path, or as both) is mentioned in mainstream research publications. [56], (same in Polish [57]);[58] (same in Lithuanian [59]). And here [60], and here [61] Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. The references provided by Encyclopaedia Editing Dude don't look to me like 'mainstream research publications' (at least, the English ones don't). Go to the link homepages and see - Eternal Word Television Network, gatago.com, www.locksley.com. Emeraude 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Australian Association for the Study of Religion and CESNUR [62] are not mainstream? How about UCLA [63]? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: I said, quoting you originally "not 'mainstream research publications' ". But OK, let's read the opening sentences from the Australian Ass. for the Study of Religion (a 1998 press release by the way): "I am editing a handbook of information on new religious groups and associations in Australia. The greater part of the information included in the handbook is provided by the groups themselves." Draw your own conclusions. Emeraude 10:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the sources again:

PHENOMENON OF SATANISM IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY by Giuseppe Ferrari from L'Osservatore Romano (the newspaper of the Holy See) [64]
Skandalon 2001: The Religious Practices of Modern Satanists and Terrorists by Dawn Perlmutter from Anthropoetics:The Journal of Generative Anthropology 7, no. 2 (Fall 2001 / Winter 2002) by UCLA [65]
The Gothic Milieu: Black Metal, Satanism, and Vampires by Massimo Introvigne - presented at the conference "Rejected and Suppressed Knowledge: The Racist Right and the Cultic Milieu" organized by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm, 15-16 February 1997 [66]

These are quite mainstream publications for me.--Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, They would be, if they in fact proved more than the bear bones of existence. I'd note that only two sources (the first and third) in fact mention the group at all, with the second being a paper on the general phenomenon which doesn't mention it. Of those two sources mentioning it, the first merely includes it as part of a list of satanic groups, which proves that the author has heard of it and very little else. The third does pretty much likewise, but adds that the group has "less than fifty members", which seems to suggest that it's not a particularly serious concern. Therefore, delete based on the sources provided. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second source mentions it under the name Ordo Sinistra Vivendi (multiple mentions by academic sources proves cults notability). And earlier mentioned website of AASR gives more detailed overview on this cult. There is also lengthy article on this cult in the website of Russian Orthodox church [67]. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 09:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip on the second source. That said, we're still left with three sources there which mention this group in passing as part of a list of similar groups, which doesn't establish notability at all. Quoting from this guideline, we see that something must be "described by multiple independent reliable sources", with described the operative word - I don't see a description in any of those sources beyond the barest mention of the name (and, occasionally) the alternative name in either Latin or English. It's generally accepted that a mention which only says that something exists proves nothing beyond the fact that it exists. The AASR website has quite rightly been called into question by another user for containing information provided from the group itself, which renders it somewhat less than "independent" and may well render it unreliable to boot. I don't have any Russian, so I can't pass any judgement on exactly what's being said there, or indeed anything else regarding the independence or reliability of the site. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is standart procedure regarding New Religious Movements to ask them to provide information on their beliefs, this is how research is done. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly entitled to be standard procedure, but it renders the information less than impartial. Don't just take my word for it - it's in that quote I cited earlier, "described by multiple independent reliable sources". Simply reprinting information provided by a group or a person isn't being independent. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never the less this information was processed by Dr. Rowan Ireland which makes it perfectly independent and reliable source, unless of course you have a proof that he enjoys worshiping Satan in his spare time, then he's not busy reading lectures at uni. That is the only thing, I'm afraid, that will make this source not independent. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and I might be defining "independent" in different ways. I'm not saying that Dr Ireland himself isn't independent, he certainly has the capability to be. What I'm saying is that the information contained in that source isn't independent. Dr Ireland can be a Satanist, a Zoroastrian or a Raelian for all it matters, what matters is where he gets his information from. If Dr Ireland wrote a book in which he described this group in reasonable detail, that would be a description by an independent and reliable source. What we have here is a press release saying that Dr Ireland was intending to write a book (which doesn't appear to have been released, incidentally). The information he tells us he will use is sourced directly from the group itself (i.e. it isn't independent - unless you take the view that the group would really provide impartial information). Such information as is in the press release is very scanty indeed (i.e. very probably not a description of the group). Having multiple sources telling us that the group exists is a good start, but it isn't the end of the deal - there are multiple sources stating that I exist, I know this because I applied for a passport today, but it doesn't make me notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"What I'm saying is that the information contained in that source isn't independent". If we'll follow that logic, it could be said, that Bibliologist shouldn't use Bible, because Bible is not independent source on Bible, but rather he should use, let's say - Quran? -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. And it was published as CD-ROM "Australia's Religious Communities: A Multimedia Exploration", and it's professional edition of included information on Ordo Sinistra Vivendi as can be clearly seen from this review [68]. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's a considerable difference there. A Biblical scholar won't just use the Bible - he or she will also use other material from other scholars, as well as the critical faculties of his or her own mind. There's no evidence in that press release that Dr Ireland had done either (in fact there's considerable evidence that he hadn't used material from other scholars). Had he written this book, it could well be a different story. Additionally, if the only evidence we had on the existence of the Bible came in the form of some people saying "Other examples of religious books are the Bible, the Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita..." and nothing more (as remains the case in this review of the CD=ROM database - it's still just proof of existence rather than anything else), then I doubt it would be worthwhile to include an article on the Bible. Of course, that isn't the case here, which rather causes problems for our friendly neighbourhood strawman. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[69] this one is quite a source on Kerry Bolton founder of discussed cult (OLHP is mentioned in the context of his belief system), so the ideology can be sourced now. Same can be said about evolution of OLHP into Black Order [70] -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:09, 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 Delete as listcruft. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English songs whose title includes nonsense words[edit]

