Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 20

< September 19	September 21 >

Guide to deletion

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, a7 - group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tafurism[edit]

Delete-- WP:OR, we don't take original work. Also seems to fail notablility requirements. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheDailyNeopets[edit]

I fail to see how this website satisfies WP:WEB. Scobell302 01:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB and WP:ADS. Alexa ranking of 187,063 [1]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB, WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a fansite directory or free marketing billboard Bwithh 01:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fansite --Steve 01:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has websites all over it, what makes this one any different? I think it sould stay. ~~Bwithh 01:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

NOTE the above comment was written and tagged with my user id by User:Teen astronomer09 in an attempt to impersonate me and to remove my delete vote Bwithh 01:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pretty weak attempt...:) Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TBC. -- Michael Greiner 01:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:N. --Ineffable3000 04:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block Teen astronomer09, who happens to be the creator of this article. Danny Lilithborne 04:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic fansite. -- Dcflyer 06:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fansite Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non notable, fails WP:WEB Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable fan site. Even lists individual forum members. JIP | Talk 08:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete per above. MER-C 08:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block User:Teen astronomer09 for bad-faith impersonation / vote fraud (seen above). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarpine (talk • contribs)
Delete per above.UberCryxic 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoi khoi 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McNamara[edit]

Subject is nn. In addition, the article alleges without viewable citations that the person was a child molester and violates WP:WEASEL while doing so ("While in Mountshannon it is believed McNamara sexually abused Brendan O'Donnell...") If the subject was alive, this article would be a libel suit waiting to happen. Aaron 00:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.UberCryxic 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brendan O'Donnell seems to be notable, but not McNamara. The accusations are a little tough to believe, at least. Not quite up to our verifiability standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as said above, Brendan O'Donnell seems to be the important name here, since the book was about him, but the information in this article might also belong in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, at least as a bit in the Literature section given the book about it. FrozenPurpleCube 00:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom reasons. -- Dcflyer 06:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A6 --Roninbk _{t c #} 08:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I would probably 2nd that speedy. In it's previous state, it was nothing more then an attack page. After the unsourced negative comments were removed, it doesn't assert any real notability. 205.157.110.11 10:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, and we don't need articles set up as attack pages.-- danntm ^T _C 19:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:BIO. As said above, should probably just be noted on Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, scince the article is so short.--Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 21:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoi khoi 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mango juice^talk 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one hits on the Radio & Records CHR/Pop Chart (U.S.) and subpages[edit]

Before all of these are created, we should probably figure out whether annual charts are notable and not copyrighted. (The charts for 2005 hold the copyright notice © 2006 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved., terms of use here). This AfD does not include the entry on Radio & Records itself, which should be notable, but all annual charts created as subpages. ~ trialsanderrors 07:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio. VNU website states that: "copying or storing of any Content for other than personal use is expressly prohibited without prior written permission from VNU."--TBCTaLk?!? 00:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC. --Aaron 00:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Resolute 04:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before we run in to copyright problems caused by this. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (a) likely copyvio and (b) a copy of a primary source anyway. Guy 14:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAMIZDATamerica[edit]

Blogs, especially political ones, are a dime a dozen. I don't see what makes this particular one notable. Full disclosure: I prodded this for much the same reason and the tag was removed by the editor with nothing else added. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Samizdatamerica.com" gets exactly ZERO ghits. [2] You can't be much more nn than that. --Aaron 00:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:ADS. Has no alexa ranking [3]--TBCTaLk?!? 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable blog. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable blog. JIP | Talk 08:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the subject was notable then the article wouldn't be as rubbish as it is. Cynical 09:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable blog. Ramsquire 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. —Khoi khoi 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no content to this "article," it appears to exist only to promote a non-notable political blog, which is in direct violation of Wikipedia rules. -JakeApple 06:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. - Pernambuco 19:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G4 and A7. Konstable 06:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ruge[edit]

This former A7 speedy article fails WP:BIO. I'm taking this to AfD due to its recreation. The 6 search results for the subject's name have nothing to do with the subject matter of the article. [4] Erechtheus 00:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 ~~CSD G4. Recreation of previously speedily deleted article.~~ --TBCTaLk?!? 01:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Almost certainly a hoax, there's enough coverage of surfing and skating online that any pro would manage at least a google hit or two. Posting a hoax article once is bad enough, doing so repeatedly is tantamount to vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete agree with users above. --BLuToRsE 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. G4 does not apply when there hasn't been an XfD. That's why I went this way. This is the path to being able to use G4 and eventually protection if this guy recreates the article. Erechtheus 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry, my mistake. Either way, the article still falls under CSD A7, which it was previously deleted as.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. On further evaluation, it seems that the type of protection I'm talking about does not require an AfD. It's something an admin can roll on at his discretion. I don't know about you, but I learn a little bit about policy every day. Erechtheus 02:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD doesn't count as XfD? I'm skeptical -- I think it counts. - CheNuevara 02:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment"This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions" Erechtheus 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also note that "although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply". Thus even if G4 doesn't apply, CSD A7 still does.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly. Erechtheus 02:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hocking[edit]

This fellow is a writer for the wrestling website Online Onslaught (which, I note, doesn't have an article, though its creator Rick Scaia oddly enough does), and is a former disc jockey, according to the article. There are approximately 1270 Google hits for "Matthew Hocking"[5] and six for "Matthew Hocking" Canadian Bulldog[6], as he's known. I don't think writing for a couple of wrestling websites now and again is notability enough for an article. Was deprodded without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 00:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Also, the website he writes for doesn't seem to be a notable website, as it has an Alexa ranking of 82,179 [7]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of relevant google hits, doesn't seem notable from what I see. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 129.98.212.63 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoi khoi 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Canadian Bulldog is someone entirely different from Online Onslaught. That was an act of vandalism on the site. -Umdunn o 14:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Glen 15:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NELSAP[edit]

recreation of previously deleted article, prod removed with no explanation. Does not provide any independent evidence for notability. --Peta 01:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: [8] citation in New York Times of Jan. 16, 2004, article about a recreated ski area. And this [9] menion in 2005 article of The Independent. And this [10] article in 2005 from the Boston Globe newspaper, on Boston.com - (Oh, keep by the way). DavidWBrooks 01:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DavidWBrooks; has been featured on the Boston Globe, New York Times, and The Independent.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but in future a descriptive edit summary should be used for de-prodding. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete per CSD G4. Already tagged. --Dennisthe2 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, they cite. Rescinded vote, cast as Abstain. --Dennisthe2 17:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!

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

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

The result was speedy keep per the nomination being withdrawn by the nominator. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Idaho[edit]

This information is better served by an existing category.Dlohcierekim 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy Keep Nomination withdrawn. Thanks everyone.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Lists are able to include redlinks, which can help in development in that they give an indication on what articles have or have not been written. Also, hundreds of similar articles currently exist under Category:Lists of places.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TBC. Elf | Talk 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable list of notable places. Kirjtc2 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lists are not redundant with cats, even if they describe the same thing. - CheNuevara 02:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first I was going to post a delete comment out of moral support because I agree with the nominator's principle but thought it would unsuccessful because this would be one of many similar articles. To my surprise, I soon found there isn't a similar "article" for a lot of other U.S. states. That's probably a good thing. This is a category in article's clothing. The entire purpose of categories seems to be defeated by lists like this. If one is curious if there's an article required on a place, that's what looking in the category listing (or "search") can acheive. Agent 86 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How is this article any different from the articles in categories such as Category:Lists of places in the United States, other than that the other lists have tables with borders? Also (as quoted from WP:LIST), articles like these are "useful for Wikipedia development purposes... [as they] give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written"--TBCTaLk?!? 04:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Why is the nom picking solely on Idaho? Pick on some place useless to humanity, like Delaware. —ExplorerCDT 04:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I am tempted to slap a {{npov}} on ExplorerCDT :-), picking on any place is bad. This list doesn't scream listcruft like some. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TBC. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be a category. I do not see the point of such a list.Edison 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's the point of a list of cities? This should be a category, there is no information about the cities, just a list of them. Laurə n^whisper 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Lists are not redundant with categories. AndyJones 12:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Petros471 12:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Doyle (Ferns)[edit]

I don't believe this person meets WP:BIO. There are only 59 ghits for " 'James Doyle' Clonard " [11], and roughly half of those refer to different individuals. Most of the direct ghits are from local Irish news sources about the subject's current trial. Suggest deletion or merging into The Ferns Report. Aaron 01:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Ferns Report, per nom.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Merge as well, seems to have useful content. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge if necessary non-notable in and of itself, but information is relevant to the more encompassing The Ferns Report hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect. Please note that AfD is not necessary to do this, just be bold. Themindset 20:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of firearms in films[edit]

List of potentially unlimited size that would include every form of firearm ever in a film, from blunderbuss and muskets to modern machine guns, with a sub-list of each film said firearm appeared in. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Allen3 ^talk 01:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Aaron 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Elf | Talk 01:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I could possibly see this as acceptable if restricted to important or significant roles in films. Like say The Mexican. FrozenPurpleCube 01:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not arguing for the content per se. It's just that if this article (and the on concerning firearms in video games) are deleted, we will see all this information constantly placed on the articles of movies and video games mentioned. I'd rather see this information in one place rather spread all over video game/movie trivia sections. In addition to that, I think this article might start a more interesting topic "Firearms portrayal in media". —Mitaphane _talk 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**Silly Semantical Nitpic There is no way this article could have the potency to become unlimited in size as it would imply there are an unlimited number of movies to draw from.—Mitaphane _talk 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Listcruft Bwithh 02:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take it out back and shoot it. List is completely unmaintainable. - CheNuevara 02:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --physicq210 03:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mitaphane --UNHchabo 03:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete infinite list (sorry, Mitaphane, but come on). Danny Lilithborne 04:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list without any useful criteria. It's not useful for navigation, can't ever been usefully complete, and just plain isn't useful for anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use the Bazooka, indiscriminate collection of information. Up next, list of kitchen utensils in films. Garrett^Talk 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extraordinarily crufty, so many movies have ~~guns~~ Firearms in them that this would be unmaintainable, unless we have people that analise movies for a living that would be willing to. :S Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assassinate per above. MER-C 08:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft and don't bother with merging or assimilating. If the particular use of a particular firearm is notable enough to merit mention in a film's article then it will be. There is no use for such idle trivia. 205.157.110.11 10:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, next look into the other pages created for this type of things, mostly to be found in Category:In popular culture. --Deon Steyn 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Huge list that adds nothing to an encyclopedia. Wickethewok 18:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Ramsquire 19:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Waaay to broad. 23skidoo 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy per above.UberCryxic 00:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An unpopular opinion, I can see. I don't find the topic interesting, but the work that went into it seems a shame to throw away. YechielMan 02:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. Actually, it's totally worthless, now that I think about it. Delete. YechielMan 02:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft. —Khoi khoi 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles were created after a few people didn't want to see information about "X in popular culture" included in firearms articles, where such a section would describe its depictions in movies and computer games. I don't support the existence of this single massive list, since it's utterly unmanagable and provides minimal information, but it would be nice to have popular culture information included back into the articles. Something like the MP5 or AK-47 could use a mention of its ubiquity in certain roles, if we can find sources to support it, while other weapons like the Beretta 93R could benefit from a mention of prominent roles, like Robocop. An indiscriminate list of every occurance is pointless, but there should be some information back in the articles, especially now that this sorry excuse is gone. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (already voted keep) In what part of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is a sorted table of hashed entries disallowed? Many of you may find this information useless, but what about people actually looking for this? First of all, anyone who wants this information back on Wikipedia will simply add it back into the articles on those movies, games, and firearms. I don't want that, and I imagine none of you do either. I'd much rather have a sentence saying "This has been prominently shown in many films; see Article X," rather than "This has been most prominently shown in Movie X," as this invites the same kind of "list addition" as seen in WP:SPAM. I think this kind of page is necessary so that we don't end up with these huge lists on all sorts of other pages spread across Wikipedia. I know, I did a good amount of work, such as cutting down the "Popular Culture" section in Steyr AUG. This format is compact. It works. The old system did not work, and that's what we'll return to if this article is deleted. -- My other big issue: where in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents is this kind of information listed? Lists of this sort are kept elsewhere, in order to keep the information kept somewhere in a concise manner. --UNHchabo 04:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and not meeting any of the purposes at WP:LIST; to the extent it is a valuable information source it is because it is violating the policy against original research. GRBerry 12:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What qualifies as "original research" when verifying if a firearm appears in a movie? Anyone who watches The Matrix can verify that Neo uses a Vz 61 Skorpion in the "Lobby Scene." Do we need to link to an off-site screenshot in order for this not to be "original research"? On the other hand, if this article is deleted (with none of the information copied elsewhere), then there will be no reference for someone saying "I wonder what that gun was..." --UNHchabo 06:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - From WP:NOT "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis". WP:RS says "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." It also says "Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles." There is no free pass for material about films, literature, or any other readily available media, we still need sourcing. (And, in the particular example, only a gun afficianado would recognize specific weapons on sight.) GRBerry 12:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point with that comment was this: if anyone has the Vz 61 page open while watching the movie, they can see it's the same thing. But if someone watches the movie and wonders what it is, they can look on this page, and look through the firearms listed for The Matrix, and see that the Vz 61 is listed here. Because it's verifiable through watching the movie, must we really require screenshots, or an expert's analysis of firearms featured in the movie, to know what appeared? --UNHchabo 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless massively trimmed down to important appearances, per FrozenPurpleCube and Night Gyr. That James Bond uses a Walther PPK has been a plot point. That Generic Thug #7 uses a Browning rather than a Colt is no big deal. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split into seperate articles for each firearm, or for each firearm manufacturer. Johntex\^talk 03:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Philip 01:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of firearms in video games[edit]

List of potentially unlimited size that would include every form of firearm ever in a video game, from blunderbuss and muskets to modern machine guns, with a sub-list of each video game said firearm appeared in. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Allen3 ^talk 01:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Elf | Talk 01:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Gamelistcruft Bwithh 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 01:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Catergorize Note Computer_and_video_game_weapons already exists, if desired, make a Real weapons subcat. FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of firearms in films. —Mitaphane _talk 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane _talk 01:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dual-wield shoot it. Unmaintainable. - CheNuevara 02:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mitaphane. --UNHchabo 03:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete infinite list. Danny Lilithborne 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frag it. A list without a limit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a BFG per above. Garrett^Talk 05:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per related AFD at List of firearms in films Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frag as per above. MER-C 08:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Headshot per above. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 12:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, next look into the other pages created for this type of things, mostly to be found in Category:In popular culture. --Deon Steyn 14:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vaporize with plasma rifle there need not be such a list. If the weapon is notable, it will have its own article or be mentioned in the article of the game. Most fictional firearms don't need to be mentioned however. Altair 14:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculously huge list to the point of uselessness.

Wickethewok 18:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Ramsquire 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too broad. 23skidoo 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disintegrate with Atom Blaster (Type: Cannon; Class: Level III only) as above Marcus22 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pulverize! per nom. YechielMan 02:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles were created after a few people didn't want to see information about "X in popular culture" included in firearms articles, where such a section would describe its depictions in movies and computer games. I don't support the existence of this single massive list, since it's utterly unmanagable and provides minimal information, but it would be nice to have popular culture information included back into the articles. Something like the MP5 or AK-47 could use a mention of its ubiquity in certain roles, if we can find sources to support it, while other weapons like the Beretta 93R could benefit from a mention of prominent roles, like Robocop. An indiscriminate list of every occurance is pointless, but there should be some information back in the articles, especially now that this sorry excuse is gone. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (already voted keep) In what part of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is a sorted table of hashed entries disallowed? Many of you may find this information useless, but what about people actually looking for this? First of all, anyone who wants this information back on Wikipedia will simply add it back into the articles on those movies, games, and firearms. I don't want that, and I imagine none of you do either. I'd much rather have a sentence saying "This has been prominently shown in many films; see Article X," rather than "This has been most prominently shown in Movie X," as this invites the same kind of "list addition" as seen in WP:SPAM. I think this kind of page is necessary so that we don't end up with these huge lists on all sorts of other pages spread across Wikipedia. I know, I did a good amount of work, such as cutting down the "Popular Culture" section in Steyr AUG. This format is compact. It works. The old system did not work, and that's what we'll return to if this article is deleted. -- My other big issue: where in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents is this kind of information listed? Lists of this sort are kept elsewhere, in order to keep the information kept somewhere in a concise manner. --UNHchabo 04:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. The only purpose of WP:LIST it might conceivably meet is the information source one; however all the information appears to violate WP:NOR - even the apparent citations are original research! GRBerry 12:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gib It with a BFG9000 (which is not in the list, BTW) ... along with List of firearms in films, for the reasons above and in the other AfD. --72.75.117.73 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split into seperate articles for each firearm, or for each firearm manufacturer. Johntex\^talk 03:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fully agree with GRBerry. - Pernambuco 19:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why does this matter at all? No point whatsoever, really...
Delete Another list? More listcruft, and WP:NOT again. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical communication (Forums)[edit]

List of links to forums. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. User logged in long enough to contribute this list (Dec 2004) and apparently hasn't been back. Elf | Talk 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files--TBCTaLk?!? 01:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I find that articles made of external links attract a lot of spam. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. JIP | Talk 08:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of external links are explicitly covered by WP:NOT, and with good reason: they're absolute magnets for spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Trebor 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. S ug ar p in e t/c 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoi khoi 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDILY REDIRECTED. This is dupe content, but it has been merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler[edit]

It looks like this page has been nominated for deletion several times. I did some research and found that this information is already included in Adolf Hitler's medical health -- Stubbleboy 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've also noticed a redirect that caught my attention on this page Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation. --Stubbleboy 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Adolf Hitler's medical health--TBCTaLk?!? 01:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep because the material has been merged and therefore this article cannot be deleted. AFD isn't for resolving edit wars. Gazpacho 02:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does being merged prevent an article from being deleted?--TBCTaLk?!? 02:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what? If it's been merged, that's even more reason to delete it. - CheNuevara 02:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, per Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, any page that's been merged needs to be turned into a redirect, so that (a) people don't make the page again, and (b) we keep track of who contributed the information, as per the GFDL. Confusing Manifestation 04:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adolf Hitler's medical health. Nothing in WP:MM argues for a speedy keep in this case. Resolute 04:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 08:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bethpage Masquers Guild[edit]

Organization that does not assert notability. Also appears to be unverifiable Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 01:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG and WP:V. Only 15 Google results, some of which are from Wikipedia. [12]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not quite notable by WP:ORG, and google doesn't turn much up, so WP:V as well. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Trebor 15:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a high-school drama club. Just about every high school has one of these. The article even includes cast lists!! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very nn. —Khoi khoi 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course, it could always be merged with the school itself, Bethpage High School. --Richhoncho 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting in the Board election will end in less than two days.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Specific and reasonable arguments for notability have got to prevail over those who claim a topic is non-notable. Verifiability is also raised as an issue, but the claims in the article are very basic, and do appear to be easily verifiable (although not sourced), and arguments are given that the information can be verified. Mango juice^talk 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unpopular Books[edit]

del unpopular unnotable and unverifiable publisher. Its website is undeveloped. Why I have an impression that it wants to disprove its title using wikipedia as promo vehicle? I smell a big rat nest around this publisher, which looks like publish A LOT in wikipedia:

Can someone check out the following creations which hinge on unpopular.org.uk?

I don't say that they are not OK. I am just a bit suspicious. `'mikka (t) 01:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know anything about the articles that you mention, but I own a few of their publications. They definitely exist. - N1h1l 03:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Existing is not considered a reason for keeping an article. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comments were directed at the claim that Unpopular Books was an "unverifiable publisher". - N1h1l 13:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I should have been more clear. (I thought it is crystal clear in modern times): anyone who has spare $900 and some pirated or free sofrware may arrange a full-blown publishing house in a garage. `'mikka (t) 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability or in fact much content at all. An under-construction text based official website [13] and dubious ghits [14] (admittedly a very crude test in this case) don't help. Not a hope of passing WP:CORP.

The articles listed by mikka are in desperate need of investigation. London Psychogeographical Association, for example, is a mash of unverifiability, weasel words and border-line nonsense. The article states that this is a "largely fictitious organisation" and that it is "best understood in the context of situationist praxis". I think a spate of AfD nominations may be in order. --IslaySolomon 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for a number of reasons, including publishing material by Jean Barrot for the first time in the UK and translating works by Asger Jorn. The connection with the LPA is also notable as this organisation's texts inspired authors such as Iain Sinclair who have used psychogeography in their work. The official website does not include a list of their publications and I have added to and amended the list on the page concerned by referring to books that I own. I am not sure if the quality or lack of other pages or their authors is relevant to the issue in hand. John Eden 08:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and investigate. While the fact that Unpopular Books printed Decadence of the Shamans: Or Shamanism as a Key to the Secrets of Communism may be poetically apt, this seems to be a non-notable publisher dedicated to some minor and unintelligible ideology. I'm not sure that WP:CORP applies here, since this seems to be some kind of marginal movement in art or politics rather than a business. If the business guidelines were applied it falls well short of meeting them, but like all guidelines, they only define what is per se notable. What concerns me is that Mikka's articles seem to be a walled garden. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No assertion of notability (for the publisher) and per walled garden argument (for the rest) <-- I know it not a deletion criterion but let's WP:IAR and make a reasonable judgment here. Zunaid 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can someone direct me to the notability criteria for political and/or artistic movements, then? John Eden 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there are no specific notability criteria beyond the most basic ones for political or artistic movements. Most of the articles on Mikka's list seem to revolve around some sort of vague melange of Marxism and Dadaism, which makes me wondered whether these articles, any one of which might seem an eccentric performance, might be merged into some umbrella article about this particular tendency. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no specific criteria, then this discussion becomes a bit nebulous. I am happy to revise the article on the basis that Unpopular Books is notable for the works it has published rather than for being a publishing company. Googling for the company name alongside names of its authors like Stewart Home or Jean Barrot or Asger Jorn seems to generate a sensible number of hits. John Eden 11:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Zunaid. - Pernambuco 19:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notability does seem to be established in the article - notable authors. Themindset 20:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - nothing important or significant here. BlueValour 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per lack of WP:RS. Sure it exists and sure the publisher has made some quasi-notable books but there don't appear to be any verifiable reliable sources for the publisher itself which means the entire article violates WP:V. Without WP:V, it shouldn't be here. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added ISBN numbers for a few of the titles. I hope this helps. John Eden 07:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A POV summary of the reasons for deletion

1) That the publisher is unverifiable. It is easily verifiable that Unpopular Books has published a number of works. At least two contributors to this page own a number of them. As I have stated above, I feel that the texts they have published, and their authors, make them notable.

2) Walled Garden. Because Unpopular Books is in some way linked to other projects such as the LPA, etc, it forms part of a walled garden. I would dispute this. It is clear that authors published by Unpopular Books such as Stewart Home, Jean Barrot and Asger Jorn as well as the collected works of the Black Mask Group have a wide appeal. They are, individually, relatively obscure, but to my mind clearly notable within their respective fields. If people feel that pages on the Neoist Alliance, or LPA, or AAA or NLI should be deleted then I would think that individual calls for deletion should be done on those pages and not here. I note that nobody is proposing that Asger Jorn or Stewart Home be deleted from Wikipedia.

3) "An under-construction text based official website [15]". The page is about Unpopular Books and the works they have published, it is not a page about their website. Indeed it seems unlikely that "it wants to disprove its title using wikipedia as promo vehicle" if its own site is so minimal.

4) "dubious ghits (admittedly a very crude test in this case)". Indeed. As I have pointed out above, googling the authors or titles and Unpopular Books does give a reasonable number of hits for a project of this type (i.e. marginal, but still notable)

5) "Not a hope of passing WP:CORP." Again, as stated above, Unpopular Books is not notable because it is a huge multinational corporation with offices all over the world. It is notable because of the works and authors it has published.

6) "No assertion of notability (for the publisher)". As I have said above: "I am happy to revise the article on the basis that Unpopular Books is notable for the works it has published rather than for being a publishing company." I am unclear if I am entitled to do this whilst the deletion debate is ongoing.

I would invoke most of the reasons for not deleting covered here. I.e. wikipedia is not paper, there is a lack of objective criteria, etc.

It would be helpful if people could respond to these points rather than simply saying "delete" etc - it will add to my understanding of wikipedia if nothing else.

Finally, it seems that the creators of this article have not been informed, could the person who initiated the call for deletion do that? John Eden 14:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus). --- Glen 07:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

911: In Plane Site[edit]

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

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

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

First deletion reason: Conspiracy cruft video. Fails to assert notability by reference to any reliable sources except a small town newspaper and the Portland alt-weekly (which even my garage band warrants). Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films), WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:VAIN. Not available on Blockbuster or Netflix. Morton devonshire 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article was nominated for deletion before. The result of the previous discussion was keep.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- see Wikipedia:Consensus can changeMorton Devonshire^Yo
  - Comment. I understand that consensus can change, I'm just mentioning the previous AfD as it contains reasons on why the article was kept.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Regarding notability and reliable sources, the video has been broadcast on Australian television, and a big stink was raised [16]. The video is reviewed on Amazon. The producer of the video has been interviewed on CNN [17]. While you might dislike the article, it clearly passes notability tests, is in no way original Wikipedia research (not even close), and is not a vanity entry. Sparkhead 02:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was shown on Australian free-to-air TV as a filler against The Path to 9/11. That Michael Danby called it "laughable" does not make the film notable. Morton may be wrong about WP:VAIN, but he's right about everything else. CWC(talk) 02:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Though it's true Michael Danby calling the movie "laughable" does not make the film notable, neither does it make the film non-notable.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment (added after User:Zunaid voted): TBC argued for notability on 3 grounds. Here are 3 counter-arguments:

The Danby comment "does not make the film notable" (TBC, just above).
I believe that anyone can write an Amazon review. (The fact that Amazon sell the video is probably more significant than the review.)
CNN interviews lots of people. Being interviewed by CNN or FOX is not a strong claim to notability; being the subject of news stories from multiple news shows, news agencies and/or newspapers would be a lot more significant.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As much as I dislike conspiracy cruft, the movie has been subject to non-trivial works, such as the National Nine News article and CNN segment mentioned by Sparkhead.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and soon to be forgotten cruft.--MONGO 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MONGO --Tbeatty 06:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sparkhead --JRA WestyQld2 06:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per TBC SkipSmith 08:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mongo said it all. Bagginator 09:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 10:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Sparkhead. Metaspheres 11:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Peephole 13:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sparkhead. International coverage denotes notability. Lack of wide US coverage is meaningless. · XP · 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless/until properly referenced "The article ITSELF" does not provide sufficient evidence of its notability (2 reviews which basically trash it completely). However, I'm tempered by the arguments above that it HAS received notable coverage. Zunaid 15:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verifiable film about important subject affecting world politics. Plus, AfD should not be a "Pitch til you win " kiddie carnival game. It was nominated before and the result was keep.Edison 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Crockspot 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaron 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No vote from me, but just wanted to say that's the most idiotic title for a 9/11 documentary or any documentary for that matter that I have come across. Bwithh 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. AuburnPilot 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, per nom and also adds that it comes close to violating WP:Hoax. Ramsquire 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for the reasons noted by Edison (esp. about AfD not being a pitch 'till you win game) and also the fact that this documentary, regardless of the opinions expressed here about its quality or lack of it, very often comes up in discussions on this subject. --Shortfuse 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', non-notable, released in 2004 and yet it has less than 300 votes on IMDB. I browsed through the first 15 pages of google hits and saw nothing that would speak to notability, sorry a two-day controversy in Australia doesn't cut it. GabrielF 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, except that I feel that the violations of WP:RS and WP:NOR can be fixed. --Wildnox 00:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable enough by my standards, sorry. —Khoi khoi 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to have the necessary media attention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the three counter-arguments:

The Danby comment isn't the notable part. The broadcast of the movie on one of Australia's three major broadcast networks is.
The fact that it is sold on Amazon doesn't seem to be a counterpoint.
Not that it's a particularly respected show, but it is a nationally syndicated one: Coast to Coast AM has also had at least one discussion on the movie.

