Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 22

< September 21	September 23 >

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DirectBuy[edit]

Contested prod. By an astonishing coincidence, User:DirectBuy's only contribs are to this article. A more flagrant case of WP:SPAM would be hard to find. VoiceOfReason 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then someone else should re-write. A company with 4,000 employees can have an article but what is on the page now is cut and paste. SchmuckyTheCat 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Peta 02:43, 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Fwenty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What the heck? I got sent an email that my page on the word Fwenty was a test page. I assure you it is not, and I can name over 100 people that know about the word and would approve its use. If I need a petition of some sort, then I'll do it. Otherwise, I don't see what is so wrong with it.

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneering over four epochs[edit]

This looks like someone's attempt to get their own work published on Wikipedia, like if WP was a hosting service. Scobell302 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7 Mitaphane _talk 00:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn ebook author, userfy at best.
Delete for obvious reasons. Danny Lilithborne 01:07, 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 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PoMoFunk[edit]

No sources per WP:RS, fails Google test. The choreographer may be notable but I doubt this dance style is. Doesn't seem to be documented well enough, at least. Crystallina 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply non-notable. Possibly a local phenomenon. Mipchunk 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete erm... seems kind of WP:NEO to me. But Not notable at all. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoi khoi 04:07, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album-a-Day[edit]

spammy, alexa rating of 375,090, limited scope, nn Giant onehead 00:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bec. it's spam. YechielMan 01:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tons of artists have contributed, there's hundreds of albums on there and it's even been mentioned in SPIN (http://radar.spacebar.org/img.shtml?l=1&n=23&backlink=.%3Fmonth%3D5%26year%3D2002) and Reuters (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2003-12-03-crapart_x.htm). FA010S 05:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to point out that these articles are over 3 years old and have no validity to help keep the article. Giant onehead 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The age of the articles cited is irrelevant, and the USA Today article most certainly does count towards satisfying the primary WP:WEB criterion. An article in Spin would also count, but the aforementioned hyperlink is not it. It is a picture, published by the creator of the article's subject, of a purported Spin article. It doesn't even have a date so that people can go to the actual magazine and find the actual article. For all that the world knows it could be a mock-up made using Photoshop. Uncle G 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Particularly low Alexa ranking, but I wonder how a reference's age can make it invalid. We use Encylopaedia britannica 1911, and that is far older. Care to explain your reasoning? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This may be a case of my heart ruling my head, but it seems to be a worthwhile project, and this one that should appear even though it teeters on the brink of lack of notability. Alexa rankings are, to me as a webmaster and a FireFox user, irrelevant, fixable and so biased as to be wholly discounted until you are in the hundreds, so I pay those no heed except a wry grin. Fiddle Faddle 10:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Conceivably NN, but it doesn't seem to fail WP:V, WP:VAIN or WP:NOR, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT paper.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The USAToday reference ensures notability, regardless of age. Cdcon 22:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above. Yamaguchi先生 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. R Calvete 08:06, 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 06:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlankTV[edit]

nn website, spam, alexa rating of 465,299 Giant onehead 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switch off per nom. MER-C 08:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sufficient Ghits to make this notable. The site provides music (etc) of a genre I hate at a price I like (free), and appears to me to meet WP:Notability. I'm not overkeen on short, bullet pointed nominations like this one's nomination with no rationale given, pehaps an elaboration would be in order? Fiddle Faddle 11:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Sufficient GHits" are not a criteria of WP:WEB. They're also not enough by themselves in WP:N, especially when there's no evidence that it even meets WP:V. All the talk I find on it is on blogs, which don't meet the reliable sources criteria. While the nominator could have expanded upon these points more thoroughly, this doesn't mean it's an automatic keep. ColourBurst 15:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Does not meet WP:V and does not follow WP:WEB. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Bschott/Purple Brian Bwithh 22:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:57, 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 11:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikons[edit]

Reads like an advertisement, seems to fail WP:WEB Khatru2 00:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Alexa Ranking is 71,423. Khatru2 00:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; "...current member base exceeds 1,100 users..." tells the whole story. This is not a notable or widely known social networking site. --MCB 06:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, WP:WEB, low users when compared to any other site we have an article for. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.UberCryxic 17:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoi khoi 04:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cincymusic.com[edit]

nn/local site, spammy, alexa rating of 1,379,309, not useful here Giant onehead 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This site is particularly useful because it provides information on bands that Wikipedia is reluctant to list because of WP:MUSIC. --TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs • logs) 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website. Why would we keep an article about a non-notable website because it documents non-notable bands? That makes no sense. Opabinia regalis 01:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Whether it is a "good site" or not is no matter for this vote. Its notability that counts. Arbusto 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 08:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why we should have an article to spite WP:MUSIC, makes no sense to me. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability asserted. And it's not even named Kinkymusic. =) JIP | Talk 09:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.UberCryxic 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Prolog 22:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. —Khoi khoi 04:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 04:50, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Gunfire[edit]

nn internet radio station, alexa rating a dismal 2,700,827 Giant onehead 00:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --MCB 06:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 08:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability, considter speedy deletion next time :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The general feeling is that A7 doesn't apply to websites. There have been proposals to change it so that it does, but none of them were successful. ColourBurst 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.UberCryxic 19:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should be gunned down as it is tawdry innane useless and utterly meaningless to anyone seeking information and enlightenment.--Mr Maxim 20:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoi khoi 04:11, 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 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drum-world[edit]

nn message board, alexa rating of 2,706,463 Giant onehead 01:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbusto 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --MCB 06:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 08:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability, consider speedy deletion next time :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoi khoi 04:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ElectronicScene[edit]

nn website, made-up claims and spammy, the alexa rating is a pitiful 4,769,238, I almost want to speedy it Giant onehead 01:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy spam. Arbusto 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 08:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete States it has 7000 members... not much of a claim to notability Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:12, 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 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Sample Zone[edit]

violates WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, and WP:SPAM, article was created by webmaster of site (see user name), alexa rating of 1,345,723 Giant onehead 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an article for Chenard Walcker, and it's pretty questionable whether that article should exist. But maybe. But the other artists listed here don't appear to be notable, I don't see how any of them would meet WP:MUSIC. So the label does not appear to have any significant notability that I could find. Herostratus 06:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 09:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article, definitely needs deletion. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletewikipedia is not a blog were people can promote some aspect of thier character, money making schemes or propaganda intent on illiciting additional hits when people really should and would like to be missing, Bang. --Mr Maxim 20:30, 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 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigpad[edit]

nn website, fails WP:WEB, alexa of 2,631,652 Giant onehead 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to the nominator: you may use speedy delete or {{prod}} for uncontroversial deletions, to avoid clogging up AfD. :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:21, 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 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Dj Broadcast[edit]

nn web radio show, alexa 4,180,466 Giant onehead 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a vanity article. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:26, 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 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitz-Musik[edit]

website based on local scene of a mexican city, no alexa rating, nn, violates WP:WEB] Giant onehead 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:WEB Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:27, 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, borderline speedy candidate. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Terenius[edit]

Google search shows no results for this person with either spelling of her name. This article is probably just somebody's joke played on a friend. Nunquam Dormio 16:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a dispicable vain attempt at self glorification, or someone lacking a sense of humour either way exterminate and be rid of this awkward entry.
Closing comment: I'm deleting this since there's absolutely no verifiable information about this person, and the only thing separating the article from WP:CSD was the vague assertion of notability implied by the qualification "leading". —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 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 Article was created by user with history of (re)creating delete-able articles. Since there seems to be a massive concensus on this, I will apply WP:SNOW and speedily close this as a delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated science-fiction/fantasy movies that failed to attract an audience[edit]

The article looks horrid, but even if it didn't, there's simply no way this can pass WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Jebus Delete this NPOV-a-palooza before it gets off the ground. --InShaneee 01:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. what the hell? Bwithh 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but submit the title to WP:BJAODN. It's beyond funny. YechielMan 01:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many reasons: POV, NOTABILITY, VERIFY, etc. Arbusto 02:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Oddly, the article states, "There are only five movies that failed to attract audiences." Apparently this article comes from an alternate universe in which Kaena: The Prophecy and Rock & Rule (among many others) were big hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not only fails WP:NPOV and WP:V, but it's also little more than a gallery of images which also fails of the WP:NOTs. 23skidoo 03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy god delete What the frick....UberCryxic 04:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the name of Kali, DESTROY. Whatever it is, it must die so that the Wikipedia may experience rebirth. Herostratus 05:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW I needed a good laugh, thanks guys. --Roninbk _{t c #} 07:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Article is POV, OR, unverified and factually incorrect. All of those movies attracted an audience, some even quite a large one. Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 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 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fromage programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. NN without evidence to the contrary. Arbusto 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unverifiable; the only Google hit I could find [1] makes it appear to be a hoax or joke. --MCB 06:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; an intellectual play-thing of no real value --Richard 08:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 09:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No cheese, Gromit or words to that effect. Significance not established. Guy 14:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 20:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable esoteric language. Equendil Talk 00:23, 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 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOTO++[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; very hard to find any reliable sources for this. Appears not to be a hoax, but more of a very minor in-joke. --MCB 06:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 09:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteOne should consult with recognised norms in this field so as to gain a sense of stability quality control effeciancy and most importantly standardisation.--Mr Maxim 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough spread/usage/too much French programming · XP · 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 20:21, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iota and Jot[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per my ~~vote~~ opinion in the AfD debate for esoteric programming languages that they should mostly be kept. This is one of the few that is turing complete I have found on the 'pedia. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of esoteric programming languages are Turing-complete. It's difficult to create a somewhat useable language that is not Turing-complete. Turing-completeness should absolutly not be a criteria for deciding wheter or not to include an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I don't think these languages are notable. JIP | Talk 09:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelBillington. The fact that it is even more minimal then brainfuck but is still turing complete, gives it interest to computer science from a theoretical standpoint. Jumbo Snails 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of esoteric programming languages are Turing-complete. It's difficult to create a somewhat useable language that is not Turing-complete. Turing-completeness should absolutly not be a criteria for deciding wheter or not to include an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't think that most esoteric languages have the notability that's needed to belong in wikipedia, however the simplicity combined with the Turing completeness of this one makes it interesting enough that it could make the cut. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of esoteric programming languages are Turing-complete. It's difficult to create a somewhat useable language that is not Turing-complete. Turing-completeness should absolutly not be a criteria for deciding wheter or not to include an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, As a student of computer science, I believe that although these languages may not be practical for actual use, the knowledge obtained from the study of such languages can highly beneficial to anyone who needs to understand language theory. The loss of any programming language, algorithm, or proof, even if esoteric, is (in my opinion) a horrible thing. Indeed, a case could be made that any piece of information, product, or idea is useless, and we could choose to include only 'widely accepted' and ubiquitous items in wp (of course, useful, widely accepted, and such criteria would have to be defined by someone, and likely their definition would be different from many others'). This information *is* information, and I see no reason to suppress it, unless it can be demonstrated harmful, and also demonstrated to be in no way beneficial. --Adam Choate (RareJuliet 16:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- As a student of computer science I agree with the first sentence of your rationale. A requirement for inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia is wheter or not secondary sources have previously been published about it. To my knowledge there have not been any on Iota and Jot. This language should be preserved for future generations on the author's webpage (or a copy of it at archive.com), not in Wikipedia. —Ruud 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has been a tiny stub for two years now. DanielCristofani 05:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable esoteric language, the merit of it is irrelevant. Equendil Talk 00:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Turing tarpit. Notable enough to be mentioned there, but not enough for its own article. — Tobias Bergemann 14:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being "interesting" and "not harmful" are not criteria for article inclusion; notability and good-quality verifiability are. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:05, 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 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronto[edit]

Article was deleted via WP:PROD in July and recreated today. Subject is still a non-notable website, per the article's own admission (still in beta). Delete for lack of notability and measured importance per the WP:WEB criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The product is still in beta stages, which makes it crystal balling, and this Google search doesn't bring up any reliable relevant results. --Wafulz 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet notable or widely known or used according to any independent source. (I don't put too much stock in the "beta" issue, since a number of extremely well-known web services, like Google Video, are still in beta.) --MCB 06:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect To something on the wiktionary, there has got to be an entry for something like this, otherwise, Delete Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN... why don't we just put all these into one big page? · XP · 04:06, 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 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Java2K[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a joke, not a real programming language. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a real (albeit esoteric) programming language. —Ruud 20:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that the primary reference is in a subdirectory called "humor" suggests that its primary purpose in life is as a joke. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, not a real programming language, hence it being marked as "esoteric", but still, useless cruft for an encyclopaedia. No claim of notability from this one. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a real (albeit esoteric) programming language. —Ruud 20:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 09:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this one strikes me as a joke. Jumbo Snails 01:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a real (albeit esoteric) programming language. —Ruud 20:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this real, esoteric, and unfortunately non notable language. Equendil Talk 00:27, 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 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kipple programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the google results come from wikipedia or the kipple home page. --Sbluen 02:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Runeberge 07:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low in notability, but does however have a good description of the internals of the language, suggesting it be a vanity page. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 09:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Electric delete in your dreams, android. Significance not established Guy 14:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages (WP:V: no secondary sources have been published on this language). —Ruud 20:42, 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, see final comment. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siblings (Transformers)[edit]

From WP:CRUFT: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative. Please find more objective way to describe any reason you may have for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nebulous concept in Transformers fiction. This very, very minor aspect doesn't deserve an article. Interrobamf 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's a great article. I've used it as a reference a half dozen times on Transformers message boards when the subject comes up. user:mathewignash
- Of course you do. You wrote it. Which really puts a dent into the whole "reference" thing; you're referencing yourself. Interrobamf 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like the last guy said. YechielMan 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--Orion Minor 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the last guy said. (I was too lazy to think of my own sentence- so sue me.) -- Kicking222 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit of fancruft. But as a Transformers fan I had to check the article and actually found it useful. --Hús ö nd 02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles for minor bands are useful to somebody. Game guides are useful to someone. That doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Interrobamf 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. But in this case I am hopelessly biased towards having this kept.--Hús ö nd 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down to basic info to avoid cruftiness then Cleanup and Merge into the main Transformers Universes article. If noone can be bothered, than delete Bwithh 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How the Hell is this supposed to improve the article? Don't lump better, broad articles with useless information. Interrobamf 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tvtv1 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I guess if transformes are notable, this is marginally worthwhile. I guess. Herostratus 05:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article breaks WP:NOR. Once there are WP:RS that explore this concept we can make such an article, but at this time this has no place in Wikipedia. Notability is NOT important, usefulness is NOT important, WP:NOR IS important! Shinhan 05:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; OR and extreme fancruft. --MCB 06:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was worth keeping,when it was extensively cleaned up for tone and granular info, but with a quick Google search I can't find any reliable sources to back any of this up. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per lack of verifiability of contents, to Transformers. Likely example of fancruft OR. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the concept of "siblings" in Transformers is indeed very nebulous (not to be mistaken with Nebulos) and as such an article about it would be close to OR and/or fancruft. JIP | Talk 09:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly fancruft. --BradBeattie 11:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. — Haeleth Talk 12:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Charlesknight 18:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too minor a topic. Recury 19:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not important, does not carry enough support nor legitimacy. --Mr Maxim 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fancruft Artw 21:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. If someone is really concerned about keeping a list of "brothers" in the Transformers universe, they can do it on a list of transformers article. Mitaphane _talk 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Transformers Universes article per WP:FICT iff sources can be provided. Yamaguchi先生 19:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Original research. Do not redirect; the title would be an speedy candidate. --Kunzite 02:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the info on the page into the Transformers mentioned. I think it'd be better if the Transformers who have siblings simply note who their sibling/clone is on their page rather than have a page devoted solely to the concept. If the sibling thing ever becomes the focus of a major plot, then it might be worth having an article on. For now, it's just taking up space. Xuanwu 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but not into the Transformers Universes article, which those suggesting such a merge do not appear to have read, as this subject wouldn't fit there at all. Cut down to basic info and merge either with the individual character's article (which probably mention this stuff already, to be honest), or instead Transformers technology, which covers such subjects as TF "biology" and so on. - Chris McFeely 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: I'm deleting this. Merging original research into another article degrades the latter and doesn't make the former anything but original research. I'm discounting a few uninspired votes ("like the other guy said"). It doesn't matter if it's true or useful, it needs to be notable and reliably verifiable. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:14, 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. Despite the final comment on this AfD, this really appears to be original research, and consensus here is as such. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Wow theory[edit]

Appears to be original research, 10 unique Google hits. Accurizer 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Arbusto 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that there was little to go on, except for Zizzi's paper itself, but I did read that more than once and have compared with other formulations of LQG. The reasoning seems sound, especially if the reader has also read her "Minimal Model" paper. Zizzi's work was cited in an article in November 2004 Scientific American entitled Black Hole computers by Seth Lloyd and Jack Ng. The Emergent Consciousness paper was published in the journal of NeuroQuantology in 2003, and supports the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model of consciousness. The Big Wow article was written to fill a blank space, as the link in the Orch-OR entry had remained red for too long, and this author is familiar with Zizzi's work. I am trying to be as objective as possible, but the only other reviewer to the author's knowledge is Joy, in her Telic Thoughts blog, which can be accessed at http://telicthoughts.com/?p=473 (JonathanD 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Black Hole Computers was the Cover Article of the November '04 Scientific American, so the authors of that publication must consider this work important! (JonathanD 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Despite interestingness, it returns very little on google, suggesting that it has not yet reached any audience, and is thus unremarkable, or as the wikipedians put it NN Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I actually like LQG; it's a bit of a maverick theory (which is part of what I like about it), but it is respectable. There is a difference, though, between "maverick" and "fringe". Zizzi's work is interesting, but I do not believe that it is a correct or even particularly rigorous interpretation of LQG: it's ad hoc and seems to set out to prove something by assuming aspects of it to be true to start with (which is not a reason to delete the article: I could be wrong, after all). The arXiv paper linked to in the article also doesn't talk about consciousness at all...it offers us a "minimal model of quantum gravity": using quantum computers and black hole entropy to address issues of the Immirzi parameter in LQG. On the other hand, this paper does talk about Penrose Orch-OR stuff (and barely touches on LQG except for spin network blab, which could come from anywhere), but it is bollocks, as far as I am concerned. It is based on a most tenuous analogy (which is not strictly formal), and the argument is unconvincing. But again, that isn't a reason to delete the article: it just needs a lot of help to come straight, because the article is only barely talking about what the papers are saying. And this is help I am not sure is merited, because...