  • DELETE - ongoing struggle to end "lists of songs about..." - arbitrary my friends 4.18GB 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless exercise. And anyway, it should be songs in English, not English songs. Emeraude 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless it's a sub these are for specialist sites. Nate1481 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tear Down These Dynamiclists! because they can go on forever, arbitrary. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hubjub and gooliciosity. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletdaba Danny Lilithborne 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, somewhat arbitrary, and it's badly defined too (appears to also include song titles with neologisms/portmanteaus/etc, and songs with questionable nonsensitocity, like Amarok). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This particular list was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs. One particular concern raised was original research, and that construction of such lists should be in the form of verifiability from sources that have already collated such a list, rather than having readers having to resort to inspection to check the content. As such, this list is verifiable and constructable from this Tribune article, this list, and this list, for starters.

    As to whether the scope of the list is too narrow or too broad (Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists): This list is not a set complement, its criteria being inclusive ("everything with property X") rather than exclusive; and it is not, contrary to what it is stated above by TrackerTV, infinite, since the total number of songs in the world is finite. Wwwwolf's problems with the article lie in whether neologisms constitute nonsense, and are addressed by sidestepping the problem entirely and relying upon sources that have already done the work, such as those previously mentioned, rather than original research by Wikipedia editors that then has to be argued about. Quite a lot of the article can be retained even if all of the entries that cannot currently be sourced are removed, and the sources contain much that isn't already in the article. Maintaining the list is a matter of finding, citing, and using additional sources. Keep. Uncle G 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I find the logic "Song lists can't be infinite because the number of songs in the world are finite" fairly ridiculous. There's a finite number of grains of sand in the world, too. That doesn't mean trying to count them is any less a waste of time. Danny Lilithborne 20:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you find it ridiculous, then your knowledge of logic is insufficient. I suggest reading our article on finite sets which tells you that any subset of a finite set is itself finite. Your comparison of songs to grains of sand is a highly misleading one, moreover. Uncle G 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'ongoing struggle' is not an argument - your opponents do struggle too
  • Writing 'DELETE' is like shouting to me
  • 'pointless exercise' see below
  • 'songs in English not English songs' - thats a title change youre talking about, then.
  • 'for specialist sites' - counts for about half of this wikipedia, and right so I'd say
  • 'those dynamic lists ... they can go on for ever' ? - as written by Uncle G above.
  • 'hubjub and gooliciosity', 'deletdaba' - the list does not coin neologies, of course. How do you expect me to weigh this as an argument?
  • 'badly defined' - then improve the definition I'd say.
  • 'questionable nonsensible' - Sure. Do we drop articles with a questionable edge? Then don't look for things about Iraq or Israel here?
  • And in general: this list is a fine way to cite existing, truly used nonsense-words. As so it is a way of documenting the use (first time?) of these words - which is a correct scientific way of language-following description. And in a limited context (i.e. songs) - the better. Keep -DePiep 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - verbose vote duly noted..4.18GB 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This I do not understand. After the verbose (?) I did write keep. Maybe any subtlety, pun or nonsense-sense included in the comment? We do need an article on that, then. -DePiep 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So far no one has reacted to the list of argument-reaction. ~Says it to me. -DePiep 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see the usefulness with this one, trivia at best. Jay32183 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 13:09, 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 DELETED Identical text exists at Kirk Jackson, now on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Jackson.