On another note, whether the movie is a hoax or potential disinformation is not relevant. Personally I think it's garbage, but that doesn't make it any less relevant.

Finally, as Edison stated, AfD should not be a "Pitch til you win " kiddie carnival game. It was nominated before and the result was keep. Yes, consensus can change, but this was just voted on six months ago. Seems there should be a bit more time between repeated AfD's. Sparkhead 11:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please address Wikipedia policy, rather than your personal opinions. See WP:CCC.Morton devonshire 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CCC: If you think a consensual decision is outdated, you should ask around a bit (e.g. at the Village Pump) to see if people agree with you. You cannot declare a new consensus all by yourself. I don't see any discussion in this article's talk page about deletion, nor anything at WP:PUMP. I see no link in your nomination about you "asking around". Care to provide a link to some discussion you had before the AfD? Sparkhead 18:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Afd's are for -- to determine consensus. Morton devonshire 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21 September 2006 (UTC)

There was an AfD, and a consensus was reached. The points raised in the first AfD still hold, and there are additional new reasons for keeping it mentioned above.

Some futher metadiscussion: You've clearly violated WP:CCC per above. It does reek of playing a "pitch til you win" game and this nomination, along with other non-policy-based deletion nominations you've put forth recently, border on disruptive behavior per WP:DEL#Renominations and recurring candidates, and WP:DEL#Abuse of deletion process, notably: 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. I believe this AfD should be withdrawn for those reasons alone. Enjoy the rest of the discussion. Sparkhead 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? Since when is it a wikicrime to put something up for afd? And a majority of editors seems to agree with morton that this isn't an article worth keeping --Peephole 22:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it becomes disruptive. And most editors DO NOT agree with the nomination, I think I'd re-read the comments on this page before making an over-broad statement like that. Shortfuse 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it seems that only the US media isn't heavily covering this, but international media is. International opinion > US opinion, as this is en.wikipedia, rather than us.wikipedia (unfortunately, but it is what is is...). · XP · 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. International coverage. Possibly more importantly, nothing has changed since the last Keep consensus, which was broadly participated in. Please don't just keep asking for a revote until you get one you like. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note as one of the article's biggest claims to notability is that it aired on Australian free-to-air tv, I'm listing it on the list of Australian-related deletions. Andjam 09:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and update~~ Weakest possible keep If this were held a month ago, I would have voted delete. But being screened on free-to-air tv in Australia is a claim to notability. a google news search for Plane Site gets at least 3 separate hits from mainstream Australian news sources. Complaints about it being a second nomination are a bit much - there's always deletion review. Andjam 09:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep marginal. but it's got over 600 google hits, an imdb listing, and a national showing in Australia. i don't see the harm, as it doesn't look like a promotional listing. if it's soon to be forgotten, then this will be just one more page no one looks at. no big deal. Derex 09:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's got international coverage and 121,000 google hits. Its being described as "laughable" adds to its notability, albeit not its credibility, but the latter is not our concern. The article needs to include the National Nine News article, the CNN interview and "Fox News hatchet job". The nom fails to acknowledge this exposure, which not only invalidates the nom, but also the deletes which cite "per nom". We need to be presented with all the evidence, not selective evidence to argue a POV. Three deletes also subscribe to a strong predictive element, namely "soon to be forgotten". We do not delete on what we think is going to happen in the future, i.e. speculation, but on what the reality is now. If something is "soon to be forgotten", it is a testimony to current prominence, as it is stating that it has not yet been forgotten. The previous AfD was near-unanimous, so a second AfD should not have been made without more serious consideration than is evidenced here:[18][19] Tyrenius 13:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having a Wikipedia article is a big part of any claim to notability. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a very decent article--I'm not saying that's relevant to notability, but's it's not like it's a small stub--and as shown by the ext. links has numerous reviews/comments. I'd also like to know how it fails NOT and NOR, and I certainly wouldn't call it vanity. — mæstro ^t/c, 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mongo. -- I@n 18:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Details of international TV coverage were added here. · XP · 18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per CWC. --Mmx1 21:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete precisely as per nomination. Fails any rational test of encyclopaedic notability, and appears to be conspiracycruft (of which we have altogether too much already) Guy 21:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion of this article would be a violation of NPOV, given that the article fulfils that and other major policies, it would fulfil a movies notability standard, except for the fact that the factual content is in dispute here, per strong personal feelings about the topic from many users. Ansell 01:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep nonsense conspiracy documentary, but good article and the film and controversy seem notable enough to me. --Canley 05:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sparkhead, Edison, Tyrenius, Maestrosync --Guinnog 06:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Credible? Hardly. But being shown nation-wide on an Australia free-to-air television network is good enough to establish it's notability for me. Lankiveil 09:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article documents an actual documentary and shows the criticism of it. It was aired on national TV, it's published. Maybe it's about time a team of experienced and impartial admins had a look at all this 9/11 crap and counter-crap and told those on each side of the alleged discussion to look at the criteria more closely and to interpret them properly. Bandwagon deletes and keeps do us no service here. Fiddle Faddle 09:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't fail Wikipedia:Notability (films) as it passes #1 with reviews in print and tv. How does it fail WP:VAIN or WP:NOT is not explained; I would have hoped, that the nominator explained the reasons for deletion and doesn't just write a bunch of WP shortcuts. What kind of deletion reason is "Conspiracy cruft video."? I hope that people discuss the deletion of the article by the WP inclusion/deletion guidelines, not by subject matter (even how ridiculous it might be). feydey 12:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per TBC. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It being presented on a national broadcast television channel normally would be an indication of notability, but, CWC makes good counterarguments. (The arguement that it's been too soon since the last AfD is completely wrong, and should be disregarded by the closing administrator.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The broadcast counterargument is simply wrong. It's been broadcast more than once, and it was not broadcast directly against 'Path to 9/11'. Regarding other comments about the lack of validity of this AfD, you really should read what is written. The issue is not the timeframe of the second AfD. I don't believe the nominator is acting in good faith. The fact that the nom states "the video isn't available at Blockbuster", shows that he did some searching outside of Wikipedia to verify notability. At least one of the references provided were easily available in Google news, showing Mainstream media coverage of the video. This is why discussions before a renomination after a consensus was reached are important. Deliberately ignoring such procedures is a violation of procedures, and intentionally disruptive. The nominator in this case has done it multiple times, and in the vast majority of cases the AfD fails. Remember this isn't a vote. It's a presentation of the facts involved with the article. Sparkhead 17:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick with policy arguments, and avoid ad hominem attacks. Morton devonshire 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to familiarize yourself with the content of the page you linked before throwing around "ad hominem attack" accusations. There's nothing ad hominem about my statements. If you feel otherwise, feel free to take it to the appropriate conflict resolution channels. Sparkhead 00:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholicism in El Salvador[edit]

Reasons the article should be deleted

This article is titled Roman Catholicism in El Salvador. The first paragraph says it is part of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church. Does anyone need an encyclopedia article to figure that out?
The second paragraph says how many El Salvadoran Catholics there are and the structure. There are something like 150+ countries in the world. Is there going to be a separate article for each religion for each country? Rosicrucians in Tibet? Jehovah's Witnesses in Bahrain? Scientologists in Tajikistan? This is really almanac-type information, not encyclopedia-type info. It belongs in a Religions section of an article on El Salvador, not here. At most, there could be a Roman Catholicism (statistics) article listing this type of information for various countries.
Gee, one bishop was killed sometime during a decade and the military persecuted a religious group during a civil war! How unusual! (And that info was only added recently.) Again, not "encyclopedia" material.
There are no citations or sources.
"Assassinated" is POV without sources.
The alleged reasons why he was "assassinated" are POV and unsourced.
The article says the bishop was assassinated "during the 1970's" in the civil war but it did not "officially" begin until 1980. Again, unsourced and POV.
This article doesn't talk about Roman Catholicism in El Salvador, it talks about alleged military persecution.
Without documentation, "persecuting" and "murdering" are POV and rumors.
Almost all editing activity on this article has consisted of adding categories.
Given that the article has been here six months, there has been ample time for it to be expanded if anyone wanted to.

RickReinckens 01:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information such an article should contain

Is there anything signficant, unusual or unique about Roman Catholicism in El Salvador as opposed to elsewhere?
Do they conduct Mass in languages other than Spanish?
Do they have any particular saints special to their country?
Do they have any religious feasts / festivals specific to their country?
Do they have any practices, rituals, etc., not commonly found elsewhere?
Who brought Roman Catholicism to El Salvador?
When? Where?
How did it spread?
Are there any synchretistic practices such as ancestor worship that often occurs in certain parts of South America among native peoples who are allegedly Catholic?
Does Roman Catholicism have any special recognition or status from the government, either officially or unofficially?
Attitude of other religions in El Salvador toward R.C. in E.S.
Attitude of El Salvadoran general public toward R.C. in E.S.
What percent of the population is Catholic?
Are there any Catholic universities, seminaries, etc.,?
Is it spread pretty evenly throughout the nation or is it concentrated in particular areas and if so, where?

These are some of the questions an encyclopedia article on "(any religion) in (any country)" should address.

RickReinckens 01:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and cleanup. Article may be poorly written, but it's still a notable subject.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perTBC. Subject is important and AFD is not cleanup. Mitaphane _talk 02:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I'd prefer Religion in El Salvador existed and the article look more like Roman Catholicism in the United States. FrozenPurpleCube 02:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator makes the case for keeping. Also, he needs to read Oscar Romero. Gazpacho 02:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up as above. This is a pretty interesting, verifiable, and encyclopedic topic. --Wafulz 02:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I originally de-prodded this article and added the Cleanup tag. I felt that the article was at least a mediocre stub that once somebody with more knowledge knew about it, could grow into a better article. I especially disagreed with the assertion that six months is "ample time" for it to be expanded, especially when there was no flag for attention. --Roninbk 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An actual topic of interest.--T. Anthony 05:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten That the article has existed for SIX months without cleanup leads me to believe that such cleanup WILL NOT HAPPEN. Just because the topic is POTENTIALLY noteworthy (who knows if there's anything encyclopedic to say about RCiES? There might be nothing to say about it at all!) is not reason enough to keep a BAD article on said topic (or even off said topic as this article seems to go). Zunaid 15:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to give articles on countries in the developing world more time to grow. There is no Category:Wikipedians in El Salvador, the closest thing might be Category:Wikipedians in Honduras which has two people.--T. Anthony 18:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claim: "Just because the topic is POTENTIALLY noteworthy is not reason enough to keep a BAD article on said topic". Response: Yes it is. -- Plutortalk contribs 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the article some and I even dealt with some of the problems the nominator mentioned. Although there's plenty of room for improvement.--T. Anthony 00:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The very fact that there has been significant edits to the article after I depprodded and listed with AfD STRONGLY disproves you theory Zunaid. The only thing wrong with this article is that no one paid any attention to it. How many other articles out there, maybe even future FA's would be lost just because no one gave them any love in their infancy? --Roninbk _{t c #} 06:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per TBC. AFD is not cleanup. Zunaid, I don't find your argument persuasive since it's not a bad article, it's acceptable as a stub article. hateless 16:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepYes, there is certainly room for articles about major religions in different countries. Roman Catholicism in the subject country has different issues and concerns than the same religion in the U.S. Important and verifiable.Edison 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and Keep A religion in any subject country is important whether the article is small is insignificant. By that logic, even this article could be deleted Jews in Tajikistan --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 22:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Wikipedia does not expect articles to be perfect when new, or at any specific time later. Having an article in place gives a framework for improvement. The nominator offered a useful outline for the article. Wikipedia invites the world to contribute some of the requested information. Fg2 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wants to do any merging the history is still there. Petros471 12:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boys of SNL[edit]

Original research. There is a "Bad Boys of SNL" TV special, but the term is not used elsewhere. The video could be referenced from the SNL page, but there is no 'group of actors' going by this name. Sparkhead 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. This violates NOR, I might support a keep if it were completely re-written to focus on the TV special, but as of now it references an article that really has very little to do with this page's contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irongargoyle (talk • contribs)
OR but, the term has been made outside the DVD/episode. Also "slap pack" is not a term not refering to the same group(read website ref). As far as I can tell, the members section is just a list of actors on the show since '85 and movies section a table of famous SNL people and the movies they've been in it. On that note, I say copy lead into History of Saturday Night Live (1980-1985) then delete and redirect to History of Saturday Night Live (1980-1985).—Mitaphane _talk 02:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Merge into SNL article and remove the original research. Ramsquire 19:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I had previously done some work on the article, but soon realized that the "Bad Boys of SNL" was just a TV special, and as far as I could google search, the term is only used in reference to the title, not to any such "group." Reference the title on whichever SNL article it fits into best. Radagast83 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SNL article, after excising OR. --Storkk 10:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SNL article. -- Sy / ^(talk) 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to SNL, after removing the OR (which will leave bascially two lines). Themindset 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a notable term. Article should focus on the DVD release, but could also talk about legacy/films/SNL etc. OR should be thrown out though. Davey4 12:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is any non-ORish stuff to say, someone can merge it to SNL before it gets the axe. There is no reason why every SNL special or DVD set needs it's own article. 205.157.110.11 01:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Week[edit]

Delete. For the same reason stated at Freedom Alliance. --Stubbleboy 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note article appears to have been written by same editor involved in another afd Jean-Paul Floru under the username Jpfloru. --Stubbleboy 01:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable event that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in any notable, non-trivial media sources. Few relevant Google results [20].--TBCTaLk?!? 02:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Hetar 05:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Crezirussien 23:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely not significant. Bridgeplayer 21:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at once. - Pernambuco 19:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. But keep Freedom Alliance as a dab. --Storkk 11:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of maps in Battlefield 2142[edit]

Inherently a game guide, providing little meaningful material and violating WP:NOT a crystal ball. Should therefore be deleted as gamecruft. Prod removed by IP. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 02:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: This is a very similar deletion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of maps in Company of Heroes, which I believe sets some precedent. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 02:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 02:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very crufty, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 02:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mitaphane _talk 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the nom, I think you meant Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #4. But I base my deletion vote on the forementioned reason. --physicq210 04:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh wait, I see your reasoning. I stand by my delete vote per nom. --physicq210 04:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Trebor 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads exactly like a manual. Wickethewok 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft. —Khoi khoi 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a game guide. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Tarantino[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable painter. I googled her and found her own website and a few sites where anyone can list their own products. I found no indication that she has had any exhibitions in independent galleries, won any awards, articles written about her, etc. I realize this is a stub but without at least a little more it probably doesn't qualify as encyclopedic material. If she has had any exhibitions, awards, etc., adding that should be enough to justify keeping this. RickReinckens 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails the WP:BIO criteria. Around 78 relevant Google results [21]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent some show of notability. FrozenPurpleCube 02:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete re: notability, WP:BIO MidgleyDJ 11:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable painter. NawlinWiki 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. - Pernambuco 19:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author blanked content. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph M. Le Doux[edit]

I don't see why this Ph.D is more notable then any other. This is not a CSD A7 as being a Ph.D asserts importance. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G7. Author seems to want it deleted, as he has blanked the content [22].--TBCTaLk?!? 02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Article appears to have been blanked by original author. Otherwise Nonnotable. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 02:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure vanity page. Probably even created by the person in question (User:Jledoux - [23]) --Frescard 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - CSD G7. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sullon zek[edit]

A defunct EverQuest server. There doesn't seem to be anything too special about it. I did a Google search which brought up a ton of hits (seeing as its Everquest), but no reliable sources to verify anything. The article was prodded for a while, and removed by an anon basically because he/she could. The vast majority of this article consists of cruft that would be better placed on personal webspace. Wafulz 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There are hundreds of gaming servers out there, what makes this any more notable than the rest?--TBCTaLk?!? 02:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge assuming the content is true and verifiable, merge to Everquest or some article thereof. FrozenPurpleCube 02:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked, there is this article EverQuest special servers which with a little pruning, this article could easily fit into. FrozenPurpleCube 02:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only verifiable material I could see being merged into there is the rules, and that's a little more detail than necessary. This could be maybe a one or two line mention in the article, with the article for deletion becoming a redirect at best, in my opinion. --Wafulz 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and trimmed the information I put into EqSS accordingly. FrozenPurpleCube 03:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with this being a redirect in that case. --Wafulz 03:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not merge as per nom. There's nothing special about this server and its not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 02:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save this page It is a worthwhile page because it was a groundbreaking server that spawned a ton of notoriety. This server is known and talked about by people who have never even played on it. There are many noteable events to come out of this server including "Fansy 'the famous'" whose actions caused sony to change the game works (which took effect on the other pvp servers). I feel this article is being judged by people with no insight/interest towards the topic of the article and the community it represents. This article merely needs to be cleaned a bit but a deletion would be a crime. The server may no longer be running but the community and interest in the article is far from dead. -- 70.65.133.151 09:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you might want to do some clean-up to it, though I do think having a re-direct to Everquest Special Servers is a better choice. FrozenPurpleCube 06:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable defunct game server, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 08:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gamecruft. MER-C 09:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per TBC --Storkk 11:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Glen 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garboo[edit]

nn website, alexa of 1,215,622 [24] Giant onehead 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - got a trailer for a movie isn't an assertion of notability. MER-C 08:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. --Dweller 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic Cinema[edit]

niche website, alexa of 658,601 [25] Giant onehead 02:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 08:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heroic Cinema and similar film review sites seem to be genuinely useful references, particualrly for non-mass-market films, but information about such sites is spread by blog and word of mouth rather than articles in print publications. I think that Heroic Cinema has established its own notability and the article should be kept. "Niche" doesn't mean irrelevant. And Heroic Cinema can provide useful background for an editor writing a Wikipedia article about an Asian movie. --TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs • count) 01:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that is just idiotic to have reasoning like that. Just because you like a website does not mean it should be included here. The alexa rating is pitiful. There is not a single good reason for this site to have an article here. Giant onehead 05:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please WP:AGF and remember WP:CIVIL. TbT never said he liked the site. He just seems to be of the opinion that WP:WEB should be applied leniently. --Storkk 11:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:WEB. --Storkk 11:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment changing to "weak delete" since something encyclopedic just might be possible. --Storkk 11:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn website. --Peta 04:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Cartman Episodes[edit]

Spun off from main Eric Cartman page, but I see no encyclopedic value in including this list. Do we include every single "top X" list ever broadcast? Andrew Levine 02:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Listcruftic Delete Giant onehead 02:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP If we can have artist discographies, and lists of artists on record labels, then what does this hurt?--Stavdash 03:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list was created for the simple fact that it was taking up too much space on the main Eric Cartman page. This list also proves informative and is warrented, as the subject matter (Top Cartman episodes, as voted by viewers) was a factual event.--DtownG 03:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being factual does not merit an article to be kept on Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 03:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Very crufty, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just an elaborate TV guide listing for one evening that's now over. Agent 86 03:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is filled with list articles, much like this one.--The Real Avenger 03:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All lists are not of equal use to an encyclopedia. Andrew Levine 03:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you cite some other articles "like this one", I'd be happy to consider nominating them for deletion. Agent 86 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RobJ1981 04:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft.--Hús ö nd 04:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Nwdavis 04:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per lisctcruft, we don't keep "Top episode/song/video" lists so I don't see why this is any different. It was just a online poll. TJ Spyke 05:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tv guide or an indiscriminate collection of information. --IslaySolomon 05:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not that I necessarily feel that it's a useful article, but still I find something very smug about Wikipedians getting together and "voting" to have an article deleted. If it is that trivial in your opinion, just don't read it.-- Incognito9810 06:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then what, exactly, is the point of even having this page? Actually, if 'just don't read it' is a valid answer to questions of content merit on Wikipedia, what is the point of even having policies and guide lines in the first place? Why not just let absolutely anybody add absolutely anything? ~ Lav-chan 08:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The closing admin is likely to ignore your keep "vote" unless you substantiate it with good reasoning. Zunaid 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a fairly pointless listing to me. Could easily be included in Eric Cartman in some form. MidgleyDJ 11:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate collection of information Zunaid 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, followed by lack of notability. This is a ranked list and not verifiably sourced. Were it not ranked, it would be completely non-notable as it's a list of South Park episodes featuring Cartman - and I'm fairly sure they all do. MLA 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all deletes already posted. hateless 16:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNot important enough for its own article.Edison 17:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook fancruft, no usefulness at all. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
Strong Delete per common sense Geedubber 04:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pointless and subjective list. Yamaguchi先生 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non encyclopedic content. --Dweller 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ridiculously POV and pointless to boot. PS - I'm a South Park fan. Themindset 20:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jabootu[edit]

nn niche site, alexa of 603,208 [26] Giant onehead 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 08:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there's a mention in the UCLA Daily Bruin, it's part of a series of reviews of websites and therefore counts as "trivial coverage". Otherwise all other hits are from blogs and forums, which makes this fail WP:WEB. However, the nominator should spell all this out instead of letting us wonder why this is "nn". ColourBurst 22:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Arbusto 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jabootu and similar film review sites seem to be genuinely useful references, but information about them is spread by blog and word of mouth rather than articles in print publications. I think that Jabootu has established its own notability and the article should be kept. "Niche" doesn't mean irrelevant. --TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs • count) 01:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Las Horas Perdidas[edit]

site is spanish, so it is not suitable for the English edition here, alexa rating is a modest 132,448 Giant onehead 02:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria. Even so though, note that it doesn't matter what language a website is for it to be included in Wikipedia. --TBCTaLk?!? 03:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not assert notability. MER-C 08:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Las Horas Perdidas and similar film review sites seem to be genuinely useful references, particualrly for non-mass-market films, but information about such sites is spread by blog and word of mouth rather than articles in print publications. I think that Las Horas Perdidas has established its own notability and the article should be kept. "Niche" doesn't mean irrelevant. And Las Horas Perdidas can provide useful background for an editor writing a Wikipedia article about an Spanish-language movie. --TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs • count) 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. Arbusto 22:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Glen 03:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOUSD[edit]

Webcomic not meeting WP:WEB. No reliable sources on this subject in the article or that I've found, which is in clear violation of WP:V. Its essentially a giant listing of every storyline/gag ever in the comic. Delete.

Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria. Alexa ranking of 168,211 [27]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 05:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Glen 03:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyler technology[edit]

Judging by the fact that this article was created by an editor whose only other edits are adding to other articles a couple internal links to this article, I would say the article pretty clearly qualifies as spam. It reads like a press release or corporate website "About" page, and the article's subject appears to be a small, non-notable California technology company with only one product. There are no links to the page from other articles, now that I have reverted the article creator's two edits to other articles on the grounds that they were link spam. I placed the article up for proposed deletion, but the article creator removed the template. Nevertheless, I feel this article is unencyclopedic and amounts to little more than an advertisement or corporate directory entry, and should be deleted. --Slowking Man 03:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails both the WP:CORP and WP:ADS criterias.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkipSmith 08:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. MER-C 08:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. MidgleyDJ 11:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing I can find other than press releases and a trivial mention in ComputerWorld, making it lack reliable sources. ColourBurst 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MySpace Movie[edit]

Non-notable movie, with neither an IMDB profile [28] or a Rotten Tomatoes profile [29]. Hasn't been mentioned in any non-trivial, notable media sources; and only 198 unique Google results, most of which are links to forums, blogs, and myspace profiles. [30]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikkipedia has an article on Gary_Brolsma of "Numa Numa" fame but another internet video with well thought out direction and great satire is not applicable for a database on almost anything? Wikkipedia never claims to NOT include privately developed movies (such as popular flash movies) and shouldn't delete an article on a pretty popular film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.213.251.246 (talk • contribs)

Keep. If you do a search for "Myspace: the Movie", there are mentions of it in the mainstream press: Boston Globe, SF Chronicle, NY Times, and Time. Most of the references are just mentions of the movie, or about the creator (rather than being about the video itself), but I do think that this particular web video is at least as notable as some of the other Internet Phenomena that are here. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 06:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no IMDB entry, which is my bare-minimum inclusion standard for movies. Press mentions are brief and fleeting and don't even come close to adequately referencing the rather lengthy article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles about this in The Washington Post [31], Rolling Stone Magazine [32], Esquire Magazine [33] and numerous other mainstream outlets. MySpace's founder Tom has referred to the movie. How many more references are needed? David Lehre has already been deleted although I think merging it with the movie article would have been better. I get 50,000 google results for "david lehre" and most of these seem to be this David Lehre and the MySpace Movie. A quick check of YouTube shows that the video has been viewed over 600,000 times on YouTube alone (not counting Myspace video plays etc), is number 40 in the all time YouTube favourites and has been rated 1722 times at four stars. [34]Citizensmith 13:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's notable enough to be worth keeping. Trebor 15:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references are mentioned in the article itself as is required. The article reads like advertisement/promotion (maybe another viral way of "getting the word out"?). The minimal Ghits for what is primarily an internet-driven phenomenon indicates low notability. Zunaid 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then why not add the references, tidy it up but not delete it? As noted above it has got a considerable amount of media attention in prestige publications - internet driven or not.Citizensmith 15:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I went and added the references to the reactions section. The article does need quite a bit of work to bring it to Wikipedia standards, but I think that the subject is worth keeping for now. -- The Bethling ^(Talk) 21:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Zunaid. --Aaron 16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's notable enough, and as mentioned above, cited in popular culture a lot. If it's really necessary to move the article then Merge, but I do vote Keep.Srxcef 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if its notable for USA Today[35] its notable for wikipedia. Arbusto 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the "eggtea" Youtube reference in that article via Google I see it did have over 7 million plays on that account. See Google cache [36]Citizensmith 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Strong keep per media mentions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep God, I want to vote delete so badly as more myspace cruft but the mainstream media attention is hard to ignore. 205.157.110.11 09:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Internetcruft, myspacecruft. Unless the reference in the paper was on the front page. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please media mentions demonstrate notability erasing this makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I googled MySpace: The Movie and got 45,600,000 results. So what is all this nonsense about it not being notable enough. All of you who want to delete the article need to get your priorities straight. You hypocrites don't have any qualms about their being such an overlong article about Slashdot trolling phenomena. --Adamv88 01:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamikaze[edit]

Brought up by myself at DRV[37] over the first deletion result (no consensus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamikaze), a recommendation for a second AfD was put forward. I'll paste the post of User:Samuel Blanning that best describes the reasons for deletion:

There was a significant majority for deletion, and the keep proponents, on whom there is the burden to prove the article's worthiness for an encyclopaedia, did not demonstrate that this is a term discussed by reliable sources (rather than just used in passing). Reliable sources that discuss the term are required if we are to write a verifiable article, as opposed to an article trying to cobble together a meaning from passing mentions (i.e. original research by synthesis). The keep proponents refer only to a Google search (which is worthless, gfdgf, which I typed in by hitting my keyboard at random, turns up over 10,000 hits) and a BBC article which does not mention the word anywhere. Oh, and the famed 'there are other articles like this' argument, which should be cause for immediate speedy deletion until people stop using it. Nothing has apparently altered since the AfD, as the article itself currently only contains a reference to Google Groups, a supposed use by a journalist in his blog which I can't even find in the page linked to, and a use in the title of someone's book. Administrators do of course have discretion in closing AfDs, so I mean no disrespect to Deathphoenix, but deletion review has the discretion to overturn them, and I think we should in this case, even if the AfD is quite old. We could also relist, but in my opinion the old AfD and the non-negotiability of verifiability is sufficient grounds to delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my own opinion on the matter I see it as nothing more than a tiny internet neologism that hasn't met widespread use beyond non-notable unreliable sources. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sam Blanning and Lid; non-notable, unverified neologism that fails the WP:NEO criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the findings at DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 03:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nn neologism. Also, extraordinarily hateful cruft. Fails to assert notability by citation to reliable sources. Morton devonshire 04:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --HappyCamper 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I never once heard this term in my life until seeing this AfD. Resolute 04:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Resolute pretty much said. I could understand an article on Islamofascism (as much as I find the term ridiculous), but I've never heard this word thrown around. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Attempting to establish verifibility in non-encyclopedic means, (citing Ghits in the article,) does not count and generally looks ugly. Ghits can be used as supplementary evidence, but not as primary justifcation, (see Wikipedia:Search engine test.) Blogs have traditionally failed WP:V. The book may be able to stand, but not alone. Besides, once you strip out all the unverifiables, there is barely a sentence left, leaving a fish that Wiktionary would throw back. --Roninbk _{t c #} 08:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. Hatefull? Yes. Ignorant of peoples pain? Yes. But... i am not supposed to care for that, only notability. I remember Problem-reaction-solution that had 20k google hits, going up to 30k after three month, but still geting deleted since i expanded it and thus drew attention to it. And it had even higher life span, used way back in 1998. It did not have a book title, but i have recently discovered that it was used in a swedish major news paper to derogatory "explore" my views. Anyway, i view that wikipedia could benefit from being more inclusive, but considering that it isnt so... i guess it's not.--Striver 10:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or merge~~. I took a look at the article and added reliable sources for the origin of the term here. According to Raphael Israeli, he coined the term in 1997 and has been using it in his work ever since. Since there are now reliable sources for the term's origin, it satisfies WP:NEO. Alternately, we could merge this page and redirect to Suicide attack, where the term could be listed with the similar terms homicide bomber and genocide bomber. TheronJ 15:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Suicide attack. On reflection, the coinage of the term is verifiable, but I'm not sure it's notable enough for its own page. It's a natural fit to go with the other similar terms in the suicide attack page. TheronJ 16:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - (After finding some more sources, I'm changing my vote to keep; will explain at the bottom of the page). TheronJ 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all, not in May, not now. Previous AFD ended with a 14-6 majority to Delete, how is consensus to delete defined?--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting neologisms.Edison 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having an article on this little known term helps to further it. Wikipedia's not a soapbox nor a dictionary. (→Netscott) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it has a lot of google hits, none of them convince of this a term employed by the people outside of an small internet group. Perhaps sources from the media would convince me otherwise. Arbusto 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an internet term -- it's a term coined by one professor, Rafael Israeli. (Google scholar will get you 40 hits, but they're all to Israeli's books and articles, or to people discussing his works). Contrary to the initial nomination, the origin and use of the term are verifiable by reliable sources -- the only question is whether it's notable. TheronJ 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If its used by a scholar and other scholars in discussing his work, then it seems suffecient to keep it. AmitDeshwar 01:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article indicates that one writer uses the term. Absent some greater cultural impact, that is not sufficient. Allon Fambrizzi 03:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
~~Delete~~ The standard on neologisms, WP:NEO, says that we need reliable secondary sources about the term, not just ones that use the term. The only reliable sources thus far identified are from the originator, not secondary sources. So this fails WP:NEO and should be deleted. GRBerry 13:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Stuck, see below. GRBerry 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm torn about how much work to do on the article, since it seems likely to be deleted. However, there are reliable secondary sources. E.g., Dale F. Eickelman, James Piscatori, Muslim Politics, Princeton University Press, July 26, 2004 ISBN 0-691-12053-6, p. ix ("Islamikaze, a term proposed by an Israeli colleague of Moroccan origin (Israeli 2003), is unlikely to catch on."). Sorry for not including it earlier - I read the WP:NEO section about reliable sources, but missed the primary/secondary distinction. TheronJ 13:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you have secondary sources, edit them into the article. Otherwise, this article is going to be deleted. --Roninbk _{t c #} 06:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. I've added a secondary source establishing the origin of the term. TheronJ 10:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism.--Jersey Devil 06:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I apologize for changing my vote a second time, but I found some more sources. IMHO, most of the reasons stated above no longer apply, as follows.

Verifiability. Per WP:NEO, the origin of the term is now verified by reliable, secondary sources. As shown by the article, the term was coined by Professor Rafael Israeli in a 1997 article, and Israeli has been using it ever since. US Senator Sam Nunn discusses the coinage of the term in one of his own scholarly articles and discusses whether the distinction between suicidal motives and military motives on the part of the bombers may be helpful in profiling possible bombers. The article also cites to two other scholarly articles attributing the creation of the term to Professor Israeli and discussing the term. In particular, the article as written today seems to address all of Sam Blanning's (and, by incorporation, Lid's) concerns in full.
Notability: This is closer. Google scholar will get you about 40 hits, most of which are Israeli himself or citations to Israeli. Some people, such as Nunn, have used the term in passing, and Bat Ye'or uses the term repeatedly in her book Eurabia. I'm an inclusionist (plus I just did all that work), so I'd prefer to keep it.

Thanks, TheronJ 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Suicide attack. I don't believe this has enough common usage to merit a stand alone article, but it certainly is at least as significant, and at least as well researched, as the terms "Homicide bombing" and "Genocide bombing" which have similar usage and are mentioned as sections in the Suicide attack article. GRBerry 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suicide attack. If editors of Suicide attack wish to briefly mention it, so be it. But a formal merge is not required. Redirection is better than deletion for many reasons, including the fact that this term will never be more than a racist neologism & POV fork of Suicide attacks. Just send everybody back to the neutral non-racist term. JeffBurdges 19:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per thorough rereading of WP:NEO. Guyanakoolaid 10:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep but subject to conditions. The article has reliable sources, but inline citations appear to be pointing to blogs. Unless credibility of these blogs are properly established, they must be removed and replaced by the news reports as listed in the article as per WP:BLP. If the editors fail to fulfill this requirement after a reasonable period, please feel free to nominate it for deletion again (rather than running the risk). - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Frisch[edit]

This article seems to have been created simply to embarass its subject, who is non-notable. SkipSmith 04:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for people to slug out their petty online battles. SkipSmith 04:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A6. Danny Lilithborne 04:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's famous! Newspapers (not just blogs) have written articles about her. --Eastmain 05:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about removing all the blogs and personal websites cited as sources in the article and replacing them with more reliable sources? I see the potential for notability but will avidly disregard anything blog related. 205.157.110.11 10:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SkipSmith. MER-C 08:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Uncle G repaired the article. People who voted to delete should therefore reconsider their votes. --Eastmain 13:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as it is now the article seems OK. And she certainly seems to be notable. BTLizard

*Delete, even after repair. Fails the so-called "100-year test". --Aaron 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Upgrading my vote in light of SkipSmith's post below. --Aaron 23:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Big brouhaha in blogland doesn't mean it's encyclopedic, and she clearly fails the Proftest (adjunct and all). Newsbank search yields some scraps. ~ trialsanderrors 17:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The repair seems to consist of adding a few links to local newspaper articles to the list of blogs involved in the squabble. Local news coverage doesn't make something notable. A google search on "Deborah Frisch" returns primarily political blogs attacking her. This article is just an attack by one political blogger against another, and should be deleted. Update: I see part of the repair job was to remove the categories "Abuse," "Aggression," and "Computer Crimes" from the article. I'm more convinced than ever this is a smear job, and should be deleted. SkipSmith 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for bloggers to snipe further at each other. Edison 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A6. Barring that, maintaining as Delete. --Dennisthe2 17:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A6 (Attack-page). Otherwise, maintain as delete --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page cannot be classified as an attack page just because it includes Frisch's internet activities. And it does meet notability standards. We have many, many pages on Slashdot trolling. Frisch's trolling/cyberstalking is much more significant, because it represents perhaps the most intense internet dispute to date and affected very well-known blogs. Frisch, as a university prof., is a public figure, and as a blogger she has volutarily subjected herself to the limelight. Allon Fambrizzi 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

The most intense internet dispute to date? Very well-known blogs? Do you have any reliable sources for these claims? SkipSmith 06:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A6. Attack page created by single purpose account. The article gives its purpose away with its final sentence: "Frisch's behavior has made her one of the most notorious trolls in the blogosphere, to the point where an entire community has sprung up in order to catalogue her outbursts." Wikipedia is not a battleground. Resolute 04:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup so it doesn't look like an attack page. Sufficiently covered. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revise and resubmit This article is about me. I do not want to make changes to the wikipedia entry myself but would be happy to provide corrections and additions if someone emails me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriordumot (talk • contribs)
- You can use Talk:Deborah Frisch for this. ~ trialsanderrors 16:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newspaper coverage. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete disparaging article. Ohconfucius 02:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion are you referring to? Do you mean "Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to."? This seems to be sourced pretty well, 5 newspaper articles, and it seems the Wikipedia article covers their substance unemotionally and without bias. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to mass media coverage, but definitely remove anything sourced from a blog. Yamaguchi先生 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with warning about blog citations; blogs are not proper sources. Allon Fambrizzi 23:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Keep - definitely noteworthy - if for nothing else than being an example of the extent to which blog-battles can descend. Ronnotel 23:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A6 attack page. Protect from recreation too. Crockspot 22:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pringles (game)[edit]

Non-notable game. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. That goes for the beach as well [38]. Hús ö nd 04:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This game is a very popular game in that part of the world. Wikipedia is a global enyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pringles123456789 (talk • contribs)

Then you can provide some independent sources to verify that? BTW, Delete Danny Lilithborne 04:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd prodded it for the same reasons as nom. --Jamoche 06:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article. SkipSmith 08:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant vanity. As if we should know, or care, who this "Joel" person is. JIP | Talk 08:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up on a sunny day at Sandy Bay Paradise... --Roninbk _{t c #} 08:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted after a quick trip through the diffs that Mr Pringles removed a prod without comment [39] --Roninbk _{t c #} 10:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edits were not made by me. At the moment, this page is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pringles123456789 (talk • contribs)

Indeed, they seem to have been made by Jbabcock (talk · contribs), whose only contributions are to that article. This seems to be a single purpose account used only to vandalise the Pringles (game) article. JIP | Talk 10:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resolute 04:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's that popular, reliable sources must have written about it. ColourBurst 17:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bircas hatorah[edit]

This article contains promotional information taken from Yeshivat Bircas Hatorah's website. The yeshiva itself appears to be small and non-notable Eliyak T·C 04:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per {{db-group}}. No claim to notability, I've tagged the article as speedy as well. -- Chabuk 04:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete I cannot find any copyvio as Eliyak implies there is. This is definally not a speedy. some yeshivot are notable and some are not; this has to be sorted out in AFD. Speedy if for clear cases where there is (almost) no arguement about. This yeshiva does not apear to be notable. Jon513 11:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I would have speedied it, except that it wasn't 100% clear to me that the yeshiva is non-notable. (perhaps if they didn't have such a snazzy website...) However, the material was copied from http://www.bircas.com/aboutus/bircascommunity.html (second section). --Eliyak T·C 14:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Recent edits have removed the copyright issue. JoshuaZ 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete --Shaul avrom 20:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no inherent notability for schools. This one is quite trivial, it appears. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a non-notable Yeshiva even if it weren't possibly copyvio. Presumably an article could be made here on birchas/birchat hatorah - that is those blessings in Jewish law but that would be a completely different topic (and possibly too specialized for Wiki anyways). JoshuaZ 19:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't assert notability. JASpencer 07:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CANCELLED. Sock run. -Splash - tk 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dellegatto[edit]

Non-notable local Amreican weather presenter. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) . First vote was filled with CFIF sockpuppet nonsense and was undeleted. Lets have a clean vote this time! Lost Knob 05:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reasons haven't changed since my vote the first time around. TV Newser 05:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK everyone, sing along now: [40] - Richfife 05:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Scott Boorman survived AFD because he wrote one book that no one read and Christopher Winship survived with even less notability. Dellegatto can be seen by millions of people every day in the densely populated Tampa Bay area. By comparison, he's hundreds of times more notable than the other two. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close Just survived a clean AfD a week ago. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, it did! It was called "second nomination" instead of "Second nomination". Someone feel free to move this to "third nomination" (I'm late for work...). —Wknight94 (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WTVT news team, something CFIF and his pals banned my first account for trying to do! Reborox 15:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Petros471 12:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_LEXX_planets[edit]

The page is unencyclopeadic, and not nessecary. It should be merged with the LEXX article.

Merge to Lexx--TBCTaLk?!? 05:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, but it may also be worth making a category for the planets that there are already articles on. J Milburn 17:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Peta 04:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —freak(talk) 19:13, Sep. 22, 2006 (UTC)

Get married in dubai[edit]

Prod'd but prod tag removed. WP:NOT a how-to/travel guide, WP:OR, essay, advert... anything else? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as the original prod nominator. Blatant advertisement. --Core des at talk! 05:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It fails Geogre's law too :) Delete. Punkmorten 05:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Charles 05:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the article title reads like an order, there's a problem. - Richfife 05:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert-sounding and non-encyclopedic. -- Dcflyer 06:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Advertising spam. SkipSmith 08:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 08:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant spam. MER-C 09:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete blatant, hopeless spam, and spam of dubious truth as well: "Dubai is fast growing as the number one destination for weddings." Does that really ring true to anyone? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all above. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. BTLizard 14:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly. Trebor 15:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Prolog 15:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete canned pig. -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}
Divorce in Wikipedia Danny Lilithborne 18:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too amusing to not vote on...--Nilfanion (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant spam. WarpstarRider 22:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as DubaiWedlockSpamHugsAndKissesCruft from someone who has apparently had a good experience there. Glad that's the case, but WP isn't for international ball-and-chain FAQs. QuagmireDog 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, booyakasha. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat ali (rapper)[edit]

Musician is non-notable. Fails the "Google test"; the only result is for the already referenced MySpace link. Tagged for Speedy Deletion twice, but tags were removed. -- Dcflyer 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The AfD template was removed and this discussion deleted (by Allllllll), but now restored. -- Dcflyer 07:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC). Removed twice. -- Dcflyer 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC). Now a third time by 24.82.232.122. -- Dcflyer 08:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC) And a fourth by 24.82.232.122. --Casper2k3 02:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD page currently vandalized 10 times. -- Dcflyer 05:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not signed to a label according to the myspace site, and the albums named in the article don't appear to be on sale anywhere (I don't even see them mentioned on myspace), so fails WP:MUSIC. Fails the google test. --Mr Stephen 08:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This Rapper Is Completely Non-Notable. JIP | Talk 08:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete miles away from passing WP:MUSIC. The picture is hilarious, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How come there are so many capitals in the article, but the name is in lower case? J Milburn 17:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete XD at the picture. Fails MUSIC as stated above, etc. -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}
Delete. Non-notable. SkipSmith 22:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is promoting himself and its a terrible page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.74.104 (talk • contribs) .
Delete Non-notable. --Casper2k3 02:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article and protect from recreation. Resolute 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto for above about NN and SP.--I already forgot 07:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, does not meet WP:MUSIC or any other criteria for inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 23:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Salt. Seems it will be recreated, judging by the constant vandalism to this discussion. Salt the earth. --Storkk 11:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riot magazine[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement for a magazine claiming an Australia-wide circulation of 30,000. According to its website, it's only 5 issues old. Originally prodded by me, prod tag removed without any explanation. Core des at talk! 06:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing here that can even be edited into NPOV. Exists only as WP:VSCA. --Pleather 07:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:VSCA. MER-C 09:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure spam. Look at the history. They never learn, do they? BTLizard 13:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the distribution figure can be proven (and I'll admit that it sounds like rather a tall tale), then I think this is notable enough. Unfortunately, the CAB website seems to want authentication [41]. Lankiveil 09:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom, unconvincing spam. RFerreira 04:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & Redirect into Christchurch Casino. Glen 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Gaming[edit]

Violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising Richard 06:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion with User:RRay below, I am now in favor of redirecting this article to Christchurch Casino, the parent company of the Kiwi Gaming website. That article is itself a stub but, based on a Google search of "Christchurch Casino", I believe that there is enough material to expand the article to meet Wikipedia quality standards. I invite all those who "voted" to delete the article to re-consider their decision and change their "votes" to redirect. --Richard 05:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. MER-C 09:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created by yet another one who helpfully incorporates the company name into his logon id so that we can all be absolutely sure that it's spam. BTLizard 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I read up to the word "trusted" and then I was pretty sure it was spam. Recury 14:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Vectro 03:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is poorly written, but the subject is notable. The article should be edited and brought into line with other articles about online gambling websites, not deleted. Rray 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough. Do the editing and I'll change my vote. Or, wait for the AFD to complete and recreate the article in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. --Richard 19:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it. It's not perfect yet, but it's not an advertisement anymore either. Rray 00:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per Richard's suggestion above. Rray 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite is an improvement but it still violates Wikipedia is not a link farm. An adequate article in my opinion would be one that discusses the company's history, its officers, annual revenue, profit, etc. Otherwise, the article still looks like its more intended to attract business than it is intended to describe the business. Also, even if the preceding information were provided, the company would still have to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability of companies. I suspect the ultimate solution is to have an article on the parent company, Christchurch Casino, with Kiwi Gaming as a section within that article. --Richard 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's only one external link, I hardly think it violates Wikipedia is not a link farm. But your ultimate solution sounds reasonable - I'll work on it.Rray 01:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The critical piece, as I see it, is having the article reference publications which mention the company without being just a regurgitation of a press release or a trade publication interview with the company. In other words, it must be a "real" news article and not just some sycophantic trade journal article which is a PR promotion disguised as a news article. Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) provides the details.

As for the current version of the article "having only one external link"... please... don't insult my intelligence and I won't insult yours.

--Richard 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I have no idea how I might have insulted your intelligence, but I'm sure sorry if you feel that way. Rray 12:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps I should have assumed good faith. The bulk of the article remains a list of Internet sites which, while they are not formatted as clickable URLs and are not placed in the External Links section, are still nothing more than a list of external websites. Moreover, the formatting is such that the listing of these websites takes up a prominent part of the article. It wouldn't be so bad if the list of websites was 5-10% of the article and provided as a simple list separated by commas. Putting them in bullet points with section titles for each grouping causes them to dominate the article. Thus, despite Torimadi's comment below, the article still looks to me like a solicitation for people to visit the gambling sites. I'm not familiar with other articles on Internet gambling in Wikipedia but, if they are all like this one, they are all candidates for deletion. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) and make the article conform to the requirements therein.

Actually, since they have a parent company in Christchurch Casinos, this should be redirected and added as a subcategory of that article, like you suggested earlier. That would be consistent with how other gambling companies are handled. Rray 21:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current version of the page doesn't seem promotional at all to me, and isn't it better for the end user to provide a link to the official site? That being said, the mention of an article for the parent company with the the Kiwi page as a sub sounds reasonable as well, but it should still contain the official site link in my opinion. Torimadi 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This should be treated linke all similar companies and articles. An article about the parent company should be created, and this redirected to it, with all the useful info incorporated in the parent of course. If nobody beats me to it, I'll make a Christchurch Casino article. 2005 00:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new article looks great. I think we should move forward with the redirect. Rray 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there, hoss. Slow down. I'm glad that we could forge a compromise between the two of us but we can't just slough off the opinions of the other editors who have chimed in on this discussion. For a fuller explanation, see this conversation on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). What we need to do now is get enough of the "delete" votes to switch to "redirect". I have started the process by expressing my change of opinion immediately below the nomination. You can help by contacting (OK, spamming) each of the "delete" votes and asking them to reconsider their vote. --Richard 05:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should take your own advice. First, you inappropriately put up an article for afd that should have been prodded instead. An article did not belong under this name since that is not how any other similar articles are done. Second, you seem to have not assumed anything like good faith a couple times, the second time saying "Whoa there, hoss. Slow down" when Rray simply said to move ahead with the redirect. I'd suggest being a little more deliberate, especially before starting premature things like this. 2005 06:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... you're mixing together a bunch of things that are not necessarily related. I will address them individually though not necessarily in order.

First, as far as I can tell, the choice between PROD and AFD is the nominator's call. If the nominator thinks that it is unlikely that the PROD will be objected to, he can PROD the article in order to shorten the process required for deletion. I admit that I chose AFD as the conservative route since I'm not particularly experienced in CSD and PROD. I can understand being criticized for SPEEDY'ing an article that didn't meet the criteria. I didn't think this article met the criteria for speedy deletion although, on reflection, it was pretty close to meeting "No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere". I didn't think the article was likely to be PROD-worthy because, if nothing else, I expected the author of the article to object. Frankly, I just can't make any sense out of your criticism here. Maybe you can enlighten me as to what you think I should have done instead of nominating this article for AFD.

Second, I reject any suggestion that AFD'ing this article was "premature". Perhaps you meant something else. I welcome an elucidation of your meaning.

Third, as far as my failing to Assume Good Faith, I really thought that RRay could understand what I meant when I characterized his article as still violating "WP is not a link farm". I didn't think I had to spell it out for him. Turns out I was wrong so I apologized. BTW, in my humble opinion, the new Christchurch Casino article still violates "WP is not a link farm" and "WP is not hosting service for advertisements and promtotions" as it stands but has the potential to become a real article if someone will put real effort into expanding it.

Given the repeated failure to add any substantive encyclopedic information about Kiwi Gaming OR Christchurch Casino into either article, I find it increasingly difficult to assume good faith. I have Googled Christchurch Casino so I know that there is some encyclopedic material out there on the Net. Presumably there is more available from sources that are not on the Net e.g. number of employees, annual revenue, whether it is the only casino in Christchurch, the largest or just one among many. What is the nature of the corporation? (Private or public) Who owns it? Who are the management? Etc., etc. So why hasn't that material been added? The failure to address these issues suggests an assumption that promotion of the online gambling websites is the primary agenda here. I have turned unacceptable articles into acceptable articles in far less time than has been elapsed since this article was nominated for AFD. Just today, I have done this with respect to the Poverty in India article. If you really believe that this material is encyclopedic then it is incumbent on you to raise the quality of the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. I considered doing it but I figured there are enough "Keep" votes here to share the work.

The "I won't insult your intelligence" bit was borderline uncivil and I apologize for that. I believe I provided adequate links for RRay to acquaint himself with Wikipedia policy. Skirting around the "not a link farm" policy by claiming "only one external link" is asking a bit much.

Fourth, the "Whoa there, hoss" may have been a bit over-familiar and jocular but the point remains that there are procedural issues that need to be dealt with regarding the Redirect before we could "move ahead with the Redirect". RRay didn't hint that he was aware of these issues and I frankly wanted to check on my understanding before committing to a particular stance here. So I did just that over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

--Richard 07:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I didn't think that anyone was going to move ahead with the redirect without discussing it (and not just on my say-so.). I was just expressing my opinion about what we should do next at this point. Sorry if that wasn't clear; I have no problem with folks discussing this first. Rray 12:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sorry but this article is large enough to stand on its own. Do not redirect. Merging the two seems to be the wrong way to go. While I may not like online casino articles, this one is no different then many of the others that we already have. Vegaswikian 06:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally false. There is no reason to make this article an exception to the standard way every single other similar company has articles. There are zero articles like this so this article would be redirected as a normal course of editing since there is no reason to treat it differently than other articles, and of course plenty of reasons to treat it the same. 2005 06:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to admit that I am unfamiliar with the other online casino articles. Could someone post a few examples either here or on my talk page? Thanx. --Richard 07:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gambling_websites. Rray 12:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Great, thanks. Based on looking at about 5 or 6 of the articles in the category, I would challenge Vegaswikian's assertion that Kiwi Gaming is "no different than many of the others that we already have". Most of the articles in the category are superior to the Kiwi Gaming article. Of these, Tabcorp Holdings and GoldenPalace.com stand out as being some of the best. At least one article (EverestPoker.com) is not much better than Kiwi Gaming. That suggests that EverestPoker.com should be either expanded or put up for AFD. It might be useful to go through each article in the category and identify candidates for a "improve or delete" drive. Further discussion on this thread that is not directly related to the Kiwi Gaming AFD should probably be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gambling --Richard 17:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Christchurch Casino on the basis that this is a product or service of Christchurch Casino. Keep it tagged for a beef up of the encyclopedic content. Retain the categorization; seems to fit in rather well amongst the rest of the category if strengthened. Although Wikipedia is NOT a directory and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, it is an encyclopedia which has the goal of providing material appropriate to support original research by others. This material fits that niche. Although it by itself is borderline noteworthy at best, it is important to provide a reasonably comprehensive set of articles to support the core article of online gambling; if a researcher is researching that topic, there is encyclopedic value in having a wide international array of examples; I see no other Kiwi examples. Williamborg (Bill) 14:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Foam[edit]

Advertising. Product does not meet WP notability criteria. 347 Google hits, with no third-party writeups as far as I can tell. Two Prod tags and one advert tag have been removed. The article was created by a director of the company which makes this product. I sincerely compliment him for being honest about it. Kla'quot ^Sound 06:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advert for an marginal product.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising spam. SkipSmith 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete In the same way that Tempur-Pedic is a manufacturer of Memory Foam mattresses, so is Restore Foam. Restore Foam is related in field but different in manufacture, hence the relevance of listing. I have attempted, continually, to keep this article up and continue to change it to meet editorial standards.