This theory is not sufficiently notable at the moment, and nor is this particular research program yet developed and prominent enough, to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia: it seems to largely be limited to Zizzi. Citebase mentions 10 cites of the LQG paper, 4 of which are papers with Zizzi as author [2], and 6 cites of the consciousness paper, with 3 of those by Zizzi [3]. NeuroQuantology publishes more bunk than reasonable content. Articles on subjects like this shouldn't be listed under their "colloquial names", either. Scientific American is also a popular science publication, and qualified to judge neither the accuracy nor the importance of developments in quantum gravity/cosmology and so forth: we are already having a huge problem with New Scientist "legitimising" dodgy articles on Wikipedia (see this thread).

Why not just do an article on Penrose's stuff, if that's what the original idea was? Byrgenwulf 13:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is not scientific well founded while being original many of the ideas or concepts contained within need to have more proof or at least more citations as evidence in support of conclusions raised. Also does not take adequate account of Kalibi-Yau manifolds.--Mr Maxim 20:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr Maxim ReverendG 21:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain I believe Byrgenwulf's assessment of the ad-hoc nature of Zizzi's line of reasoning is a legitimate claim. It is somewhat tenuous, if taken as a proof of validity, but if the paper is viewed as attempting to show the feasibility of the universe having the capacity for reaching the computational threshold for conscousness, during the inflationary period, it does this fairly well. I do agree that the "Emergent Consciousness.." (Big Wow) paper is not a particularly satisfying formulation of LQG, but it does highlight some interesting possiblities about how consciousness might first arise, and her later "Minimal Model" paper does the LQG thing more justice. It's possible the focus on this topic should center on Penrose's work, as this subject does evolve from his "The Emperor's New Mind" book, which I particularly enjoyed. I jumped in with something, when I noticed a RED link on the Orch-OR page for this topic.

For the record, I believe a complete unifying theory will reveal 'Stringy' aspects to reality, and a real value to the LQG approach. It may well be that Noncommutative Geometry may leapfrog both, in addition to being a part of the underpinnings for both String Theory and LQG. I don't claim to have those answers yet, but I know the various contenders well enough. No unique Calabi-Yau space has been found, and a hundred thousand answers that work (from M-theory) is no answer at all, or no usable one. I do acknowledge that Strings are still considered a 'safer' bet and are considerabley more mainstream than LQG, at this point. Insofar as Zizzi's paper draws several of its conclusions from work of Whitehead and Chalmers that is not widely regarded as factual, I feel it could suffer deletion, for being tenuous.

If the test is whether this idea has captured the popular imagination, and is a jumping off point for more legitimate work on the possible quantum origins of consciousness, it may pass that test. This is not to say that the quantum mechanical nature of consciousness has been proven, but it has not been disproved either, at least not in a satisfying way. In this regard; Zizzi's paper may be a significant landmark for consciousness researchers. JonathanD 04:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I brought up the issue of LQG because my own research interests are tangentially linked to the LQG program, and I would dearly like to see more balanced reporting of it on Wikipedia. Just properly done. Although I don't think that this "big wow" stuff has very much of any worth to offer at the moment (and have my doubts that it ever will). I read the "minimal model" paper, and I don't think it does LQG very much "justice" at all. I also brought up LQG to try to illustrate the difference between a "non-mainstream" but respectable theory, and something that is so obscure and "fringe" as not to merit inclusion.

This is also not the place for baseless, armchair speculations on "quantum consciousness" and unified field theories. It doesn't matter what anyone's personal opinions on string theory are, as informed (or not) as they may be. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and this is an editorial discussion to do with whether or not a given article should be included, not a sophistic agora.

Penrose's views on "quantum conciousness" are notable: he has written widely-read books on them (arguably to avoid peer-review - but that's another matter), and people are aware of them. I understand that you "jumped in with something" to fill a red link. That is commendable. The problem is that the article as it stands doesn't say very much of anything, and certainly is not a viable reflection of the contents of Zizzi's papers. It is also obscure enough that it doesn't warrant fixing. ~~Do an article on Penrose, name it something decent, and I'm sure everyone will be happy.~~ No, strike that. This link should be exactly what you are looking for. Put this link into the article where the red link was, and your problem is solved. Byrgenwulf 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or modify and change name. I am the framer of the original posting here, and I'm glad the article has sparked some debate, if not a lot of support as it stands. I agree with some of Byrgenwulf's most recent comments, though perhaps not his conclusions about what to do. I would agree that Penrose certainly deserves a lot more attention than Zizzi, and should perhaps be the main focus of any writing on this subject. I had prepared some material offline which I pasted into the article before reading his most recent post. It was my attempt to address some of his earlier comments, to allow for possible inclusion under the current name. I would be happy to expand, edit and/or re-direct the content that has been originated here, given a clearer idea of what is called for. I did receive an e-mail confirmation from Paola Zizzi that the earlier posting (first paragraph) accurately reflects her intended meanings of the "Emergent Consciousness" (Big Wow) paper, and I added the second paragraph just today, with conciliatory remarks about the relative acceptance, and an explanaton of why it is called by that colloquial name. Please remember that the Big Bang was also just a fanciful way of descibing something that didn't have a name before.

Let it be known that I did a more thorough search for papers inspired by the Big Wow theory concepts using a web seach for Paola Zizzi and paring down to references that pertain to the line of reasoning explored by that paper, and I found a lot more material than I expected, and quite a few more citatons of this work. And the term 'Big Wow' seems to have been a catalyst, as well. Perhaps there is no other single term which sums up this concept so aptly, just as the 'Big Bang' did. Perhaps that was not the most apt despcription either, but the name stuck. I shall include a few more references and citations, if I have time later today. If I am not compelled to recuse myself, I vote to keep this article, or modify it for possible inclusion under a different name. JonathanD 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds explained by Byrgenwulf. Anville 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because Paola is not having a nice zizi like yours that your are practicing mental masturbation on her ideas? I vote to keep this article, or modify it for possible inclusion under a different name. Hervey from Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.64.248 (talk • contribs)

For future reference, making uncivil remarks and personal attacks is not a good way to make people take you seriously. Anville 14:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep - Important Citation Discovered! Jonathan back again, respectfully requesting that this work's impact be re-assessed. I was about ready to throw in the towl on this item myself, but have discovered a bunch of additional citations and derivative work. Note that her work was cited in Gregory Chaitin's Alan Turing Lecture last year in Sweden, entitled "Epistemology as Information Theory: From Leibniz to Ω". She was listed among the 'real physicists' who are working seriously on researching the view that the universe is made of information. Ergo; I would state that it's becoming more clear that the Big Wow is indeed a seminal landmark, and clearly does not fall in the category of NN, as Wikians like to put it. I'll try to weed out the lower quality external links, once I get time. Again; please reconsider the question of this article's relevance as someone of Chaitin's caliber would not cite her work in this way, if that work was not significant. Perhaps changing the title to Big Wow hypothesis would be more accurate. JonathanD 00:11, 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 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midweek Mayhem[edit]

nn radio show Giant onehead 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, advertisement. "Midweek Mayhem" gets only 711 total Google hits, and less than half of the first 30 are about the radio show (and that less-than-half includes WP/mirrors and MySpace). -- Kicking222 02:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn Internet radio program; advert. --MCB 06:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 09:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN internet radio programme. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.UberCryxic 19:42, 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, insufficient arguments to keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prevail Within[edit]

A band that doesn't meet criteria set out in WP:MUSIC, regarding at least two albums on a major record label or a notable indie record, and no national tours- the closest thing was playing a San Antonio show on the Warped Tour. No reliable third party sources for verification either. Also, there is a redirect from Prevail within. Wafulz 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half-good article, but a pity notability isn't asserted per WP:MUSIC in this case, so it can't stay. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. Would make a decent aricle if they achieved notability. —dustmite 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i stumbled across this, and im not sure how to edit, but i do know these guys have toured from the west coast to the east coast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.236.250 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Has this been reported non-trivially in multiple independent notable sources? --Wafulz 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment i'd say on the venue calendars, or you could ask the record label
    - Comment Has any of the coverage been independent though? It makes sense that their venues and record labels would have information, but it's really not too difficult for a band to simply tour the country without getting any sort of notable press coverage. --Wafulz 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prevail Within HAS toured both the West Coast, Midwest, and the Eastcoast of the U.S. Their last tour was a month long span This past July/August (2006). They have also played numerous shows with well-known bands including: The Casualties, The Queers, Kids Like Us, and others. So for a band that has done 2 U.S. tours, released 1 full length, and is releasing a split 7" this December, I think they should stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkvoterdotcom1 (talk • contribs) User's only contribution
- Comment Could you elaborate on how they have "played with" them? Were they headlining or something like that? --Wafulz 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most bands who "play with" larger national acts play in-support of... as in a slot or two before the national package.... example... Prevail Within followed by the Phennomenauts followed by VooDoo Glow Skulls... or Prevail Within plays followed by Righteous Jams...

Delete per WP:MUSIC, unless some sort of notability can be asserted. The band has only 23 listeners on Last.fm and very few related Google results. Prolog 19:41, 30 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 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MotorCityRocks.com[edit]

nn localized music blog, fails WP:WEB, alexa rating of 1,976,724 Giant onehead 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. --Sbluen 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we have articles about music blogs... then... that's just.... horrid to say the least. Completely NN. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.UberCryxic 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 00:21, 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 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozhiphop[edit]

nn website, fails WP:WEB, alexa rating of 644,265 Giant onehead 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, does not assert notability. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia isn't a website directory ReverendG 21:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be an nn website. Lankiveil 09:44, 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 11:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReggaeClash[edit]

nn music site, gets a few dozen unique google hits, fails WP:WEB Giant onehead 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. --Sbluen 02:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable (WP:V) as it returns few google hits. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:ADS, and WP:V. No Alexa traffic ranking [4]--TBCTaLk?!? 15:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 00:23, 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. - Bobet 08:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IAMAS Corporation[edit]

See User:Vilerage/Iamas for the backstory on this article. There are at least three different separate organizations called IAMAS. Previous edits by User:Iamascorp have falsely claimed a connection between a non-notable country music manager based out of a PO Box in North Carolina and this "IAMAS Corporation", a non-notable "academy of arts and sciences". Neither organization passes WP:CORP nor a Google test: most hits are for IAMAS (International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences). wikipediatrix 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, does not meet WP:CORP. Nandesuka 15:52, 14 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, --Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete --Guinnog 02:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.UberCryxic 04:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, at best a nn company; at worst a deliberate hoax. --MCB 06:59, 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 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage wildlife forum (2nd nomination)[edit]

I know the first nomination reached a no conensus, but this is cruft at it's absolute worst. It's a page about a message board to a site that only has an alexa rating of 212,784. The site it is hosted on is barely notable, if at all, so why would a forum be? Giant onehead 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First AFD here - Yomangani ^talk 10:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable forum --Guinnog 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blathery webcruft. Opabinia regalis 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRUFT and nom. --Supermath 03:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.UberCryxic 04:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an attack on the site that's persisted since its creation in January: "The lax restrictions of the forum and the length of its existence have attracted some of the most terrifying message board personae to have ever surfed the web..." Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It probably provides enough useful info to be included in the External links section of David Bowie, but this is another clear example fansites (see former edit in Teenage Wildlife) do not usually deserve their own article. Info provided is too granular and the important stuff isn't verifiable. Links section is too spammy. Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 09:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So how did the first AfD have no consensus if the second is all deletes. Fancruft. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... puzzled as to how this go through an AfD. —dustmite 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with multiple nontrivial third-party references (see external links) and over 10,000 registered users. —dustmite 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only trivial or non-reliable third-party references. Recury 19:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this, as the site has been noted in at least two major biographies of Bowie. —dustmite 03:08, 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 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Concept lodges[edit]

This organization is nn. The available reliable information on this topic indicates that only 22 lodges of this type exist in North America, which is easily less than one-tenth the number of Masonic lodges in any given state in the US or province in Canada. Only three exist in Australia. The relevant RS hits on Google are a paper on the concept, a list on a webpage, and this article. Therefore it is not yet at the point of being notable, and the article is serving as an advertising vehicle to increase visibility rather than being due to already established notability. MSJapan 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, appears to be an advertisment. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blueboar 12:25, 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 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen High School (Allen, Texas)[edit]

Delete Irrevelant information about a non-notable school that often gets edits that make the topic even more irrevelant and are often inappropiate. Also has information that is not verifiable. DanielES15 03:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean Allen High School (Allen, Texas)? In which case, the article is a mess and needs that "metal detectors" section removed, but if any of the rest of the text is actually true, then it might just be the first known example of an actually notable school brought to AfD. Opabinia regalis 03:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Its metal detectors section needs cleaning, but outright deletion is a bit too much. With all the claims made in the article, I can not see how this school is irrelevant, claims to have the biggest marching band, won state finals in something, the list goes on. Reasoning needs to be more detailed and objective for me to even consider it. Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
er.. Weak Keep An article being a target for vandalism is no reason to delete it, what it really needs is some people to watchlist it. (promptly does) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nomination is defective The nomination is ambiguous, since there are 3 Allen High Schools with articles. Identify the article you wish to delete, or nominate all three. This nomination should be withdrawn and resubmitted. Edison 14:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Somebody must have moved the page to Allen High School (Allen, Texas) after the AfD was added. The later page meets my standards for High School notability. It also appears to be a candidate to meet the proposed WP:SCHOOL guidelines for notability, although it needs to cite sources. The original page is just a disambig. page and should also be kept. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my belief that secondary schools are inherently notable, coupled with the fact this article meets proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 18:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yamaguchi. --Myles Long 18:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs cleaning up, but seems to be a notable enough secondary school. -- Necrothesp 01:13, 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 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xiando[edit]

Non-notable website per WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no third party reliable sources, no indications that it remotely meets WP:WEB. ColourBurst 04:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No pages link there, is not notable, returns little on google. Maybe an attack on either wikipedia or the site, or neither, not really sure. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. —dima/s-ko/ 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even reaching above the toes of WP:WEB. Echalone 00:57, 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 Speedy delete a7, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The grammercy riffs[edit]

I'd do a long discussion on this, but really I don't need to. Instead, here's their website: [5] That's about all the Google they get. The North Shore Outlook is a small community newspaper (I live in Vancouver and haven't heard of it before now, which gives an indication of its coverage). EP coming soon. Fails WP:MUSIC. They removed a CSD tag, twice, so I'm doing the long way. Delete, probably speedy. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ---Charles 04:17, 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 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User created hype[edit]

Not-quite-neoligism which falls short of actually being a 'term' and is actually more of a phrase with a self evident meaning. Artw 04:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 18 ghits. MER-C 09:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Viral marketing? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage. Interesting idea but nothing seems to be in google, which would be odd for an internet phenomenon. JASpencer 10:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be correctly titled, it should have a hyphen anyway, but googling it that way does not markedly increase the results. It's less of a neologism than "another way to say something that people sometimes talk about using different phrases." Dina 16:29, 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 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialised Internet[edit]

Combination neologism (with few gHits) and essay article. Artw 04:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bollocks. BTLizard 08:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 124 ghits. MER-C 09:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article even states it was coined in '06 WP:NEO Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI didn't create this article, Dispatx made Socialised internet and then I moved it here, before I learned of the move tab :( --WikiSlasher 13:01, 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 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2.0 Meme[edit]

NN Neologism. Artw 04:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first ten ghits are irrelevant to this neologism. MER-C 09:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO, and is innacurate as well. Appending a 2.0 to a thing can often have nothing to do with social participation. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism. Cool3 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2.0 per MichaelBillington. --Alan Au 21:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a marketing concept from Tim O'Reilly. Can't see any non-O'Reilly acceptance of this so fails notability for me. JASpencer 07:49, 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 11:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web versioning[edit]

Sillier joke version of 2.0 Meme Artw 04:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 578 ghits. MER-C 09:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article states outright that "This wikipedia page is the first known Web Roadmap.". The article is self-confessed original research. It also appears to be satirical, with its suggestions for future versions. Delete. Uncle G 10:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "This wikipedia page is the first known Web Roadmap." I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, but it says "delete me" Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:57, 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 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hometown Anthem[edit]

Marked as A7 speedy, but the claim that they have been lauded as one of the 13 best unsigned bands negates that. Brought here for a wider audience, without opinion myself (I'm crap with new bands). -- nae'blis 04:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I say they miss notability by a small amount here. They almost meet requirements for third party coverage, but not quite- we have one song appearing on a compilation, no national tours, and no album releases on a major label as specified in WP:MUSIC. Also, I would suggest someone look at the article for their record label Emerald Moon Records, which was created by the same user as this article, and seems thoroughly minor. --Wafulz 05:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Wafulz. Need more third-party coverage, will support a re-creation at some future date when notability is established.--chris.lawson 05:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Not an A7 because it claims notability, but not enough independent sources for a keep here. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:00, 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 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order 3 groups are cyclic proof[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of mathematical proofs (per WP:MSM). The theorem is true for any prime number (not just 3) and represents a very "simple" fact that is already covered by the cyclic group page. grubber 05:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Devoting an article to proving that all groups of prime order are cyclic would be dubious, but devoting an article to the particular case of groups of order 3 is just silly. --Zundark 07:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The proof that works for all primes is a two-liner, so an article for even that is not necessary! (By Cauchy's Theorem, there is no non-trivial subgroup; pick any non-identity element, and it generates the whole group. Therefore the group is cyclic.) - grubber 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to some mathematics wiki. JIP | Talk 09:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to cyclic group, is there a maths wiki at wikia?, if so Transwiki it as well. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who prod'ded it at first, thinking it was WP:OR. I obviously don't know much about math, so I Abstain from this particular discussion. However, I do think that WP:MSM would apply, unless the proof is contained within some longer article that would explain to us mere mortals what it's supposed to mean. ... discospinster _talk 13:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zundark. It is indeed just silly. Michael Kinyon 18:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly indeed; not a useful redirect. Melchoir 00:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly —Mets501 (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not WP:OR, but too trivial and specialized to be notable. The right generalization is that every group with prime order is cyclic, but that is already mentioned in appropriate detail in Cyclic group and follows immediately from the second sentence of the Definitions section there. The title of the entry doesn't seem notable enough to redirect. —David Eppstein 01:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Charles Matthews 10:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't it qualifies as OR as you can probably find a number of textbooks that have this argument. But it's such a simple fact that it certainly does not need its own page. This might be suitable for, say, some WikiBooks project on elementary group theory (Group Theory for Dummies maybe?). Pascal.Tesson 17:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. RandomP 18:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too trivial to keep. Madmath789 07:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- We don't need a long page proving that 1 + 1 = 2 unless it makes some profound non-obvious point along the way. (If for some bizarre reason this is kept, the title should be changed to "proof that order-3 groups are cyclic" or something like that (with the hyphen).) Michael Hardy 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I can't think why anyone bothered to type out the page in the first place Bernard Hurley 14:54, 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 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetfox[edit]

Non-notable website with absolutely no signs of satisfying WP:WEB. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Should the site become notable in the future, I will not oppose this article's re-creation at that time.--chris.lawson 05:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Launched July 24, 2006, 86 unique google hits, Alexa doesn't even know it exists. It appears this site doesn't have the amount of visitors nor the amount of press attention that warrants an article - delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Gray Porpoise 21:56, 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. Arguments for keeping this article are insufficient given the weight of the deletion arguments. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orato: True Stories From Real People[edit]

This article is nothing but an advertisement for a website, created by the person/group that maintains the size. Violation of Wikipedia policy. Additionally, the site's notability is very minor; alexa rating is 803,669. Dr. Cash 05:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Support deletion. Links to this article have been added twice to the citizen journalism article by the anonymous user with IP 208.181.145.235 who is supporting the page below. (That IP number resolves to an internet service provider in Vancouver, where Orato is based.) As I stated originally, this article is currently an advertisement, and the publication itself was barely notable enough for me to marginally support its retention. Based on comments that others have made here, combined with circumstantial evidence of linkspamming by the publication itself or its supporters, I've changed my mind and now agree that it should be deleted. --Sheldon Rampton 14:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. I think they have the right to be here. Let's ask them to clean the article. It's a good example of community building news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.145.235 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Site is just not notable, despite the quality of its content. One non-notable instructor's comments are not enough. hateless 18:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the site doesn't appear to be drumming up much interest at the moment. If it becomes a significant source of journalism (or criticism), then sure, repost it, but right now? No. (And I should note that the iPod story's been around for a while; I saw it on a WoW board.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Oppose Deletion." Of course, I'm just the editor of Orato, but I'm not sure I understand the logic. When I do a search for "obscure rock bands", I get a list of 1146. While I'm all for maintaining the entries on all 1146 of 'em, why delete a reference to one of the world's first meaningful citizen journalism sites, with more than 1600 registered correspondents and more than 10,000 visitors in August? I would be more than willing to clean up the article to eliminate marginal passages. Paul Sullivan.