Kirk jackson[edit]

Exactly 2 ghits for "kirk jackson" "steady state", may have been a co-author on 2 papers on the theory. Seraphimblade 21:42, 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. W.marsh 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanford Ransdell[edit]

Non notable person; he was an early settler of Indiana and a soldier, but that's about it. If you look closely, much of the article isn't even about him; his only connection to the murder case, for instance, is that his daughter was a witness. Brianyoumans 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as minor personage connected to one major event. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete unless notability to murder trial can be established. I hate to vote this way, as I'm an inclusionist and I did delete the prod, but the more I've thought about it, the more I think this isn't notable. If editor can produce any secondary source that mentions subject in some notable way, I will change my vote. --plange 03:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it appears that the editor is adding secondary sources to show notability, so we may want to review again :-) --plange 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - editors have established notability through secondary source citations. --plange 19:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like genealogical research. The article doesn't say why he was notable among the thousand Americans in the battle of Tippecanoe or the thousands of early settlers in the Indiana territory. —Kevin 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in a short period of time I was able to expand and source much of the existing article. This would not be possible to do after a 150 years if person was not notible. Friuli 19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 14 footnotes in the article as of this minute, only 4 or 5 actually appear to pertain to the subject of this article, and none of those appear to establish notability -- they just list him as a soldier who enrolled (note 5), was one of a thousand who took part in a battle (notes 1 & 2), and mustered out (note 8). This is standard genealogy -- we could find similar information about thousands upon thousands of other soldiers who are listed in muster rolls. Why is this guy notable among the thousand soldiers at Tippecanoe? The article still does not say. A quote from one or both of the two Battle of Tippecanoe books which mention him would quickly dispel my objections. —Kevin 02:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not only is this family genealogy, it is original research. Brianyoumans 05:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which parts? If they're sourced, it's not --plange 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The facts are sourced, but since it looks like no one has ever written anything specifically on Ransdell before, the interpretations are new. --Brianyoumans 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're only reporting what is in the sources, that is not an interpretation, but rather stating what is in the sources. That is not original research. Kevin's argument is the only valid one so far, IMHO, though I based my keep not on the battle info being sourced but rather the fact that he was involved in a sensational trial. --plange 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Time for a quote from the policy: Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." I would argue that some parts of this article probably amount to novel narrative and/or unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material. --Brianyoumans 20:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yep, so I'll ask again, which parts? --plange 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, looking again... very little of it. Mostly the bits about the 'notorious incident hanging over their heads for a decade' and the 'family strife'. I guess I agree that it isn't, on the whole, OR. On the other hand, many of the sources are obscure and/or unpublished - the "Ransdell Family Archive", for instance. And this doesn't change my view that this is family history and not anything really worthy of an entry. Brianyoumans 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I would agree those should be taken out... and yikes, the Ransdell Family Archive does not meet WP:V! But I would argue that removing the 2 items sourced by the archives would not affect the notability, in fact, those two items are tangential and not terribly relevant. The WP:PEACOCK stuff can be toned down and the article salvaged. If it was a notorious incident in that town (the trial) then it wasn't just of interest to that family, but to the town as well, hence why I would argue it has a place. --plange 03:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • S/he is adding more data, but ironically, the more that's added, the less I believe it meets notability as it is showing that there really is no non-trivial mention of the person in question if they're trying to meet notability by inserting a quote about his company and not himself. I'd like to wait and see if my request to add the quotes from the Tippecanoe books per Kevin (on the Talk page) happens. I've also asked to show how the trial was important, and Sanford's role... --plange 07:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Seems to be full of tangential padding.ALR 20:33, 6 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 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Powell (columnist)[edit]

nn writer for local papers Seraphimblade 22:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Created by a user named "MPowell". What a coincidence! --Brianyoumans 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 20 year old local reporters are not notable usually, and this makes no assertion that he is. Emeraude 22:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:VANITY. L0b0t 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - That article has almst no informatin that would be of any use to anybdy. Does attempt to assert notability but dont think it worked. This article adds no value to wikipedia. Perhaps speedy A1 or A7. Chris Kreider 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't realize it would create such a problem. GO ahead and delete the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpowell176 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Delete lacks notability, none asserted per CSD A7, and CSD G7 (db|author). Ohconfucius 07:13, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creep tonite[edit]