This particular product sector is rapidly evolving with new developments in products which will in turn need definition. Such as the slimline memory foam mattress. Restore is the only manufacturer of this product which is worth differentiating from a more standard mattress. There are also other developments of Memory Foam applications such as memory foam pet beds. For this reason please advise on how this article should be changed. Regards. RestoreFoam 10:54, 22 September 2006

Sure. There are some useful guidelines here. See also Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Regards, Kla'quot 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising linkspam with NN-claims of scientific merit. Desertsky85451 18:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Please note that whilst I've recreated the article as a redirect to UNC-Duke rivalry, that is not part of this afd closure, the redirect destination can be changed via discussion on the article's talk page. Petros471 13:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of New Jersey at Durham[edit]

Non-notable nickname for Duke used by UNC fans. By this logic, the most trivial of nicknames deserves its own article. Seems fine to me that's it's mentioned in UNC-Duke rivalry, but doesn't merit its own article, in my opinion. Bluedog423^Talk 06:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for nn nicknames to have their own articles. -- Dcflyer 07:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or redirect to the article about their rivalry. VegaDark 08:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. It's a widely-used nickname by people throughout North Carolina and the South. Possibly merge it or redirect it. I understand Duke fans (and alumni Wikipedia editors) don't like it, but that doesn't make it "non-notable". Dubc0724 12:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reference to name could be put into school's article, serving as an effective redirect. But there is no good reason to create even a redirect for something so minor. Badbilltucker 13:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One of the article's two sources has serious problems. --Metropolitan90 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That source has been replaced. Thanks for pointing out that the source had been associated with a nasty group's site. Dubc0724
Merge and Redirect. -- Necrothesp 00:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because not meriting a separate article, but OK to leave behind a redirect. Note that "Bronx Bombers", a much more notable nickname, is a redirect. BTW, I'm a UNC-CH alumnus; I am not now nor have I ever been a Duke fan. JamesMLane t c 08:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess I could live with a redirect, if it redirects to Duke University as Bronx Bombers redirects to New York Yankees. Thanks Dubc0724 12:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The redirect is to benefit a reader who types the phrase into the search box. Therefore, for a reader who encounters the phrase "University of New Jersey at Durham" elsewhere and comes to Wikipedia for an explanation, the redirect should go to the article where the phrase is explained. That's UNC-Duke rivalry. The phrase isn't sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the Duke University article, so a redirect there would be less useful to the reader. JamesMLane t c 15:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - So all nicknames are not treated equally? Your suggestion would make sense if UNC fans were the only people using the nickname. But it's a nickname for Duke, so it should redirect there, if the article absolutely must be killed.Dubc0724 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Offhand, I can't think of any nicknames that would merit a separate article, but there might be some that are so notable as to qualify. If so, they'd be treated differently for that reason. Every nonnotable nickname should redirect to the article that will be most useful to the reader who types the nickname into the search box. JamesMLane t c 16:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So we're back where we started. Bronx Bombers=New York Yankees, University of New Jersey at Durham=Duke University? If that's the way the redirect is set up, I'll stop objecting to this silly deletion proceeding. Dubc0724 16:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - So, Chapel Hell and Carowhina should redirect to UNC by this logic. Tarholes should redirect to Tarheels. And Big High School should redirect to NC State. I personally think none of these should be redirects, but if others disagree, then all of these should exist in case people come across any of these terms in articles. I wouldn't object to that. Wow, Carowhina actually already exists as a redirect apparently.... -Bluedog423^Talk 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        CommentWorks for me. It's all a part of what makes college sports so great. Duke fans just have a hard time taking criticism. :-)Dubc0724 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Chinwamo[edit]

Stumbled on this while tagging nonsense articles of the original creator, Jchinwamo (talk · contribs), for deletion. Given the single edit beyond the recent nonsense articles creation and the username of the creator of the article this is obviously a case of WP:Vanity by the author. The mp3 address lists the group but nothing about them to assert notability. A search for the comic mentioned has been fruitless and even if it does exist it's admitted in the article it was only seen by a niche audience. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got the same results myself. A friend of a friend who I'm trying to network with on a side project of mine has an album at Amazon.com, but he doesn't rate an article just yet. The nonsense edits didn't help. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 07:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 10:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CANCELLED due to repeated sockery. -Splash - tk 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Leep[edit]

Non-notable local Amreican weather presenter. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) . First vote was filled with CFIF sockpuppet nonsense and was undeleted. Lets have a clean vote this time! Lost Knob 08:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep notable weather presenter with tons of experience, bad-faith nom by user who trolls. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For same reason that Paul Dellegatto should be kept (namely being far more notable than many of the bios here). —Wknight94 (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That does not seem like a good "keep" rationale. Your argument could just as easily be used to DELETE "many of the bio's here". Zunaid 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that the bad faith comments from CFIF stem from the fact that this article has been speedied twice after vandals turned it into an attack page and then tagged with db-attack. Not sure how a couple weathermen have drawn so much hatred but there is clearly a nasty campaign going on. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Non-notable weatherman on a (local?) TV station who fails the professor test. There is NOTHING substantial in the article to indicate notability. (On a broader question: Is there a notability guideline for TV personalities? Do they get articles just for doing their job?) Zunaid 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Let's be fair with that criteria - George W. Bush is just doing his job too. So is Jack Nicholson, etc. Sorry but when your "job" happens to be going on TV in front of potentially 2 or 3 million people, that's a lot more notable than 95% of the professors here. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WTVT news team. Reborox 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Petros471 12:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Osueke[edit]

This article is about the founder of Eigomanga. An article already exists for the company. Outside of this context, he is not particularly notable; most of the article is about his various jobs, such as a translator and consultant. None of the material in the article is referenced, and it generally reads as a vanity article, especially if the edit history is taken into account. A Google search yields only about sixty or so references to Eigomanga's Austin Osueke, most from press releases. Very few articles link to this article, all of which appear to have been linked after-the-fact by editors to this article. In short, if the subject of this article should be mentioned at all, it should be in the Eigomanga article (perhaps this could be redirected there). --Slowking Man 08:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Neier 11:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not notable WP:Vanity Hello32020 19:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eigomanga. Entirely unsourced so we can't verify claims, not sure if he's notable enough. VegaDark 19:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In agreement with reasons stated: unverifiable due to no sources, not notable, vanity. The subject here is already mentioned in the Eigomanga article. - Kitness 06:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the addition that Eigomanga should also be deleted. Nither these articles make any assertions of notability and both articles appear to be vanity pages or possible advertisement. I highly doubt that this article will pass WP:BIO or that Eigomanga could pass WP:CORP. Also neither articles offers any kind of citations for the information contained within, leading to the posibilities that both articles are original research. And finally, there have been several anonymous IPs removing the AfD notice from this article and removing the {{citations missing}} tag from Eigomanga article. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind redirecting to Eigomanga, but Eigomanga was covered by Asian Week at the very least. On the other hand, it's hard to find sources other than that article. It also has a partnership with a (local?) cable station but I can't find any news on it other than press releases. ColourBurst 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Multiple" means more then one. So the single mention in Asian Week woudn't be enough. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (USA season 8)[edit]

The article doesn't provide anything that isn't already assumed, none of it is sourced, and some of it is speculation. _{J Di}^talk 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until nearer the time. I can see the fanboys adding rumours until then. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Peripitus (Talk) 09:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Big Brother USA. The only information that needs to be put into the main article is that there will be a Season 8, as this is the only verifiable information available as of today. Cjosefy 12:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peripitus.--Hús ö nd 19:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no special information that can be added until they make more than a declaration of intention to run the season. Ansell 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete *looks puzzled* thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is all very crufty. I also prefer to delete it but I know for sure it will keep coming back. To prevent crystal-balling about the fine detail, I suggest we stripped the article down to the known facts and protect it until there are official announcements or when it is about to air. Ohconfucius 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, and possibly protect from recreation untill official releases are stated --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has any of this even been confirmed yet? What if the producers decide the 8th season should take place in the Cook Islands with teams that are seperated by race? --Benjaminx 04:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bldea[edit]

Contested prod about a school that fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Storkk 11:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Wong (YAF)[edit]

Vanity, notablity. In my opinion, an autobiographical article (created by the subject). I dont think this is notable enough for wikipedia, possibly vanity page. MidgleyDJ 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Huon 10:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 10:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had prod'ded this article since it seems highly unlikely that anyone should come to any conclusion but delete. --DrTorstenHenning 11:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 12:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article was started by User:Mariawong we might as well userfy it and get this over with. ~ trialsanderrors 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN. Don't see how a managerial level person passes WP:BIO. Maria Wong is a very common name, but I get 184unique/273 Ghits for "Maria Wong" Youth and 173/323 Ghits for "Maria Wong" Dance. In both cases above, most hits weren't even for her, there is some doubt in other cases. Lindsey McAlister Productions is the commercial company of her colleague and Artistic Director at the YAF.Ohconfucius 02:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aruna gaur[edit]

Indian village mayor who lost some elections on a provincial and/or national level. Fails WP:BIO, unsourced. Her non-governmental efforts might be notable, but I could not verify them. Prod removed by anon without improvement. Delete. Huon 09:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO MidgleyDJ 10:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- GRBerry 13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Failed to win a seat in 1998. Had 0.19% of support. Cannot verify her social efforts either. - Ganeshk (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. Kusma (討論) 11:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Armson[edit]

Not notable, speedy and prod deleted by anon (or the user who just logged out). -- TexMurphy 10:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged again. MER-C 10:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El rancho charter school[edit]

poorly written and poorly formatted article about "the coolest middle school" (to 7th grade). Delete as crufty and unencyclopaedic. Ohconfucius 10:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't assert notability. MER-C 10:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect a brief summary onto the Orange Unified School District page, per the proposed WP:SCHOOL guidelines. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the awards, but trim the non-notable fluff. — RJH (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, embarrassing. Gazpacho 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, which already mentions the school. JYolkowski // talk 22:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, charter school. AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth, charter schools are indeed notable. Bahn Mi 01:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current version, not per organic growth which is simply a buzzword with no meaning, not due to a general claim that charter schools are notable, not due to WP:SCHOOL which it is far from clear has a consensus at this moment but keeping because getting first 9 years in a row in a state competion is a reasonable claim of notability. (Note that the other possible notability claim that it is one of three middle schools in the county is such a narrowed claim that it does not go to notability). JoshuaZ 02:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC) changing to Delete per discussion with Thivier. JoshuaZ 01:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're entire vote rests on a single fact, which is unverified. I fear, voting based on unsourced "claims of notability" simply encourages even more unsourced claims, which is a very bad thing. We should be removing, not adding, such unsourced claims. --Rob 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I've looked for a source and haven't been able to find one. However, the claim is by itself notable enough. If others are also unsuccesful in verifying the claim I will move to delete. (If we really run into trouble finding the claim we can always AfD again). JoshuaZ 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since I'm more concerened with verifiability than notability, I have removed the claim. --Rob 00:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JoshuaZ. --Myles Long 20:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm glad someone can give me a good reason for not deleting a [middle] school, rather than the usual "all schools are notable" nonsense. If someone could please reference up the 9 consecutive firsts, I will withdraw the nomination.... Ohconfucius 06:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability in achievements at the state Science Olympiad (9 times) and as a recipient of the California Distinguished School award. The nominator's POV that the article is "poorly written and poorly formatted" are justifications for cleaning up and improving it, not for deleting an article. Furthermore, use of the word "crufty" (definition: anything I dislike and feel doesn't belong here, for which I don't actually need to articulate a valid justification), or any of its variations, is often enough on its own to convince me that an article should be kept, especially when used in the nomination. Alansohn 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools, this school is notable. Silensor 16:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come on people, don't be afraid of deleting an article, It is non-notable and not very referenced, that means that WP does nor need ir, nor can be sure is true. It is an article against WP:V, WP:REF and possibly WP:NOR —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a fair claim to notability is made and the subject matter is verifiable. Yamaguchi先生 23:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does somebody have a reliable source for the Science Olympiad claim (I'm sure it must exist, but wouldn't know where to look)? I don't understand how that makes the topic more, or less, encyclopedic, particularly when an appropriate source isn't cited. Hopefully, we're not encouraging people to make uncited claims of notability, just so they can avoid deletion. Its far better to start an article with only easily verified, uncontestable facts first (e.g. name,location,size,grades,etc...), and leave unsourced claims to later, when a proper source is found and cited. Its my personal preference to simply remove such uncited claims, but I suppose that would cause upset, so I haven't. p.s. I note an early version of the article, was quite candid in citing its sources, as "various El Rancho students". --Rob 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ~~per JoshuaZ.~~ schools with 1,000 students are notable and the article is certainly encyclopedic now, altough it's just a stub. bbx 07:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the school is notable and verifiable too this is not for clean up Yuckfoo 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A large school. -- Necrothesp 01:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, this school, like ALL schools, is clearly notable. All that AFDs for schools do is waste everyone involved's time because the deletionist effort fails by default. Schools must be allowed organic expansion and growth. --ForbiddenWord 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It isn't just deletionist who have issues with including all the schools, and saying that since most(note not all) earlier attempts have not gotten the articles deleted is not in fact a keep argument. The claim that all schools are notable is very far from an agreed upon claim. As to "organic growth"- even at least one school inclusionist also considers "organic growth" to be a buzzword with no actual meaning. Making viable arguments is a good thing. JoshuaZ 18:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, and move to "(meteorologist)" I guess. — CharlotteWebb 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Freeman (weatherman)[edit]

Non-notable, seems like a vanity page. Amnewsboy 10:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article says, "He has also won a regional Emmy, as well as the coveted Edward R. Murrow award." I think that makes him a notabkle weather presenter. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the award claims can be referenced. --Merovingian - Talk 12:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I reworded it a little and added some links (including the KSN.com biography which verifies the award claims). ~ lav-chan @ 12:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh. And i'm not sure about the '(weatherman)' part. Are we supposed to use a more neutral term (like 'weather presenter' or 'meteorologist' or something)? My personal instinct is to change it, but i'm not sure about the guide lines or anything. ~ lav-chan @ 13:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing wrong with 'weatherman', but 'meteorologist' sounds more professional. Ohconfucius

Comment: The reason I brought it up is, simply put, an overwhelming majority of other local TV meteorologists don't have their own Wiki pages (in fact, almost none do)... Furthermore, a fellow met at his own station had his article AFD'ed within the past week.[42] --Amnewsboy 13:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, several weather people have articles. Jim Cantore, Betty Davis, Rich Johnson, Jennifer Lopez (no, not that one), Mike Seidel, Hillary Andrews, John Hope, those are just the ones that are linked to from The Weather Channel. Of course, that doesn't necessarily say anything about the notability of those people (or the quality of their articles, for that matter), but the point is it's not unprecedented. If well-known weather personalities (like the ones who cover major cities) aren't represented in Wikipedia, it's not necessarily for lack of notability. Just lack of an interest in writing about them. :shrug: ~ lav-chan @ 14:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this case, would Wichita be considered major enough a city to do so? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, I swear -- I just worry that it opens a can of worms, where ever local TV anchor, weather guy, and sports guy ends up getting his/her own Wiki page. --Amnewsboy 05:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I dunno. I guess, in addition to professional notability (i.e., awards), there could be some kind of cut-off for population or for the number of people the broadcast reaches, but i couldn't say off the top of my head. For what it's worth, KSN claims to reach half of all households in Kansas, which is like a million people. ~ lav-chan @ 17:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kieran[edit]

Completing AFD by an IP, deletion reason was "self promotion/ advertisement". Abstain MER-C 10:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, but a delete nonetheless. The fact that the article is self-created is a mark against it, as is his non-appearance in the Idler's article. Onebravemonkey 11:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. If the claims are sourced then my vote will be changed, but it must meet WP:V then pass WP:BIO with those sources. Arbusto 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes WP:BIO per references in article. Although his books are ranked in the upper hundred-thoundsths by Amazon.com, they are ranked in the mid ten-thousandsths by Amazon.uk, his books have received independent reviews. Ohconfucius 03:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, de-autobio-ify. Storkk 11:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was flagged as copyvio. MER-C 12:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Goode[edit]

Non notable article and is just a copy of the IMDB biography. BertieBasset 11:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Miles Consulting Corp[edit]

It might be possible to write an article about this corporation, but the current incarnation is vanity/advertising by User:Milesconsultingcorp. We should NOT let advertising hang around while we wait for a valid article. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mb air systems ltd[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, 27 distinct Google hits (50 if you remove the ltd), no other notable properties. Prod removed by IP user without comment. Fram 11:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 12:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C, we can't just have any and all businesses in here — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSlasher (talk • contribs)
- I hate it when I forget to sign...and also to subst stuff...:/ --WikiSlasher 13:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aegee television[edit]

nn web video site, alexa rating of 1,738,106 [43] Giant onehead 22:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switch off - spammy too. MER-C 11:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Press off button on remote per nom. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ExecUtron Technologies[edit]

WP:SPAM Archibald99 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with guideline provided in nomination, and also, it fails WP:CORP.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 11:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gardy Cdn. S ug ar p in e t/c 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Petros471 12:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MYSTERY (log canoe)[edit]

Um... a canoe. I don't see the notability of this. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capsize per nom. MER-C 11:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rather surprisingly this canoe is on the National Register, notable for being "one of the last surviving traditional Chesapeake Bay racing log canoes". I'll expand the article in a moment. --Huon 13:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat revised version is now in place, making the boat's significance clearer. --Huon 13:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DJ Clayworth 17:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pas de lieu Rhône que nous! Edison 17:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? My French definitely is rusty, but the online translator I used gave: "No place Rhône that we!" Is that a quote I don't know, or what is it supposed to mean? --Huon 18:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article pretty much establishes that the boat exists, and not much else. Resolute 05:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is very much a second best to the National register external link and to avoid copyvio it always will be. Not really notable enough. BlueValour 03:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Fish[edit]

Looks like crytalballing to me. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - rumours. MER-C 12:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one; in the sea there are plenty. Onebravemonkey 12:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, meets WP:BALLS. ;-) RFerreira 04:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul W. Dillon Home[edit]

Does not look notablile. Also can we answear the general question of, is everything that is on the national registry notable? Depending on the response to the last question should deciede if this is a keep or a delete. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, perhaps not

Maybe, maybe not, depends on your perspective I guess. Dillon figures prominently in the history of Sterling, Illinois. I don't know thoughA mcmurray 05:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since the home is operated as a museum and is open to the public, it is of more interest to readers than if it weren't. I added Category:Museums in Illinois to the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep out of public interest. Arbusto 23:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on account that it's on the National Register of Historic Places. --Dennisthe2 19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Boards[edit]

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

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

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

I believe that this is a non-notable messageboard. We don't, for example, have an article about the University of Michigan's forum. Or most university forums for that matter. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 23:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppelin: Who are you to judge what is notable or not. If the University of Michigan forum wishes to have a piece about it then it is not any of my business. The Sin Boards are a great resource for people to interact with in a college setting where they are not judged by their appearance or their position in society but mearly by their words and actions. That is a great thing and something that should be remembered and the community that is created online should be fostered. Not distoyed by someone with an inflated sense of self importance. Also how is this not of note. Reading through the opinion on the board you get the real ideas and thoughts of people in Ireland. For instance of the links is to a debate on Northern Ireland. With sides of the arguement that are never heard outside of Ireland. Have a read of that thread and see if you don't learn something about the conflict in Northern Ireland that you would not hear about in America. Wikipedia is supposed to be different then a standard Encyclopedia it is supposed to show all the worlds knowledge and the world in all its truth not just that which pass into the dusty volumes in the local library. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.100.248 (talk • contribs) .
- None of that has any bearing upon whether this encyclopaedia article should exist, something that is governed by our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paddy: Indeed, Zeppelin is right on the ball. With the ever-increasing fees slowly creeping into the Irish third-level education system, the prospect of people being "left behind" in society grows greater each day, i.e. the less well-off members of society. Great strides have been made by the Department of Education and Science in recent years to increase the number of those people from the bottom end of the income ladder who are most at risk of being excluded from receiving a full education. Various initiatives have resulted in totals losers (up to that point), making it through. Now, you may ask how the Sin Boards fits into this? Well, it's like this: on reading the Sin Boards, you will quickly see that the posters on the Sin Boards are nothing more than the dregs of society, scrapped from the bottoms of buckets littered throughout the west of Ireland. These people struggle through the system, not because of the support offered by the insitution itself, but in spite of it. The Sin Boards members collectively provide a full support system for students who fail exams, miss their annual registration, can't find appropriate accommodation within which to base their studies in an already difficult environment, get into serious financial difficulty or just find their housemates to be really annoying. It offers an opportunity for members to discuss the best and worst moments of their day from seeing a nice flower near your house to having to walk to college on a rainy day, similar to how Americans openly discuss their "feelings" and then give out about people prying so deeply into their lives. In addition, it's the oldest and most successful forum in any educational institute in Ireland, some achievement for a small university in the west of Ireland. The forum picks up some three million hits per year. Multiple awards collected over recent years make testament to the success of these Boards. If the University of Michigan chooses not to set up something to support those unfortunate people from the lowest rung of society in their particular area, good for them, but I feel that the Sin Boards are something to be proud of. (And that's all from a neutral, not involved in any way whatsoever, not even a little bit, standpoint.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.203.7.33 (talk • contribs) .

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not assert notability. MER-C 12:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not feckin delete it - are you some sort of deletion expert now or something? Paddy. 13:22, 20 September 2006 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.7.37 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-20 12:22:24
Delete Typical forum vanity, though at least it's shorter than most. The "boards" in question don't even have their own domain, and the host site is Alexa-ranked at 40,911. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Starblind. --Merovingian - Talk 12:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Delete as per Ju66l3r and Badbilltucker. The University's page should include an external link to the forum or something. --Merovingian - Talk 08:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. "It is an utter waste of time", apparently. Can't say fairer than than. Onebravemonkey 12:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out the part of the Wikipedia Policies and guidelines say that for an article to be notable the Alexa rating has to be higher then 40,911? Also Please point out the part of the Policies and guidelines that this site specifically violates. So far the only arguement is that the site is not important enough to the above contributors without taking due consideration what it means to people it does effect. This seems to me to be against the ethos of Wikipedia to respect all different peoples Zeppelin. 13:39, 20 September 2006 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.226.54 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-20 12:45:05
Delete - the relevant notability guideline is WP:WEB, and the article shows no sign of meeting it. A lack of reliable sources doesn't help. --Huon 13:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the Criteria for web content "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." The Sin website has won the Best Website award at the National Student Media Awards (SMEDIA). http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2001/04/15/story562344928.asp. Zeppelin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.226.54 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-20 13:19:40
That's an award for the host site, not the boards themselves. And I'm not sure I'd call it a "well known award" either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are thousands of messageboards like this on the web and few if any are notable in Wikipedia terms. This article really amounts to a vanity item for the boards' users BTLizard 13:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And your are basing your "And I'm not sure I'd call it a "well known award"" on what critrea? That it is not American? The link I gave to the site is from Irelands leading Business News Paper. Zeppelin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.226.54 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-20 14:19:39
Delete, nothing special about this forum. No third party sources. Recury 14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, this is just as relevent a topic as many of the other topics that have extensive articles on them. while I dislike that the boards' politics have spilled into the article, and that vandalism has occurred, i still think the boards should be allowed an article, and if this article is deemed inconsequential, then many more articles will have to be pruned, for there are many articles that are equally as "unimportant" as you percieve this one to be. ISTPQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.243 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-20 15:51:21
- Yes, there are tons more to be pruned, so don't make our job any harder than it has to be by adding more like this. Recury 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Sure there are thousands of boards on the web but a small proportion of these provide a service on the same level that the Sin Boards do. As Paddy and zeppelin pointed out, it is an irreplacable resource to the students of NUI, Galway, as university that attracts people from all over the world to study and an external source of information on the boards can only be beneficial to all concerned. - Triangler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.29.112 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-20 15:56:25
Delete per nom. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS reliable sources to satisfy WP:RS.-- danntm ^T _C 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable. DJ Clayworth 17:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. My alma mater has forums, too. They're not listed here. How many thousands of universities are there? Every one has a forum nowadays. Fan-1967 17:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete: Merge with the university's page or just delete. I don't see why it couldn't help fill the university stub though. ju66l3r 18:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan-1967. Forum fanboys aren't helping their case, either. Danny Lilithborne 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. --Aaron 19:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - no case has been made yet to convince me that any relevant data on these boards could not be included in the article for the school itself, particularly considering that the school's own page is as short as it is. There's obviously lots of room on that page still available. Badbilltucker 20:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. SkipSmith 22:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perspective Most of the posts in favour of deletion are reasonable however a lack of local knowledge is blinding you to the genuine usefulness of the boards. Galway has a population in the region of 80,000 people. The university has a student population in the region of 15,000. I can understand completely that from your perspective, the boards are insignificant but given the size of the university population in relation to the size of Galway as a whole, I can assure you, the boards are more significant than you realise. - Triangler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.29.112 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-20 23:43:36
- The size of a university undergraduate population relative to the population of Galway has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Wikipedia should have an article about some discussion fora on a web site. Please base your arguments on our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The relevant ones have already been linked to. Uncle G 00:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I certainly wouldn't make an article about the University of Waterloo forums. Waterloo, Ontario has a population of roughly 110,000, about one quarter of which are students. Regardless, the forum doesn't meet criteria in WP:WEB. --Wafulz 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the forum members attempting to save this article are certantly passionate about the forum, and have established that it serves a purpose. However every message board serves a purpose. As useful as it may be, it is not notable enough for an article per WP:WEB. Resolute 05:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete While I note that the article itself does not assert its own noteworthyness, I'm sure that if the person who put the content there in the firstplace read the WP:WEB, they probably would have inserted the necessary proof. However my understanding of Wiki Entries is that initial entries are skelleton entries there for others to add to, and after some of the material from this page is inserted into the main article, then the article will have proven itself noteworthy. as per the WP:WEB. Arion

Do Not Delete Well it doesn't really matter to regualr users of the boards but a wiki entry could help more people in college in N.U.I.G. find our site and the resources it contains. If you want wiki to be fully comprehensive then leave it. I doubt that it will be left but i ask you: why the hell not? - toiletduck

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soulframe[edit]

Main claim to fame is that a band member is on Australian Idol. Would probably not have been created otherwise. Serserse 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note: "Would probably not have been created otherwise. " - yeah it would, but an admin could delete it on sight. MER-C 12:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Said member was a top 12 finalist, which most editors don't consider notable (at least as far as I know). Then there's also the case of the MySpace copyright violation. If it's not a violation it's advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. Band meets the following criteria on the notability rules Wikipedia:Notability (music); Has has articles featured in two "reliable" media - Gold Coast Bulletin and Brisbane Courier-Mail; Contains a member from an otherwise notable source (Guy Mutton- Australian Idol); Has won or placed in major Australian music competitions (MusicOz awards, Australian Songwriting Association Awards, Pacific Songwriters Competition);darcyrobinson 12:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC). Could more experienced editors suggest changes to the content to better reflect an encyclopaedic nature of listing? — Possible single purpose account: darcyrobinson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. That's Fair ... but i've been reading for some time across a wide variety of topics and this is the first article i've made time to edit - I did not create it but am interested in starting somewhere - this seemed ideal. You gotta learn somehow? I thought meeting the notability criteria was sufficient.[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't seem to find any reference to this Courier Mail story that they're talking about. I'm going to go with the idea that the band of a singer who's notability is questionable at best, is not notable. Lankiveil 09:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Do not Delete. Band has been listed on notable Brisbane radio station Triple M's up and coming list several times and has regular air play on radio stations 96.5FM and Triple M prior to band members mentioned fame in Australian Idol. Perhaps simply deleting the My Space reference would be enough.Mykennel 07:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mykennel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Michael Johnson 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Guy Mutton. And while your at it, clean up the promotional tone in the beginning of his article. --EndlessVince 05:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Roisterer 04:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T'lan Imass[edit]

delete I see no reason to keep this page It has no weight to add, nor is of any real import. Please vote —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mystar (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Rationales based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are important here. "I see no reason to keep." is not such a rationale, notice. Uncle G 12:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Gee whiz Mystar, it's been up for less than a day and it hasn't been modified by anyone but me. Did you notice the Forkrul Assail page, maybe want to tag that one too? I vote it should be left for at least a couple weeks and given the opportunity to expand it, rather than removing it less than a week after it's creation. I haven't even solicited others for input yet, and I think that's important. By the way, have you even read the Malazan series? If so, you'd realize that the T'lan Imass are a much more noteworthy race than the Forkrul Assail to date in the series, and if anything is not noteworthy, it's the Assail that should be deleted. I'll go solicit others for their opinions and contributions. WLU 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I agree with WLU, at least give the article some time to expand before removing it. The T'lan do have a huge amount of backstory to them, so the material for a good article to form exists. If after a couple of weeks it remains as it is now then perhaps deletion would be suitable. Derf noxid 18:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'd love for help expanding it as well, there's tons of potentially useful stuff that could go there. WLU 19:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep It's a race in a popular series, so the topic is valid enough to give it a chance to expand. For the Erikson fans, I hope the Malazan articles don't become a new battleground in the ongoing Goodkind grudge match. -Captain Crawdad 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:FICT and a lack of secondary sources, which seem unlikely to be found. --Huon 12:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep On second thought, my interpretation of WP:FICT probably was too strict (although I find the rather low standard used there irritating). --Huon 22:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

appreciated. Without the low standards, the hundreds of pages devoted to fictional universes couldn't exist, and all the sci-fi/fantasy geeks (myself included) would be bereft.WLU 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:FICT, the T'lan Imass are a major race in the series, comparable to the Wookies in Star Wars or the Vulcans from Star Trek, they are present in 5/6 books and have big roles in the plot. As for secondary sources, it is unlikely you will ever get secondary sources on any work of fiction - by necessity you are working within the canon. By nature, secondary sources would only happen when you get people writing theses or major literary analyses of big books, a la Tolkien and so forth. If you look at the Star Wars main page, the references are to George Lucas' work, not SW per se, and the sub-pages contain lots of text, some to encyclopaedias about the universe, but also references to the actual novels. I would think that using the original works is a necessity, and the standards are maintained by peers who have read it rather than continuous references to page numbers.WLU 12:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deletion reason provides insufficient argument. I agree with WLU. ''F3-R4'' 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. AfD does not assert enough information for deletion, AfD sounds (to me, at any rate) like a bad faith AfD, and the article asserts itself well enough IMHO. --Dennisthe2 19:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - similar articles exist for races, cultures and concepts in other fictional universes from Wheel of Time through Star Wars on Wikipedia articles. No logical reason at all to delete.--Werthead 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improper AfD nom. Article is relevant and justified by precedent and WP:FICT. NeoFreak 23:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Metallica album[edit]