Please make a case with the guidelines at WP:WEB in mind. Let's not bring rock bands into discussion, they have their own set of criteria for notability. hateless 22:24, 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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hogan (poet)[edit]

Apparently copyright violation ([6]), and in any case I am not sure that he's notable enough. Delete as written. --Nlu (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete but remove the copyvio in it. He is a published author, and the movie, One Man's Hero is real, though I note most of his books seem to be self-published, which is not much on the notability scale. FrozenPurpleCube 19:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, it does seem that the author of the article if MfxHogan, which makes it a vanity article. FrozenPurpleCube 19:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no copyright violation and wonder what is gained by deleting the Hogan articles from wikipedia. Hogan´s writings offer a unique perspective from an intellectual who also has extensively experiencesd life and culture in Latin America. All of us will be diminished if the choice is made to delete.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Hogan_%28poet%29" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfxhogan (talk • contribs) 17:54, September 25, 2006

No copyright violation. This material is in the public domain. Also, Hogan's books (with the exception of Mexican Mornings) were all published buy university presses and small presses, not vanity presses. He's as notable as Jimmy Santyiago Baca and has won most of the same literary prizes including the NEA. In addition, his credit as historian appears on the Berenger movie and his book is a best seller in Mexico. Do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfxhogan (talk • contribs)

How can it be public domain when that Web site has a prominent: "© 2000 Michael Hogan" on it? You can't have it both ways. Either it's you (in which case it's vanity) or it's not you (in which case you have no right to authorize its use). --Nlu (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the copyright notice on the author's page is to protect the images. The other information, date and place of birth, books published, etc. is clearly in the public domain: birth records, books in print, Directory of American Poets, etc. I am not the author but it seems to me that this entry should stay whether it was submitted by him or his wife or daughter, or just some fan. He is a well-recognized writer and certainly appears as author of many books on amazon.com, has several articles in monthly review, alterinfos, and seems to be pretty famous in Latin America.,etc. We wouldn't turn down a page on Clinton just because Chelsea submited it. 200.52.124.151 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Melissa When I google Michael Hogan+Mexico I find about a hundred entries mostly referring to the author's articles on Latin Amnerica, his books on history and poetry. Fairly notable in Latin America, I would say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.116.194.50 (talk • contribs) I feel a little responsible for this thread. In my work as a professor at the University of Guadalajara I was browsing through Wikipedia to see how discriminating my students might be in their online research (on various subjects), when I came upon the site listing all the "Michael Hogans". Noting that the "American poet" was listed but there was no biographical info, which seemed both a necessary and an easy blank to fill in, and being short on time but wanting the info to be as accurate as possible, I simply emailed the poet himself and suggested he provide the data -- never imagining that questions would arise as to his "importance". I think the copyright issue has been thoroughly addressed, so will just briefly concentrate on why an entry on this writer is of value. I and my colleagues, in the U.S., Mexico and other countries, have all had students of various ages who very much wanted to research both the work and life of Michael Hogan, poet (and historian, essayist...) He has been a working, regularly-published writer since the 1970's (the majority of his publications by respected U.S. presses, and the few seeming "self-publications" having been sponsored by well-known Latin American educational institutions -- choices of presses having been made in response to requests by educators on both sides of the border, and in other countries, for more immediately-available texts.) He has worked with many other poets who are inarguably part of any "canon" of poetry in English (Baca, Bukowski, Ginsberg, Piercy, Stafford, etc. etc.) and is well-known as a valiant and gifted director of successful programs aimed toward both advanced and under-served communities of writing students. He also maintains strong links with other writers and scholars throughout the U.S. and Mexico, in Ireland, Italy and Germany, etc. -- another reason that his presence on the "world-wide" web makes particular sense. And, if breadth of readership were a criterion, the fact that his work currently appears in important English literature anthologies (by the most established U.S./international publishers) and thus reaches hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students, would be motive enough to have his background data available to them. If actual authorship of this wikipedia entry is of concern, there are various of Hogan's colleagues throughout the world who'd compose another version -- as I noted at the beginning, my concern was for accuracy in the entry, and that has been achieved.Lmayo 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Prof. L. Mayo, Univ. de Guadalajara User's third edit. Note also that the article says he is married to a "textile artist and historian Lucinda Mayo".[reply]

He has worked with many other poets who are inarguably part of any "canon" "Worked with" is essentially a meaningless statement that says nothing about the actual work -- or value thereof -- of the actual subject of this discussion.--Calton | Talk 06:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verification of claims made. Small and university-press poetry books, per se, say nothing about the actual notability, fame, importance, or quality of the poet. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: See among others: History Net http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=32002876521003 and MexConnect at http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/acogan/acbkmexmornings.html Also, Paris Review poetry http://www.theparisreview.com/viewissue.php/prmllD/72 and American Book Review http://www.litline.org/ABR/Issues/volume13/133.html and listing in Poets and Writers at http://www.pw.org 148.244.181.86 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Melissa[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chenard Walcker[edit]

nn bio, webmaster of low-traffic website and violates WP:VAIN as said subject created article. Google search is hard to determine, because most entries are for a defunct auto company Giant onehead 06:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete nnbio. Danny Lilithborne 06:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a speedy, discography section asserts notability. MER-C 09:46, 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 06:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movies filmed at Carnegie Mellon University[edit]

listcruft Giant onehead 06:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is of similar vain to the previous list:

Carnegie Mellon University in popular culture

Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 06:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific in your reasoning. Listcruft is not a valid reason for deletion, because what constitutes listcruft is highly subjective. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Material doesn't warrant separate article, but I don't see why it can't be included in the main article. Some facts of the second nominated article may be too granular to include (like the current first item on the list), rest can easily be included. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* We made the second article because the original article was getting too long and the 'movies filmed at' section seemed like an obvious candidate to remove. --Matt 11:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic.--Peta 04:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable criterion for a list. Being filmed at Carnegie Mellon does not tell us anything useful about the films themselves. Eluchil404 21:48, 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 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consupport[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement. For some reason it has no link to the website being described; for that matter it cites no sources at all. The only incoming links are from the talk-page for the sole author (who also just happens to run the site) and from Gaming convention (to which it was recently added by the same editor). Phil | Talk 06:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook WP:VSCA. Danny Lilithborne 06:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-admitted advertisement (read the last section). JIP | Talk 09:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I think this might have value as a casebook, ultimate example of WP:VSCA that we will be able to tell future generations of Wikipedians about.-- danntm ^T _C 13:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

> This article reads like an advertisement.

My apologies if it reads like an advertisement. Consupport is a free service, like google is a free service. In fact I have used the google entry to try and make the consupport article fit in. If you have any suggestions that would make it look less like an advertisement, I would appreciate them.

> For some reason it has no link to the website being described

There is a link. It's the first link under General Information. It's after "You can look at Consupport on ..."

However as you didn't spot it, and you do consider it important enough to comment on, I have also added a link to the official homepage, in a section called External Links, using the same method as in the Google entry.

> The only incoming links are from the talk-page for the sole author (who also just > happens to run the site) and from Gaming convention (to which it was recently added > by the same editor).

There was a message a few days ago which said there were not enough links to the page. Originally I wanted the page to settle in before I added lots of links to it, but following your message I went round and added in links in the most appropriate places.

I will look round for more links to add.

The problem is that many of the conventions that consupport supports do not themselves have wikipedia entries. I could add these conventions as well if you think it's worthwhile.

As I say, it's a service like Google. And I have tried to model the entry on google. Google has a section on "Products and Services" - would it be better if I changed the titles to also use "Products and Services?"

All suggestions and comments on improving the entry are appreciated.

All comments and suggestions are welcome.

Ratty. 20:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One very important thing that the article on Google has that your article on Consupport lacks is a section titled "References" that says where the authors of the article on Google got their information. This is something that all Wikipedia articles are supposed to have. I'm sure if you had such a section with an appropriate number of references to publications not produced by Consupport that discussed Consupport your article would get a lot more, um, support. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for the suggestion.

I've figured out how to do references and put a couple in (including one to the web site itself, like google does). The problem is that there is very little written about the subject, which is why everything had to be developed from scratch. There should be a lot more information, but many commercial companies keep the information confidential to avoid competitors.

As I find more references, I'll add them

Ratty. 20:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Added a couple more references. If anyone knows of any other references where we can refer people to, please either post here, or feel free to edit the page.

Ratty. 17:42, 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 13:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dusko[edit]

This article is about a comic. Other than that and the names of the characters, it offers little else. Google is understandably not helpful, and my prod was removed by an anonymous user. My vote is Delete, at least until the author offers some context. Danny Lilithborne 06:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even its existence is verifiable. Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. —dustmite 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it doesn't even show up on google, it has no place here. --Karafias 06:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - I am the author of the comic strip known as "The Tunnel" - Dusko is a very real, if not somewhat crude, comic - it has merely failed to catch the attention of the "professional" comic industry, or to claim its own website - hence the lack of mention on the Internet. -- Nick Sinnett, 05:08 EST, 26 September 2006
- It's not even published on the Internet? How is this notable again? Danny Lilithborne 08:05, 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. Catchpole 21:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenne Hardt[edit]

Tagged for speedy but notability is asserted, so brining here. Article itself is pretty poor but the subject may be worth saving. Guy 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appeared in several films, IMDB filmography. MER-C 09:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically voice actors don't 'appear', but that resume is impressive enough to keep the article. This should be sent to cleanup. It just needs someone to spend two minutes to make the assertion to save it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the roster of appearances seems solid enough to me - I'll give it a cleanup attempt when I'm not at work, if nobody beats me to it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article still has no sources. Arbusto 22:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does now! Total rewrite, and a good thing, too, as the whole bloody lot was a copy-and-paste from her agency bio. I think it's sourced reasonably well now, and I affirm my opinion above. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:15, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotusland[edit]

This page more or less copies the content from a copyrighted Web site; see http://www.lotusland.org/gardens/cycad.htm and the sidebar on the left. The subject itself isn't a bad idea for an article, but the garden by the name "lotusland" does not appear to be notable. The term itself goes back to the "Odyssey". modify 07:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I've yet to see a non-notable botanical garden, so I see no problem with the article title. It's the name of the place, why not use it? I also quickly scoured the site but couldn't find anything that even remotely resembled the article. Could you please be more specific about the supposed copyright violation? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be hard to spot at first because the Web site has more text than the article. On the page, there's the bold heading "Bromeliads" and the text "Other notable plants include a branched pygmy date palm (Phoenix roebelinii), Trithrinax brasiliensis palms and giant ponytail palms (Beaucarnea recurvata)." On the Web site, at http://www.lotusland.org/gardens/brom.htm (with the title "Bromeliad Garden"), there's the text "Other notable plants in the garden include a branched pygmy date palm (Phoenix roebelinii) and Trithrinax brasiliensis palms. The garden is bordered by a planting of giant pony tail palms (Beaucarnea recurvata)." On the page, under "Cactus garden", there's the text "Notable specimens include species of Opuntia from the Galapagos Islands, Armatocereus from Peru and a complete collection of the genus Weberbauerocereus." On the Web site, at http://www.lotusland.org/gardens/cactusgdn.html ("Cactus Garden"), there's the text "Notable specimens include species of Opuntia endemic to the Galapagos Islands, several blue, sculptural species of Armatocereus from Peru, and a complete collection of the genus Weberbauerocereus." I haven't looked under each heading of the article, but given the similarity between the headings and the titles of the pages on the Web site, it seems likely that there is more copied text as well. modify 11:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consider renaming to Ganna Walska Lotusland, which appears on the website navbar, or similar. There does seem to be persistent lifting of scattered sentences and phrases from the website, but mostly it's fairly generic lists which a few minor edits could reword sufficiently not to be a problem. Espresso Addict 03:40, 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 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WealthWars[edit]

Just another run-of-the-mill MMORPG. I doubt it's noteworthy, but the CSD A7 it was tagged with certainly doesn't apply. Procedural nomination; Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 08:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alexa rank is 77,940, which is pretty poor by MMORPG standards. The article even had someone's referral link (!), which I removed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not many, if any browser based MMO games are notable, especially not this one. Altair 13:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY Patrolling the ocean called Wikipedia|Tell me about vandals, violations and more... 13:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C et al.--chris.lawson 18:26, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Oman (Battlefield 2 map)[edit]

Inherently a game guide, providing little meaningful material but that which appears to have been copied directly from the manual and various websites. Does not assert the notability or importance of this specific map, and cannot be expanded beyond its current (uninformative) style unless the map becomes significant in some real way. Prod removed by Anon. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 08:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 08:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete per nom. MER-C 09:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 11:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, the only part taken from somewhere else is the Information section, which is from the game. --Lorian^T_C 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with MER-C. Transwiki and then Delete Altair 20:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. I'm getting tired of all these articles on game maps--M8v2 04:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. Notable. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. Can be improved. --WikiCats 02:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sufficiently covered in the List of Battlefield 2 maps article (which should be kept). A list of cap points on a map isn't for an encyclopedia. - Hahnch e n 04:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anyone who would be interested in this already owns the game and has the manual with this list of ranks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game guidish. List of BF2 maps should have all the info. Unicyclopedia 05:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the reasons listed (again!) The Kinslayer 13:54, 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 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll of the Enlightenment[edit]

The Enlightenment has not been without its critics, from Joseph de Maistre onwards, so a section on criticisms would not go amiss in Age of Enlightenment. This article, however, is an essay (and WP:SOAP applies to those), probably original research (in which case WP:NOR applies), and does not cite any sources beyond those for the indiscriminate rummelcruft list of deaths. Philosophical criticisms of enlightenment ideas are already mentioned where appropriate (PoMo etc). Was previously deleted by WP:PROD on unknown grounds. In my view it would be appropriate to delete it again (and allow the AFD to run so that future incarnations can be speedied under WP:CSD G4). Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOR and WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OR. Yomangani ^talk 10:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The idea that we may inspire some future Pol Pot by making an encyclopedia is rather fetching, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. illspirit|talk 13:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly original research/sophomoric/actual sophomore's opinion. It's like having an article Death Toll due to Advance of Modern Technology and Related Population Growth Bwithh 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to severe point of view problems. --Metropolitan90 15:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No essays. ReverendG 21:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article asserts the notability of the subject. NPOV and citation issues should be dealt within the article and not through an AfD. The AfD is premature. JASpencer 08:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see how it asserts notability. However, it is WP:OR and is therefore worthy of deletion. illspirit|talk 11:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete I could believe that this might be sourceable to some political philosopher but until it is, it looks too much like OR. I'm going to put an "unsourced" tag on it and, if it doesn't get sourced by the time this AFD debate is over, then it should be deleted. --Richard 17:28, 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. Dakota 05:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rich Sheik[edit]

A decidedly non-notable video which generates ninety unique ghits. Usual blogesque plugs, YouTube and GVideo links, but nothing to suggest anything has been written about this that would meet WP:V. Undoubtedly fails WP:WEB, but it's the lack of reporting that really proves this is NN. Was prod'd, prod removed by author. Given the lack of evidence for notability, I think delete is the Right Thing to do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article meets WP:V because it is verifiable. A added a link on the article. It also meets WP:WEB and WP:N because it is on the famous comedy central website along with many others. Its fame has sperad across the web. It is now even on YouTube and GVideo because of this.--Taida 21:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong, strong, SUPERSTRONG delete I thought I'd seen this on TV recently, and I had- it was a sketch on Mind of Mencia. This, of course, would explain why the video is on comedycentral.com. Not much else needs to be said- it was a one-time skit (Better Know A District, this is not) that was in no way important or acclaimed enough to have its own article. If there was an article dealing with recurring sketches on Mind of Mencia (as there is for Chappelle's Show), it would not even deserve a mention on that page. -- Kicking222 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be able to decide what is important or acclaimed. The Rich Sheik is a music video, not a one time skit. Many people's hard work went into the making of this and you call it a one time skit. I also don't think there is anything wrong with articles that are about one time skits either.--Taida 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not notable, it's not encyclopaedic, it's not particularly useful, there are few sources besides the primary one available... etc. GassyGuy 07:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per kicking.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:39, 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 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime (expressing church in youth culture)[edit]

non-notable local church youth club. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but subsequent improvements made it assert notability and I think any prod tag would be removed. Anyway, it's just of local interest. Graham87 09:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree - Firstly Sublime and the Big Story have had a huge impact all over the south of Englad as well as in America, Germany and South Africa to name but a few so as you can see its not meerley local. Secondly its not a youth club, its a youth congregation. Finally its not only of local interest - the website has hits from over 40 countries every month. User:Wardie9025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.128.133 (talk • contribs)