Supposedly a planned show on HBO. The listed fan site claims HBO has confirmed it, but no such announcement has been made by HBO. Google turns up a handful of hits for a youtube video that has not attracted any attention at all. Looks like vanity. Likely hoax. At minimum, unverifiable, no Reliable Sources Fan-1967 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Per later additions to the article, all the alleged screenwriters are 15 years old. Enough said. Fan-1967 22:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creep Tonite has been zapped as db-afd Tubezone 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Author (Dakota A. Thomas) claims he is a "screenwriter" with all sorts of Hollywood movie/TV projects in the works with big name talent. Nothing has ever materialized past poor quality home-made videos and webpages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.202.221 (talk • contribs)
  • Author has blanked the article. I'll take that as a db-author. So tagged. Fan-1967 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's recreated it, so I readded the AFD tag. Fan-1967 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


He's also re-added the information into several legitimate articles. Reported at AIV. Enough is enough. Fan-1967 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball and serious WP:V issues. However, in my opinion not a speedy candidate. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:47, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rido kowishima[edit]

This smells like a hoax, as the PRODder and the other, agreeing editor both suggest. But I find at [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1724272/posts this] slightly off-the-wall thread from an unreliable source an actual mention of this person. That's the only thing that Google finds, however. Can someone think of a way of working out if this person did actually exist or not? And, if they did, if they need an article? -Splash - tk 22:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Author of Rido Kowishima was User:Ridolin! Only other edit was to add this mass murderer to the Mass murder articel; this was removed by another editor within 20 minutes. This article has to go. Emeraude 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One isolated hit does not make him notable. --ArmadilloFromHell 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a killer of "countless victims" would certainly have shown up in the news at some point. A series of news searches on Google and LexisNexis turned up absolutely nothing. Smells like a hoax to me. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The name sounds vaguely Japanese, but if so, is badly misspelled. If we knew the right spelling, Google might turn up some factual information. But I suspect it's just a hoax. The alleged victim Quin Shimza (Japan) is likewise not a valid Japanese name. Fg2 07:49, 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 13:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Delicious![edit]

Supposed planned Disney Channel movie, starring the Zack and Cody kids, that seems to be totally unknown to everyone else on the web. Sources and Hoax tags removed without comment (and without providing sources. Author has a bad history on this sort of thing. Possible hoax, at minimum unverifiable. Fan-1967 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. User:Lord Hawk 22: 45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and ban author if they're a repeat hoaxer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Starblind. Danny Lilithborne 23:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Wikipedia is nt a crystal ball. Even if it was, this article would not reinforce that point. Has little or no information of use. Verges on the border of Speedy material. Chris Kreider 23:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Jackson[edit]

Nonsense vandalism from vandal account. Claims made in the article, such as that he coauthored the steady state theory with Hoyle and Bondi are false. Joke 22:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete –Joke 22:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He would have been 16 when the steady state theory was developed. Hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 23:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Looks like an similary named article Kirck jackson was just deleted earlier today. Speedily actually. Is this on par with that deletion? Chris Kreider 00:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response I speedily deleted an article called Kirk jackson which had exactly the same content as this article. I didn't see any reason for the article's existence, or any reason to discuss the deletion, since one under the appropriate name already existed. I don't see any reason this article can be speedied, though, even though it seems obvious that it is a hoax. –Joke 00:54, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Warner[edit]

Non notable former candidate for Congress, lost his party's primary. Calwatch 22:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Near winner of contested primary, founder and CEO of company, . . . notable enough. Wiki is not Paper. -- Sholom 15:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely active and well known in local politics. Almost won primary, recieved endorsements from CA Democratic Party and other notables, 5th largest magazine distribution company in US. Could run again for political office. I created the article as he was running in my district. Dapoloplayer 16:47, 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 no consensus to delete, but adding a tag for references... normally I wouldn't check as closer, but there do seem to be a lot of reliable sources on this guy, they just aren't cited. W.marsh 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ballen[edit]