Delete -- While yes It is almost certain that they will release a 10th album, when is unknown and it will not be called "Untitled"; this is comeplete crystal balling. (copied the opposed prod text. Personally, every band can have an untitled + some number.` —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the orginial proder and my comments quoted above.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unverifiable crystal balllery. MER-C 13:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, crystal ball. BTLizard 13:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that sources have since been added. Uncle G 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Britney Spears' fifth studio album is a valid entry, as is this one. When an artist announces they are recording their next album on their website, the producer of said album discusses production, and said band introduces two new songs on their tour, it's no longer speculation. This is deletionism run rampant. Anthony Hit me up... 13:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I draw your attention to Britney Spears' fifth studio album#References. Where are your references that confirm the assertions that you have just made? Uncle G 17:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added relevant cites to the release date, how many songs have been writen, who is producing, and the debut date of "The Other New Song". Anthony Hit me up... 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Edit - I have removed the angry rhetoric, and I apologize to Uncle G... I keep forgetting my self-imposed rule not to edit Wikipedia when I'm in a bad mood. I should've included the cites when I made the article in the first place. Mea culpa. Anthony Hit me up... 14:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries. Uncle G 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why resort to name calling and accusations? It's very unnecessary. PJM 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – articles on upcoming albums are nothing new; Metallica has a large enough fanbase to ensure that this page will be updated frequently as details of the album emerge (such as the proper title). --Alcuin 14:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The point at issue is whether there is any verifiable information to support an article now. Notice the emphasis in our Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy on verifiability. The article discusses two songs, presumably on the grounds that the are on this album. Where are the references so that readers can verify this? Please cite sources. Uncle G 17:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Sources in article make it meet the crystal ball test. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look at Category:2007 albums, there are already 37 such articles. It's the wonder of Wikipedia, don't fight it! Wasted Time R 11:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taran'atar[edit]

This is a page for a fictional character who never appeared in the TV series, only un-notable, non-canon books. Philip Stevens 11:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FICT, no reliable sources given or likely to be found. --Huon 12:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , put anything relevant in Warpath (Star Trek novel), possible redirect. FrozenPurpleCube 13:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box the handle[edit]

This entry fails WP:NEO and is basically a dictionary definition. This is a failed prod/prod2. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Do not transwiki. MER-C 12:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. -- Merope ^Talk 12:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astoria-Pacific International[edit]

This entry has been re-written avoiding copyright concerns, but now, and did not before, meet the criteria of WP:CORP. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 13:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 00:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wa Ji[edit]

This entry fails WP:NEO and also WP:WINAD. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: neologism, completely unencyclopedic. --Merovingian - Talk 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't even tell readers what Wa Ji is. It tells readers to "scroll down your mouse to find out", but never actually says. (How does one scroll down a mouse, exactly, anyway? My experience of mice is that they probably wouldn't like it.) This is very close to being a candidate for speedy deletion for having no context. Even ignoring that, there's strong evidence of original research here. At first, Wa Ji was "a kind of phrase", but in response to the article being nominated for deletion it suddenly changed to not being a word or phrase at all. Since what the article is even about changes wildly in response to Wikipedia editors, this article doesn't appear to be based upon any actual sources, but seems to be being made up on the fly directly in Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 14:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It has just morphed yet again, apparently in response to what I wrote. Now it is a trick played by teenagers. Uncle G 16:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to Delete:I don't think so. The first article and the second article is related. If you see the last post, you will know that Wa Ji is a kind of body language. In contrast, this body language can be explained verbally. I don't think there is any problem on it. Moreover, the post is updated regularly and improvements can be seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanmung2 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-20 16:06:37
- The article appears, at the time that I write this, to be about people hitting other people on the shoulder. The problem is that it appears that you are just making this up from whole cloth. Please cite sources to demonstrate that that is not the case. Uncle G 16:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. hateless 16:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to Keep - Speedy delete per hateless. Danny Lilithborne 19:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT, WP:WINAD, WP:OR, Not a how-to, what else? ColourBurst 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly confusing article that doesn't really even explain exactly what Wa Ji is supposed to be. The closest it comes is "Wa Ji is a way to present your feeling. Or it is described a style of teens." Ohh, I see. Probably a WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT and WP:V. no definition, no context, no relevant Ghits. Poorly written unencyclopaedic to boot. Ohconfucius 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PTools[edit]

This entry fails the criteria of WP:CORP. Based on the fact the creator's id is from the corp, it likely also fails WP:OR and WP:VANITY. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 13:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam (see the history) written in excruciating managementspeak. BTLizard 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant ad. -IceCreamAntisocial 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising spam. SkipSmith 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, spamcruft. RFerreira 04:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Center[edit]

This seems to be an advertisement for a non-notable place. --NE2 13:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 55100 ghits, first ten don't seem related to this particular one. MER-C 13:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article only advertises their service while providing no information about the place itself and what would make it notable, no third-party sources mentioned. 12 google news hits too for Beacon Center, but none of them about this place. - Bobet 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Earp[edit]

Non notable person, fails WP:BIO. Being related to some famous persons does not make you automatically famous as well. A feeble 66 distinct Google hits, 169 hits in total. This is not caused by the lack of info on historical figures on the internet, if you compare it to the 1.4 million hits for Wyatt Earp or even the 35,000 for Virgil Earp. Newton Earp lived an uneventful life and had an uneventful death: a passing mention on the Wyatt Earp article, if needed, will suffice. Fram 13:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Earp family is notable. Relatives of famous people are notable too, otherwise you might have a lot of work to do. — CharlotteWebb 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyOther articles are normally not considered relevant to decide if some AfD is valid or not, and to decide if some article is worth keeping or not. We have a guideline, WP:BIO, nd I see not one criterion that Newton Earp comes even close to. Those royals at least will have had their share of publicity in the gossip pages, which lifts them barely higher (but I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of them gone). Do you have any reason why this particular person deserves his own article? Fram 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability by association in this case is enough for me, given that he did live to adulthood. FrozenPurpleCube 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Newton Earp was a Civil War veteran, and brother to famous Old West figures. Therefore, the article should remain. It could use expansion and further research, but I disagree with deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.88.133 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 September 2006
- Do you mean that we should have articles on every Civil War veteran? Why? As for being family to famous Old West figurines: would you also include articles about Joseph McCarty-Antrim, Susan Lavenia James, or the unnmaed two brothers and three sisters of Calamity Jane? What is the relevance of having an article that states "X is the brother of vamous person Y, but nothing remarkable happened in his life"? Fram 13:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Figurines? I'm going to assume it's a translation error rather than a slur of some sort. Regarding family members, I'd agree with you in cases where only one member of the family is notable, where information about the relatives might be merged to the bottom of the golden boy's biography, but this is different. Deleting this would be like having articles about only four of the Jackson Five. — CharlotteWebb 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for "figurines", it was not intentional. I meant figures. And your example is incorrect, since each of the Jackson Five are famous for being a member of the band. Newton Earp is famous for... well, nothing actually. Fram 05:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Earp is not famous, that is correct. However, how many of the Jackson Five can most people name? I'd say two, maybe three. Newton Earp is part of the Earp family, and, much like Paris Hilton, is famous for nothing more than family ties. However, it is notable and part of what shaped Wyatt Earp, as he ran away from home more than once to be like his three older brothers who were serving in the army at the time. I believe the article should remain because it helps identify and define who Wyatt Earp was, and, although the man himself may not be famous, his family is. That's my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.88.133 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 September, 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 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mymidishare[edit]

A contested prod that does not assert the notability of its subject. MER-C 13:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No more than spam to me. PJM 13:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammalicious. Danny Lilithborne 19:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a lost how this article is considered as a spam as it only tells what mymidishare.com is. Is it because the writer must not be the owner or have any relations with the item mentioned in the article in question? How about the article "Cobra_Group_(Marketing)"? It does not look like an encyplopedia article but looks very much like it has been placed by someone from the company itself(It contents words like our and we). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rchwong (talk • contribs) 22 September 2006.
Do not take it personally. We wish the Mymidishare website every success. The subject simply does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Thank you for bringing the article about Cobra Group (marketing) to our attention; perhaps that should be put up for deletion for the same reason. I will investigate. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:WEB, alexa ranking 2,037,472. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice guys and thank you so much for the kind words.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Innovation Foundation[edit]

This article, written by an editor with the same name as the contact given for the WIF, makes extraordinary claims -- the planned construction of a global science city being the most remarkable, with the huge number of claimed Nobelist members not being far behind. (The same editor has also linked large numbers of scientists' Wikipedia articles to this article, and also to the WIF website; so many that I blocked them for linkspamming.)

Yet, apart from a number of distinguished academics having accepted fellowships and other awards offered in letters from the WIF, there seems to be remarkably little evidence to back up its claims that does not come, directly or indirectly, from the WIF itself. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#World Innovation Foundation for more discussion about this, and details of some of the concerns about verifying the WIF's claims.

I propose that we delete this article unless verifiable evidence can be provided for the assertions in this article. If the WIF is an organization of the size and significance asserted by the article, it should have no difficulty doing so. -- The Anome 13:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, if we delete this article, I believe that we should also delete the related article Xanthos Menelaou, from the same author.) -- The Anome 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Xanthos article reeks of being part of a hoax/scam/crank effort too, though I also noticed that the US newspaper The Christian Science Monitor picked the ridiculous "Mighty Aphrodite" story up. This is why we need to be absolutely stringent about requiring multiple, non-trivial independent reliable sources - yes, I'm looking at you, The Game (game). Bwithh 22:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw crap, I ran a Factiva search, and it looks like UK newspapers The Independent, The Sunday Times and the The Express on Sunday picked up the Xanthos and his BS Aphrodite statue story too. Though that and the CSM article are all the hits in the database. I apologize for my country's laughable newspapers. (And I'm deeply disappointed in you, Christian Science Monitor). Though to be fair, from the reports, Cyprus's Ministry of Tourism got caught up the excitement of Xanthos' brilliant scheme too. Um, Xanthos is probably not a straightforward speedy delete candidate any more - sorry <=P Bwithh 22:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The WIF website contains very little verifiable data, and looks like a front. The activities of Drdavidhill, who may or may not be Dr David Hill, on this wiki do little to enhance the reputation of WIF, whch appears to be a figment of one man's imagination. Greglocock 13:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the nature of this organization. It is extremely unusual that an organization in operation since 1992 and claiming membership of thousands of scientists and dozens of Nobel Laureates does not show up in newspaper archive searches except in the form of scientists accepting new memberships. --Allen3 ^talk 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen3. Looks like a quite elaborate hoax. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but I saw nothing to disprove that. Duja 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles as lacking verifiable, reliable sources. I removed a lot of Drdavidhill's spam from other articles, and all of it seemed to be an attempt at promotion. Wmahan . 14:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] There are all links to academics who accepted fellowship. I think this should be considered as while I have my own opinion, apparently if its a hoax is scope is in fact epic. If you search google, there are hundreds of such entries, is everyone suckered and we at Wikipedia discovered the truth? Perhaps the group is just inactive or not public. --NuclearUmpf 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by the the comments on the WIF site's letters page [50]: the WIF appears to send out large numbers of letters to academics, offering them honorary fellowships, and academics write back to say thank you, they'd be honoured to accept. As one commenter on WP:AN notes, the Unification Church is well known for this kind of activity. Now, if these academics have done more than just reply politely to letters offering them an honour, and perhaps release a press release that they were being recognized by such an honour -- for example, if they had attended committee meetings or conferences held by the WIF -- I'd be much more inclined to accept at least some of the WIF's claims. However, I think the burden of proof lies with the WIF to demonstrate this. -- The Anome 15:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Personally I never suspected the organization of being an outright hoax; as others have pointed out, there is evidence it's real. But merely existing isn't enough. I've yet to see any verifiable evidence that the organization is notable, and I think it's telling that the only person who has added information about the organization seems to be trying to promote it. Wmahan . 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to be clear, the original criterion identified for the deletion of the article was that it was not verified information. Are we now adding that the subject is not notable?Risker 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The issues aren't completely separate: I think the claim that the organization exists is verifiable, but the claims that it's notable aren't (for example, there's no source for "it can count on the individual and collective support of...87 Nobel Laureates"). What criteria others use is up to them. Wmahan . 17:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If it exists as claimed in the article, complete with its Swiss foundation and planned global research city on its way, then it is certainly notable, and the article should be kept. If it turns out to be one man with a letterhead and big dreams, then it probably isn't. -- The Anome 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little unclear as to how the WIF is supposed to come up with proof of its existence, when the primary editor of this article has been blocked from contributing because of the linkspam issue noted above. The person who is in the best position to provide the evidence is not able to contribute. Messages were left on his talk page about link spamming (not verifiability), and there are no comments to the article's talk page expressing concerns about verifiability. Risker 15:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is actually false, the burden of proof is not on the organizations as most do not post here. To say they are not notable after apparently information saying they are, means the burden of proof is on the accuser. You can do a google search some people list it as their highest honor and there are speeches WIF members gave, though I am sure they are known for more then that. Also our lack of ability to google their conferences, does not mean they do not take place. While I personally do not believe they exist, the "proof" says otherwise. As I stated on AN/I perhaps its best to contact some of the prestigious members and find out if this is a hoax, but I do think that more info needs to be rounded up before Wikipedia denounces it a hoax. What a black eye it would be if they are real and Wikipedia called such a group fake. Perhaps Arbcom or some legal aspect of Wikipedia should investigate this. --NuclearUmpf 16:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not about proving them fake; rather, it is about proving their assertions to be real. The burden of proof for a positive assertion is always on the person making the assertion, in this case, the original writer of the article, who, at least on the face of it, appears to be a representative of the WIF. Otherwise, editors are put in the position of having to prove a negative. This is implicit in the verifiability policy. -- The Anome 16:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Proving something is ahoax isnt proving a negative, proving lots of sceintists are fooled is not proving a negative. I have given numerous links showing people belong to this group, their website speaks for itself as well. Its membership speaks for itself as well. If it exists, I think this AfD is not proper way to handle this and Arbcom or someone should put in some research time, or a phone call to them. --NuclearUmpf 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they're a hoax: rather, I'm looking for evidence that their assertions are true, as per WP:V This is all quite normal stuff: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, burden of proof lies with the proposer, etc. -- The Anome 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I've now unblocked User:Drdavidhill, and I've put a note on his userpage inviting him to comment on this AfD. I look forward to him providing independent evidence to support his claims. -- The Anome 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found enough references on academic websites to indicate that this is a genuine organisation [51] [52] [53] DJ Clayworth 16:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's certainly no doubt that there's an entity with a P.O. box in Huddersfield that writes letters to academics awarding them honorary fellowships, and that the academics in question accept these honours, and that their university issues a press release. But that is not necessarily a notable activity, as it can be engaged in by anyone with a laser printer and a pen. The question is whether the WIF exists as described in the article, Swiss charity, global research city plans and all. -- The Anome 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pending an investigation. i also do not believe we have enough information to call this a hoax. Per my own research and sources above and now DJ Clayworths. --NuclearUmpf 17:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per new evidence, hope this doesnt come back to bite Wikipedia. --NuclearUmpf 12:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is not a hoax, then the WP:CORP criteria apply. As such, all that we have are the organization's own web site, and all of the aforementioned news articles issued by universities and academics announcing that they've been awarded honourary fellowships. The news articles all contain pretty much exactly the same wording (e.. "has a worldwide membership of about 2,000, including some 60 Nobel Prize winners, provides independent consulting services to governments throughout the world on issues related to the development of science and technology") and are clearly re-prints and simple re-hashs of the organization's own blurb, not independent published works about the organization. As such, this organization does not satisfy the WP:CORP criteria, in that no sources exist outside of the organization's own autobiography and simple rehashes of its publicity blurb. Uncle G 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Anome, and the discussion at AN/I. As for "keep pending an investigation", firstly that's the wrong way round and secondly this is an investigation. It seems odd, to say the least, that there is no non-trivial reporting of this organisation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldnt call one editors possible research to be investigation. If this is a hoax then World Federation of Engineering Organizations are also fooled because they invited Dr Karle to be their keynote speaker on behalf of the WIF. Someone was able to contact this group it seems. --NuclearUmpf 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'm sure they can, and do, answer the phone at the number given, even if its phone and fax numbers also seem to be listed as being used by two small businesses run from a shop in Huddersfield. (see [54] and [55], scroll right, and [56], [57]: a Google search for "43 Lower Fitzwilliam Street" also yielda interesting results) I would not at all be surprised if the 88-year-old Dr Karle spoke on their behalf, when invited to do so: he appears to be a great and good man. The question is, again, are they, as stated, a globe-spanning organization with the active involvement of 3000 scientists, supported by a Swiss charitable foundation and with realistic prospects of building a $22 billion research city? -- The Anome 17:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at evidence at ANI, I'm rather convinced this is not what it seems. It may fall short of a 'hoax', per say, as the organization does exist, but in the same sense that a diploma mill is not a real institute of higher learning, this is not "multi-billion dollar global centre for scientific research." Public relations releases from universities mean nothing, as those PR departments at universities are vicious at taking whatever they can. As it stands currently, its a joke. Why are their offices and registrations in the UK, if they're based out of Sweden? Where's the past information and coverage about this organization? As Uncle G puts it, each of the pieces of 'news' have the same PR-style wording. Not only do I belive the subject is not notable, but in the end nearly all the claims are unverifiable and dubious. Plus, there's vanity involved. Last, where's these research centers that are supposedly all around the world? Burn it. It can be recreated when they finish laying the concrete foundations for most of the buildings in their $22b research city. Kevin_b_er 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete This is an entirely non-notable organization. If the organization sounds on the level and it doe not cost them anything - Academics will go "sure" to anything that they can put on a letterhead. Not sure what the endgame is but it's a paper organization. An international organization like that run out of that address in Hudderfield? That should have set the alarm bells ringing to start with. EDIT - the homemade website should have been another clue. --Charlesknight 19:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete as above. Exception: This hoax/crank/scam insitute may have been successful enough in promoting itself to merit keeping an article identifying it as a hoax/crank/scam institute.... Bwithh 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But our analysis that leads to the conclusion of hoax/crank/scam institute is original research in itself. The only purpose for it is that we identify it for what it is in order to delete it. Without reliable sources for denoting it as a hoax, it'd be original research to have it as an article about a hoax. --Kevin_b_er 00:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. — Dunc|☺ 22:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several sources carry press releases with next to no editorial review. It is not enough to establish claims of notability. Nor is our own experience here enough to break free from WP:OR. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPAM miserably. I am pretty convinced that this is a pretty elaborate scam and a hoax by Dr Hill, who set up this global foundation out of his back room, and who engineered its way to pass WP:ORG with notable associates by giving away worthless honorary memberships. Alexa rank is 20,000 leagues below the sea. Ohconfucius 05:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somewhere between hoax and vanity spam. The subject as presented in the article is completely unverifiable. Guy 12:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WIF seems to be a real entity on some level, and if there is independent evidence about its membership and activities, I'd support recreation. Even if it's a hoax, if it has indeed attracted so many Nobel prizewinners (most of them well into their twilight years, by the look of it), it would be a notable hoax. As it is, there is a vanishingly small amount of evidence about the organisation which does not come from its own website and "executive chairman". --ajn (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsbad grimple[edit]

Fails WP:V and WP:NEO. Doesn't appear to be in widespread currency - 129 Google results, and only 12 unique results (none of them from a reliable source). makomk 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only reference is to a joke news show and Urban dictionary, and shame on Urban dictionary for allowing this. DJ Clayworth 16:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there are pages on the dirty sanchez, the Cleveland steamer, the donkey punch, the rusty trombone, etc., then this equally stupid article should be kept. I also think it should be kept so that I'll have more ammunition when I begin my letter writing campaign to school superindendents advising them to ban Wikipedia in schools and even ban any citing of Wikipedia in school papers. Please don't ruin my fun. Billy Blythe 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - widespread usage not established. JASpencer 08:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of it, even in London, so not just U.S. usage.--Poetlister 16:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As somewhat of a newbie, I judge articles based not on what I think at all, and only according to (rather strict reading of) WP guidelines. Let me also preface the rest of this by saying I am far from a prude, and widely circulated many of the above listed phrases amongst friends back in the day, and in an attempt to see what human are capable of I have a library of some rather gross and disgusting images and videos which frankly don't disgust me anymore. So, coming upon this article I did first what I usually do: read the appropriate guidelines, in this case WP:NEO. To judge a neologism on whether you've heard of it seems to suggest you haven't read WP:NEO lately. What are these guidleines for if arguments are made which ignore them? In spite on what I've read on the other sexual neologism debates, I think they, too, still fail WP:NEO miserably, and suggest another debate on the merits of them at all. Guyanakoolaid 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, but remember the steamer. Remember the Dirty Sanchez. Read the AfD's for those. The Cleveland steamer was even taken to DRV by an admin after it was kept, an unprecedented move at the time, as DRV was at that time only for appeals on deleted articles. No one seems to want to hear debate on this type of article anymore. It's apparently been discussed to death. The only solution I can see is to keep things like the Carlsbad grimple to set a low bar for inclusion for sex moves. Then, every silly sex move from Urban Dictionary will be copied over into Wikipedia and someone higher up than I will be compelled to do something about it in the form of a policy. Poetlister's vote is valid as it is clearly based on WP:IAR, an old policy. People love the Grimple, man, so don't fight it. Billy Blythe 23:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really didn't want to, but keep. It's a well-known term, well-known enough to make The Daily Show. Sigh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Delacroix[edit]

Look, I love me some System Shock 2 as much as the next old school computer gamer, but having individual pages on characters who just appear in log messages in the game is (a) too spoilerish and (b) too fancrufty. It's fine to mention the notable characters in the main System Shock 2 article. It's over the top to have this in its own article. Nandesuka 15:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this AfD to apply to Anatoly Korenchkin, also. Nandesuka 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well to a certain extent I agree with you, even though I was the one who originally made this page. It isn't really enough info for an individual page. However, I don't think it should be deleted outright, rather it should be merged into another SS2 related article such as the Trioptimum article. Deleting it seems a little harsh in my estimation. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 03:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Let me add, I think merging is a bad idea: the name is relatively common and a redirect to an article not about her would be confusing. Mango juice^talk 13:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging anything useful to System Shock 2. DJ Clayworth 16:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Charactcruft, merge anything usefull to System SHock 2. SirFozzie 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I still don't see why these articles ( Marie Delacroix and Anatoly Korenchkin) should be completely deleted as they do contain some good info in my opinion. Also, if "Marie Delacroix" is such a very common name, why is their no other article with that title at this point, with "Delacroix" redirecting to Eugene Delacroix? They should be merged into the TriOptimum Corporation page under a "notable employees" section. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does seem like rather excess fancruft. Please note that 'delete and merge' is not an option- merging requires the history to be preserved. Petros471 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odious[edit]

An article on this band was previously deleted as a result of discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odious. It appears that nothing has changed since then. I could have speedied it as a recreation of deleted content, or as a nonnotable band... however, I chose to bring it to AfD because repeated recreation of deleted content may be evidence for notability. I am not taking a stand one way or the other on that possibility, but I wanted to make sure it got a fair hearing. Powers ^T 13:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreleased demo tape, a self-released album, and an unsourced, unverified, unspecified "huge fan base" add up to failure to meet WP:MUSIC. Fan-1967 14:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DJ Clayworth 16:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 19:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, after considering arguments presented, not !vote numbers. Petros471 13:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Driving UK[edit]

Probably well-intentioned, ~~because some thought has gone in to categories and "see also" links~~, but this appears to be an advert for a website and may not be sufficiently notable. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Driving UK is a recongised road safety organisation in the UK and referenced in many places on the internet as the definitive resource for advanced driving information. The article will be expanded by ADUK members to bring together the knowledge on Advanced Driving gained from the site. Should the article be deleted there would also be such consideration of the deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Advanced_Motorists which is a blatent advert. Gerovitus 14:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot has its own wikipedia page! How is ADUK much different? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.30.198.101 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've struck out the comment about categories and links because I notice that it's lifted from another article (Institute of Advanced Motorists) – not saying that's a bad thing; merely that it loses the strength I'd assigned it in my first sentence. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote which part was lifted. You'll probably find the external links where modified on the IAM article in accordance with similar resources after the ADUK article was created. Gerovitus 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerovitus, please note that (as I said) I'm not suggesting anything bad has happened, merely choosing to retract a bit of my comment. But also: sorry! Because I see that you're absolutely correct, and I got it backwards about the fact that the "see also" (though not the categories) was new to the IAM article on September 5th. However, I stand by my point that however excellent the Advanced Driving UK website may be, (and I don't want to knock it as a site), it may not be notable enough for WP. The bottom line though is that the Institute of Advanced Motorists is different because it's a long-established registred Charity which does things in the physical world and is recognised by many insurance companies, which makes it notable. A website ought to be pretty special to be notable on Wikipedia. As has been noted below, Slashdot meets that criteria by having a very large number of users indeed. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADUK has links with one of the largest insurance broker's in the UK. The IAM qualification is only officially recognised by AON (IAM Select). The IAM's charity documents clearly show the IAM's commercial goals, they're article is an advert. Gerovitus 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would help the article's case then, to include those links with the insurance broker. And also, if you think the IAM article is an advert, that's not a defence of your article, it's a reason to change the IAM one, or nominate it for deletion also, surely? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment Kieran. Gerovitus 23:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable. (Comment on above comment: Slashdot is ranked in the top 40 most popular web sites on the Internet. Is this one?) JulesH 18:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable. Dave 19:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment on above comment: Ranked No.4 in Google and No. 1 in MSN for Advanced Driving above other Advanced Driving and Road Safety organisations http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=advanced+driving this makes it notable and an authoritive resource on the topic Gerovitus 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The AD-UK entry should remain, IMO. It's a very valuable resource for thos wishing to improve their driving and is well-subscribed by some very highly qualified road drivers who assist them in doing so. Given that there are entries in Wikipedia for such organisations as Sustrans and Transport 2000, there's no reason not to allow AD-UK to remain as an entry. They have ostensibly similar objectives although AD-UK is probably more practically oriented for drivers who wish to make a positive contribution to road safety in the here and now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.134 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 September 2006

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having read and taken on board the comments in defence of the article, I've tried giving it a bit of a cleanup, and crucially given it an opening sentence which defines what kind of a thing is being talked about – previously the article dived straight into prose, not in very clear Wikipedia style, and one was left unsure of the nature of the entity. It remains unstated whether it's a company, charity or unincorporated body. I've also toned down the number of times the name of the website is mentioned (with capital letters) which hopefully go towards making it all a bit more readable. The main problem with the article now is the number of unreferenced statistics and statements (i.e. "you can help" ;-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable or encyclopedic. --Peta 04:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leftwaffe[edit]

This is a non-notable neologism. There are 89 unique search engine results, none of which establish a reason for this term to be in this encyclopedia at the present time[58]. Deprodded after 4+ days by the creator, who saw fit to make no changes to the article and to make no comments as to why he felt it appropriate to save this article. Erechtheus 13:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neologism at best. Quite a few of the very small number of Ghits are actually misspellings of Luftwaffe, as in "The last cromwell alert was made on September 7th , 1940 when the Leftwaffe started bombing London..." and "...without the russian side the leftwaffe would have had a lot more aircraft over europe..." etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DJ Clayworth 16:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 19:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the creator has admitted making this term up on the talk page. Erechtheus 06:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day --141.156.232.179 21:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Davey[edit]