Yes, and the article is well-written and shows this. However, although the group has done a lot, it's not notable according to wikipedia standards. Graham87 11:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wardie9025. I think it would be unfair to remove such an important group from the database as it is clearly a large group with members all around the world. User:Ajv2809 — Ajv2809 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete A youth group at a church in a city of 220,000 which only started 10 years ago, and an article which asserts only very marginal notability? No thanks. -- Kicking222 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The website has got well over a million hits from a world wide audience, there is not just a local interest but a global interest, also as a part of community church it is inbeded with the history of the church, for example Billy Graham's first talk in england was at central hall community church, yes it may be a youth group of only over a hundred but the effects of this youth group are not just southampton they are Africa, India, Germany, America, Spain, France.. ect. Other noteable things to come from sublime, the cutting edge events, which "Delerious?" played. Delerious? are a widely known christian rock band with global sucess, and they have important history with the community church in particular the youth,(sublime) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.49.224 (talk • contribs)
Delete Not notable enough. - Joshua Johaneman 00:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted. Website hits are not enough; show us how this group in anyway meets the notability requirements in WP:ORG. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per NeoChaosX. Show us that it meets WP:ORG, then it can stay AmitDeshwar 07:40, 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 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner (film)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's no source for this, and hardly any information present! Was created a month ago, and still has these major problems. Prod was removed without comment.} JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. MER-C 09:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I liked the original The Prisoner, this is unsourced, and uninformative. When we have definitive confirmation - that is verifiable, then it can be re-created. --LiverpoolCommander 10:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a crystal ball. Also since it is increasingly highly likely that a remake of the TV series will be made in the UK soon I very much doubt someone is going to make a film in the near future. Ben W Bell talk 11:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Prolog 13:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dustmite 15:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see main article The Prisoner, which reports that the project has been in "development hell" since 2000 or so. --John Nagle 18:43, 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 to Pop Idol. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korben[edit]

The subject is not notable. An also-ran in Pop Idol, who has not had significant achievements since pop idol. Ohconfucius 09:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn reality TV cruft. MER-C 11:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate Pop Idol season. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Prolog 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the appropriate season article. "Placing in a major music competition" is one of the criteria for inclusion per WP:MUSIC, and previous precedent states that making the final round of a show such as this qualifies. Kirjtc2 13:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ninth is not placing. Guyanakoolaid 10:24, 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 Delete, with blessings from the original author. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KAXM[edit]

The station was never built. The analog permit was canceled and the DTV permit dismissed on July 3, 2002. The station's callsign was deleted per CDBS. Propose to delete the article as Not Notable. dhett 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. - Yomangani ^talk 09:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the station's licenses and construction permits were cancelled, i support the deletion, even a speedy deletion if that may help. The sources i had (though legitimate, reliable, and very detailed), were incorrect. (FCC.gov, w9wi.com, and so on) Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 01:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deleted stations that never broadcast any programming and were thus unbuilt are not notable in my book. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:02, 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 nomination withdrawn. Whispering^(talk/c) 18:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheeple[edit]

Withdraw Nomination ~~Delete~~ as ~~neologism and/~~or dicdef. According to the prior AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheeple which was closed "No Consensus" there was already a wiktionary entry. This is here. Since WP:NOT a dictionary this article, which also does not cite its sources, is both inappropriate and, co of the Wiktionary entry, redundant. It adds no value to wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Note that the source of WSJ, 1984, removes the neologism element. Thus that is removed form nomination. Fiddle Faddle 14:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For me sufficient work has been done to distance this from a simple dicdef, so I am withdrawing my nomination. I see further work required within the article, but that is a different matter entirely. 15:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I came across the term in passing in a Time article on 9/11 conspiracies recently, but it'd take more than that as a source to leapfrog the various problems well cited by the nominator above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 11:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Word use descriptions are work for a dictionary. Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a quite well known and significant concept. According to this source the word first appeared in print in the Wall Street Journal in 1984; after 22 years is it still a neologism? The current article seems slightly wide of the mark; it's most famiiar to me in the writings of conspiracy theorists. I may try to improve this a bit. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still a dicdef so far. It will take a great deal of improvement to make it more than that. But, go for it if you can. I haven't nominated it "just to see it deleted", so make it survive, get it good citations, assert the notability and make it an encyclopaedic article that adds true value and I will withdraw. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Edison 14:51, 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 keep. Unanimous agreement. There is no apparent need for further discussion. Uncle G 10:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Scott-Lee[edit]

Also ran in Pop Idol 2, Eurovision qualifying round, and is enjoying success as an entertainer at Pontins' holiday camps ;-) Delete as not notable per WP:BIO Ohconfucius 10:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Nomination Withdrawn. Overlooked Top 11 single Ohconfucius 12:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue that with a song in the top 11 and a famous manager, his former band 3SL is notable and he is by extension. Also did national tour, albeit as a support act. Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge to the appropriate season article. "Placing in a major music competition" is one of the criteria for inclusion per WP:MUSIC, and previous precedent states that making the final round of a show such as this qualifies. Kirjtc2 13:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scrapes through, IMO -- Roleplayer 22:12, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Passantino[edit]

Seemingly inconsequential journalist. Not sure about popularity or notability. Seems as though this article should be deleted WP:BIO Drak 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to get more discussion--Konstable 10:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passantino is a major figure in the online music criticism community, his move into mainstream print media is one of the most important developments in current British music journalism signalling a major shift in media dynamics. He is a very controversial figure and his, sometime brutal, criticisms are mentioned in a number of wiki articles such as the Tori Amos entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.205.186 (talk • contribs)
Passantino is hen fap. He lives in a world of virtual chat-rooms, discussing the merits of wrestling while picking his nose. He makes deliberately foul remarks in a bid to attract attention in a "look at me, I'm sooo outrageous" manner. It is impossible to think that anyone other than himself is responsible for this entry. Definitely suitable for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.152.48.43 (talk • contribs) (Originally a vandalization of the above vote)
Dom probably wrote this entry himself. Besides, he's a twat and Robin Carmody agrees. (PS: he is about as brutal as The Arctic Monkeys playing paintball war, ie: not in the fucking slightest.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.237.203 (talk • contribs)
lol esteban— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.58.152 (talk • contribs)
~~Keep~~ (strong keep below) - seems notable to me. He's written for some heavyweight publications, even if he'll probably never win a Pullitzer Prize. --Dweller 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note This AFD has been repeatedly vandalized by anons. I've tried to restore and tag comments as written, though multiple IP's edited different entries. Fan-1967 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Associate editor of Stylus Magazine, I think he meets WP:BIO Wildthing61476 16:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disclaimer- new user I don't know how much weight is given to the expandability of the article. However I don't think this article can really be expanded beyond it's current form, which I think makes a very weak article. Ratherhaveaheart 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't mean to be contentious, but I wasn't aware that those are valid reasons for a delete vote. I thought the issue was notability. --Dweller 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You are right expandability is not an official reason for a delete vote, but I guess I was going with the "no rules" policy in thinking that given the above stated situation it doesn't seem like a worthy article and deleting the article would improve WP. Furthermore I think the lack of information-expandability- does indicate a lack of notability, since the subject is not notable enough to have very much information about him available for people to research beyond his editing positions on two magazines. If the article was expanded to include more substance I would be easily persuaded to Keep

Keep As stated above, the very existence of this man is a seismic paradigm shift in the media stratus. Journalis 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless I'm missing something here there is no assertion of notability in the article . I cannot find a biography on him, news article with him as the subject or any information that he's made a lasting contribution to the field of music journalism. The stylus magazine website lists him as a senior writer which shows that he is just another journo of no significant consequence. Peripitus (Talk) 10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unimportant. Made a small wave with the Tori Amos review, more out of a plan to become infamous than out of any interest in journalism. It has died down, and he is where he belongs: obscurity. Amber388 15:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- You seem to argue that he was once notable, but no longer. That is an argument to keep, not delete. --Dweller 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I can't understand the desire to delete this. I spent 30 seconds googling and came up with this ([7]) article by Passantino, published in the Guardian this month. As a writer for a national newspaper, he is notable. --Dweller 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Very stubby article -- I'd sure like to see some more content. But (barely) notable. NawlinWiki 16:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as above, it needs some content, but there are several thousand stubs without AfD's so it's not a natural criterion for deletion. Budgiekiller 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 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narcodex[edit]

Relisting to get more discussion--Konstable 10:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable Wiki. No reliable secondary sources providing information on the subject. Looks like borderline vanity/advertising. Delete as per WP:WEB, WP:RS. Wickethewok 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not appear to satisfy WP:WEB. ergot 01:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; same as above, does not meet WP:WEB. Echalone 00:13, 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 Merge to Australian Idol. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cle Wootton[edit]

Child actress in 2 season run before, also-ran in Australian Idol, and no significant achievements since. ~~Delete~~ Merge to Australian Idol ~~per WP:BIO~~ Ohconfucius 10:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revised nomination above Ohconfucius 12:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Australian Idol 2. I wasn't able to determine whether her role was major or not, but Ship to Shore was in fact a notable show. However, most people looking up her name or that of any other Australian Idol contestant will want to know info about what they did on the show. Merging that info and redirecting so people find it doesn't require deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn reality TV cruft. MER-C 11:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge to the appropriate season article. "Placing in a major music competition" is one of the criteria for inclusion per WP:MUSIC, and previous precedent states that making the final round of a show such as this qualifies. Kirjtc2 13:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By almost all definitions, placing would generally mean first to third place. Ohconfucius

Redirect to contest page. --Peta 04:31, 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. It could not have been said any clearerer. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Nicholas[edit]

Unencyclopedaic, utterly biased. Possibly non-notable. Should be either expanded rapidly to be an article worth keeping, or deleted for recreation later when the subject becomes notable and/or more details are available about the person Firi e n § 10:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full rewrite, else delete. Seems to be author of some moderately-notable books from a real publisher, but current article is completely unacceptable. Though I feel the subject is notable enough for an article, having no article at all would be preferable to keeping the present text. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: what a mad article - this is a woman and we don't really know anything to say about her for her Wikipedia article! Like the voters above, I will reconsider this vote if the article gets a complete rewrite with some facts and sources. AndyJones 11:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from rescuer / re first AFD
I rescued this article from AfD first time round, and I said I would expand it. At the moment I am at WS5, and quite frankly, could jack the whole lot in within a second. Skip the rewrite, bin it, and I will do something better in a month or two, when I have more information to hand. Better to have a good page than a half baked lump of s**t which bares no resemblance to an encyclopedia article even after I have cleaned it up!!! My vote - "BIN IT! DELETE, REMOVE, INCINERATE!!! Can I say it any clearerer????' Thor Malmjursson 20:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletethis is vanity not journalism, no point rewriting, needs citations, source otherwise very one sided.--Mr Maxim 20:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this article a while ago, and I stand by it. (Originally, its title was in all capitals, the worst possible Geogre's Law faux pas.) This article is unverified and possibly unverifiable. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:30, 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 Merge to Australian Idol. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Cavuoto[edit]

The subject was unknown before Australian Idol2, enjoyed her 5 minutes of fame in the show, was placed 8th, and is notable only for having been canned by Australia's Channel 10 for "un-presenterlike behaviour". ~~Delete per WP:BIO Ohconfucius 10:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Revised nomination: Merge to Australian Idol.Ohconfucius 12:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to appropriate Australian Idol article so people who want to find out about her can find info without the need for a separate article. Her sacking is already discussed in Video Hits so merging or redirecting there is pointless. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Mgm. MER-C 11:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge to the appropriate season article. "Placing in a major music competition" is one of the criteria for inclusion per WP:MUSIC, and previous precedent states that making the final round of a show such as this qualifies. Kirjtc2 13:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is this valid? Seems like vanity, like 5 minutes on idols was not good enough, go away. --Mr Maxim 20:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both for the AI placement and her being canned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:49, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Pyrah[edit]

No real notability here: seems to fail WP:BIO. Journalist for a minor local paper; she did get some award - some obscure thing, not Pulitzer prize stuff - but Wikipedia's guidelines state that multiple awards are necessary: most people in the world have probably received some sort of minor award in their life. The fact that the photo in the article is a "self-portrait" of the subject, and the general tone of the article, seem to indicate that there is a possible vanity angle here as well. Wikipedia isn't MySpace. Byrgenwulf 11:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article notes three notable accomplishments under the "Work" heading. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) And WP:BIO doesn't say that multiple awards are necessary, but simply that they are acceptable as proof of notability, which can be demonstrated in many ways. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteJournalists write articles, I taught six lessons yesterday and won numerous awards for teaching yet I do not have a Wikipedia entry why then does Miss Pyrah, work is work, especially when you glorify it by writing about it in Wikipedia yourself, vanity, self promotion you should be ashamed - report on other people that is sopposedly ones job as a journalist. --Mr Maxim 20:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete You'd think a notable, contemporary, British journalist would get more than 130 total and 25 unique Google hits, but Alli Pyrah does not. And the single award she won is probably not notable, either, as "EDF Energy South West Media Awards" gets only 190 total and 25 unique hits- and the second hit is this WP article on Alli Pyrah. The site that hosts these awards used to have a WP article, but that was deleted a few months ago due to lack of notability. Of course, Truthbringer would vote to keep a verifiable article on my dog, so I'm sure he never looked at what the award actually is. -- Kicking222 22:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:CIVIL is a particularly useful guideline, and I would encourage Kicking222 to review it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/AWARDS/050520nominee.shtml provides background on the awards. http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/CAMPAIGNS/2006/06june/060621snj.shtml describes one of the campaigns that she and her paper were involved with. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Peta 04:30, 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 Merge to A380. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airports serving the A380[edit]

Unnecessary article. Doesn't even deal with the topic it is named for. We don't have articles on airports that serve the 747 or other aircraft. Just because the A380 is a large aircraft doesn't mean it needs that special attention, just a runway long enough. Ben W Bell talk 11:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not doing what it says and being more speculative than anything much else. Potentially an encyclopedic topic if/when airports start making wholesale changes to allow for the new aircraft, since it is a pretty massive vehicle. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research and crystal ball gazing. Yomangani ^talk 13:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator may not have understood this issue. The A380 also needs an appropriate terminal building to load passengers through two doors. Toronto's Pearson International Airport has constructed a new terminal building, in part to allow it to handle the A380, and the cost of the new building is part of the reason why landing fees at Pearson are so high. So the number of airports which can serve the A380 is limited by runway length, terminal capacity and economics: many airline routes don't consistently generate the number of passengers that an A380 needs to operate cost-effectively. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must say I understand the issue on the A380 just fine. Special buildings are not needed to load and unload the aircraft, only if the airport wishes to use both levels of doors at the same time, otherwise just using the lower doors like on all other aircraft is fine. Airports can be altered to better accomodate the A380 with its facilities, but it's not necessary to do so. Ben W Bell talk 08:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into A380 article, which already has a section on this, maybe could use a little expansion. FrozenPurpleCube 20:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; if we want a list of airports capable of handling the A380, then this isn't it; if it's meant to be a discussion of destination of A380 routes, this is crystal-ballism; if it's meant to be a discussion of the problems that TruthbringerToronto mentions, it belongs in the A380 article. Seems most like the latter and not well written either. Carlossuarez46 00:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The special requirements for the A380 do not merit an article to list the airports that have decided to (add any word you want here) their money to handle this aircraft. Vegaswikian 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article

May i remind all of you that the A380 is a very important and interesting topic for many Wiki viewers! after all i know many pilots and aviators who are very interested in the A380 and also are members or viewers of this site. If you dont like this article then add to it or just dont look at it!