Was PRODded as "notability", but the article asserts a positive shedload thereof. It might all be trumped-stuff of course, adn there are no links. Just the sort of thing that a keen AfDer might want to dig around for... -Splash - tk 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The notability seems justified just by a cursory google -- press coverage, international exhibition of works, notable show called Outland. The article needs cleanup & sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Weak Keep (Updated by Chris Kreider 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)) - Article makes assertion of notability. With google hits, appears could be valid. In this case, I would rather err on the side of caution and not delete the contribution. Chris Kreider 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. Whilst I've not looked into this save very briefly, it is not enough to survive AfD to make a mere assertion of notability. The purpose of AfD is to see if these appearances are valid or not; to weight whether they are notable or not. Noone's seeking a speedy deletion, nor even a 5-day PROD here. AfD is instead being asked to do some thorough (admittedly fairly heavy) legwork and reach a viable decision. -Splash - tk 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Point taken, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will try to do alittle more work to back up my nominatin but it still stands. I think if it comes to AFD, it should be analyzed for every possible reason to keep it or to delete it. From what I read, it appears as thhough this article adds value to wikipedia and hence my keep vote. After reading your comment, I do agree and will downgrade my nomination to a weak keep. Chris Kreider 23:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaplin Society[edit]

Nomination for deletion Suspected hoax student society article created by single purpose acacount. If it really could be verified, it may be notable for its surviving for so long but I can't find anything on google or google books (it should be expected to be mentioned in tourist guides at least). Never heard of it during my four years at Cam. Bwithh 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V, WP:HOAX. Google search for "The Chaplin Society" cambridge gets one hit for a different Chaplin group. —Mitaphane talk 00:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:HOAX. Zero ghits, anon editor, no verifiable references. I think the some of the Cambridge kiddies just love a good chain-yank. Tubezone 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. I tried to give them a chance but I see no evidence that it exists. From the pattern of initial outlandish facts that were then rowed back when challenged, I think it's a joke. Greycap 07:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and above discussion. Chris Kreider 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. The history is bunk. Richard Pinch 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a hoax. I wasn't at Peterhouse but I know people who were and it is a hoax. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 00:29, 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 as a non-notable student group, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvised Comedy Ents[edit]

Nomination for Deletion Non-encyclopedically notable student society which was only established in 2003. Cambridge has a strong comedy tradition, but this just not comparable to the Cambridge Footlights, or equivalents at say, U.Chicago or even Bristol. The original creator of the article has put up an pre-emptive defence of the society here - I encourage people to read it. My rebuttal is that while Cambridge may be famous for comedy, ICE has only beeen around for 3 years and is unlikely to have achieved a remarkable level of fame (if it has, then show us); coverage in student newspapers and stalls at the fresher's fair are not acceptable or credible indicators of encyclopedic notability (and Wikipedia is not a campus info booth). An equivalence is also claimed with the Oxford Imps, but this Dark Blue group appears to be significantly more accomplished than ICE (and I'm not very sure Imps is encyclopedically notable either). Bwithh 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - hundreds of schools have comedy programs, groups, etc. If there was any references other than from ther website of the unofficial school newspaper, it might be noteworthy enough to keep. Chris Kreider 23:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are many similar articles on the Clubs and societies of the University of Cambridge category and many articles linked from List of social activities at the University of Cambridge which are at least as notable. If ICE is not notable enough to be included then surely the Cambridge University History Society, as an example, is equally non notable as are most of the societies listed on the above articles. --RichW 23:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, there are number of societies (though not that many, unless we're going to assess each college boat club) on that list which should be nom'd for afd discussion too Bwithh 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I count 5 societies on the list which are ripe for afd, excluding the boat clubs (which i'm not sure about). Plus a couple of others on the category page. I'll (or someone else) get around to them at some point. Bwithh 23:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. This group is simply not sufficiently notable at this point in time. That may well change in a few years if a member goes on to some kind of fame or the group gets media coverage beyond the campus. -Kubigula (ave) 21:43, 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 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Daniels[edit]