Claims notability but very few Ghits[59][60]. Speedy and prod tags deleted by author. -- TexMurphy 13:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found plenty. Not sure what the problem is. BWC is now in administration so file photos are not available at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpsejr (talk • contribs) (article creator)
Delete and add Davey Magill (essentially the same article) to nomination. I only found 78 Ghits for "Dead Davey", most unrelated. NawlinWiki 14:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia precedent on independent wrestlers.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, recreation of previously deleted and userfied article, CSD A7, CSD G4 -- The Anome 12:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin O'Brien[edit]

Vanity page and duplicate text from the user's page Janarius 14:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO by subject's own writeup. Erechtheus 14:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gives Vanispamcruftisement a Bad Name. --141.156.232.179 21:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:BIO criteria: arguably a candidate for speedy deletion for not asserting grounds for notability. -- The Anome 12:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- on reflection -- speedy deleting -- this is a duplicate of the previously userfied and deleted GavinO'Brien article. CSD A7, CSD G4 apply. -- The Anome 12:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India Students' Association Saskatoon[edit]

I prodded it, and it was de-prodded by article creator Raguks under the reasoning: ISA is one of the useful organisation. Many look for ISA to know oppurtunity in Canada. That is a sufficient notability. While it may be useful, so are lots of businesses that still fail WP:CORP. Even aside from questionable notability, this seems to be a fairly young student group; while they can't all be Skull and Bones, there doesn't seem to be enough history, notable alumni, etc. to compose a decent article with. If all the contact information and so on was removed from the article, we'd be stuck with a permanent 3-sentence stub. SnowFire 14:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN student club, complete with email addresses (!) and even phone numbers (!!). Gee, posting those doesn't seem like such a great idea to me, but what do I know? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Danny Lilithborne 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Article makes no claim to notability, is clearly a vanity (use of first person pronouns) and fails every possible test for encyclopedic worth. -- Chabuk 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Deet 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: There is the presumption of non-notability like the vast majority of student associations. Ohconfucius 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is that it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between an actually relevant organization who simply has a cruddy stub (like many genuinely relevant historical figures) and spam. If someone (preferably not me) is feeling bloodthirsty enough, Category:Students' unions seems a veritable hive of organizations of questionable notability. PSA RWTH, CODON (study association), and DESI Develop Empower Synergize India seems to be 3 for 3 in clicking random entries and finding articles of unclear importance. There are probably more in the national subdivisions, but at least for the US, there's a maze of similarly-named frats which are hard to differentiate, at least for me, and thus probably unsuitable for a mass deletion attempt. SnowFire 03:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Danity Kane (album). It was already done during the afd and EndlessVince seems to have commented on the album itself. Someone might look for the song so a redirect is better than deletion, but a supposed single that might be released next may won't make a good article by itself. - Bobet 15:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want It[edit]

Should either not be listed or should be in the group's own article Springnuts 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomangani ^talk 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this really is bad crystal ball stuff Nigel ^(Talk) 12:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Number 1 in the Billboard 200? If that's true, then it should be kept. --EndlessVince 04:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SecurStar[edit]

No claim of notability beyond an uncited magazine award. Delete per WP:CORP. Haakon 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine is already cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fvianna (talk • contribs) 07:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Advertising spam. SkipSmith 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - as it stands advertising Nigel ^(Talk) 12:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. The creators have been frequently inserting spammy links to their own products in other articles. I recomment keelhauling. VoiceOfReason 19:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven of Transnistria[edit]

Original research, "joke", hoax, WP:NPOV, WP:V. I'm not sure there is a policy this page doesn't violate. - FrancisTyers · 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data are sourced - there are links who prove the corectness of data from this article. So, there is no original research and no WP:V issue. Regarding WP:NPOV this is not a reason for deletion. In talk page of the article I agred to have a neutrality warning until the final version will be done.--MariusM 22:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep.--211.115.69.111 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit by banned user Bonaparte. —Khoi khoi 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. The creator of the article, EvilAlex has engaged in "vote stacking". [61] - FrancisTyers · 17:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — as nominator, of course - FrancisTyers · 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — None of the longtime active editors of Transnistria related subjects, including myself, are currently involved or willing to cleanup/improve it. Title alone shows anti-Transnistrian bias. - Mauco 14:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauco, is a misconception that you need to cleanup every single article about Transnistria from Wikipedia. There is place here for other opinions about Transnistria than yours. Maybe you have a longer period as Wikipedian, but I don't know if you have a longer life experience or a better knowledge about Transnistria than the contributors at this article.--MariusM 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. (Don't want to bait a troll). - Mauco 21:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is a very mild word in this instance. Badbilltucker 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep of course, great article, it is not finished et you could wait at list, what an attention EvilAlex 16:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Article is not yet finished, it will improve. Please join talk page for improvement proposals.--MariusM 17:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; utterly laughable - in an almost cute sort of way. Sandstein 18:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly written, political propaganda, crystalball. --Hús ö nd 19:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep.--211.115.69.100 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep.--211.115.69.111 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is forbidden the use of sock puppets for voting purposes. See WP:SOCK.--Hús ö nd 14:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. :-) —Khoi khoi 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Alex and Marius: this article reads like a non-encyclopedic essay. I read some articles in their online media and I know that it's composed mostly of false or misleading propaganda, but if you really want to write about this, do it in an encyclopedic way. You could write an article about Media in Transnistria, but please use reliable references for each major affirmation. Also, the usage of jokes, even related to the subject, in Wikipedia articles is not ok. :-) bogdan 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a delete or a keep? - Mauco 21:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Delete :-) bogdan 21:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The valid points of the article can be integrated in other sections, but having a satirical essay as an article is against Wikipedia policy. TSO1D 22:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Entry doesn't have notability, its subject is not autonomous, the NPOV breach is enormous, and there is no evidence of common sense in creating articles such as this one. And fast. Dahn 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep gee that was a fun, we should keep this one 172.141.141.2 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte. —Khoi khoi 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Propaganda. Resolute 05:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with reservations, namely that a few bits of the article may be worth salvaging and putting into different articles. Otherwise, notwithstanding my own low opinion of the Transnistrian authorities, this should go. Biruitorul 06:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously - the article is hopelessly pov, and, as TSO1D has noted, having a satirical essay as an article is against Wikipedia policy.--Aldux 11:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly written, anything legitimate can be put in the Transnistria article. PatGallacher 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MariusM placed a notice on Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board 18:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC) notifying people of this deletion and specifically requesting a keep vote. I notice that no one made a note of that here. - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It is possible that there is article potential here. I doubt this is the correct title, though, even if there is, and this is such a mess right now that I can't tell what in it might be preserving. Bogdan's Media in Transnistria idea might be a good way to rework some of this, but it needs to be NPOV, etc., like any other Wikipedia article. This reads like it was written with a poorly wielded dagger. Might be worth user-fying to mine it for anything substantive… if there is anything substantive, which is hard to tell. - Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. About as POV as it can ever get. No encyclopaedic value whatsoever either. -- int19h 06:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BTW: the joke actually has a long antecedence among Soviet dissidents. Jamason 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article most certainly needs some adjusting but there is an article potential there - no doubt. Jeorjika 14:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crack (craic)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article merely describes the usage and origins of the word, which are perfectly appropriate topics for a dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. Both spellings of the word are already in Wiktionary so no need to transwiki. Recury 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I was going to suggest a Merge/Redirect to Culture of Ireland but, per the information in the article itself, this would be far too simplistic. This seems to go sufficiently far past the point of being a dictionary definition. If there is an article on Whiskey in the Jar then there needs to be one on the craic. --IslaySolomon 15:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't go past an entry in a dictionary at all. It just gives the meaning, the usage and the word origin. Recury 16:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Either way, this is a cultural concept that is definitely notable enough to merit inclusion, but which cannot be covered adequately by any one existing article. The existing article may be far from perfect, but, in this case, deletion is not the answer. --IslaySolomon 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the issue here. This is an encyclopedia. WP:NOT is not a guideline, it's a policy, and it's not negotiable. Recury 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is negotiable in Wikipedia. In addition, the WP:NOT policy states: However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate. This is one of those special cases. If the current article is insufficient, then we need to expand it, not delete it. Jimgawn 12:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My goodness, we have a policy just for cases like that: WP:WINAD. Sandstein 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook dicdef: it merely lists all the meanings of the term. There may be an interesting cultural dimension to this slang term, but that is true of all words, and it certainly does not propel this article "sufficiently far past the point of being a dictionary definition." Allon Fambrizzi 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Delete and Redirect Fair enough, I suppose this can never be anything other than a glorified dictionary defintion, but it seems only fair to add a redirect to Culture of Ireland (or something similar) since this is a very searchable term. Also, if "craic" is going down, it should be taking "g'day" with it. --IslaySolomon 18:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should stay, in depth more explanitory than a simple dictionary entry, definite cultural value/extra info. User:Jozias
Keep Craic is more than a word meriting a dictionary entry, it is also a cultural concept whose understanding is key to a broader understanding of Irish conversation and culture. 84.203.136.85 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not rewritten. At present this is a dictionary entry. It probably could be rewritten as an encyclopedia article, but is not one at present. JASpencer 06:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly beyond a definition at this point, if only barely so. Needs some expansion, of course, but no less appropriate than dude. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 10:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a dictionary, agreed. Craic is wider than a dictionary definition, it is a cultural concept which I don't think has been explained in enough detail here. If someone Irish could expand on this a bit more, that would be great. It was of great help to me, having heard this used in a cultural concept so many times. The last use of this I heard was around how the wealthy Irish were taking over the English racing scene. The Irish were everywhere and the English complaint on the Irish was summed up as "craic seems to be nothing more than people saying how great the craic is". User:patrickfitzg
Keep per suggestions above. --Mal 14:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a valuable cultural concept. The content does not simply list the meanings: it discusses it. To remove it from the encyclopaedia would be comparable to deleting beer or zeitgeist. Jimgawn 12:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons as stated by Jimgawn et al. Snalwibma 15:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It's not merely a dictionary entry, but a cultural reference - Alison ^✍ 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but retitle Craic. This is a legitimate topic, and can be expanded beyond a dictionary definition.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current title, Crack (craic), is appropriate; Craic would perpetuate the misconception, which has arisen in the last 20 years or so, that the word was borrowed into English from Irish, when the reverse is the case. (Much more on this on the talk page.) Jimgawn 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category:Words, to which I've just added this, has quite a lot of articles. One point of interest is the spelling, which has been altered from crack to craic to look more authentically Irish. Just check out the talk page to see how contentious this is. I've added a bit more to the text, with references. There is more to be said about craic; I think it's already over the non-dictionary threshold. It would be churlish to delete it and insist any recreation sprang fully formed past the point the article is now at. BTW page-rename debates have also taken place on the page; that's a separate issue from the present one. jnestorius^(talk) 21:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete a passable dicdef (but WP:WINAD and why are the DOST/DSL missing anyway ?) to which has been added a fair bit of unsourced, made up stuff. Verifiable in the sense of being WP:NOT material only. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyadem International[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, non notable company, less than 1,000 Google hits (even less distinct ones of course), which isn't a lot for a software company Fram 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advert, no third-party source for any claim to notability Sandstein 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or every company in the world will want a Wikipage. - Pernambuco 19:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death life[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. The only site that confirms the band and their recordings exist is their own Blogger entry. Prolog 15:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article at least needs a bit of retranslation, unfortunamently, but nonetheless it does indeed fail WP:MUSIC so i'm afraid it's a Delete from me. Onebravemonkey | ^{blah blah blah} 15:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonnotable band Spearhead 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not in metal archives. --Neo139 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Spearhead. - Pernambuco 19:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable IronC hris | (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable --N R S ^T/_M\^B 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC, etc. RFerreira 04:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 17:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Push[edit]

individual plays are not notable, borderline WP:OR and fails WP:V in some parts, and clearly violates WP:NPOV, Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Individual plays can be notable. See The Play. SI.com has both of these on their list of greatest college football game plays. It does need to be written in a more NPOV and needs more sources (I added one before this AfD), but being poorly written isn't grounds for deletion. "Bush Push" + football gets 28,000 google hits as well. Furthermore, I have heard the term being used in NFL games by announcers when the ball carrier is pushed. VegaDark 23:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be cleaned up, but topic is very notable. This controversial play changed the landscape of the whole college football season in 2005. PDXblazers 01:35, 18 September 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, Mango juice^talk 15:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The results of the play are clearly notable, and the play itself was one of the key factors in those results. And, yes, I am an old USC guy, but not because of the football team. Badbilltucker 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be cleaned up and rewritten. WarpstarRider 22:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since I live in South Bend, the effect that the Bush Push had on the entire town was almost instantly noticeable. ShadowMan1od 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's awfully hard to argue that Sports Illustrated would fail WP:V... --Roninbk _{t c #} 07:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although the article requires cleanup, the topic is certainly notable and encyclopedic under all applicable Wikipedia standards, as well as any imaginable common-sense standard. If the only available options were Keep and Delete, I would vote Strong Keep. However, the game in which this play occurred is itself notable and encyclopedic, and as such, I would argue that this article should be merged with a newly created article about the game. Unlike The Play, The Catch, the Immaculate Reception, the Doug Flutie Hail Mary and other notable plays, the Bush Push was part of a game that will be remembered for much more than just that one play. The USC-Notre Dame game of October 15, 2005 is widely considered one of the best games in college football history (some would say the best, but it's probably too early to make that judgment), and it had two other plays/moments that were just as individually memorable/extraordinary as the Bush Push: the 4th-and-9 pass from Matt Leinart to Dwayne Jarrett, and the out-of-bounds fumble by Leinart which caused the Notre Dame student section to prematurely rush the field, thinking they'd won the game because the clock had prematurely run out. The Bush Push, of course, was the next play. But even beyond these three plays/moments, the whole game was extraordinary and notable. It was one of the most-hyped games in recent memory (for example, the Friday-night pep rally at Notre Dame Stadium was nationally televised), and yet amazingly, it managed to exceed the hype. The game also proved very significant to the overall 2005 college football season, as it allowed USC to remain undefeated and ultimately reach the national-title game; if the Irish had won, they might very well have reached the title game in the Trojans' stead, or else Penn State would have gone. Anyway, the game itself deserves an article, and the Bush Push should be a substantial segment of that article, and the Bush Push page should redirect to that article. 129.74.201.21 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the only available options are Keept and Delete, I would delete. The article, while covering a notable and encyclopedic topic, is not itself very encyclopedic. It is written with a sneer at Notre Dame. If an option is to rewrite it as objectively as possible, then by all means keep it. For example, "a well-known ploy" with respect to the green jerseys. That statement has little encyclopedic value. Also, the author is mistaken that "Irish partisans . . . roared with approval." Sure, they cheered for the team, but Irish fans in the stadium were generally apprehensive about the green jerseys. Anyway, what does all this talk about jerseys have to do with the play? It seems to serve the contributors purpose to simply mock and sneer at Notre Dame. I would keep the basic facts, but re-write it without any bias. I would also modify it so that all spelling errors are corrected ("rejoyced" anyone?).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burzukh[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Article suggests the band has released six recordings (demos), but Metal-Archives.com confirms only three of these. Nonetheless, the band is not notable enough. Prolog 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Spearhead 16:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mon. There are some notable black metal bands from pakistan, see Mizraab and Dusk--Neo139 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The band seems non-notable but for Pakistani black metal scene, it may well be notable. --N R S ^T/_M\^B 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herman's Cricket Ratings[edit]

Vanity, Not notable. Barring wikipedia and its mirrors, only gets his home page, a rankingsoftware.com link and a freedictionary link on google: [62] Richfife 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DJ Clayworth 16:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 19:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pernambuco 19:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and saltily deleted by Lucky 6.9. --Core des at talk! 17:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zippy (SWG)[edit]

Prod removed with the comment "This document should NOT be deleted. I verify that Zippy was a valid and major character on our server." Apparently, a character created by a gamer on one server of the SWG MMORPG, unknown outside that server. Fails WP:FICT and WP:WEB, whichever applies. Fan-1967 14:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nomination removed from the log by Tiveria - Yomangani ^talk 15:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was speedily deleted once before. I'm doing it again. One minor fanfic character does not an article make. - Lucky 6.9 16:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it's already been speedied. DJ Clayworth 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone and salted. Fan-1967 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sangertown Square[edit]

This article fails WP:CORP. Out of the 326 unique search hits, there is only one bit of coverage about the mall itself. Erechtheus 15:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; all indicates that this is a completely run-of-the mill mall. Sandstein 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence or even assertion of meeting WP:CORP. GRBerry 14:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamer's Quarter[edit]

Online gaming magazine that was the focus of one MTV news article a year ago. No other news coverage indicated, and thus fails WP:WEB (i.e., multiple non-trivial published works). Chock full o' vanity (creator has same username as the managing editor). -- Merope ^Talk 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Drat (Talk) 16:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Give it no quarter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon kingdom genealogy[edit]

Insofar as the article isn't incomplete original research, it appears to be based on anything but reliable sources. No doubt there's an encyclopedia article to be written on the claimed genealogies of Anglo-Saxon kings, and what those claims tell us - the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England has an article on Genealogies, Royal - but this isn't it nor does it contain any useful material for such an article. Apart from WP:NOR and WP:V issues, there's also no primary sources to consider. I suggest to delete but do not protect against recreation as this is a valid headword. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to sourced recreation per nom. On closer inspection, this looks rather like someone's WP:OR synthesis or copyvio of a book that appears to be widely considered to be pseudoscience. Sandstein 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was created by Wilmer T who was very early on WP, but was pushed away by more serious users, due to his knack for original research.--Berig 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nyac[edit]

Seems unnecessarily crufty. More of a Star Trek wiki thing than a Wikipedia thing.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A race that only appears in a fan fiction story? Delete If we listed all of those even Wikipedia would run out of space. DJ Clayworth 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. Fan fiction is non-notable unless discussed in multiple non-trivial third-party coverage. No indication that "Nyac" meets this requirement. Barno 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search on "Nyac" shows no relevant hits among the first thirty listings for various organizations. I didn't attempt to refine the search by eliminating all the different groups with this acronym, so there may be some web presence somewhere for this term, but I didn't see any evidence of notability. Barno 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vaporize it's fan fiction. It's gone. Danny Lilithborne 19:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Sandstein 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the entry for "National Youth Advocacy Coalition" and had "NYAC" re-direct to my article. I don't want to have this crufty stuff be confused at all with my NYAC, even with disambiguation.

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

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

The result was redirect to Hand Grenade. - Bobet 15:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Grenade[edit]

Article is non-notable by itself, and should probably be combined into an article encompassing all weapons from the video game. Propose delete and merge as such. --Dennisthe2 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Hand_grenade#Stun_grenades This is another name for the flashbang or stun grenade, a real-life weapon. (Don't merge the video game reference - it's not relevant; and don't create a list of weapons specific to this game - it'll just get afd'd as gamelistcruft). Here's some book references for the term - just ignore the fiction ones, there are some non-fiction books there too. Bwithh 17:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. There is a place for fictional sci-fi weapons, but fictional grenade variants are a bit too obscure to merit separate articles, especially when a notable real-life version exists. --Alan Au 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, it's a real thing 132.205.44.134 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Luna Santin as copyvio (WP:CSD A8) - Yomangani ^talk 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturna[edit]

notability not established; few related links found - CobaltBlueTony 17:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of [63]. --Alan Au 20:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Kapus[edit]

POV list of people with absolutely no criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I tagged it with cleanup and wikify tags, but looking at the history, there seems to be little chance of that ever happening. Core des at talk! 17:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; a jumbled unsourced mess that doesn't even tell us what a kapu is (ah, an Indian caste, and also a mess of an article), and at any rate WP:NOT a genealogy database. Sandstein 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this is not an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... cannot tell if they refer to Kapu (caste) or Kapu (Hawaiian), since the former links to the latter, which only confuses the issue. <sigh!> --141.156.232.179 22:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, attack page. NawlinWiki 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas O'Brien[edit]

There is a real Thomas O'Brien at Verizon, which is why it's heavily wikilinked (See what links here. This isn't him. I'm not sure if this qualifies as CSD G1 patent nonsense, which is why I brought it here. TransUtopian 17:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as {{db-attack}}, so tagged. Sandstein 20:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wounded duck[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. I asked at the discussion page of Ice Hockey first and no-one has indicated that they recognize the term. No reference found in Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GringoInChile (talk • contribs)

Delete: The term is a neologism that relates to more than just hockey and I can find no valid source for the quote used in the article for "notability". On top of that, the article has a hoax fact that the term is somehow related to the "knucklepuck" shot from the Mighty Ducks movie(s) (a "wounded duck" has no power behind it and flobs to its target, like a tipped pass in football; the knucklepuck takes an erratic flight similar to a knuckleball pitch, due to intentional end-over-end rotation of the puck). ju66l3r 17:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've heard the term used (very rarely) to describe a wobbly or errant pass in football; certainly not in hockey, to which the article alludes. Even with that there are just a handful of G-hits, and far more in terms of sportswriters fishing for turns of phrase less banal than usual than for a catchphrase the public might find recognizable. RGTraynor 23:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have never heard this term used in my 23 years of hockey fandom. Resolute 05:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McMahonism[edit]

Previously nominated a few months ago resulting to no consensus. This article is fancruft and over-emphasising a WWE storyline that really isn't that notable for Wikipedia and lasted only a good few weeks before the McMahon/Michaels feud evolved away from religion. Oakster ^(Talk) 17:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CRUFT. -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}
Delete Very minor storyline. Darren Jowalsen 19:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Storyline's over, no notability otherwise, Cruft indeed. SirFozzie 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still say it's religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vince McMahon. VegaDark 20:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Vince McMahon MrMurph101 21:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like we'll get consensus this time. YechielMan 02:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as annoying pointless storyline. (Can we delete the part of Vince's brain that thinks this stuff is good TV, too?) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Gawd, I wish... --Roninbk _{t c #} 08:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft. Adamkik 08:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and merge somewhere else. I can understand the NC vote while the storyline was current. Now that it's run its course, it probably deserves a mention on a history page at the most. --Roninbk _{t c #} 08:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while wrestling storylines (Invasion) or gimmicks (Gobbledygooker) may be notable, individual parts of storylines, gimmicks, and other miscellaneous kayfabe (to which this is) are not. kelvSYC 19:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Gotshall I[edit]

Delete. Subject is not notable per the guidelines of WP:BIO. ^{[Check Google hits]} Search for only "Brad Gotshall" brings up 25 Google hits; "Destish" shows 60, none of which have to do with a media company. I don't really know what this article is supposed to be. I tagged it as a prod, and the article author removed it.... discospinster _talk 19:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, obvious schoolboy hoax. Sandstein 20:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... at least until Destish Media becomes notable, or is does his company fail WP:NFT? --141.156.232.179 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golftec[edit]

Delete Company fails the WP:CORP guideline. Article reads like an advert. Was speedy deleted once before and has remained unimproved for six months, with no additional evidence of notability despite appropriate tags Gwernol 19:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sandstein 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Avery[edit]

Non notable conspiracy theorist. All the relevant information has been merged into the Loose Change (video) article. Peephole 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's only claims of notability come from the subject's own PR maneuvers. --Aaron 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Tbeatty 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article has been redirected and merged so many times, both to Louder than Words and Loose Change (video) that I am convinced there is nothing regarding Dylan Avery that can't be better covered in another article.--Rosicrucian 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom GabrielF 00:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and permanently protect so that Dylan Avery cannot recreate the article. Fails WP:BIO and is WP:VAIN. Morton devonshire 00:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think I'm him? I found this, and it seemed very bizarre that there was no article and it was redirected off. Does 4-5 (at least) news sources count as notable for a stub? · XP · 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of the articles is specifically about him, so no they don't count. He has also produced only one film. Not enough to warrant his own article and everything is already merged with the Loose Change article.--Peephole 01:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ...why delete, if he keeps getting cited as a notable film maker in a variety of notable international media? · XP · 00:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment because the entirety of his article can easily exist as a subsection of Loose Change (video), his only film, which he has only shown inclination of revising endlessly. He has directed one film. Why should he have an article seperate from said film? Where is his notability independent of it?--Rosicrucian 02:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revise: Have an admin redirect to the movie article, and all all the new/complete info that one, which will make that article fully notable then as well--closing admin can redirect/protect this one then and just Keep on the other. Good idea, keeps the content in an appropriate manner entirely! · XP · 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this can be better put into the movie article. ALKIVAR™ 04:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revise I agree with XP. -- Craigtalbert 06:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revise/Merge Information can be put to use in another article --JRA WestyQld2 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Sandy 01:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Loose Change, Derktar 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete nn.--MONGO 05:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Loose Change (video). Much of the pertinent information is already there, but best to preserve the article history if there is anything more to be merged. --bainer (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Crockspot 16:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dylan is mentioned in the Loose Change article, with that video his only claim to notability. Mentioning him in the video article suffices. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aude. CWC(talk) 07:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revise as per XP. Ok if it's not worth an article, but I hate to throw good information to the garbage when so many people die of ignorance.--SidiLemine 13:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Better merged with the movie article. Don't put all this information to waste!
Delete Avery is already covered in plenty of detail in the Loose Change (video) article Jon m
Delete This article is biased and was written by the subject and/or subject's "fanbase". It opens up irrelevant material on an otherwise credible site to the public and should be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.164.114.161 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Loose Change (video). (The merge suggested by bainer has apparently already been done, although it may violate GFDL. If Delete would violate GFDL, then Redirect.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect (protected) per nom. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge For now, he's not too notable by himself, but this info is definetely useful on the movie page. ArgentiumOutlaw 08:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant per Loose Change (video), and even that is of questionable merit. Guy 10:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 15:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Lee[edit]

Non notable artist bio, fails WP:BIO. Article link kindly added by author of article shows that she has gotten a solo exhibition at the art centre of a colleague-alumnus, and the article is from her school as well, in a series about recent alumni. No outside reviews, awards, works in musea or major exhibitions, ... She may become notable, but for now, she is just one of many debuting artists. Fram 19:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Hello32020 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:VSCA --141.156.232.179 22:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Glen 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Vs Star Wars[edit]

nn mod, misleading title Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also no sources. Hello32020 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the title could be fixed, the article sadly cannot. Non-notable game mod. Gwernol 19:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- will fix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phasertech (talk • contribs) 2006-09-20 19:33:37
Merge with Star Trek Armada if additional sources can confirm the claims made by the author. --Cs007 ^(talk) 19:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC) this is the best mod for this game[reply]
- This isn't exactly my specialty but isn't nominating an article for deletion 1 minute after it being created considered to be overkill ? I still believe that the content should rather be merged with the Star Trek Armada article --Cs007 ^(talk) 19:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't 1 minute. It was 38 seconds. Yes, that is somewhat extreme. Uncle G 19:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
go to armadafleetcommand.com there is the best mod center for Armada plz leave this up i know it is a little shabby right now but i will get to fixing it up when i have the time!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phasertech (talk • contribs) .
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 19:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- what do you mean by "per nomination" do you just go around and delete anything you nominate?! of so, pardon my speech but you are idiots. you don't just delete a page just 'cause you want to! that's just not right! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phasertech (talk • contribs) .
  - He means he agress with the nomination's reason for proposing deletion, i.e. that this is a non-notable game mode. Please remain civil when commenting here and do not resort to personal attacks. Thank you, Gwernol 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Glossary#P. Uncle G 19:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Game mods can be notable. But a redirect to Star Trek versus Star Wars would certainly be better than deletion. -LtNOWIS 01:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, game mods are rarely notable enough for articles. Recury 18:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some game mods don't even get mentioned in the article. (For example, European Air War makes no mention of the very popular SWOTL mod.) --141.156.232.179 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Songs that start with telephone sounds[edit]