Comment Yes we all know that, however if the article isn't considered encyclopaedic, is unnecessary or doesn't fulfill what it says it is about then it shouldn't be here. Just saying don't look at it isn't good practice, if we judged by that then Wikipedia would fill up with the most useless stuff going. Ben W Bell talk 08:26, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 12:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkane[edit]

Doesn't seem notable, nothing on Google, which is usually a reliable indicator of the significance and popularity of hip-hop bands. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely non-notable. WP:MUSIC, WP:VAIN, WP:BIO...take your pick. --Onorem 12:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7: No assertion of notability (and tagged as such). They haven't even released an album yet. --Huon 12:44, 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 keep due to bad faith nom, WP:SNOW, and an AfD determining keep mere days ago. . - PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore III[edit]

Strong Delete:This article has no bearing on information that would be found in an encyclopedia of any kind. This information is more likely to be found in a tabloid type newspaper.--MechCommander 08:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD's:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (second nomination) (Closed No consensus 4 August 2006)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (3rd nomination) (Closed Keep 19 September 2006)

Delete - his parents are famous, but notability is only transferable by heredity if you're a royal. It would surprise me not one bit if he becomes more significant in some field or another, but he hasn't yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The last AFD closed three days ago! Fan-1967 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The consensus was good then, why the rush to try again without new arguments, I don't know. FrozenPurpleCube 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNon-notable person.Wikipedia is not here to smear living non-notable persons who are related to someone the editor doesn't like. OOH! He got a SPEEDING TICKET when he was 17!!!!! What could be more "encyclopedic" than that!!!Edison 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. I would also support a redirect to Al Gore, since everything noteable about Gore III is already mentioned in that article. —dustmite 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons I gave when I made the second nomination (not enough verifiable information for an NPOV article; what info we have can be covered in Al Gore). That said, I'm not sure what to think about this latest nomination. Under normal circumstances, I would say it's way too soon after the last nomination. On the other hand, the last nomination went several days without being listed, and I suspect this might have skewed the results. It seems -- and this could be just my imagination -- that AfDers who vote early are more likely to vote delete, and those who vote later are more likely to vote keep, and the last nomination may have sort of missed the delete voters and picked up all the keep voters. So I'm adding my vote and hoping people take this nom seriously, but also acknowledging that people saying "what the heck?" have a point. --Allen 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reposted to AFD too soon, and the arguments the nominator makes are arguments for cleanup, not for deletion. -- Plutortalk contribs 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DEVFS[edit]

insignificant Doc aberdeen 14:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Doc aberdeen 16:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please be a bit more specific with your reasoning. Citing our notability guidelines explicitly or implicitly would be sufficient. Thanks. MER-C 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability_(software):

"The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself"
"The software is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization"
"The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor"
"The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian or Fedora Core, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer"

Neither of them hold for devfs --Doc aberdeen 16:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about something that is at least as notable as many of the obsolete file systems with articles. Could use some improvement though. At the worst, put it somewhere to do with the Linux Kernel or something. FrozenPurpleCube 14:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Although since it is used in FreeBSD as well, I suppose that might not work so well unless you put it in both. FrozenPurpleCube 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well now it's only used in FreeBSD as far as I know. Any other OSs that use it? --Doc aberdeen 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found out Solaris has it's own devfs too. Still, they are very different from the now removed Linux devfs which the article is about. --Doc aberdeen 16:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - OS X uses one as well. Zetawoof^(ζ) 17:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Device file systems are present in a number of UNIX-based operating systems. The software notability criteria don't really apply here, as this is an operating system component, not a standalone program. Zetawoof^(ζ) 17:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a piece of software, and thus the criteria apply. If you look closely at the article, moreover, you'll also see that it satisfies the first criterion. ☺ Uncle G 18:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the fourth criterion ("included in a major operating system distribution") definitely holds. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please note that it's "included in a major operating system distribution [...], and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer". Solaris includes Sun's devfs, OSX's one may be derived from the BSD devfs but heavily modified. --Doc aberdeen 12:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, something that gets into kernel standard distributions is not insignificant. Gazpacho 07:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it certainly satisfies at least two notability criteria (1 and 4). Michael Kinyon 11:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". Any published (whether that's print or not I don't know) work whose subject is devfs? Setup HOW-TOs and tutorials are trivial. I think this criteria wants to mean it was subject of research, but maybe I'm wrong. Also, some old stable branches of distributions might still have devfs but with time it will not meet 4 either. --Doc aberdeen 12:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Four such works are listed in DEVFS#Further_reading. Tutorials are not trivial. That someone independent of the software's author/publisher has gone to the effort of writing and publishing their own lengthy tutorial on the software demonstrates that it is notable. WP:SOFTWARE explains what trivial works is intended to cover, and what constitutes a published work. Uncle G 20:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable, worthwhile. I'm not even going to start thinking about the numbers of computers with a devfs file system on them. - Palfrey 02:13, 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 06:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dx reunion tour[edit]

Non-notable event, not televised or put on pay per view, and the article is extremely poorly written to boot. Tromboneguy0186 11:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable house show. Had a prod but it was removed by an anon. -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tromboneguy0186. --Oakster ^(Talk) 20:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, an article for a HOUSE SHOW? WWE does hundreds of them a year. TJ Spyke 20:16, 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 deleted under CSD A1 by NawlinWiki. MER-C 12:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliem[edit]

per request of owner of corporation Johnmorrow 16:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD G7, nominator is the author of the article. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:48, 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 redirected. MER-C 12:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamboree on the Air[edit]

the information in this article has been merged into World Scout Jamboree. Horus Kol 09:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 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 Redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Porritt[edit]

Not a notable player only in the youth team but you can add him when he is part of the first team at Middlesbrough F.C. but not yet.

Keep Article Player is big future prospect and could be called up to first team any time now. Well known in footballing circles before allegations as england youth player Maniacgeorge 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nominate WESTSIDE 16:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since for the moment he is only notable in relation to allegations about the conduct of certain football coaches and scouts, redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. This does not prejudice against creating a separate article if he becomes a full professional in the future. Qwghlm 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. Scottmsg 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. Kingjamie 19:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football, for now. When he becomes a recognised player in his own right, then the article can become about him again. aLii 10:31, 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 15:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takehisa Yaegashi[edit]

possibly Non-notable. Can anyone prove otherwise? Nekohakase 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gets a fair amount of media attention due to the poularity of the Prius. Here's an example article on him from Businessweek. And here's one that refers to him as "father of the hybrid": no small feat considering all the press hybrid cars are getting these days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. hateless 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once you see Andrew's argument and read the links he provides, not much else needs to be said. -- Kicking222 22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets criteria of WP:BIO and article is now properly verified and cited per WP:V. --Satori Son 03:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 114 Google hits for "八重樫武久" including www.toyota.co.jp/jp/environmental_rep/98/envrep98/pdf/end/prius_ttl.p Fg2 03:21, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century)[edit]

I am withdrawing this AfD. Based on suggestions from those commenting below, I agree that forks are required. Please see Talk:Colonialism#Splitting_this_article_up_-_five_.22eras.22_not_two for an alternative suggestion. Comments welcome. Gsd2000 18:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary fork from Colonialism, that simply duplicates its content under a heading that is an arbitrary and subjective slicing of historical time, that noone will ever directly search for, unlike say the The Scramble for Africa, which is a recognised term in English. Same goes for The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century). There is no reason why the content cannot remain in Colonialism with links to concrete topics with uncontentious titles that people would actually search for, such as the British Empire or British Raj. Just to reiterate: this article is simply duplicated text from Colonialism - deleting it would not constitute loss of information from Wikipedia. Gsd2000 12:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonstandard division. Gazpacho 07:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page has been created with the aim of splitting the main article of Colonialism (which Gsd2000 correctly points out is "too big") into two different articles chronologically separated. Gsd2000 is deleting content on the Colonialism page arguing it is too big, and then wants to delete forks created to deal with this size issue? This defies my logic. Lapaz 14:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am not disagreeing with forks. I am disagreeing with these particular forks that you have created, for the following reasons: (a) a "wave" that lasted a whole century? (b) during the middle of this "wave of colonization" (post WW2) virtually every single colony went in completely the opposite direction and gained its independence from Europe? (c) this "wave" suddenly stopped... when... on December 31st 1999? (d) how is anyone ever going to stumble across this article unless as a link from another article? (e) where did this title and chronological division come from - you? if so, it's original research. If anything a new article should be created, "History of Colonialism", not these. Gsd2000 11:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The second phase of modern European colonization, that associated with European industrialization, ended in the mid-to-late 20th century. It began, arguably, for the British, in the late 18th century or perhaps with the Napoleonic Wars, before the first phase ended everywhere (e.g. Latin American revolution). For the French 1830s-1850s; Germans and Belgians late 19th c. So what? (Hey, is this a rolling wave? Just a thought... though I would prefer a different title.) The fact that in the early 20th century some societies were highly industrialized while others were essentially peasant societies at the same time in different parts of the world doesn't mean both things weren't true or that it is wrong to speak of the industrial era in places where that obtained even if for other places it didn't yet. A few colonies still exist. More importantly, in many ways the peak of European colonial engagement in Africa came after decolonization of India, Malaysia and Indonesia. Trotsky called it "combined and uneven development" and you don't have to like his politics to see that it's a pretty good way to describe history on the global scale. Improve the titles, don't cut the articles. Ngwe 22:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the reasons listed by Lapaz. The Ogre 14:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Lapaz. --Pan Gerwazy 11:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Perfectly happy to see this refactored differently, renamed, etc., but if Gsd2000 had something else in mind, he had an excellent opportunity to deal with it differently when he removed this material from Colonialism and failed to refactor it elsewhere. He did not do so: he simply deleted. - Jmabel | Talk 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See comments above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cclowe (talk • contribs) 25 september..
Strong Keep. Per Lapaz. --Don't mess with Scott. 16:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the above reasons. Zamyatin 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Gsd, you are now arguing that there's nothing wrong with creating sub-articles, but just with the title of these articles. First, clearly there is no reason to think a century stopposed on December 31st, 1999. Most historians date the beginning of the 20th century with the First World War, in 1914. Clearly dates are always debatable. In fact, the whole principle a cutting a period in two is debatable, and is probably one of the main characteristics of Modernity. I just thought it was a more or less convenient way to break the Colonialism article in two sections (and you have never argued in the Colonialism page that dividing it according to these two broad distinctions was illegitimate). Second, if your issue is with the title, then you should ask for the page to be moved to a better name, and not ask for deletion. If you rather name the article "History of colonialism from the 15th century to the 19th century", IMO it doesn't make any big difference. I have to add that I disagree with your proposal to remain only with "concrete articles": as if Colonialism from 15th century to the 19th century wasn't concrete. And I think an article dealing with colonialism should deal with this subject as at least an European matter, and not according to national lines. Although the British & the French colonization are not the same (and you've deleted all content in the Colonialism article addressing these distinctions), clearly both belongs to a common historical phenomenon. It is not the Khoikhoi who colonized Berlin! Lapaz 14:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century)[edit]

I am withdrawing this AfD. Based on suggestions from those commenting below, I agree that forks are required. Please see Talk:Colonialism#Splitting_this_article_up_-_five_.22eras.22_not_two for an alternative suggestion. Comments welcome. Gsd2000 18:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary fork from Colonialism, that simply duplicates its content under a heading that is an arbitrary and subjective slicing of historical time, that noone will ever directly search for, unlike say the Age of Discovery, which is a recognised term in English. Same goes for The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century). There is no reason why the content cannot remain in Colonialism with links to concrete topics with uncontentious titles that people would actually search for, such as the Spanish Empire or Hernan Cortes. Just to reiterate: this article is simply duplicated text from Colonialism - deleting it would not constitute loss of information from Wikipedia. Gsd2000 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonstandard division and move to combine discussions. Gazpacho 07:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page has been created with the aim of splitting the main article of Colonialism (which Gsd2000 correctly points out is "too big") into two different articles chronologically separated. Gsd2000 is deleting content on the Colonialism page arguing it is too big, and then wants to delete forks created to deal with this size issue? This defies my logic. Lapaz 14:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment. I am not disagreeing with forks. I am disagreeing with these particular forks that you have created, for the following reasons: (a) a "wave" that lasted four centuries? (b) during the middle of this "wave of colonization" a whole continent went in completely the opposite direction and gained its independence from Europe? (c) this "wave" suddenly stopped on December 31st 1899 and a new one started? (d) how is anyone ever going to stumble across this article unless as a link from another article? (e) where did this title and chronological division come from - you? if so, it's original research. If anything a new article should be created, "History of Colonialism", not these. Gsd2000 11:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. This is an argument for improving the titles and tweaking the dates, not deleting the articles. The point about "a whole continent [going] in completely the opposite direction" (actually two continents) is an argument for two more detailed articles complementing a concise general article. The terms First and "Second British Empires are frequently used exactly because of the effects of the American Revolution. Iberian colonialism rooted in feudalism and slavery (and the Caribbean slave colonization by other powers) was dramatically different from the colonialism of European industrialization. The main ambiguity (relative continuity for the British) is the result of British early industrialization plus defeat of the French in India, Canada and the Napoleonic wars. The dates should overlap and not be hard and fast. "Opposite direction" is misleading anyway for the western U.S. and Canada -- there is a respected school of U.S. Western history (e.g. Earl Pomeroy, Howard Lamar) that looks at the "territorial phase" of legal status of various conquered areas as colonial not only in regard to conquered native peoples but also vis à vis the fully incorporated states, including governance and economic dependency & resource exploitation. Perhaps there is a similar argument for interior Brazil & Argentina, don't know that history. Ngwe 22:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What's wrong with splitting by centuries? Who uses this concept of "waves"? Gazpacho 06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Quite - these "waves" are phrases coined by Lapaz. But in my opinion, even splitting by centuries is imposing arbitrary time slices. It took the Portuguese from 1415 to 1540 or so to get from the coast of North Africa to Japan, and discussion of this can't be split in two at 1500. Similarly for the Spanish conquest of the Americas - Columbus arrived in 1492 and it continued through into the 1500s. Similarly for the Scramble for Africa, around the turn of the 1900s. The subarticles already present in the article on what might be described as "standard headings" (ie ones commonly found in books or used by historians) are enough for further discussion. Gsd2000 10:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see how splitting at 1900 is any better. Other options exist, like splitting by country or by recognized watershed events (e.g. the Indian rebellion). Gazpacho 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the reasons listed by Lapaz. The Ogre 14:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Lapaz. --Pan Gerwazy 11:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Perfectly happy to see this refactored differently, renamed, etc., but if Gsd2000 had something else in mind, he had an excellent opportunity to deal with it differently when he removed this material from Colonialism and failed to refactor it elsewhere. He did not do so: he simply deleted. - Jmabel | Talk 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See comment above & discussion below. Ngwe 22:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consider organizing the sub-articles by continent colonized or by colonial power. Those strike me as more logical organizing principles than centuries. --Richard 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Gsd, you are now arguing that there's nothing wrong with creating sub-articles, but just with the title of these articles. First, clearly there is no reason to think a century stopposed on December 31st, 1999. Most historians date the beginning of the 20th century with the First World War, in 1914. Clearly dates are always debatable. In fact, the whole principle a cutting a period in two is debatable, and is probably one of the main characteristics of Modernity. I just thought it was a more or less convenient way to break the Colonialism article in two sections (and you have never argued in the Colonialism page that dividing it according to these two broad distinctions was illegitimate). Second, if your issue is with the title, then you should ask for the page to be moved to a better name, and not ask for deletion. If you rather name the article "History of colonialism from the 15th century to the 19th century", IMO it doesn't make any big difference. Lapaz 14:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lapaz that reorganizing according to a different scheme does not require deletion of this article. Gsd2000 could withdraw the AFD nomination and then we could get to work to determine if there is a mutually acceptable organizing scheme. Gsd2000's proposal below looks good to me. --Richard 04:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the titles, work on the dates (e.g. say 15th c. to early 19th c., late 18th c. to late 20th c. & allow overlap), rework levels of detail & avoid duplicating language in unified (& more conceptual) article on colonialism vs. more periodized articles dealing with colonialisms of different forms related to different world economies. But those are reasons to edit, not to delete. Ngwe 22:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not opposed to subarticles in any way. I have put a proposal here: Talk:Colonialism#Splitting_this_article_up_-_five_.22eras.22_not_two Gsd2000 02:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this proposal better than the break up by centuries. --Richard 04:43, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ibherdesign[edit]

This is an advert, created by the subject. It has already been prodded twice, and had the templat removed by the subject twice Chris 12:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - couldn't find any indication of passing WP:CORP, although it generates an impressive amount of Ghits. Unsourced, and the author's methods don't help his cause, either. --Huon 13:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. Vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 13:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:CORP.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 13:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and poorly written. ReverendG 21:56, 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 Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexopia[edit]

Unreferenced, largely unverifiable, often implausible, [8] shows 60-odd unique hits from under half a million, which is very low for a supposedly popular blogging system. Guy 13:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where your getting that, I see 451 [9] from just Nexopia.com. Also it has been mentioned in news & papers, although it may have been bad things about them they still talk about them. --207.216.137.56 18:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forgot to login, above is me. How is this largely unverifiable? It just needs some referencing. --Simonkoldyk 18:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My google search gets a LOT more results. I get about 708 unique results. 68.149.19.75

With that logic you may as well delete the entry for MySpace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.226.16 (talk • contribs) Exactly, delete this one and delete the MySpace entry at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.174.155 (talk • contribs)

I'm agreeing with the anons. The Google hits are odd, but looking over google nets a few [10] [11] places that mention it has a social networking phonomenon in Canada the same way MySpace has generated attention in the US. Also, big-boards.com [12] lists its forums as having more posts than Something Awful Forums. That might be the way they do their counting but I say both these facts make it significant. Keep passes WP:WEB. —Mitaphane _talk 04:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the article could be cleaned up. It certainly seems popular enough here in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, though I am not a member. --Yamla 16:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is definitely a popular service, at least in Western Canada. It can be easily identified by teenagers/young adults in British Columbia, at least. I do agree that it requires a cleanup. Maybe identification of demographics would help to clarify the popularity of the service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.231.69.76 (talk • contribs)

Note that the above vote was cast by an editor with no prior edit history. --Yamla 17:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Peta 04:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kc4 02:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong KEEP Fix it up a little 142.161.239.14

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus whoring[edit]

Prod removed by anon. Looks like a thinly disguised ad for www.netellerbonuses.com, created by Netellerbonuses (talk · contribs) and even if the linkspam is removed I don't see a worthwhile article here. Title strikes me as a Neologism. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 13:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crap article on neologistic subject. Guy 13:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did remove the linkspam, but it still should be deleted. Pointless duplication of a topic already covered well in the Online casino article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. —dustmite 14:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is an advert, not really relevant for Wikipedia.--Mr Maxim 20:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bullshit. ReverendG 21:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ReverendG's excellent rationale. Danny Lilithborne 02:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO at the least. Ryūlóng 06:27, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecozoic[edit]

This and The Great Story are up for deletion as non-notable pseudoscientific mystical flapdoodle, and possible original research, since no really reliable sources are cited. The Great Story article mentions lots of notable thinkers, but doesn't cite any of their work, because these people didn't write about "the Great Story". They wrote about other teleological philosophies, but these often have their own articles. "Ecozoic" is not a recognised geological era, nor a term in evolutionary biology or any indeed any established field other than "Great Story Studies". Byrgenwulf 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 20,000 google hits for ecozoic, apparently it's a notable New Age concept.--Nydas 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not suitable material, it is pretending to be science but really does miss the point of what a wikipedia article ahould contain. Google hits should not count for suitability.--Mr Maxim 20:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Peta 04:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Must keep An encyclopaedia is supposed to have an entry on each coined term that does not belong in a dictionary. In just twenty minutes I could find the term being coined and described on ABC NewsRadio, in a paper on a university web site, etc. and I put just a few references in the article; there will be more - I hardly looked. It proves a lack of seriousness to put up an Afd for non-notable or (here even and) original research without even trying to find a proper reference. Should WP:NPOV not apply to a presentation for Afd? I do not care whether the topic is pseudoscientific mystical flapdoodle, else we must erase either Catholicism or Islam - or would that have to be both? — SomeHuman 3 Oct 2006 19:13 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hot Plate[edit]