PRODded as "Backup musician with no independent accomplishments. Due to the nature of his work there does not appear to be any reliable sources to provide required verifiability of article contents.", but given the long list of famous names, he must be worth an AfD. I'd caution against notability by osmosis, however. -Splash - tk 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - First part of the article, abut his life and his amazing childhood talents all appears to be riginal research. The latter stuff, if verifiable, might merit an article but wuld be hard to ever create an article that culd rise above stub status. Chris Kreider 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to backup the article claims. As noted above, there are a number of notable claims in the article but there is no way to verify that the claims are true. --Allen3 talk 03:55, 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 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyt Hilsman[edit]

Vanity article about losing political candidate. Calwatch 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - If any of the claims are true, appears to be notable. That being said, none of it is cited. If political life is only verifiable component of article def needs deleted. If the claims of screenwriting and ward winning are true. then should prbably be kepy. Chris Kreider 23:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem notable to me, and I would expect an "award-winning writer, journalist and educator" to be able to write better than this, which seriously makes me think he aspires to notability but is mired in vanity (oops, not allowed to say that!) Emeraude 23:32, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Field Guide: The Art, History and Philosophy of Crop Circle Making[edit]

Promotional piece for a book that has only just been released. --BillC 22:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete promotional spam. Carve G11 into your farm! TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wow, i think i heard that exact wording in a commercial for something(joking). But seriousley, that reads like an advertisement!. Chris Kreider 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely an ad (and not a very good one: "reveals the truth behind one of the world's greatest mysteries" and then tells us it was some guy!) Page author's only other article is on one of the book's authors, John Lundberg , a good, sensible article. Emeraude 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under G11. In any case, the book fails WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 15:47, 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 null. Articles for deletion is for debating deletion, but the issue here seems to be whether it should be a redirect or not. Take the debate to the talk page. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q (Street Fighter)[edit]

The article had been previously nominated here over a year ago and the vote was closed as a "merge and redirect". Since then, apparently the article has continued on until User:A Man In Black reverted the article to a redirect to Street Fighter III. I personally feel that a redirect is neither sufficient nor informative; Q is a playable character only in "3rd Strike", and he is not a hidden, unlockable or secret character. My vote is Strong Keep. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to SFIII. Playable character =/= notable. --- RockMFR 23:52, 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 as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CyberTown[edit]

Non-notable forum/website; fails WP:WEB. The article claims that it was popular in the past, though it has no references or proof of such notability, and the current state of the website suggests that it is incredibly non-notable. --- RockMFR 23:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Hard to google test since it's a common term (not site, just term). So I went to the site:
2C2 It appears that you do not have Java enabled in your browser's configuration. 

Please enable Java, then reload this page. 

If you do have java enabled and still are receiving this page, please click which browser you are using to enter Cybertown.

Netscape version 4.0 or later 
Internet Explorer version 4.0 or later 
Other

That's what I got. Won't even work with Javascript disabled. Obvously not notable if they can't even get their site to work. Anomo 12:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although the site was notable in the past, it has devolved into yet another paysite/chatroom. Also, the article is nearly devoid of useful information and I seriously doubt anyone has interest in correcting it. Just as a side note, I say it was notable in the past because it was one of the first 3D MOOs, basically a precursor to Second Life. 68.83.11.248 06:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of independent coverage, fails WP:V/WP:WEB. Wickethewok 20:40, 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 as Listcruft. (aeropagitica) 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with titles of twenty or more words[edit]

  • DELETE - on going struggle to end these lists.....arbitrary 4.18GB 23:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whats next, list of songs with 21 words of which half start with a vowell? Chris Kreider 23:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chris. --Steve 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Someone had a considerable work to build this, but this list doesn't appear to have any encyclopædic value.--Húsönd 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone should start a ListWiki where people can compile strange lists to their heart's content Bwithh 00:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There was an idea awhile back that lists should only cover subjects worthy of an article. For example List of Mennonites and Mennonite. This doesn't fit that, but it is a subject of interest well-maintained. On pop-cultural things Wikipedia is more expansive than an encyclopedia. At first I didn't like that, but I've come to accept it. Still I would support and join a ListWiki if the presence of lists is becoming that repugnant to people.--T. Anthony 04:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to a better title. List of long song titles would work, but the current incarnation is a little silly. Nevertheless, the article is interesting, encyclopedic (a list of long song titles doesn't seem too preposterous to me), and unlike many bad lists it can in fact be up to date and complete. SnurksTC 08:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per 4.18GB, Chris and Husond. Not a really encyclopedic article. I can also add my songs since there is no requirement there. Imoeng 11:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Imoeng 11:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 13:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The inverse of this list might be notable, but this is not. Yamaguchi先生 07:15, 1 November 2006
  • Delete, Clean this crufty detritus out of the encyclopedia. L0b0t 13:52, 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. (aeropagitica) 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard acl[edit]