Prod removed because someone disagreed that this should be deleted without discussion, so listing now. My main concern with this article is that there is nothing special about songs that start with telephone sounds. If this is kept it opens the door for Songs that start with burping noises, Songs that start with baboons arguing, and Songs that start with with someone saying the word banana. In other words, it opens the door for a list of songs that start with ANYTHING, a potentially endless amount of lists. My other concern was that this list was entirely unsourced, however the person who removed the prod added a couple sources for individual songs. The vast majority still isn't sourced. WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. VegaDark 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ezeu 20:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft of list Danny Lilithborne 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all lists of type "List of [generic thing] with [generic feature]". Sandstein 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ezeu. Geedubber 04:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This serves no encyclopaedic purpose. GassyGuy 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's an interesting list, bearing in mind the surprising number of songs for which this quite specific criteria is true. I don't see why it can't remain. Additionally, I disagree about it being unsourced. The primary source is implicit in the content - all you need to do to verify whether a particular song meets the criteria is to listen to the song in question! That's a better source than anything written about a particular song. --David Edgar 17:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Purge!i vote delete per WP:NOT !paradigm! 21:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)!paradigm![reply]
Delete per nom Guyanakoolaid 09:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wagflation[edit]

Was proposed for deletion as a neologism and original research. The OR is gone but it is still a protologism per the zero ghits for the word wagflation. WP:NOT applies. Delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 20:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, as far as I am concerned, no sources and zero ghits are a huge neon sign that says "Original research". Sandstein 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like OR to me. YechielMan 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Richard 07:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any hints on where I could present this if it is considered OR? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.137.119 (talk • contribs)
- You could try one of several economics journals. Uncle G 15:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. JASpencer 10:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about laziness[edit]

Listcruft, indiscriminate collection of information. Subjective and ambiguous, most of the listed songs are really not about laziness, but about resting, sleeping, boredom or temporal idleness, and many merely include the word "lazy" in the title or in the lyrics. Ezeu 19:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs that start with telephone sounds and it's entirely unsourced. VegaDark 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or create List of songs about hard work to counterbalance. Danny Lilithborne 20:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sandstein 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 16:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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~~. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A DRV consensus has overturned the previous closure unanimously, resulting in a deletion of the article. [64] Xoloz 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Party System[edit]

Article was prodded, but author deprodded for consistency with First to Sixth Party System. It looks to me as if the whole range is fairly unnotable, but that the use of the terms declines dramatically to the end of the range, making the article Seventh Party System a case of WP:OR. Seventh Party System gets 10 distinct Google hits, which is terribly low for something that only started in 1994. Of these links, at least this one[65] lets the seventh start in 2000 at the earliest. This article[66] only agrees on the first five (which are not up for deletion), and sees the outlines of a seventh system only in 1996. So we have very few references for a seventh party system, and the few we have disagree seriously. This makes the concept non notable and the article WP:OR or at least not according to WP:NPOV and hard to WP:V. By the way, we even have only 59 distinct Google hits for the Sixth Party System, so the whole concept seems to be a bit out of fashion... Fram 19:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJS in xyr dissertation (TJS (2003-11-17). "OntarioElectionStudy" (Microsoft Word). Duke University. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)) says "a debate rages as to whether the United States is in its sixth or even seventh party system" and cites Aldrich. Aldrich (John H. Aldrich (1999). "Political Parties in a Critical Era". American Politics Research. 27 (1). SAGE Publications: 9–32. doi:10.1177/1532673X99027001003.), in xyr turn, merely argues (writing in 1999) that we "should be reaching the end of the consequent sixth party system". U.S. political historians don't appear to yet agree that the seventh party system has yet come to be. Uncle G 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Aldrich makes up at least 2 of the 10 links I found regarding the 7th PS. Umm, Uncle G, was that a Keep, a Delete, or just a helpful comment (which is of course welcome)? Fram 20:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say we Keep this article. I surely agree that there may be disagreement as to when the Seventh began, but that point is worthy of noting in the article itself. It certainly isn't a valid reason or point to delete the article. If you feel the whole range is unnotable, perhaps the proposal to delete should be the whole range, not just one part of it. In fact by selectively deleting only this one portion, it would leave the reader confused as to the missing time frame (that you propose to delete.) I don't believe there would be much support at all to delete the entire range, as it is a scholarly term and subject much studied. As far as google hits, many somewhat abstract scholarly discussions will not find a wide discourse in general society. That surely is no reason to delete from wikipedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter. (You will find many topics with articles in wikipedia that are far less scholarly or otherwise used than this, and they too are worthy of maintaining inclusion.) Wikipedia has no requirements as far as numerical google hits.

I hope my comments help with some context as to the need for this article, as part of the series.

Sincerely, Josephf 21:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note, being that we were discussing google results, John H. Aldrich of Duke University is one of the scholars as far back as in 1997 (in Political Science Quarterly, see [67] ) made the polical science observation that we are currently in the Seventh Party System.

Delete Non-historical, nonreferenced. Just because some poly sci wonks have speculated about a seventh party realignment, it does not mean it should be presented as a scholarly consensus, as this article appears to do. From a practical standpoint, the article makes no argument for any great sea change in the parties in 1994, only that the Republicans took control of the Congress in that year. I don't see why the "Seventh Party System" would not have begun in 1980 ("Reagan Revolution"; "Reagan coalition" controls Congress) or 1972 (Nixon Landslide, effective death of '60s-style big government liberalism). Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

Allon, I think you would be better suited to suggest the article be updated to clarify your points, rather than delete the article in its entirety. Certainly it has historical value, and we have some references in this discussion (see above) that ought to be included in the article itself. As far as scholarly consensus is concerned, we could discuss in the article any scholarly disagreements as to the timeframe of the Seventh, when it began, when the Sixth ended, etc. In 1994 the Congress became Republican for the first time in 40 (fourty) years.) That it seems is quite a sea change. It certainly is a strong argument for the scholars who classify the Seventh beginning in 1994. In any event, these points ought to be mentioned in the article. (Hence the reason why the article is currently classified as a 'stub'.) 169.132.18.248 14:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the term is only used by very few authors, and even those disagree on when and how. What makes "seventh party system" notable? Being the logical next after "sixth" is no argument,a we could then just create "eigth", "ninth" and "tenth" as well. e should have articlse on scientific terms that are widely used in their speciality, but it looks like "seventh party system" is not widely used at all and is rather obscure. When it gets more mainstream (at least to the level of "fifth party system", although even fourth and fifth party system are still pretty obscure), then an article would be warranted. Now, it seems that only very few authors / scholars use the term, while mainstream politicologists / historians don't use this classification, certainly not for recent times. Fram 15:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, As mentioned previously, your argument then should be do delete the Sixth Party System as well, not just the Seventh. Now your saying even the 4th & 5th are "pretty obscure" (in your words), it seems you are arguing to delete the whole series. Are you planning to propose to delete this series piecemeal, one by one? I don't think there is the rough consensus needed for that.

Sincerely, Joseph 15:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:NOR and WP:NFT --141.156.232.179 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia's afd policy is not to count anonymous votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyqazqaz (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 September 2006

Stong Keep It should have a citation needed remark maybe, not delete. Give it some more time to get the references. If you delete because its an obscure scientific term, you'll delete 50% of Wikipedia scientific articles, since most scientific articles are obscure to non specialists (political science and other sciences.) Qwertyqazqaz 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this one is obscure inside its speciality. Fram 05:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion has gotten off track. The argument isn't that this is an obscure poly sci term, but that to the extent political scientists have spoken of this term it has been speculative. This article passes it off as common wisdom that there was a party realignment in 1994-- which it isn't-- and does so completely absent of sourcing. Now, if someone were to add sources to the article, that would be a VERY different situation. The point is, as it is written the article is very misleading; there is no consensus or even substantial academic support that I know of for the idea that a new party system began in 1994. Allon Fambrizzi 23:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

Weak Delete for now. No common usage established. JASpencer 10:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Allow time for additional stuff--references,etc. The Sixth article is no more informative than the seventh. Both are listed as stubs. Since poli scientists to a certain extent use both, allow discussion of who agrees with it and who not in the article itself. Homehouse 00:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is 3 Keeps and 2 Deletes (not counting an anonymous vote.) Can we remove the tag from the article? (There seems to be a strong argument for maintenance and at best there is no rough consensus to remove.) Joseph 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEGERDEMAIN[edit]

Self-published book. Author removed speedy tag and is likely to remove prod tag. Plus, I kind of doubt this is the only book on Amelia Earhart's disappearance, as asserted. NawlinWiki 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Magic (illusion) or Sleight of hand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The remark of the above party is a very 'anti-book' remark. Most of the best writers have started out by self publishing. "A good book is a good book--regardless of who printed it" is my motto.

LEGERDEMAIN is a fully, legally published book, which is, indeed, the only non-theory book ever published on the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. It has been featured repeatedly at the Amelia Earhart Festival in Atchison, KS and is drawing increasing attention. It represents a step forward in collecting and correlating the knowledge on this subject. The party who posted the complaint should get a copy of the book and check it out before lodging complaints. --David K. Bowman, wikiman999

Comment: Wikipedia is not a billboard or a place to self-promote. Find other channels of advertising. --Dennisthe2 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT for promotion of self-published books. Note that the editor advocating keeping the article is also the book's author. Wikipedia is also not for acting out this guy's motto; instead see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No evidence of external notability cited. Barno 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Andrew Lenahan. I also doubt the author's claims. Danny Lilithborne 20:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. Maybe worth a mention in the Amelia Earhart article if claims of "only non-theory book ever published" can be verified, but otherwise this is a classic case of WP:VANITY. --Alan Au 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - see other vanity edits made by Wikiman999 (talk · contribs) in his contributions. -- 12.106.111.10 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity --Charlesknight 22:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a single mention of "Legerdemain" on the page of Amelia Earhart. If the book were that notable, it should have been mentioned as a reference. This is just an advertisement in capital letters for a new book. At best, it could be redirected into Earhart's page, but I don't recommend that either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 September 2006

Comment The author Wikiman999 has already tried to add his book to the References on the Amelia Earhart page. (WP:BEANS at work?) --72.75.117.73 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the quality of the book or its content, the book does not appear to be notable, based on either significant press attention or verifiable sales. Fan-1967 17:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Sleight of Hand, and protect the article. --Dennisthe2 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Hurt[edit]

just lyrics Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop its breathing and slit its throat, it must be Deleted Danny Lilithborne 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio from whoever wrote this (and no, I didn't mark it as such, one deletion process at a time, please...) Sandstein 20:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I searched Google for the first stanza and couldn't find anything; it may be an original work by the author. Danny Lilithborne 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anyway. Punkmorten 20:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have tried speedying it as {{nocontext}}. Regardless, it gives zero information about what "Your Hurt" is or why it is notable. GassyGuy 10:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. =) --Dennisthe2 19:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 15:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slugfets 20-04[edit]

nn-game Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 20:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MLB Slugfest Series, not that I think that article is notable, but whatever. Sandstein 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Misspelled no need to redirect.--Team6and7 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly created page. BlueValour 02:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per BlueValour. It's badly written, unimportant, and too short to have its own article. --EndlessVince 04:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Rennison[edit]

Nonnotable British child stage actress; article asserts some press coverage so probably not speediable (and speedy tag removed by author anyway). NawlinWiki 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think she is an amazing actress i saw her playing Dracula's girl in the palladium and loved it. I saw on google that she had got into acting and got through into The journey to the moon. She is inspiring dont delete it please— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotbabe109 (talk • contribs)

Delete as per nom. Sorry, but she is not encyclopedically notable. If you want to put a fan page about her, I'd suggest getting a free webpage on a free webhost (Wikipedia is not this kind of site). (Aside: you'd think Dracula was a kind of too adult a theme for seven year old ballet dancers but anyway....) Bwithh 20:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A Google search for "Sally Rennison" actress gets no hits, so that one newspaper article was probably her only 15 minutes of fame. The webpage resumé also only lists school productions, etc. A far cry from meeting WP:BIO. Sandstein 20:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the one who speedied this, because a single newspaper reference to an amateur performance six years ago does not, in my book, constitute an assertion of significance or importance. She may be wonderful, and I wish her well, but doesn't meet the threshold of notability just yet. --Pleather 21:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeesh... YechielMan 02:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a blatant WP:COPYVIO ... the bulk of it is an extract from that 2000-09-21 newpaper article]!! (The last two links on the page lead to ISP mirrors and have no information about her.) --72.75.117.73 18:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Communication Processor[edit]

Duplicated at Uniform Communication Processor chip.

A self-evident hoax: both "Uniform Communication Processor" and "Ono-Sendati" get zero Google hits (well, apart from one dead matchmaking webpage, oddly enough). The PROD was deleted immediately, of course. WP:V, WP:NOT etc. apply. Sandstein 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax that mixes in just enough truth from Unified Communications and Trusted Platform Module to appear credible. Delete. Uncle G 21:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Feingold[edit]

This young man who started a record company has absolutely no evidence of notability given in the article File Éireann 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Prod removed without comment, article appears to be vanity/advertisement, may be confused with Kenneth Feingold. --Alan Au 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I speedied this... oh, wait, I did. Theres no real assertion of notability. I'm speedying it again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kenneth Feingold, not notable per nom. Sandstein 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Kenneth feingold it is Ken Feingold two differnt DOB's and bio's. People can have the same names you know its not a crime.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.244.42.102 (talk • contribs) .

Delete: I went to www.tripleplatinumrecordsandentertainment.com (an assertion of notability made here, NOT in the article itself), and it bounced me to something called "Esterman Entertainment", a company which seems to have several celebrity clients. What it does not have, however, is an indication that the company is owned by anyone other than Chuck Esterman. I can find no references to Mr. Feingold. But even if this assertion can be proven, that does not itself connote notability. The film and music industry are filled with agents who have one connection or another to someone famous. That doesn't make them famous themselves. Pleather 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, they are different people, the first of which is notable while the second one doesn't seem to be. At best, should redirect to the more notable one with a disambiguation link to the other. --Alan Au 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable person, not every entrepreneuer is notable enough for WP article. Signature ^brendel 21:21, 20 September 2006

Speedy Delete nnbio per Pleather. Danny Lilithborne 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hill[edit]

hoax article created by Flinders, a known sockpuppet of Mattisse. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd) -999 (Talk) 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable even if a real person. -999 (Talk) 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 999. Sandstein 20:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't really matter whether this is a hoax, it's an easy A7/BLP delete anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Andrew Lenahan. Danny Lilithborne 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 999 and Andrew Lenahan. Also delete redirect Ann Hill. —Hanuman Das 02:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 15:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vision Serpents and associated pages[edit]

Three articles relating to a local band from Buffalo, New York (the band, an unreleased "album", and a list of also unreleased songs). The "album" appears to refer to a performance they did on a local college radio show; I suppose it may have been recorded, but any recording isn't even available on their website. As mentioned, the band has a website, as well as a MySpace page, and their gigs are posted on setlist.com, but that's about it. They have not achieved any of the indicators of notability commonly used for musical groups. The articles are orphans with no other links from elsewhere in Wikipedia. They appear to have been created by a group member (some of the text is a copy of what appears on their MySpace page), and there's an absence of sources aside from what they're saying about themselves. --Michael Snow 20:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom's extensive research. appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Haven't released any albums, no hits, no evidence of tours other than a few gigs in and around upstate NY. Ohconfucius 05:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 16:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Prolog 13:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan[edit]

The article violates wikipedia's cardinal content policy of verifiability. Moreover it is also a duplicate of the Waziristan accord but with the twist that a newly coined term i.e. 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan' has been used in order to give the uninformed reader the illusion that there is some newly formed independent state which has been set up in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that the tribal areas or FATA have always been out of the bounds of the central government and even though the Waziristan accord binds the government to remove newly constructed security check points in the region; it does not call for the total withdrawl of government presence and creation of some separate state, as has been implied here. As such this article is a total work of fiction and is based on false foundations. The references are weak, to say the least, and thus this article needs to be removed. Red aRRow 20:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment The only reference, out of all the neutral references provided, which even mentions (and very briefly) this fictitious term of the 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan' is the one from Newsweek. All the other references are about the Waziristan accord or its ramifications. I won't comment on the Press Trust of India report as it is an Indian goverment mouthpiece and does not fall into the sphere of a neutral source when it comes to topics pertaining to Pakistan. Thus just writing up a new wikipedia article based on a term which has only been mentioned by one news outlet in only one of their reports is, in my opinion, not something which can be called a verifiable piece and hence will go against wikipedia's verifiability policy according to my judgement. Red aRRow 10:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:V and WP:NEO. As of now, the usage of this neologism seems to be limited to warblogs and such, whatever it may actually be intended to mean. The lenghty navel-gazing on this article being taken at face value by some confused reporter also violates WP:ASR. As of now, all of this probably warrants a brief mention in Waziristan or related articles, but the article may be recreated if this term comes into mainstream use (or once such a state is actually founded, of course). Sandstein 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak delete; the Newsweek article uses this term as the name these guys have allegedly given to their "state", but one media mention probably isn't enough. I still think this doesn't warrant its own article yet, but should be monitored further. Sandstein 21:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This looks like a borderline case. YechielMan 02:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The article is not backed by any real fact and has not been reported by any media worldwide (spsrt from people quoting the article). The peice dis-credits wikipedia as a source of relaible information. 82.31.151.203 13:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the phrase is mentioned in a Newsweek article that does not cite Wikipedia:"The tribal militants call themselves "Pakistani Taliban," or members of a newly coined and loosely knit entity, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan."[68] Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Despite Red aRRow’s unsupported assertion, this article does violate the principle of verifiability. Quite the contrary; the article is rather well footnoted. Red aRRow need only refer to footnotes one and two to verify the article’s introduction. As such, Red aRRow’s insertion of verification needed edit is clearly erroneous and borders on vandalism (as does the entire attempt to delete this article). The fact that a publication has printed facts which contradict an official state policy (of any government) does not render that publication irreputable.

Second, Red aRRow’s assertion that this article “is also a duplicate of the Waziristan accord” is simply incorrect. One need only compare the two articles—both their content and their citations—to discern the difference. However, one correction should be noted with respect to the article and the term “Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.” The author of the article states that "The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is the name given by some commentators to an area of Waziristan, Pakistan that they say gained de facto recognition from the Government of Pakistan on September 5, 2006 as a result of negotiations between Islamabad and local tribesmen to end the undeclared Waziristan War.” (Emphasis added.) Actually, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is not what “some commentators” have termed this de facto autonomous region; rather, it is the name coined by the Pakistani Taliban for their new “state.” (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13990130/site/newsweek/ at ¶ 2.)

Third, whether or not the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan exists as a de facto state is irrelevant to its validity as an article. Contrary to Red aRRow’s unsupported assertion that the article is “a total work of fiction,” the article is fully verified and factual. Unlike Red aRRow, the author makes no assertions of opinion, and also unlike Red aRRow, virtually all of the article’s facts are cited to legitimate and reputable original sources.

Red aRRow is obviously passionate about the Pakistani government’s reputation in light of the peace treaty recently signed with the Taliban in Waziristan. Nevertheless, Nationalist passion—however fervent—should not be allowed to dictate which articles remain in Wikipedia, and which are deleted. A review of Red aRRow in existing Wikipedia pages reveals a singular concern for maintaining Pakistani honor, which is perfectly legitimate as long as the arguments are factual and based on violations of Wikipedia policy. In this case, they are not.

Furthermore, as the article fortunately documents, the Pakistani government has essentially stated that it would like to have the article deleted. Nationalism is not a basis upon which to delete an article. Indeed, the irony of Red aRRow’s and the Pakistani government’s arguments is that to delete the article would itself be a violation of Wikipedia policy.

I would respectfully disagree with Sandstein’s two arguments. First, as pointed out above (and by Sandstein himself), the article is verified.

With respect to the neologism argument, I would say that while perhaps technically true, a neologism is not fatal per se. Moreover, given how recently it was “created,” the disputed nature of its status, and its geographic and cultural remoteness, to say the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is a neologism doesn’t mean a whole lot—it’s somewhat of a tautology. Likewise, given how underreported this region is, to wait until a vague “mainstream use” is attained offers no benefit other than denying the reader the opportunity to educate himself and seek out original sources. Finally, the article should not be deleted until “such a state is actually founded.” The point of the article is its “founding” according to the Pakistani Taliban, and arguably according to the terms of the peace treaty between Pakistan and the Taliban. If an entity is deserving of an article only if it has widespread international recognition, then shouldn’t the Transnistria article be deleted as well? And for that matter, the Islamic Emirate of Afganistan should as well considering the fact that only a couple of countries ever officially recognized it.

Finally, the phrase “Islamic Emirate of Waziristan” has historical and contextual significance. This new entity was founded/is attempting to be founded by the same people who founded the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The article should remain. Mtclvrt mtclvrt 9/21/06—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtclvrt (talk • contribs) .

- Comment -I thought the debate was about the article's credibility NOT mine. I haven't read the words' 'Red aRRow' so many times in a paragraph before lol. Red aRRow 19:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - The debate is about the credibility of the article, which I comment upon by addressing your arguments: which is basically that the article is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it’s capable of a neutral point of view with good editorship. The arguments against this article are an obvious attempt to remove material that is personally disliked, which is illegitimate and an abuse of the deletion process. Finally, your recent likeminded colleagues below give one the distinct suspicion of sockpuppets. Mtclvrt 02:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply to Mtclvrt - Please refrain from personal attacks as per wikipedia's policy. No personal attacks. Thank you. Red aRRow 08:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without genuine sources of information the whole case is more of a novel to be read. It sounds more like someone taking their frustrations out on someone, a personal vendetta maybe. There are various elements to this case which can and are tarnishing the image of others without any just reason.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.20.122 (talk • contribs) .

Strong Delete. This article's claims are completely incorrect and are based upon accidental or deliberate misunderstandings of what is reported in the links. Wikipedia will have lost all credibility if this artical is kept.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.82.48.56 (talk • contribs) .

Delete this lieI am a Pukhtun, Pakistani, from the town of Parachinar. I have family that resides in Wana and having said this, i can defend in no uncertain terms, that this article is a blatant lie. Necessay steps have been taken and the Pakistani Journalist has been warned about the weak credibility of Wikipedia. Your website has become increasingly infested with indians. If the Wikipedia Managment does not take the necessary steps to stop the influx of biased and Anti-Pakistani arctles, then we will take the necessary steps to red flag this website in Pakistan and tag this website to all Pakistani Journarlists to stay away from. As the only thing this article does is to damage the credibility of Wikipedia, nothing else. The truth stands dispite the lies that may be posted on the internet by these spineless, devious indians. Dizasta - 21:16 21 September 2006 (UTC) (User:Dizasta76, Who's only edits are to this page.)

Delete. The article seems like propaganda. In fact, i've never heard of anything like the 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan'.

At first i thought it was a practical joke but i was surprised to find that it was being taken seriously. 132.161.221.18 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for possible merge with Waziristan accord. The term is clearly in use per the Newsweek citation above, if only to a limited extent. I find the arguments for deletion heavy-handed and unpersuasive, and particularly reject User:Dizasta76's remarks above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Those who think this independent region from Pakistan does not exist should create a section entitled "Potential falsehood" or something akin thereto.--Patchouli 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an encyclopedia the website has the right to keep this article in place, and as an independent article too i.e. not to be merged with Waziristan accord. The fact of the matter is the "Pakistani Taliban" have termed this name to their region. Their is no writ of the Government beyond Mir Ali and Miran Shah, and there never had been any government authority in the 7 Tribal agencies in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA). The author has not put his personal opinion in the article but have collected the reports of reputed journalists who have expertise in reporting the matters related to Afghanistan/Taliban. To name one such journalist is Syed Saleem Shehzad of Asia Times Online, who has been working on the subject since 9/11. A number of other press resources has been conforming with Syed Saleem's reports eversince he unvieled the story in December 2005. It has been verified from a number of resources including BBC (off and on) that Taliban have the practical control on the both sides of the Pukhtoon belt i.e. in Waziristan and the Southern Afghanistan and it is believed that sometime in coming months Mullah Omer (Taliban Supreme Leader) is expected to announce the re-emergence of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. This is the covert reason behind the Waziristan accord, Musharraf's visit to Kabul and US's unpleasant watchul comments. Both Islamabad and Kabul feel threatened the way Taliban have re-emerged. Both capitals are trying every best in their own way to stop the strong rise of Taliban, this is why Pakistan has signed the accord with the Tribal elders so that they withdraw their support for the "Pakistani Taliban". So on grounds of not having personal opinion of the writer, factual reporting on behalf of different Press sources and as an Independent credible story, the article should be kept in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.213.157 (talk • contribs)

Keep Technopilgrim here. As originator of this article let me make some extended comments.

Regarding the claims that wikipedia is becoming "infested with indians", please take a look at the primary contributors to this article. I am not Indian. I am a 6th generation Irish American from the Midwest. Osgoodelawyer is a Canadian law student. Inkan1969 is not Indian as far as I can tell -- his edits suggest he's a fan of microstates, flags, and national anthems worldwide.

Take a look at the two main news sources underpinning the article, Asia Times Online and Newsweek. Asia Times Online is based in Hong Kong. Newsweek is based in the US. Neither have any stake in the India/Pakistan conflict. Take a look at the reporters who have provided us thes articles. Mr. Syed Saleem Shahzad, the Pakistan Bureau Chief for Asia Times Online, appears to be Muslim, not Hindu, if his name is any indication. The Newsweek reporters, Ron Moreau and Hussain Zahid, also lack Hindu names.

I am dumbfounded by the claims we are "Indian teenagers", "devious indians", and that our edits evidence Wikipedia is "increasingly infested with indians". How could anybody come to that conclusion? You've given me quite an education as to how high passions run on this topic, and how these emotions do not require an basis in evidence. It discredits you severely, if I can be frank. I thought the periodic insanity on the Tibet talk page was the epitome of irrational, emotional outburst, but by comparison it's a model of cold scientific reason...

On the topic of bias, I just took the time to check the user contributions of everyone who has voted "delete" so far in this discussion. Silly me, I took the time to check up a bit on who is saying what here. Save User:Sandstein, who votes "weak delete", I observe that none of you has made a single edit on any topics besides the topic of Pakistan or India/Pakistan conflict (that's Red aRRow, 82.31.151.203, 62.31.20.122, 203.82.48.56, Dizasta76, and 132.161.221.18 -- all monotopic contributors). (Not quite zero actually -- one of the IP addresses made a single edit to adjust the Muslim population quoted on the demographics of Thailand page). So you guys are not exactly the model of unbiased contributorship. I also observe the eldest of you, Red aRRow, has only been contributing since July. Prior to his involvement in this article (he is the one pushing for this VfD), his edits have been limited entirely to topics pertaining to the Pakistan Navy...

I can't help but connect a dot or two. This past week the Government of Pakistan publicly stated they will take "immediate notice" of this article on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what that means, but it comes to mind that perhaps a few of you are employed by the Government of Pakistan. Nothing at all wrong with working for the Government of Pakistan and contributing to Wikipedia, but it does seem suspicious that the long-time Pakistani Wikipedians are silent from this dispute, while all these newbies are crying "lies!" and "fiction!" and repeatedly attaching POV and VfD flags to the article, without bothering to provide a single verifiable source to counter the references put up by the Wikipedians outside south asia.