Delete. A university student-produced TV show that ran for six episodes one time. Not on IMDB, while "The Hot Plate"+sitcom" does not give us anything relevant within the 45 Google results. ... discospinster _talk 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 13:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN —dustmite 14:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. There are plenty of local shows with strong followings on Wikipedia, that don't get deleted (Uncle Floyd Show, Scholastic Ball Report). Sure is was produced by college students, but it didn't air on college TV, it aired on commercial television, WKNT. Is it verifiable? Just check the programming logs (archived federal documents as ordered by the FCC) of WKNT from 1995 and 1996(reruns). It was quite an accomplishment for college students to transcend "student television" and achieve legitimate commercial status. It should stay up, if only for that. I urge you to keep this small entry as a small testiment to what can be achieved.Thank you. - Brack Benningfield— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.28.39.40 (talk • contribs)

DeleteWikipedia is not the place for motivational stories, who cares what you did last summer.--Mr Maxim 20:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 21:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom (though I dispute IMDB's reliability as a reference source). Just 'cos it gone shown on a box somewhere, don't mean it belongs in wikipedia... Bwithh 22:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many grammatical errors with that last statement that I don't even know where to begin correcting it. At least try to learn proper english if you are going to argue, please Mr. Bwithh. I assume you mean, "Just because it was shown on a box somewhere doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia." -with love, Braxton B. Benningfield

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Whispering^(talk/c) 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Songun[edit]

~~This really is simply a page of opinions, totally POV its completely made up of commentary and accusations about korea. basically its what someone thinks Frogsprog 13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Petition accepted. Unsourced POV - FrancisTyers · 13:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. Using Google it strikes me that the topic itself is notable. AfD is a sledgehammer to crack a nut here. I've added tags for citations and expert help. There is a Korean article which I can't read that may have the notability this one needs. I'm simply concerned that going straight to AfD is not appropriate here. Fiddle Faddle 13:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Article now improved but very stubby. Just better than a sub-stub, so needs serious attention, but it is perfectly keepable. Fiddle Faddle 15:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've removed the non-NPOV second sentence. This is obviously a notable subject which needs expanding, not deleting. Yomangani ^talk 14:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Findings undeniable. Some editor appears to have gone over the article with a fine-toothed comb! --ForbiddenWord 14:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what does findings undeniable mean? are you pro or anti deletion? --The duck 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. pointless article! POV. no content --The duck 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not voting here, just wondering if, as the nominator I am allowed to vote? --Frogsprog 14:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, it's an attempt to reach concensus, and as nominator it is taken that you think it should be deleted unless you state otherwise. Yomangani ^talk 14:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yomangani, notable concept, NPOV stub. --Huon 14:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since POV has been removed. Noteworthy topic, now it just needs expansion. —dustmite 14:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
changing opinion: KEEP I would like to withdraw my proposal for deletion and request expansion on the article --Frogsprog 15:46, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FRO (2006 movie)[edit]

Article is about a film yet to be released, by an unknown production company (the only Google result for the company's name is this article), and involving non-notable people. The only source for the film is its official website, which contains no content other than a placeholder page and a link to this article. That fact, and the fact that the article's primary author Bgashler1 (talk · contribs) may well be "director/producer/writer" Brad Gashler, leads me to suspect that the article was created as an advertisement for the film. The only Google result for the film's title is this article; others are misspellings of "from this movie".

In summary, an unknown film by non-notable people, possibly created for vanity/advertisement purposes. Delete. --bainer (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 14:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I can't find anybody involved in this listed on IMDB, which tells me this is a totally off-the-radar indy production. Could turn out to be the next Blair Witch Project, but the odds are against it, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No notability at this time. Fan-1967 15:39, 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 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Housebox[edit]

Non-notable online radio station, does not meet WP:WEB Wildthing61476 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spammy, fails to assert notability. MER-C 13:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. —dustmite 14:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seconded above comments, seems unsalvageably spammy —K e akealani 19:02, 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 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

300 degree club[edit]

Was tagged CSD as a "hoax", but that is not a valid criterin for speedy. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax, however, so I'm bringing it here. Deville (Talk) 14:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also joined to this AfD the article 300 club. I know it's bad practice to do this after the debate has started but they're really duplicate articles so I think this will be uncontroversial. Pascal.Tesson 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,Neutral, one look a the only reference in the article: [13] is enough to confirm this as a hoax in my opinion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: To my surprise, Google reveals some truth to the concept [14], especially when looking at [15] and [16]. But even then it is nothing more than a praCtical joke by some south pole researchers in lack of doing something more useful. It is hardly worth the title the most exclusive club in the world. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Prolog 21:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ow, that would hurt like hell... --Roninbk _{t c #} 23:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, besides the being-at-the-South-Pole thing, this is very common in Finland and doesn't hurt at all. And why just run around, when one can go ice swimming too. Prolog 23:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the best case is that this is a club whose existence can only be verified by the handful of people who have stayed at the south pole station. The worst case is that this is a legend circulated among the south pole researchers. Pascal.Tesson 03:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comment Actually, I just proded as a hoax the article 300 club. The guy who wrote it got his temperatures crossed and stated that you needed the temperature to -200F.
Delete per nom but I did enjoy reading it! Nigel ^(Talk) 12:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both in case it comes to it (or does that make it twice as cold) --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. This is not a important hoax. Yamaguchi先生 21:59, 29 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, with no prejudice against Huon's test version at User:Huon/Test being used instead, at the proper name of Battle of Salyersville. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of salyersville[edit]

There are no sources for this battle. "Battle of Salyersville" produces 2 Ghits, both of which seem to refer to an event in 1862, not 1863. The service history of the 14th Kentucky infantry shows only a Union defeat a few days earlier. The National Park Service's list of battles also does not contain this one. Even the Magoffin County Historical Society's website does not mention it. Considering the massive casualties claimed (almost 200 dead, which would probably translate to more than a thousand total casualties), this total lack of evidence is highly unlikely. Delete as probable hoax. Huon 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepDuring the Civil War many battles were fought in the wilderness, with the opposing forces not sure where they were, particularly in relation to arbitrary county lines. A battle may be known by more than one name. This could have happened, but a clearer reference to verifiable sources is needed.Edison 15:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article indeed gives an alternative name, "Battle of Ivy Point Hill". There are two Ghits for "Ivy Point Hill", one of which is Wikipedia. Neither says anything about a battle on December 4, 1863. The National Park Service has no battle in December 1863 for all of Kentucky. Sure, this could have happened (although I then would suspect serious flaws in the numbers given), but how are we to verify it? --Huon 15:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We shouldn't give benefit of the doubt for non-verified content on Wikipedia. Huon seems to have done sufficient research. I can't find anything in google books on these supposed battles (only found mention of a 1864 skirmish at "Half Mountain" south of Salyersville" which left 60 CSA dead with only slight USA casualties). Bwithh 22:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Bwithh 22:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[keep]] maby less casualties happend and the year might be off i was just going by my grand fathers old storys that his grandpa told him about my great great great grand pa who was actually in the battle of salyersville dont delete the deaths could easily have been exagerated over the years and i guesed at the month. so keep it and change it some im actually frome magoffin and i know they were a battle of salyersville but soldiers storys are often exagerated it was suposed to have happend before the battle of puncheon creek like a few hours before it but it did happen just change the date and year.]] [us men from back here aint bad for lying i promise me and many people belive the event happend its part of local folklore of the area.] [my pa also told me that they were a unioun recruting station at one end of salyersville and a confederate station at the other]

- - - Wow, eat your heart out, Ken Burns... Bwithh 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[what does per nom mean] if any one wants to know more about the battle like men that were in it just type who were there and ill tell you. one man that was in it my ancestor i talked about was william jenkins a private in the 3rd ky mtd rifles csa he went home after his unit was dissolved later in the war.] other relatives i have that were in it was my 5thgreat uncles stephen and martin howard. and my 4th uncle who was unioun that disserted there william howard.]

Comment "per nom" means "by the nominator's reasoning". Unfortunately, you just admitted that the article is founded on hearsay, which hardly counts as a reliable source and thus is unsuited for Wikipedia. It's not about truth, but verifiability. --Huon 07:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Assertions should be challenged and deleted and then the article should be brought back as an AfD. Seems to assert its own notability adequately (although this needs sourcing). JASpencer 08:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verifiable and original research. Nothing the Official Records for December 1863, and nothing very close to Salyersville (unless Prestonburg is "really close") for 1862. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[keep] you should not delete it just because its not in the national archives the archives only contian important strategic battles not minnor battles such as this one . [if it is deleted put it in a diffirent category such as legonds of the civil war or little known battles. [if you guys would agree we could have a reenactment at the site to prove wether a battle could have been fought there but wee have to have the 14thkyregiment and other reenactment units to do this and we could put it on television.old men dont always tell the truth to little kids ..go to user page samuel purtee for more information.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuel purtee (talk • contribs) 16:53, September 23, 2006 (UTC) [[final solution about the topic]frome sam purtee i recently asked the owner of the magoffin county historical society he sead the battle was a small skirmish with about 80 men involved. so change it keep it and end the discussion any ways half mountian is only 3 miles south of salyersville the events i sead took place exactly like i sead just at a smaller scale. the battle of puncheon creek is what we call the action at half mountian it was after the skirmish in salyersville and in reality there was only like 10 people killed in salyersville during the battle and only about 8 unioun men died . im fixing it with acuracy after this stuff has been typed. lets put an end to this argument i admit i was wrong very wrong about the casualties. but around here we like a good story.. i am a member of licking stations sons of confederate veterans im good in geneology and history.frome samuel purteeSamuel purtee 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC) [have any of you ever been to this area prestonsburg is only 20 miles frome salyersville. and history references cant always be belived a lot is left out. [samuel purtees last sentence] well think about it this way i wont agree to delete my history how would you agree to delete yours if you must then delete this article and make one about the battle of half mountian.frome samuel purtee i quit arguing with you city slikers. and i apologise for trying to expose some little unkown history about my home town.[reply]

Comment - I just made a draft of what an article about the battle might look like. My version is still suspect (because I don't trust the Union reports I based this version on - the Confederate strength may be exaggerated), but at least there is a source, and this engagement really happened - though probably not under the name "Battle of Salyersville". My suggestion would be to either delete the current verion or turn it into a redirect, and to create Battle of Paintsville in its stead (a name that still sees extremely little use). --Huon 11:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from [sam purtee] i agree with you huon lets use your draft for the article but if we change the name lets call it the battle of ivy point hillSamuel purtee 22:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)samuel purtee[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stone Warehouse[edit]

Small company from Ireland, only founded in 2004, doesn't seem to meet any of the guidelines in WP:CORP. Google results (excluding this article and the official website) are limited to local council records, local business directories and so forth (along with false positivies for people using "stone warehouse" otherwise than as a proper noun). --bainer (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability is asserted that would meet any of the three criteria set forth in WP:CORP. --Satori Son 00:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above & nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:01, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell H. Dilday[edit]

Subject appears to have not independent notability outside of the unaccredited school he leads, 309 ghits of which 118 unique. Guy 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)\[reply]

~~Mild Keep~~ WP:BIO lists winning multiple awards or having multiple reviews as sufficient for inclusion for writers. The subject won one award which I can't tell is notable or not. Badbilltucker 14:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Based on the data below, I would like to change to Delete. Thank you for the clarification on the awards, Arbustoo. Badbilltucker 23:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Bad Hello32020 15:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Created by user with no edits outside this article, unknown published books, no sources to prove notablity, chancellor of an unaccredited institution, 118 unique hits, and as for the "awards": it isn't sourced nor does it meet WP:BIO guidelines. Arbusto 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Arbustoo Bwithh 19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 04:53, 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 speedy keep because article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Horus Kol (talk · contribs) merged content with this edit, amongst others. Therefore the GFDL requires that the edit history of this article be retained. Please read Wikipedia:Merge for the correct procedure to follow when merging articles. Uncle G 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamboree on the Internet[edit]

The content of this article is now part of World Scout Jamboree Horus Kol 14:57, 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 keep. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Sonic[edit]

This article is redundant as mostly all of the information is already on Sonic's page, and no other Super form has an article to itself. The comic information can go in Sonic's articles for the respective canons. Grandmastergalvatron 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Weak keep. The best solution would be to merge into the Sonic page whatever isn't there already. Lots of video game characters have powered-up forms, and aren't generally given seperate articles. Even the most famous, Super Mario, is a redirect to Mario's page. That said, I am strongly opposed to outright deletion, as a lot of good information would be lost. Merge with great care or leave it alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable transformation of a very notable character. A merge would inflate the article too much.--Andeh 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Vrrt 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging this would make the Sonic article to large, or require a large amount of information be lost. Keep this and remove any doubled information on Sonic's page. --Zikar 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merging this into the Sonic article is a great idea, considering that it is one of Sonic's transformations. --Fastnaturedude 19:36, 22 September 2006 (GMT -5)
Merge or Weak keep for the same reasons as Starblind. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At some point I'm going to make a go at vastly reducing and merging this into the Sonic the Hedgehog character article at some point, but it doesn't need to be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andypandy. While a good idea, explaining the background of Super Sonic in each article would be a bit much. It is needlessly tiresome to maintain information that is duplicated across different pages. --DavidH Oz Au 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mariokid19. Keep it. --Mariokid19 Oz Au 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or a possible Weak Merge with Sonic the Hedgehog (character). Keep because Super Sonic is a notable character, having appeared in nearly every game. Weak Merge for the reasons that Sonic and Super SOnic are the same character. UnDeRsCoRe 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Fleetway's Super Sonic is totally diffrent and indeed a seperate character for large portion of the comic's run. --Zikar 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or Create an article on all Super forms/Transformations of characters in Sonic's universe and merge this one with it.Czin 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a new article like you say, I'd suggest Super transformations in Sonic the Hedgehog series; long and unwieldy, yet accurate. The problem is that it reduces the article to documenting just another series with a Super transformation instead of a discussion of the character and his imitations. The former of these two options cannot do the latter justice, but the latter can discuss both. (as evidenced by the present article.) --DavidH Oz Au 06:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. Can we make a propostion on this? GrandMasterGalvatron 13:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some series' have articles on about every character in them ( ie: Dragon ball z and star wars. The character, dark super sonic, and fleetway super sonic are all prominet characters in there own right. , so keep, not merge or delete.

Merge I already stated my opinion earlier, but whoever did that last edit needs to post their name or at least their IP. ~~And, DBZ and Star Wars have way more characters.~~ Super Saiyan Goku does not have his own article, and neither does Darth Vader. Those are two examples of transformations. So we should just merge this. --Fastnaturedude 21:37, 23 September 2006

Darth Vader does have his own article. Seperate from Anikin Skywalker even. I also wouldn't call it a transformation in the same sense. A better example off the top of my head would be Usagi Tsukino, perhaps. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out again that Super Sonic in Fleetway is a TOTALLY diffrent character. --Zikar 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate character, yes, but they are not so different on a basic level that it would warrant a separate article. --DavidH Oz Au 06:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read the article, Fleetway's Sonic and Super Sonic are nothing alike. One is good and the hero of Mobius, the other is pure evil incarnate with the power to destroy planets and has a thurst for destruction and suffering... I think that's pretty diffrent on a 'basic level'. --Zikar 08:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both glow yellow, powered by chaos emeralds, etc. --DavidH Oz Au 04:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of a flimsy argument... --Zikar 04:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also perfectly accurate... :D --DavidH Oz Au 05:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable transformation of a notable character; also, given that "Super Sonic" has made more appearances than the other "Super" incarnations of other characters, it stands to reason that Super Sonic should have his own article. Any differences between Super Sonic versions (and there are a few) could be documented here. Finally, as another Wikiuser has noted, merging this with Sonic's article would inflate it too much. --PeanutCheeseBar 15:45, 24 September 2006 (EST)
Keep. I agree with PeanutCheeseBar, a notable transformation of a notable character, and he has made more appearances than the other super characters. There is also a large amount of info about him, not only his game form, but his Archie form as well. SuperSonic 20:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Super Sonic should be a large section of the Sonic the Hedgehog article because Super Sonic is the same character as Sonic so there is no reason to have a different article about the same character in another form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvisganon (talk • contribs)
Keep Important character transformation, is in almost every Sonic the Hedgehog game. PSMax8956 00:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like others have already said, it is a very important character transformation which has appeared in basically every sonic game. Also like mentioned already a merge would inflate the sonic article a lot. --Silver Sonic Shadow 21:10, 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 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bush[edit]

From "What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia entries are not: Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." Mmoneypenny 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Besides which, he might not even be GWB's great-etc.-grandfather, as the article on Richard Bush states that the paternity is "conjectural". ... discospinster _talk 15:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rediect into Bush family. Should be mentioned there, but need not have his own article. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Bush as unverifiable. Would revert back to M&R position if a good source is given, however. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Russ Blau (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, unencyclopaedic. Guy 20:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Storkk 07:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think some of the other Bush ancestor articles may need to be deleted also. (the non-notable ones, of course). Stancel Spencer 09:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain --83.118.141.133 15:07, 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 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ejectrode[edit]

Neologism that nets 323 google hits, many about unrelated things. Talk page has some claims that Wired has used this, but I doubt this word has seen too much wider use. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The slim Google pickin's are mostly about a band by that name. Wired has included a monthly list of neologisms for many years, and the vast majority of words therein never achieve anything close to widespread use even among techies, much less the general public. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Merge into Computer jargon or Delete, but certainly don't keep. Michael Kinyon 11:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. A mention in Wired doesn't cut it. Fan-1967 01:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair play. I guess it's going to room 101 with this one. It's one of those that I typed in to illustrate a point and then realised that there were no references to it anywhere. I'll agree with the Delete but don't come running to me when you can't get your CD out your drive. ;) --Rufus Spiller 14:57, 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 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bush[edit]

Dubious validity, and non-notable. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory, and this guy is notable, if at all, only for who his descendants might be. But even that is unclear; the article cites a single reference which doesn't mention this individual, and the content of the article itself seems dubious. How did the "son of a poor man" become an Army general? In which Army? In the 18th century British army, you didn't become a general unless you were from a noble family or similarly privileged background. And the article admits that any relationship to the George Bush family is purely speculative. Russ Blau (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Russ Blau covered all the bases on why this should be deleted. Not verifiable. I would have no prob with merging into Bush Family if a source was found, however. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculative, unsourced. Guy 20:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Bush --141.156.232.179 18:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Storkk 07:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. Stancel Spencer 09:15, 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 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garbagemen (band)[edit]

nn notable band, no ghits for this band but title exists for a band by this name over 20 yrs ago which did not and does contain the members this band list in the article or image, vanity or hoax, creater removed speedy tag and prod without comment Shella * 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMG. Since the article seems farcical and doesn't assert notability, in my view, I would not object to a speedy. PJM 17:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. I can't find any information about their albums, or even if they exist outside of someone's living room. -- The Bethling ^(Talk) 04:25, 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 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Estate[edit]

Non descript housing estate Pally01 16:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 20:31, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Philip Neri Catholic School[edit]

School not notable ENeville 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable and established school, per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep Kappa 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Northbridge, New South Wales per proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. — RJH (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa Jcuk 18:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm getting fed up with deletionist nonsense like this trying to delete OBVIOUSLY notable schools such as this one. Like Kappa says, Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep is basically irrefutable, and since no consensus means more school articles get kept, deletion nominations are basically a waste of everyone's time. --ForbiddenWord 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but "irrefutable"? IRREFUTABLE? Are you kidding? Doesn't Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete work to refute it, just as the keep arguments work to refute the delete arguments? -- Kicking222 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, they do not, because the deletionists don't have any ground to stand on. --ForbiddenWord 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting. One rarely sees such a blatant argument by assertion. JoshuaZ 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but "OBVIOUSLY notable"? Old does not imply historically significant. Ohconfucius 12:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete schoolcruft like this are simply not notable and never will be. — Dunc|☺ 21:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dunc. --Aaron 21:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Arbusto 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and INCREDIBLY STRONG DELETE of St_Philip_Neri_Classes_of_2006. The former is non-notable, and the latter is a joke. -- Kicking222 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons explained at User:Silensor/Schools, the subject is verifiable and established. Silensor 07:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is going on here? How can this unsourced, useless article meet the criteria of WP:SCHOOLS?:

1. The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself.

No mention of this. No published works cited or mentioned.