Notable but adequately covered in Access control list, not good candidate for merge/redirect. Seraphimblade 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - current article reads more like a how-to guide. -- Whpq 00:04, 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 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English songs whose title includes the name of a landmark[edit]

  • DELETE - on going struggle to end these types of arbitray lists......4.18GB 23:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an arbitrary list. --Steve 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated in above nomiation, whats comes next, list of songs whose title include the letter q but not the letter z? How much farther can this go?Chris Kreider 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Coming up next on Music AfDs, List of songs in English which include an infinitive verb!
  • Delete Cannot emphasize more. Pretty much the same with every other "lists of songs", can never be completed. Imoeng 11:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unsourced, unmaintainable, indiscriminate collection of information, etc. Australia is a landmark? Also, there is no Leonard Cohen song called "Chelsea Hotel". There is "Chelsea Hotel #2" and there is also an unreleased "Chelsea Hotel #1", but that's it. Just an example of how unmaintainable these things quickly become. ergot 20:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 13:08, 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. Proto::type 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of songs (second nomination)[edit]

Note: This article has had a previous AfD discussion, which can be found here.

  • Strong Keep - This article is very useful, and there should be no reason for it's deletion - ZEROpumpkins 07:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh... Just read my replies to everyone else saying "It's useful!" -Amarkov babble 14:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is the best article on Wikipedia and I use it constantly to find music. This is exactly the type of content Wikipedia was made for, and it's content that cannot be found anywhere else.
Is there a rule that someone with this argument must appear in every AfD for a list? It doesn't matter if it can be found elsewhere, nor does it matter if you think it's the best. And you're going to have to support your assertion that it's what Wikipedia was made for. Lists two levels removed from actual content seems to me a perfect example of what Wikipedia is NOT for. What's next, List of meta-lists? -Amarkov babble 02:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - ongoing struggle to end arbitrary lists.....4.18GB 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Im with 4.18 on this. THe lists keep n growing! Chris Kreider 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - but first, make sure a category corresponds to each heading and make sure each article in this list has the appropriate category tag. That's the only way to keep a list like this maintainable. The list of articles in a category auto-maintain themselves. =Axlq 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflict) categorize this self-referential and no added value list.-- danntm T C 00:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put into category space as above.Jcam 01:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its very listcrufty. The only list of lists we need id List of Lists. Tarret 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost a joke. Danny Lilithborne 02:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move into category space Z388 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just move it to category space? Maybe it should be a sub-category of Category:Categories of lists? -Amarkov babble 03:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think s/he means assure that any list here is in Category:Lists of songs.--T. Anthony 04:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. That makes sense, although "move" is an odd wording. -Amarkov babble 04:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, listcruft. EVula 05:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is the greatest article ever. Listcruft is fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweifel (talk • contribs)
    Keep - useful. --Mikey Mousey 06:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC) User indef blocked as blatant sockpuppet/troll/vandal (all of the three work, really). Cowman109Talk 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - listcruft. it it did exist, it'd be suited better it there was a category called Category: Lists about songs. or something to that affect. --andrewI20Talk 06:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but "categorify" per Z388 and T. Anthony. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I performed this categorization; there were about 24 articles that were not in the cat (some others were in a subcat of the cat). --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete or move to "Lists of Listcruft" Elomis 08:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination Imoeng 11:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep per previous AfD. Why is this even relisted?  Grue  15:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of the neverending war to eliminate all non-exhaustive lists at Wikipedia. (Exhaustive lists being like List of Canadian provinces and territories by population) It's not likely they'll ever succeed at eliminating non-exhaustive lists, but it's important for some to try. Still I'm not certain this particular one is useful so I'm not voting at present.--T. Anthony 15:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a category, no reason to duplicate it as a list. shotwell 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this should be categories. Thanks to Dhartung for doing the categorization grunt work.--Isotope23 17:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmanageable and unwieldy. Most of the lists themselves are unnecessary (for example, List of songs by XXX - I'd go to XXX and expect the songs to be listed in the article.) Agreed with all those who said that non-exhaustive lists should be eliminated, but this is a good place to start. Emeraude 17:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hi they are called categories. Recury 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only if every single one gets categorized. --Lyght 20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Explain what's the difference between this and the list of mathematics lists, which is not only acceptable but is actually a featured list. I say keep it. 129.98.212.58 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duplicate of a category listing. feydey 21:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if its good enough for a category, its good enough for a list. Frankly "ongoing struggle to end arbitrary lists" sounds like "This is gonna get renominated time and time and time again until we finally get shot of the thing, regardless of the result of however many nominations it takes" Jcuk 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far more useful as category than list. Jay32183 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories are the way. utcursch | talk 13:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: lists never redundant with categories. AndyJones 17:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: where else would you list those lists? A category couldn't replace it (would alphabetize them on "L" as in "List". Strange AfD. -- User:Docu
    • You can change the sort keys and sort them however you like. If you wanted to alphabetize "List of lists of songs" under "songs" you would put [[Category:Music-related lists|Songs]].Recury 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Far more complicated than keeping this list. <KF> 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lists of television series episodes hasn't had any problem maintaining a category. Jay32183 02:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See also my comment one line above. <KF> 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what categories are for. In fact, this is what Category:Lists of songs is for. GRBerry 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's useful. It's much easier to read than a category page. It makes Wikipedia easier to navigate and thus easier to use. If I have understood this project's objectives correctly, the aim of the Wikipedia project is to gather information that can be found elsewhere, but make it harder to use. Therefore this excellent article should be deleted. --Multivitamin 22:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Multivitamin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.-Amarkov babble 23:05, 4 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 13:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators before 1789 plus List of European Dictators & List of Europein Dictators[edit]