Changing gears, let me add a few more points to the thoughtful contributions made above in defense of this article:

1) The text of the Waziristan accord is secret. The press in Pakistan is regulated by the government. The area in question is remote and very dangerous, as Mtclvrt points out. Combining these conditions, it is unrealistic to expect the same level of news investigation we expect for stories unfolding in the US or Europe. When we get two independent and unbiased sources, such as we've got here, uncountered by sources to the contrary, we should take the story to the bank. Note that domestic Pakistan news organizations are not likely to take the lead in uncovering the details of an accord the Government wants kept secret. Not good for business. My personal interpretation of the Dawn News article, which reproduced most of the Wikipedia article verbatim, is that the Islamabad journalist was are keeping their readers informed by letting Wikipedia do the speaking, meanwhile keeping his head down by letting the Pakistan Foreign Office have a free swing at discrediting it.

2) Two independent sources attest to the existence of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. No verifiable source claims contrary. While I realize that few sources have the broad knowledge of the area required to conclude no such organization exists, we are fortunate to already have input from the organization best suited for understanding the situation, the Government of Pakistan. When the Daily News brought the Wikipedia article to the attention of the Foreign Office, it would have been easy and natural for the Office to trivialize this group if the group did not in fact exist. Fantasies! However, the Foreign Office did not take that opportunity. Instead it only maintained that it did not cut a deal with the Taliban. Oddly enough, the Wikipedia article did not claim the IEoW was the Taliban. Somehow the Foreign Office considers the IEoW to be the Taliban. That's a fact in itself. How is it the Foreign Office could know this independent fact about the IEoW, if the IEoW didn't exist?

3) For those of you that don't keep a close eye on current affairs, note the Musharraf government is in the midst of a major spin effort regarding the Waziristan accord. One of his Brigadier Generals told ABC News the accord would give sanctuary to Osama bin Laden under certain conditions. The general apparently confused the domestic message on the accord (civil war is over, forgive everybody) with the international message (war on terror is important). The blogosphere went crazy. Musharraf now has to pull out all the stops to reconcile what is inherently unreconcilable. All of which makes it very hard for fact-finding anywhere near this radioactive topic. All the more reason to listen carefully to any outside journalists who are able to make contact with the players in Waziristan.

Finally, on merge vs. keep: Tom harrison's suggestion to merge the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan with Waziristan Accord is not an unreasonable one, if we take a certain view of what's happening. That particular view is that the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is important primarily in light of the Waziristan accord. That view probably has the best odds of prevailing in the end, but it is not the only view out there. Another view, and this argues for keep, is that the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is essentially a branch of the Pakistan Taliban, and it has impact and influence apart from this accord. The very name "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan" has strong Taliban overtones, as 203.81.213.157 points out (it directly evokes the name the Afghanistan Taliban used for itself). If the Pakistan Foreign Office statement is taken at face value, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is a Taliban organization which was not party to the accord. If so they were not partty to the accord, they should not be consolidated onto the accord page. technopilgrim 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Sorry, but as far as I see it only the Newsweek article is mentioning this term of 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan'. Both the articles from Asia Times Online do not even mention this term and definitely do not support the assertions which this article is making about some sort of a State or Emirate. The Asia Times Online articles are related to the 'war on terror' generally and the Waziristan accord specifically. So putting that as a reference in this article is incorrect to begin with.

As for your assertion that since the text of the Waziristan accord is a secret plus, in your opinion, the press in Pakistan seems to be regulated by the government (a claim which I personally reject as anybody with an internet browser and an internet connection can see by going over to the websites of Pakistani publications and see the blasting they are always handing out to the government e.g. here is what I found in 1 minute flat [69], [70]....doesn't seem to be 'regulated' to me) do not hold true as a justification for this article to be stamped as verifiable and be given a place on wikipedia. In fact this should serve as a basis for deletion because until and unless more verifiable evidence has been found regarding this fictitious Emirate, this article is unverifiable and violates wikipedia's cardinal policy.

Moreover, speaking of being in touch with current affairs, I don't know which General you are referring to when accusing the Pakistanis of a spinoff, but as far as I see it there is no free pass for Osama bin Laden or other targets of high importance as a result of the Waziristan accord as you can see at the following links. [71] [72] - Red aRRow 10:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the press laws imposed in 2002 that caused the International Federation of Journalists to write[73]:

The International Federation of Journalists, the world's largest journalists' organisation, representing over 500,000 journalists worldwide, is deeply concerned over the recent adoption of three new press laws that it believes will seriously impact on the freedom of the press in Pakistan.

According to our information, the Pakistani government adopted the new press laws on August 31 2002 that increase the penalties for defamation, impose a system of prior authorisation for the news media, and create a government controlled press council, despite objections from Pakistani journalists.

We understand that the new defamation laws allow for penalties ranging from a minimum fine of US$800 through to prison sentences. We also understand that the Press Council is not independent of Government, with four representatives, including its president, appointed by the Government.

This constitutes government regulation of the press by my standards, if not by yours.

Regarding the general who spoke to ABC News, my mistake, he was not a Brigadier General. He was a Major General, which would be one step up from Brigadier General I'm guessing. This is not the first time my memory for detail has failed me. It was a General Shaukat Sultan who told ABC News on Tuesday, September 5th, that bin Laden would not be taken into custody "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen". Here's the follow up story at ABC News.

technopilgrim 17:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Must Be Deleted] The article does not have any fact and is compltely Fake so it should be deleted. .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.99.51.174 (talk • contribs) .

Keep or Merge with Waziristan accord. As it currently stands right now, there are only sockpuppets who have mostly voted in the delete section or Redarrow. Redarrow has been known to remove information outright that he doesn't personally like even when the statements and lines are fully referenced. See this in the 2004-2006 Waziristan conflict where I have used Pakistani sources for the casualty claims and a FOX news report that gives its comment on the outcome of the war, yet he went ahead and removed it, before I reverted again. Going by past interactions with him, he is likely to remove those irky figures and statements. Having started this request for deletion with the main reasing being "verifiability", he continues to violate the policy by removing statements elsewhere (related to this article) that are easily verifiable. Double standards, anyone? The article doesn't mention it is a state as a matter of fact, but just that some call it so, therefore it should be kept accordingly or merged with the peace accord article. Regarding my sockpuppet suspicion, most of the anons who have voted here have made zero contributions outside voting here. A red flag. Idleguy 06:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your accusations are unfounded and baseless. The casualty figures needed to come from a neutral source and as you can see now I have added one. Although Fox News is a vehemently right wing media organization and is known for propagating the American neo-con agenda, still I have left your 'contribution' to the article which is sourced from that biased media organization. Plus as I have said before the article's credibility and verifiability is being debated here...not mine. Red aRRow 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral" sources are hard to come by on a regular basis given that what appears to be neutral to one person may be contested as "a vehemently right wing media" by another. For all you know the one (DW link) you have added only adds half baked information which you haven't fully read yourself. If you had done that then you would probably have noticed that the 400 casualty figure mentioned in the Deutsche Welle source is for one year only and not the full duration of the conflict. I have now added the original source for the casualty claims for both sides. Further the casualty quotes I provided came directly from eminent Pakistani authors, which you removed twice before some sanity prevailed. Idleguy 06:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, the FOX news article doesn't come from them. It is syndicated from Associated Press and a similar story ran in Pakistan's Daily Times. You might want to check your facts first before calling anyone that doesn't subscribe to your POV as biased. Idleguy 06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable enough. Good evidence given by a couple editors above for why further evidence is not easy to come by, and no reason to side with sockpuppets who oppose simply because Pakistan tells them to. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable enough. References are about as trustworthy as you can get. And the article makes clear that Wikipedia isn't sure what's really going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.110.228 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 26 September 2006

Keep or merge, but take care of making it correct as well... —Nightst a llion (?) 09:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD A7. Naconkantari 05:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arekkusu[edit]

To quote the first paragraph of the article, "Arekkusu is a fictional character that does not appear in the anime series Naruto. He is merely created by a fan to be a character that might live in that world. He will be a character in a upcoming fan-fiction that is not yet titled and the release date has not been set." Falls under Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Fancruft, and possibly other guidelines that I'm not familiar with. ~Snapper T o 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't believe this person actually admits it to be a fanfic character. The others at least make it seem like their character is actually in the world. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fanfic characters are never notable, but a fanfic character from an unreleased fanfic that hasn't even been given a title yet?!? That's like a black hole of non-notability right there. Maybe if we set a notable article next to this one they'd cancel each other out and release vast amounts of energy, which could be used to power Wikipedia's servers for the next few millenia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One Thousand Years of Delete Danny Lilithborne 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Scee0 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ... Fanfiction doesn't belong on wikipedia... (unless it's written by Vladamir Putin, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Nicolas Sarkozy or someone equally famous... ) --Kunzite 01:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the most eloquent nominations for deletion I've seen in a while. YechielMan 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously nominated three different articles that were about Naruto fan characters. This is no different, it's got to go. Additionally, like Someguy, I'm suprised this author admitted it was a fan character; still doesn't make it any more encyclopedia-worthy, though. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like an experiment in who can make an article that breaks most WP rules. Or an attempt for WP:BJAODN. Shinhan 06:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fanfic character, which doesn't pass WP:FICTION, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, WP:V, and WP:OR among other things. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "... a character in a upcoming fan-fiction that is not yet titled ..." Why are we even discussing this fancruft?? --72.75.117.73 16:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:OR - perhaps the creator should try Uncylopedia... Jpe|ob 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Style: Permanent Delete Jutsu! (Delete per nom.) --Alexie 04:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - NN, vanity and all that. Shiroi Hane 12:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of search engines and directories[edit]

Redundant of established List of search engines, seems like it will attract little more than external link spamming (WP:BEANS). ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with ZimZalaBim on both points. Wikiolap 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft spam-magnet, and delete List of search engines as well, it's also quite redundant to its equivalent category. (Someone else please officially add it to the nomination, if you agree.) Sandstein 21:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons cited by ZimZalaBim. Signature ^brendel 21:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both ... Category:Internet search engines is sufficient, IMHO. --141.156.232.179 22:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velma Kelly Online[edit]

nn fansite, is dormant Giant onehead 21:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has no reliable sources for its claims to notability as required by WP:WEB. Being defunct is not, by and of itself, a reason for deletion for the subject of an encyclopedia, though: we have many articles on dead people. Sandstein 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see WP:NFT and WP:NOR. Some P. E rson 21:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Hello32020 21:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I must say I gained a sliver of amusement from how it proudly proclaims it was "active from 1999-2000". Ah, but what a year that must have been! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. RFerreira 04:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Petros471 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Republican Party (United States)[edit]

PoV fork of Democratic-Republican Party (United States); unsourced, inaccurate, PoV and interfering with getting the location of that article, which is disputed, settled. Produced by cut-and-paste by a single unser. Septentrionalis 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Jeffersonian Republican Party which is also a fork of Democratic-Republican Party (United States), much like Early Republican Party (United States). — DLJessup (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Septentrionalis's nomination covers all the relevant points. — DLJessup (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Septentrionalis 22:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but make sure the talk page is moved back to Democratic-Republican Party (United States) (see below). --JW1805 (Talk) 02:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Jeffersonian Republican Party - I think this is the most unambiguous name for the party in the first-party system that developed in opposition to the Hamiltonian Federalists. It is apparently also a name with considerable currency. The other proposals are not as clear and D-R has confused people and been contested here for years. Delete both others --JimWae 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- JimWae: the important thing is to keep the article history currently residing at Democratic-Republican Party (United States) and eliminate the two article clones whose history started yesterday. Once that is done, then the article can be moved to whatever title we can reach a consensus on. — DLJessup (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, by all means, yes --JimWae 04:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all three and direct Jeffersonian Republican Party to Early Republican Party -The early Republican Party was a seperate party from the two break away parties Dem-Rep & Nat-Rep. If you want to view all of them as a continuation party with no breaks, then you can do that too. But, there was a split -right? And that split resulted in two parties with a different name than the former -right? User:Nikpapag (talk), September 2006
- To put it briefly, wrong. The party before the breakup had many names, including DR and NR. But even if this were right, the PoV forks and cut-and paste jobs should be deleted. Whether the original article should be moved is another question. Septentrionalis 20:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Note to administrator who cleans this up: Currently Talk:Early Republican Party (United States) is the actual talk page that belongs to Democratic-Republican Party (United States). Due to the cut-and-paste moves, I erroneously believed that the talk page had been left behind in one of the moves and moved it to the wrong place. I can no longer move the talk page back to its original location, although I have created a Requested Move. Please make sure that this talk page is moved before deleting this article. Thank you. — DLJessup (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Vegaswikian just moved the talk page; so that's taken care of. Septentrionalis 22:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is why the page nominated should be deleted rather than redirected: too much potential confusion. Septentrionalis 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would suggest the AfDs be put on hold until the cleanup and requested moves have been made. Right now, at first glance, I see articles about the Republican Party being put up for deletion (questionable on its face, you must admit), people adding articles second-hand for deletion and a revert war in the history of at least one article. --Aaron 01:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All these are efforts to contain the disruptive edits of User:Nikpapag by several editors. The articles put up for deletion are forks, which Nikpapag created by cuts and pastes, of Democratic-Republican Party (United States). This is the party of Jefferson and Madison, which broke up in 1824, not the present Republican party. Septentrionalis 03:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Jeffersonian Republican Party was first made into a cut-and-paste by Rjensen at 06:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC). The page already existed as a redirect which Rjensen overlaid with a copy of Democratic-Republican Party (United States). Nikpapag created Early Republican Party (United States) as a clone of his preferred version of Democratic-Republican Party (United States) about 8 hours later, at 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC). — DLJessup (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: The Democratic-Republican Party was, prior to Jackson, known simply as the Republican Party. We may consider that separate articles (for Democratic-Republican Party and Early Republican Party) may well be appropriate. Allon Fambrizzi 04:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
- This claim is disputable, and is being discussed on Talk:Early Republican Party (United States); but it is peripheral to this AfD. Editors on both sides of that discussion have reverted Nikpapag's edits, which are simple mischief, and interfere with the discussion. These three pages are the same article; two of them have Nikpapag's unsourced claims that Jackson belonged to the "Democrat Republican Party" [sic]. Septentrionalis 05:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the fork. The closing admin can clean up the mess. blameless 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only compounds an already confusing nomenclature. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Widthdrawn following substantial improvement by Uncle G and Harvestdancer. Guy 20:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleonexia[edit]

A dicdef, tagged as unreferenced since march - actually has two references, a copy of a Greek dictionary on the site of serial link spammer and sockpuppeteer User:Jason Gastrich, and answers.com. Guy 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do this, this, this, this, this, this, and this help? Uncle G 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As references? Yes. Do they stop it being a dicdef? Not hardly :-) Guy 07:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. SkipSmith 06:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. --141.156.232.179 22:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Astroturfing. Clear consensus that this doesn't need an article; merging there seems reasonable, but that article already includes a brief, sourced paragraph on this topic. Feel free to merge more fully from the history. Mango juice^talk 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty[edit]

International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-07. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty.

Non notable. 98 google hits., mostly from blogs. It is mentioned in one issue of Economist, but all they say it's a non-notable organization, for which one can find no details: (the Economist article)

Googling those details shows no trace on the internet for the “Robinson Corbett-Smith” who registered the site on January 14th this year. The address given is a hotel. The phone number is incomplete.

A Lexis-Nexis search for the ICDISS, in all languages and media going back 20 years, produces not a single entry. None of the people supposedly working for it—Joseph Connolly, Megan Stephenson or William Wood—appear in any plausible foreign-policy context in internet searches bogdan 22:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They also claim on their website:

Our annual spring conference is held every year since 2002 at the graduate school of the law faculty of the UNAM, in Mexico City, Distrito Federal (México). Our annual fall conference is held every year since 2004 in Washington, District of Columbia (USA).

Yet, their domain was registered in January 2006 and there's no proof on the internet or otherwise that it existed previously. bogdan 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless somebody proves me wrong. This seems to be just a website, nothing of substance behind it, and no established notability for sure. However, if there is a story behind it, it might be worthy an article. --dcabrilo 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Petition accepted non-notable, possibly non-existant NGO. It would be quite easy to prove its solidity. But I'm not seeing that. They seem to have no contact information on their website. If they could give sources for the 2003 instance of "Occasionally, these charges have then been repeated on TV (twice, 2003)" [74], I might be inclined to change my position. - FrancisTyers · 22:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, good find. Let me quote a question found in their FAQ:
FAQ: What is your response to claims that ICDISS does not exist?

People frequently claim that this organization does not exist and I think they might be right. :-) bogdan 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The point that the organization is likely a front was the main point of the Economist articles and was discussed in the first AFD. This second nomination discussion brings nothing new to the table. Notable astroturf/disinformation group Bwithh 01:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bwithh. The bogus nature of the organisation seems to me to have been established beyond reasonable doubt, but it's notable for that reason. Maybe the article title should include a reference to its hoax status. JQ 02:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Seems to be a hoax or a front, which probably isn't notable on its own. Could this article possibly be merged with some other entry? SkipSmith 06:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if only because half of it's citations point to earlier versions of itself. (??) --141.156.232.179 22:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above. - Pernambuco 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it has been a while and no further information on the group is forthcoming. Not notable and a possible (very likely) hoax so delete it. - ConsultantJoe 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AdamSmithee 13:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Astroturfing or Breakthrough (Transnistria) or some list of propoganda organizations. A single reliable source (The Economist) means it deserves a mention somewhere but only a single reliable source means it shouldn't have its own entire article. It's just not interesting enough to warrant an entire article. Also, both the article and the reliable source are using Wikipedia itself as a source so I guess it's original research by proxy. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, a useful example of propaganda; doesn't necessarirly deserve it's own article but the extitng well-referenced info should be used in some way or another.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Glass[edit]

This is a vanity page. It is nothing short of shameless advertising, and even cites the tremendously annoying advertising jingle. The only thing missing is the phone number.

If every auto glass company in the world could have its own Wikipedia page, we would have thousands of pages on Executive Auto Glass, Ocean Auto Glass, and so forth. At a certain point, this kind of nonsense has to stop. I dare anyone (in good faith) to explain why this article should be kept. YechielMan 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article has the 'phone number as well, for which Yellowikis thanks you. ☺ Uncle G 22:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apply directly to the article. Delete, apply directly to the article. Delete, apply directly to the article. Danny Lilithborne 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. 00:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Perhaps the company is annoying enough to be notable. If it advertises so heavily, it probably has significant market share. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smash the glass per WP:SPAM --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I HATE THAT JINGLE! The only jingle that's worse is for Empire- I can't even remember what they do (furniture? carpeting? cleaning?), but their jingle is just singing the company's phone number, which is simply lazy. -- Kicking222 13:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Vanispamcruftisement. --141.156.232.179 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the commercial is annoying has nothing to do with the article's notability. I know, I've been listening to the commercial for 15Fireitup 14:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) years.[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. GRBerry 13:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Duffy[edit]

Looks like a lot of nonsense. Speedy Delete Clamster5 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This was an article about a baseball player that was the victim of massive vandalism. WarpstarRider 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - I just checked the history and realized that myself. Its been reverted to the original page. Clamster5 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Wood[edit]

Seems like a lot of nonsense. Clamster5 22:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. It reads like a fictional character's biography from a book, but there's nothing linking to it which could be a book (the closest link is in fact a list of geographical locations). I'll notify the article's author and suggest that he write an article on the book or TV show first. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, on closer inspection, it's just nonsense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 23:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't even make sense. ... discospinster _talk 23:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Patent nonsense, stream-of-consciousness writing. Allon Fambrizzi 03:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Delete as per WP:HOLE, i.e., I wouldn't recognize him if he walked up and gave me a Masonic handshake. --141.156.232.179 23:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin[edit]

This is a vanity article,for the user,Arthur Rubin,other than (has earned a place among the five top ranked undergraduate competitors ) thers nothing else.I don't think this is notable enof for wikipedia. Pixel ;-) 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Pixel ;-) 23:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I made exactly two edits to the article, to add my year of birth, as an indication that it was acceptable to me that it appear in the article, and an attempt to Wikilink the title of my thesis, which seems to have come undone. I suspect a WP:POINT violation. The question of whether I'm notable is open, but the first sentence puts me in a group of 6 of over 20,000 (probably closer to 100,000) total students who have taken the William Lowell Putnam Competition. I decline to declare a Speedy keep, but the nomination reason is factually incorrect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,Yes,i suspect that you are not nottable enof.Are the winners of the contest nottable?Why a holle article?--Pixel ;-) 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not vanity and clearly notable, even when apparently known as "Wikipedia's Arthur Rubin" [75] (if true then I'm not sure that's the most flattering example I could have given, sorry Arthur). Yomangani ^talk 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nottable per what?He has a fields medal,or noble?--Pixel ;-) 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA.Ok,now i understand why you all mock me.No no,i now that thers no nobel in maths(any one has a gess why? :-))i was putting an example for nottability.I'm not a dumbt like you seem to sujest,you shouldn't make a link ither betewn my intellect and my spelling.--Pixel ;-) 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable. Nomination is neither compelling nor coherent. Opabinia regalis 00:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no need to look beyond the Putnam for notability, reliable sources are not a problem, future expansion seems possible. He's also won all of the Nobel prizes for mathematics so far, so I don't see a problem there ... RandomP 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but I'm not convinced that Putnam Top 5ers are encyclopedically notable (why "obviously" notable?) enough for their own article. As an academic mathematician, article so far fails WP:PROF. Bwithh 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy since he is well, a user. If some claim to notability can be articulated, then keep. FrozenPurpleCube 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The four years in a row feat is notable. Reid Barton did it too, and I saw him once at a math awards dinner in my high school career. An Erdos number of one, while not notable in and of itself, adds to this person's overall notability. It would be better, though, if this article could be expanded. YechielMan 02:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'd seriously consider Reid Barton for deletion too. He doesn't seem quite notable according to WP:PROF though I'm sure it's quite likely he'll qualify one day. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or he will simply burn out.--Pixel ;-) 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Erdős number 1. Putnam exam top 5 finisher 4 consecutive years is also notable. Nomination reason given is factually inaccurate, and I doubt that the nominator is qualified to assess encyclopedic notability of mathematician bios. Quale 04:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your worme and kind words.What i see is an undergraduate competition,and then nothing(apart erdos thing).From the notability critiria only (7.The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.) seems to be closer to the situation.And from that i undestand it like the fields medal or something,not an undergraduate competition.And yes,i now that ther isn't a nobel for maths,you whant my opinion on this?--Pixel ;-) 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Are we going to give everyone with an impressive resume in their field a wikipedia entry? And to head off the increasingly hostile tone of the article supporters, yes, I am qualified to assess the encyclopedic notability of mathematician bios. SkipSmith 06:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Personally, I think he's more notable as a Wikipedian admin. (A good admin yet still...) Though with the article, I would give more weight to his Erdős number then to the Putnam Competition since at it's core the former is work with probably one of the most notable mathematician and the later is ultimately just a contest. It is a difficult and very selective contest but still just a contest. 205.157.110.11 10:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He is a repeat Putnam Fellow, a Caltech graduate, and a mathematician with Erdős number 1. I don't know anyone else in the same group. Do you? Giftlite 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Six people have won the Putnam fellowship 4 times, 15 have won 3 times. There are 509 people with an Erdos number of 1. There are thousands of Caltech graduates. I'm sure I could find thousands of people that have a unique combination of several prestigious titles, accomplishments, or awards. Uniqueness isn't the same as notability. SkipSmith 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - doesn't look like a vanity article to me. Erdős 1 is a pretty reliable indicator for notability in mathematicians. Needs to be expanded --Storkk 12:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Erdos number = 1 makes a mathematician notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should we create entries for all 509 mathematicians with an Erdos number of 1? SkipSmith

If we have anything to say about them and somebody wants to write them, then yes by all means. 509 is not a huge number of articles by any standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, and there are only 1948 people with a Bacon number of 1. We've got some article writing to do ... SkipSmith 07:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Katsumi number.--Pixel ;-) 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jed "Big Wiggly" Holmes[edit]

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, and is a probable hoax. Joyous! | Talk 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gets a whopping ZERO Google hits[76]. Danny Lilithborne 23:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This hip hop artist was featured on an hour long special on WRFA 107.9 on the Local Music Showcase hour, completing the requirement of a half hour radio broadcast dedicated to an artist. he therefore qualifies to be added to Wikipedia. In addition he is on the rise and in time will complete other requirements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.169.140.190 (talk • contribs) .

Comment: I think you missed an important word: that criteria specifies "national radio network". —Wknight94 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Highly non-notable. --Dennisthe2 19:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Observance Masonry[edit]

This is not a notable group. There are only five lodges recognized in the whole of the US according to the Masonic Restoration Foundation here, yet it claims to be an "important historical movement", and the MRF itself that warrants these lodges was founded only in 2001. Therefore, apart from the bias of the article (which reads a lot like an advertisement), this article fails Wikipedia notability guidelines. MSJapan 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn ALR 07:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blueboar 12:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Badbilltucker 15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WegianWarrior 08:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete it, will add {{merge}} tag as opinions are divided on the issue. — CharlotteWebb 17:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B50 (chess opening)[edit]

This article defines one of the 500 chess opening variations contained in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. It is not a particularly unusual opening. If we will not include all 500 ECO categories (which of course we will not), we should not include even one of them. The convention on Wikipedia is, justifiably, to list openings according to their common name, such as Sicilian Defense, French Defense, and King's Gambit, among others. Each named opening covers many ECO listings. Anyone who knows what I'm talking about will almost certainly agree. YechielMan 23:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not sure why we need an AfD debate for this. Just merge to Sicilian defense (or the sicilian dragon variation which this usually leads to). Pascal.Tesson 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is possible to expand it; and the whole Sicilian Defence theory is so huge today, that it is not possible to describe it in one article, so merging does not seem appropriate. In every case, we should handle all the similar articles uniformly. So the AfD should subsume all other articles of this type (they have even their own category, which should be also included in the AfD process), or be dropped. BTW the very existence of the category contradicts to the YechielMan's idea about conventions on Wikipedia... I do not see the reason why not to have one general article about Sicilian (the big picture), and then detailed articles about B50, B51 etc. --Ioannes Pragensis 09:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Pascal Tesson. No independent article needed. Jordanwaring 12:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ioannes Pragensis. The lore of chess openings is a vast subject. Classifying them is always a problem given the potential of transposition. Pretty near all of them are expandable. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er... this is a tough one. On one hand, I am not too opposed to having articles on individual ECO codes (500 is not really an unreasonable number), but this article is awfully thin, and I think information on the defining moves ought to be included in List of chess openings (it is unfortunate that the list does not include this for each code already). Merge the moves with that list unless some more content is added, then redirect to Sicilian Defence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it certainly needs to be expanded. Bubba73 (talk), 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC) I'm not against merging, but the main article on the Sicilian may grow so large that it has to be done Wikipedia:Summary style anyway, and then this would become a seperate article again. Bubba73 (talk), 23:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Pascal.Tesson since B50 is already listed in Sicilian Defense ... otherwise, we'll see articles for every variation in List of chess openings. (BTW, someone might want to check QGD; 3...Nf6, Grünfeld gambit, Nimzo-Indian, Three knights variation, and some of the other recent creations of WTHarvey, who appears to be doing just that!) --72.75.117.73 18:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lunds ASK[edit]

If every chess club in the world had a Wikipedia page, there would be thousands of them. This is not notable, and is arguably a vanity page. YechielMan 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the top chess clubs in Sweden, and from their webpage we can see that they play in the Swedish top league in team chess. I still need to find a reliable source, but looking at the swedish article on the Elitserie, Lunds has won the championship seven times. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle. Quale 16:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per respected Wikipedian vouching for their notability. I trust that Sjakkalle will find a WP:RS for us here. Themindset 21:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it :-) This one is from Schacknytt which is a pretty large Swedish chess publication. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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