2. The school has been or was in existence for over 50 years, due to the great likelihood of—but greater difficulty of uncovering—non-trivial historical coverage of that school.

This is the one criteria it does meet. But please, there are actually millions of non-notable schools who just happen to be old. There is no assertion of notability regarding the age or history of the school.

3. The school participates in the highest grade of the state, province or regional competitions in at least three extracurricular activities. These can include, for example, sports teams, band competitions, cheerleading competitions, engineering contests, and so forth. In addition, the school has won at least two regional championships or one national championship in any of these activities.

No mention of this.

4. The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools.

No mention of this either

5. Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff.

No mention of this

6. The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC).

No mention of this

7. The school building or campus has notable architectural features that set it apart from others.

No Mention of this either

AmitDeshwar 08:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC) — AmitDeshwar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

For a user who registered just one week ago (and has just one single edit to article space) you raise some interesting questions. Who is "Striver" by the way, do you know? Silensor 08:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That means nothing - I was editing for ages with no account. --Charlesknight 11:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Nigel ^(Talk) 12:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another non-notable school. Prolog 12:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth; verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 18:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Northbridge, New South Wales per the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - entirely non-notable. --Charlesknight 11:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please per kappa this school is notable and established Yuckfoo 04:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable sources. Catchpole 07:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no non-trivial coverage so wouldn't even fit the inclusionist WP:SCHOOLS suggested guideline. Is completely non-notable. JoshuaZ 22:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; nn school. Carlossuarez46 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth, meets proposed guidelines. Bahn Mi 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Organic growth is just a buzzword with no meaning. Note that the proposed guideline does not have a consensus behind it. JoshuaZ 02:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If "organic growth" is just a buzzword... then so is "non notable" since policy is VERIFIABILITY NOT NOTABILITY. oh and in case your wondering... this is a KEEP. ALKIVAR™ 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alkivar, mind the caps please, they aren't very civil and no, notability is not a "buzzword" we have nice things like essays and proposed criteria and discussions of notability. If someone wants to write an essay attempting to define what they mean by organic growth and why this is a good thing it might become a non-buzzword but right now it is simply an undefined collection of words (I'm particularly puzzled about what in the growth would be "organic" - this is a good sign of something being a buzzword when it has nice-sounding irrelevant phrases attached). JoshuaZ 16:10, 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 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Arcal Estate[edit]

Non descript housing estate Pally01 16:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. th estate may have local notoriety, but that does not make it notable. Fiddle Faddle 16:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 20:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:54, 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 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate SG-1 Trivia[edit]

The article is a direct contradiction of WP:AVTRIV. I've merged the trivia in the main SG-1 article and thrown some none notable bits out. The article now has no purpose The Filmaker 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any remaining trivia to appropriate articles (not just the main SG-1 article). If no suitable location then delete.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all trivia is already in the main page. Ohconfucius 12:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I'm an SG-1 fan, but I'm a WP editor first. Trivia should always be considered material that has yet to be integrated into a proper WP article or removed because it's too peripheral to the subject. Moving it into a separate article has to be the worst means to avoid actually writing proper, sourced prose about a subject. Such material belongs in Stargate fan websites, not a general-purpose encyclopedia. It's not like there aren't a few hundred other places to find it, eh? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Guyanakoolaid 07:39, 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 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Road Estate[edit]

Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Fiddle Faddle 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article places the estate in historical context, so it serves both as history and geography. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The thing about these estates as that they are extremely numerous. The UK has many thousands of similar estates. They can contain a few homes or a hundred or more, but they are legion. There has to be something really notable about such a place before it is more than indiscriminate information. Every set of public housing is "an estate". Every builder's development of 3 homes behind a gate is "an estate". We're truly not talking about a generally significant item here. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its assertion of notability is "it was one of the first council housing developments in Sedgley which followed the Housing Act of 1919"? That isn't even close. Recury 19:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Arbusto 22:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fiddle and Recury. -- Kicking222 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Indistinguishable from hundreds, possibly thousands of similar estates. Bwithh 00:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable, and no "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 04:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stickley Estate[edit]

Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Fiddle Faddle 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 16:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.UberCryxic 17:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:52, 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. AfD is not a vote, and GassyGuy makes a very powerful argument. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maloof music[edit]

Non-notable music label ENeville 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kappa 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This record label is jointly owned by two notable organizations, Universal Music and the Maloof family. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty inclusionist on record labels, but according to the Hollywood Reporter article, the label only has one artist, Spit Fiya, who doesn't even have an article themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Universal and The Maloof family? Seems pretty notable. — Joshua Johaneman 01:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete A lot of inconsequential labels (e.g., vanity labels) have notable owners. In the same way that being born to famous parents doesn't make one notable, a label being owned by famous entities is not enough to establish notability. Bring it back when it expands its roster, has a successful release, a major artist signed, or something marginally notable. GassyGuy 07:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gassy and per Andrew Lenahan. JoshuaZ 23:32, 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. While the last three keep !votes certainly have more weight than the first four deletes, the last comment also makes a valid point. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straits Estate[edit]

Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Fiddle Faddle 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and no apparent notability. PJM 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to my street atlas of the West Midlands it's pretty large and effectively forms a separate district in its own right. -- Necrothesp 01:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have to think that a significant housing estate would more easily meet all of the requirements for Wikipedia content than, say, an individual episode of a cable sitcom -- but that's just me. Whether or not the article is sourced at this stage, the details surrounding the development history of a housing estate are certainly verifiable. --Dystopos 05:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You and I are verifiable, Dystopos. Does that mean that we are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia just because we have an entry in the phone book, or are on a register of electors? If so then be prepared for a huge influx of articles about verifiable subjects that are not worth inclusion in an enclyclopaedia. You or I may even be notable in a very minor manner. I am an expert in my worklife in a minor field, but I am assuredly not notable for an encyclopaedia, and I would support the deletion of any such article about someone like me. With regard to the fact that this estate takes up a reasonable section of a streetmap, Necrothesp, it may well. But it is not itself a district, it is simply an estate. It will be the district that has notability with the estate forming a minor part of the article on the district. Fiddle Faddle 06:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not strictly true. Larger estates do sometimes form districts in their own right. -- Necrothesp 11:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wish people would google just for a few minutes before tagging an article as unsourced. That should certainly be a WP policy before putting up an article for AfD because of WP:Notability or WP:OR or a lack of sources. I put 2 minor references in the article, and one that by itself proves sufficient notability as well as constitues a proper source for the content of the article, on the web site of The Sedgley Local History Society. — SomeHuman 3 Oct 2006 20:43 (UTC)
- Comment Straits Estate is an estate of homes. Looking at the links in the article, this is abouty Straits HOUSE (now the pub?), this is probably about this estate, but is not exactly in a mainstream journal, and is about the local pub. None of these seem to be truly on the topic of Straits Estate except insofar as the article says The modern housing development was constructed around a large 18th century residence called Straits House. Now the HOUSE may be notable because of the succession of uncited notable people who lived there, but the Estate certainly is not Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 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 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northway Estate[edit]

Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Nekohakase 16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. (failed to sogn this yesterday, sorry) Fiddle Faddle 08:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and no apparent notability. PJM 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:54, 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 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When eddie met salad[edit]

non-notable. Nekohakase 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not establish notability per WP:CORP. --Alan Au 21:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notablility ReverendG 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spammy. MER-C 01:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 02:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Bearcat 07:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam KaoBear^(talk) 20:06, 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 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brownswall Estate[edit]

Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Fiddle Faddle 16:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and no apparent notability. PJM 16:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:54, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Chad's R.C Primary School[edit]

Non notable school Pally01 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary schools are not notable per se. This one has no inherent notability, no citations, nothing to say that it should be here. Fails on just about every criterion. Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It has citations now, and it links to published works which satisfy the primary notability criterion. Uncle G 08:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those citations are, I fear, of a trivial nature. A citation to confirm the head teacher's name and another to confirm how many children attend do not in themselves confer any form of notability. If they were you could write an article on me and argue that I am notable because I appear in the electoral roll, the phone book and because my name appears on a reasonable number of web sites. However, even though I am an expert in my professional work, I am not notable for an encyclopaedia. Nor is this school and nor are the majority of schools of this class. A primary school per se, unless itself genuinely having something that is truly notable just does not make the cut. While WP:NOT paper, let us leave an article on this and other run of the mill schools until something notable happens there. WP:NOT a directory and not a list of indiscriminate information. Fiddle Faddle 12:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Sedgley per proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. — RJH (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- strongly notable school, as all schools are notable. Allow for organic expansion and growth. --ForbiddenWord 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not a blanket. Please don't use "stuck record" arguments. The WP:SCHOOL criteria focus upon the provenances and depths of independent sources for the school at hand, which is the proper study of encyclopaedists. Arguments about schools should do the same. Uncle G 08:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — Dunc|☺ 21:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fiddle Faddle. --Aaron 21:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools, a complete rewrite of this article is in progress. Silensor 08:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of those arguments are deeply flawed. Please don't use "stuck record" arguments. The WP:SCHOOL criteria focus upon the provenances and depths of independent sources for the school at hand, which is the proper study of encyclopaedists. Arguments about schools should do the same. Uncle G 08:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Present version meets proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 08:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article links to a BBC News article on the school and a 31-page detailed Ofsted report. The primary WP:SCHOOL notability criterion is satisfied. Keep.
See how easy this is? One addresses the source material that is available for the school at hand. No "stuck record" arguments, assertions of flawed blanket criteria, or subjective judgements of what one personally considers to be notable, are required. Uncle G 08:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ofsted report is a trivial report, no more demonstrative of notability than similar reports on nursing homes, audit reports on public companies, and similar mandatory inspections which result in written results which may, or may not, be visible on the web. The BBC reporting is also trivial, merely regurgitating league tables. This is reporting on a par with the telephone book, a birth record, etc. There is no non-trivial reporting on this school. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for addressing the sources. But that is nonetheless untrue. The Ofsted report is far from trivial, and is nothing like a telephone book entry. It is a 31-page detailed work that covers topics ranging from parents' views on the adverse impact of the rate of staff turnover through the school's new ICT room to the school's performance in SAT scores. Please actually read it.
    This is what a "telephone book" entry would look like, for comparison. Uncle G 10:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All UK schools in the state sector have OFSTED reports. There is nothing notable about these. They are unexceptionable and nopt inherently notable, nor do they confer notability. Fiddle Faddle 10:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are erroneously conflating "exceptional" and "notable". You are also applying notability to sources, which is highly confused thinking. The important aspects of sources as far as we are concerned as encyclopaedists is how much they contain on the subject and who wrote and fact checked them, i.e. their depths and provenances as I wrote above. Uncle G 11:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is kind of you to point that out, and kind to use a $10 word when a $1 word will do. I am not doing anything of the sort. There is nothing notable about a generic document like an OFSTED report. They are mandatory reports by the regulator of schools on each and every school in the nation, at least in the state system. The content of such a report is only likely to be notable if the school itself is, in some manner, revolutionary. Even "Special Measures" is not notability, just a category of school which faces closure unless something is done about the appalling performance there. Fiddle Faddle 11:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then every limited company is notable: it has an auditors report. Have a look at the Commission for Social Care Inspection website: the care home at 10 Whitfield Avenue, Seabridge, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, ST5 2JH, has been inspected; County Nursing Ltd., The Lodge, Church Square, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 1SA, has been inspected. If OFSTED reports are non-trivial third-party reporting which demonstrates de facto notability, so do CSCI ones, no ? Let's not go there. That is where the every-~~sperm~~school-is-sacred crowd will take us. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not notable and no notability asserted. A school would be notable if it didn't have an OFSTED report. Well, it wouldn't be a school..... ;-) Ohconfucius 12:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - notability not proven Nigel ^(Talk) 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; absence of non-trivial third-party reporting demonstrates that this is not a notable school. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verifiability (rather than notability) is the standard. --Myles Long 18:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Does that mean that, if we can verify that you exist you deserve an article? Or that I do? I think not, or every corporation woudl be in here, every entry in the phone book. Fiddle Faddle 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no notability. --Charlesknight 10:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please per uncle g the school is notable and meets wp:school criterion Yuckfoo 04:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Only a primary school so not notable per WP:Schools. Ofsted reports are trivial and generic. Catchpole 07:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angus and Catrchpole. JoshuaZ 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per years of discussions. Vegaswikian 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian; this is a nonsense article about a nn school. Carlossuarez46 20:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth, meets proposed guidelines. Bahn Mi 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I pity the fool who doesnt vote KEEP. ALKIVAR™ 23:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that substantially offensive, and most assuredly uncivil. As an attempt at humour I feel it has missed the mark completely. You are entitled to an opinion on the article, and indeed on other editors, but that is not the way to express an opinion about other editors. Additionally you have provided precisley no rationale for your opinion. Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously you sir have never heard of Mr. T. Not to mention the fact that my keep vote has as much weight and rationale behind it as the average delete vote. Stop being a sanctimonious ass and WP:AGF ALKIVAR™ 23:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But if you must have a rationale... how about the fact the ENTIRE SCHOOL was forced by the UK Govt to be screened for Tuberculosis due to the death of a Student Teachers Aid from TB? [17] That certainly makes it noteworthy in my book. ALKIVAR™ 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is not I who "must have a rationale", but the discussion. It interests me that you have found this news item but not edited the school article to reflect this new information. I suggest you add it if you feel it asserts the school's notability. As for assuming good faith, I do, always. I simply found your words offensive, and said so. I am sure you wrote them in good faith, but one perosn's good faith can sometimes offend other people. I would also suggest to you that you should have said "stop behaving as a sanctimonious ass" if that is what you felt. Your phraseology attacks a person, when you should deprecate a behaviour. Fiddle Faddle 06:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Naconkantari 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable and meets WP:SCHOOL criteria. Merging is okay too. JYolkowski // talk 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per years of discussions. This is an informative article on a UK school that needs time to expand. --JJay 17:41, 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 13:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Schenkman[edit]

Redundant one-line page. That person and his notability is already listed on Seattle Baroque. Is Seattle Baroque even notable? Nekohakase 16:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn-bio. Also, should probably nominate Seattle Baroque as well, as it fails WP:MUSIC. --Alan Au 21:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. MER-C 01:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 02:42, 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 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Ramen[edit]

non-notable. Nekohakase 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability established and referenced. --Alan Au 21:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 01:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 02:42, 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 Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Kent[edit]

a non-notable minor character, in the show for less than 2 months. Fails WP:FICTION character is already listed at List of Emmerdale characters ENeville 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or keep, pointless nomination, recommend speedy close. Kappa 16:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICTION, which states "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a 'List of characters'." Per nom, this subject is already listed at List of Emmerdale characters. --Satori Son 04:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I would personally prefer the content of this and other minor Emmerdale characters should be placed into a single page entitled List of minor Emmerdale characters which summarises each character allowing the main page List of Emmerdale characters to remain as purely a list without character information. This is in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as above --Amxitsa 10:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She was still a huge impact on the village and there was good coverage for her. Avril was very much a part of the village... even if she wasnt in it for long... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintheone (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 September 2006
- Redirect per Amxitsa. JoshuaZ 23:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straits Primary School[edit]

Non notable school Pally01 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason: Roberts Primary School
Coseley High School