User:J intela, a 15 year old who claims to be "unrivaled in all arias of Sciance and Social studies," created this article for original research that he was unable to add at List of dictators, introducing the very problems the editors at that list have tried very hard to avoid. For example, his claim that Cypselus was the first dictator of all time, although without explanation he has now discovered an earlier one. The list largely repeats List of ancient Greek tyrants, but also includes some medieval Italians for no apparent reasons.

Historians do not generally use the term "dictator" for people who governed before the Atlantic Revolutions. Prior to that autocratic leaders were the norm, and any attempt to list such leaders would include nearly all of them.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
List of European Dictators
List of Europein Dictators (this latter being redundant anyway)
Emeraude 00:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Gazpacho 00:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, no apparent criteria. Gazpacho 23:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, and 1789 seems to be a rather arbitrary cutoff. -- Whpq 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as (variously) redundant lists, lists containing Original Research, lists with arbitrary inclusion criteria and attempts to retcon history. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:51, 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 13:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Babbedge[edit]

Non-notable. Article created 18 May 2006, tagged for expansion 6 August 2006 - no development. Imperial College website staff directory lists him as a Research Assistant, [72] and his own website [73] confirms he's a "post-doctoral researcher ", so not notable. Emeraude 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No claim to notability given. --Nehwyn 10:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I added the expansion tag several months ago thinking maybe someone would find something to make the article notable, so far nothing. Delete on the grounds of WP:N. --Nebular110 18:05, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_British_comedy_films[edit]

"British film" is a subjective term (does it refer to the company, initial release location, writer, director, actors?). That means that the best you can do is list these as comedies, which shouldn't be a list at all because it is too broad. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_comedy_films for a similar debate. Stellis 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_films Bwithh 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but decide on a definition for "British film", make it clearer, and use it. -Amarkov babble 00:47, 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 13:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Sarkar[edit]

Delete. Subject is not notable, autobiography. Person, companies, and achievements all appear non-notable. - Malfoyl 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Concur with nom. Asked a longstanding (Canadian) Liberal leader about him, and she didn't recognize his name. Risker 02:05, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_29&oldid=1116878372"