Delete ~~all~~ Primary schools Primary schools are not notable per se. This one has no inherent notability, no citations, nothing to say that it should be here. Fails on just about every criterion. Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect secondary school (sorting out what I misread, see not below.) Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Sedgley per the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. If that is unacceptible, then keep the high school article. (I ~~hate~~ dislike it when people attempt to delete multiple articles with a single nomination. This practice should be voided. :-) — RJH (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I didn' notice that the Cosely one was a High School. Changing my position on that one. Bulk deletes are perfectly valid when grouping entirely similar items, and we have an editor who has created a load of non notable stuff that has just all been nominated separately. Fiddle Faddle 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, in the event of mass-deletes, I get concerned that we may be tossing out the baby with the bath water. Most people seem to indicate their preference once, but I'm not sure that every page is being properly examined. — RJH (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - We should prolly discuss this in a different place. We have a duty to read every article we express an opinion on. We can make errors (see my one), but we are also human. In general, where there is a huge suite of articles produced by an author who may have misinterpreted Wikipediaa's ethos, a bulk AfdD shoudl get a fuller consensus. Editing 10 individual AfD's is ofetn beyond us :) Fiddle Faddle 17:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay. — RJH (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Strong notability provided in articles, and all schools are notable, of course. Allow for organic expansion & growth. --ForbiddenWord 18:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Sedgley. All Schools are NOT notable and elementary/primary schools should rarely(if ever) have their own articles. TJ Spyke 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coseley High School (now renamed to Coseley School. Keep Straits Primary School which is one of the comparatively few schools considered bad enough by OSFTED to be "placed into special measures". Apparently it has improved, so its ups and downs seem indicative of notability, even though it is an elementary school. Neutral on Roberts Primary School. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. — Dunc|☺ 21:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three per Fiddle Faddle. --Aaron 21:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Arbusto 21:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete of the primary schools, delete the high school, as none assert sufficient ntoability. -- Kicking222 23:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Joshua Johaneman 01:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep, It's 100 years old. Not just a new school. That might make it notable.--Rayc 04:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Straits Primary School and Roberts Primary School as insufficiently notable, which is the reason neither of these articles have credible, third-party sources, and they never will. No opinion on Coseley High School. --Satori Son 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Silensor/Schools. Age of the school aside, it is one of the top performers in the region. Silensor 08:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ForbiddenWord. bbx 08:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above, one of these schools are over 100 years old. Yamaguchi先生 08:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The UK has several more centuries than that of history, and many primary schools in buildings over 100 years old. Age alone does not confer any form of notability Fiddle Faddle 11:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as completely non-notable. Prolog 12:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fiddle Faddle Nigel ^(Talk) 12:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None but Straits have any assertion of notability, and only Straits is weakly notable, probably good for a few years, but certainly not the stuff of the 100 year test. If Straits was not the turnaround story, it would have zero notability. Ohconfucius 13:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor and per verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 18:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coseley High School. I consider most secondary schools to be inherently notable. No opinion on the two primary schools. -- Necrothesp 01:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Charlesknight 10:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the schools are notable verifiable and meet our guidelines too Yuckfoo 04:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schoolcruft. Catchpole 07:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per years of discussion. I could have supported the merge above, but those votes count as a keep for this article rather then a delete after a merge. Vegaswikian 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep to Coseley for being old. weak Delete the other two, since they are non-notable primary schools. The deletions are weak because I'm tempted to argue for a procedural keep all since this seems like a bad bundling. JoshuaZ 22:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn schools. Next we'll have driving and typing schools and schools from Pokemon here. Carlossuarez46 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth, meets proposed guidelines. Bahn Mi 22:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, should be verifiable, and it doesn't make sense to nominate these articles together anyway. JYolkowski // talk 00:50, 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 Keep. Whether this article is kept or merged is a debate that can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Xiongnu[edit]

The only useful info in the article is a duplication of that presented in a much nicer way already at Chanyu ENeville 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Southern Xiongnu are notable and Chanyu doesn't even explain who they were, as far as I can tell. Maybe it's in there somewhere, but wikipedia readers shouldn't have to be Sherlock Holmes. Kappa 17:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa, although the article could use some expansion. --Alan Au 21:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with Xiongnu. This article has existed for more than a year[18], and it's still very small. It doesn't seem necessary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment A merger is acceptable but we would then need a redirect to make the GFDL happy per WP:MERGE. JoshuaZ 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be through the citation needed approach, not an AfD. JASpencer 10:38, 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 speedily deleted by Mike 7. MER-C 06:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyffanie Morgan[edit]

Non-notable. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PJM 17:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I don't see an assertion of notability apart from the usual peacock terms and hyperbole. Tagged as such. MER-C 01:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nnbio per MER-C. Danny Lilithborne 02:03, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeans (band)[edit]

Nominated by anon. Completing nom with no vote. Fan-1967 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Fan-1967 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - "The band enjoys worldwide popularity and is the best-known member of the early-1990s" isn't an assertion of notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 01:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How do you decide a speedy delete for a band with two albums on EMI/Capitol? That alone clearly demonstrates notability under WP:MUSIC. Period. End of discussion. The article is atrocious, though, and definately needs a major cleanup of both grammar and POV (every band member leaving the band is listed as a desertion. funny)Guyanakoolaid 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps if someone (a) familiar with the band, and (b) fluent in English, could work on it, it could be easier to see the band's acomplishments. Quite frankly, most of the article is incomprehensible. Fan-1967 23:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that "desertion" wording, as well as many other problems, may be the result of using a machine translation program, which often produces bizarre results. Fan-1967 23:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I honestly tried to clean this up, but it is pretty hopeless. However, searching an album title + Jeans produces a ton of results (including walmart.com! as much as I hate walmart, if they're selling your album, it's gotta be notable) and the band is clearly notable. I still vote Keep, but have deleted most of the content from the article. I really see no other way, it was almost complete gibberish, and what could be deciphered was mostly gossip and POV. I left the relevant info. Guyanakoolaid 01:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note An IP restored most of the removed content, but I have reverted it and, as nicely as I could, left a note that perhaps it would be better to find someone who knows English to work on it. The content was, quite frankly, largely incomprehensible. Fan-1967 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note This IP is virtually the same as the one who originally put most of the gibberish up and who deleted the AfD tag.Guyanakoolaid 21:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, providing that proper sources are added to the article. They're listed at allmusic.com. PJM 15:00, 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 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catch a perv[edit]

Non-notable, possible advertising/spam Tim1988 ^talk 17:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Website launched just last month. No indication of notability, or passing WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 17:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate directory. ReverendG 22:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan-1967. The Oxford Mail coverage mentioned is not a news story but an editorial regarding the site. If further and more significant press coverage occurs, we can always recreate the article - but for the moment it seems pretty clear-cut. Jumbo Snails 01:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Since the Oxford Mail op-ed goes towards notability. But the lack of anything WP:V makes this not really doable as an article right now. JoshuaZ 22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is possibly the most controversial website currently in the UK, with mention of media and police it looks to become even more notable.

Comment I live in the U.K. and keep up to date with the news, and I've never heard the site mentioned. --Tim1988 ^talk 18:38, 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 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LabX[edit]

Article about a specialist auction (and classified ad) website, was deleted after Prod and restored on request. I added the single source I could find that could be considered about the site (it covers LabX and two others). Two more articles are press releases, plus a passing mention (all from Newsbank). The cited Keskinocak and Tayur article is a passing mention and not about LabX, so WP:WEB and WP:CORP don't seem to be met. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added story from Wired Magazine (author is a senior scientist in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington). Also added reference to a recently released paperback book by Greg Holden being sold on Amazon. So perhaps this helps meet WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Kenpiech 15:26, 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, Deville (Talk) 17:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Main claim for article seems to be that it services a particular niche market - but I don't see it how its particularly different from X other online auction sites serving niche specialist markets (I'm considering afd'ing Uship for similar reasons. Actually, Category:Online auction websites and Category:Online retail companies of the United States in general could use a uh... spam scan) - the obvious play (aside from regional/language specialization) for such companies surviving against the 8000lb eBay gorilla. References so far aren't enough to satisfy non-trivial requirements of WP:WEB, WP:CORP. Bwithh 18:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recury 19:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaron 21:48, 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 Keep. Catchpole 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bacchus-F[edit]

Article has only one sentence saying that this is a drink. No references, description or anything saying why this is notable. Dugwiki 17:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, does require sources, information etc, however I had a fine red wine called Bachus and thus it is very possible that many drinks carry this mythologically imbued name.--Mr Maxim 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I should clarify - if the article can be expanded to include some notable information, I'm ok with keeping it. I'm not for keeping an otherwise almost empty article based on the notion that "Bachus might be a popular name for drinks." Dugwiki 22:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment, I'll be updating it later with sources, a picture, and the ingredients soon. It was first noted in the article Energy drink and there was no article on it so I felt compelled to start one off. --Nissi Kim 01:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for not updating sooner and my ignorance of Wikipedia, but please check again--it's been clearly updated from its original one-liner. --Nissi Kim 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article has been expanded) - Thanks for updating the article. I'm rescinding my deletion vote given that the article has content now. Dugwiki 15:19, 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 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Board of European Students of Technology-international board[edit]

completely unnotable information- even if the Board of European Students of Technology is notable, surely this complete list of all its committee members is completely superfluous. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Robotforaday 17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Bwithh 01:22, 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 Merge to Coney Island. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coney Island plane crash[edit]

This is an article on a non-notable light aircraft crash, these sorts of things happen everyday (unfortunately). See the following prior AFDs on similar subjects: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Indiana Plane Crash (2nd nomination).Nilfanion (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the press attention given. A plane crashing into some island may not be notable, but crashing into Coney Island is. hateless 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- crash cause changes in policy and per above. Storm05 19:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly Merge to Coney Island. This event didn't really make very many headlines, despite its location. It could stand to be mentioned in the Coney Island article, though. --Core des at talk! 19:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Merge into Coney Island. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Coredesat. PJM 20:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Coney Island, it's not that a big news, not notable enough to have an article in its own right. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 14:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no votes to delete. --Aaron 21:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2004 Martinsville plane crash[edit]

This is an article on a non-notable light aircraft crash, these sorts of things happen everyday (unfortunately). The only claim to notability here is that the plane was owned by Hendrick Motorsports however no notable person was on the aircraft. WP:NOT a memorial. See the following prior AFDs on similar subjects: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Indiana Plane Crash (2nd nomination). The Long Island crash is very similar. Nilfanion (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Speedy Keep, withdrawing deletion req. At the time the article made no assertion as to the notability of its victims; and as I had not heard of it. The article still needs work, but that is what cleanup templates are for.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, yes, there were notable people on the plane, and the story made national and international news - however, the article does not make any mention of this, so it needs to be added. AFD is not a substitute for a cleanup tag. --Core des at talk! 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per above. Storm05 18:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Ricky Hendrick was on the plane. Recury 19:19, 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 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boso (website)[edit]

Nomination for deletion Encyclopedically non-notable student internet classifieds startup launched in 2005. Fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP, WP:SPAM. There are a couple of press articles on the website - one a press release from Oxford University press office (this is not an independent or reliable source, given that the startup is supported by the Oxford University Entrepreneurs Society) and the other a trival puff piece in the Times Online (the Oxbridge Old Boy Network in action - hurray. Or okay, someone on the team had some success with media relations). Its currently miscategorized, I think, as an online auction site (its just classified ads as far as I can see) - in any case, the claim that its the first online marketplace for students is highly dubious. I was happily buying and selling academic books and other student items on my university's for-sale usenet newsgroup back in the 1990s, as many other people were (I could take a gander at other universities' newsgroup classifieds too). Best of luck to the team, but currently this website's no Facebook.com by a long chalk (Launched 1 and half years ago, and has only supported 1,467 transactions or about 3 a day; Alexa ranking of ~662,634 for the .com domain or ~4,310,107 for the co.uk domain)) Bwithh 18:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I foresee a "we were filmed by a Channel 4 documentary" defence coming up[19]. That's great, but just to point out that the entry criteria for that TV series were quite a bit less than what's required for Wikipedia. Not an encyclopedically notable TV series in any case[20]. Bwithh 19:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mitaphane _talk 04:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. RickReinckens 06:44, 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 as hoax. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argusto Emfazie[edit]

Non-notable obscure occultist. I suspect it is a hoax, which would be interesting, as it has been around since 2002. Leibniz 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with deep, deep regret. It's a very badly-written article, but the subject, as a published, and apparrently reviewed author, does seem to meet the criteria of WP:BIO. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am getting over 4000 ghits: [21]. Yet I can't find Emfazie in the Library of congress. This really looks like a hoax to me. It was created from an AOL account in 2002 and subsequently wikified by others. Leibniz 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. This does indeed appear to be a WP:HOAX that started here and spread like a virus. I was unable to find information on any of the books supposedly authored by Emfazie. See search results for Eagle Blocking Sun, A Hand of Clay, and The Remercie Por Grazie. Next, I tried to verify the single source provided, Jeremy Delomite of the Doughton Review. Apparently no such person or publication. Every single one of these search results, sometimes 90+ per search term, is a mirror of this Wikipedia article reprinted under the GNU. This article, which has been around since February 2002, is a perfect example of why WP:V is so critically important. Great catch by Leibniz. --Satori Son 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like really notable, and making history, as a hoax. Just to be sure, as 'The Remercie Por Grazie' was supposed to be the only famous work and the title means 'The Thanks For Thankfulness', that the article's author had not created one title from a work that was published in two languages, as 'The Remercie' and as 'Por Grazie': The latter is only found preceeded by the first, when 'Emfazie' occurs – just as in the article. Indeed I too found only identical texts and a few clear derivates, Wikipedia is bigger than itself... The text is doomed to survive for years to come. — SomeHuman 3 Oct 2006 23:01 (UTC)

This may sound crazy, but... besides wondering whether I should print it, frame it, and hang it above my bed – a hoax that survives for 4 years is something like an urban legend. Nowadays one actually studies urban legends. I assume at some time academics could become interested in getting the original hoax article and its possible early changes. One might examine it for its methods to survive so long, etc. Would there be a way to insert a box 'historical hoax' at the top of the article and protect it indefinitely, maintaining the history?
For the record, the IP address used to create the article, has no other contributions on Wikipedia (unless a username would have been created for further activities). — SomeHuman 3 Oct 2006 23:39 (UTC)

I've kept a copy of the page in my user space as a trophy. But if someone ever wants to do a study of how this hoax persisted and spread, they might like to have the page history and incoming links as well. Perhaps it could be linked from WP:HOAX somewhere. Leibniz 10:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as no consensus (3 keep, 3 delete; excluding my own vote. Some reasoning for both sides) The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aslim Taslam[edit]

Not an article. It's not even clear, what's the intended topic is. --Pjacobi 19:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is in reference to the recent Papal controversy, it needs to be rewritten and expanded greatly, but it has potential in my opinion. KaoBear^(talk) 20:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article documents an ages old "threat". I want to be clear. I do not mean that Islam is a threat. I mean that the phrase Aslim Taslam is a threat. As such, though the article is very poor indeed, it is a valid and notable stub. I have deleted one link to an NN forum on the basis that this was surplus to requirements, nd feel that, though potentially contriovefrsial, the article earns its place here. Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is part of the recent Papal controversy, they've threatened him by saying "Aslim Taslam." It is also part of muslim history. You can read more about it here. Yes, the article is very poor as of now, but it can definitely improve if more Wikipedians work on it. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:43, 23 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

Comment If this is an age-old threat, why can't it be sourced by scholarly work? Do you think Encyclopaedica Britannica would accept "Jihad Watch" as source? --Pjacobi 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jihad Watch isn't the source. If you had actually bothered to check into that Jihad Watch link, you'd notice that they are only citing the Jerusalem Post EliasAlucard|Talk 19:21, 23 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

Comment Mass media one as the other. Not scholarly work. --Pjacobi 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess you must've missed this then: http://www.aslim-taslam.net/ EliasAlucard|Talk 21:12, 24 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

Comment I don't dispute the existence of the phrase, but the current article is not much better than an article about black holes sourced only from The Simpsons. A real article can start equally well or better with a blank editbox. --Pjacobi 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not even a valid point. A notable subject must not start with a higly detailed article. If the subject is notable, it's okay to begin with it as a stub. To be honest, I don't know much about this subject, but I'm sure other people do. That being said, we should give this article a chance. Besides, I've cited sources. You may not consider the Jerusalem Post reliable, but I think it is fairly reliable. And it's not like you can't cite sources from the media. EliasAlucard|Talk 01:18, 25 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

Comment But every article is required to define its lemma. This pseudo-stub misses: a) the translation, b) the Arabic script text, c) the information when, where and to whom Muhammed is reported to have it said. --Pjacobi 08:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's because I don't know anything about the subject. My God, you can't expect every contributor to be an expert on the articles they're working on. THAT'S THE REASON WHY WIKIPEDIA IS A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT. Now instead of complaining, you could help out. All of your reasons to delete this article aren't good enough. It seems you just want it deleted without giving it a chance to improve. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:08, 25 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

Comment If this one-line article doesn't even explain what the phrase means, why keep it? --141.156.232.179 18:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because it's a STUB. That means, the article is far from perfect. It also means it needs a lot of work. It is a notable subject. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:12, 24 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

Delete: there is a vast corpus of Islamic scholarship out there...if this is real, then instead of harping on about the "recent Papal controversy" (a loathsome phrase), cite the source, expand the single badly written sentence into something that can (while keeping a straight face) be called an article, and there we go. But as it stands, the article is, in my opinion, pointless WP:NONSENSE. Byrgenwulf 22:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Byrgenwulf. Consign this incoherent substub to the flames, and if the subject matters at all, a better article will arise in its place. Anville 23:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A serious, wortwhile topic, but needs to be developed beyond a stub. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:14, 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 flagged as copyvio. MER-C 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First new england mortgage[edit]

It is a page that blatantly is self-advertising and looks like it was copied and pasted from the companies website. KaoBear^(talk) 19:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as copyvio from fne.com. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:31, 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 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 (Mariah Carey album)[edit]

Unsourced speculation. The only concrete fact here is that Carey has been writing songs for the album; she's made no mention of the title, or with whom she's going to collaborate, or anything else the article is claiming. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 20:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. KaoBear^(talk) 20:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 20:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 40 entries in Category:2007 albums. Do you plan to delete them all? This article will keep coming back and back at you. 24.187.40.101 20:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion not because it's an article on a 2007 album, but because it is almost entirely made up of unsourced speculation. Please don't set up straw man arguments. Extraordinary Machine 20:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per article: "This whole article is speculation and should not be confirmed as fact until the source of this is revealed." Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am trying to find something ... http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1534570/06192006/dupri_jermaine.jhtml confirms that "Jermaine [Dupri] already has a full plate of production scheduled for the rest of the year. He's working on a slew of his So So Def artists, including [various people] and Mariah Carey once she gets off tour." So that much is not speculation. Wasted Time R 21:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Prolog 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculation per nom. hateless 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is all unsourced, unconfirmed speculation. --musicpvm 00:04, 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 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately Perfect[edit]

I tried to find sources supporting the claims made in this article but I couldn't find a single one, so I'm almost certain they are complete fabrications. Besides, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V a google search for "Ultimately Perfect" "Hilary Duff" returns just ONE hit.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a hoax. Take a look at "Dance With Her Father (song)", same situation. GregorB 21:16, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free PDF Converter[edit]

Pure advertisement, doesn't meet requirements for a page. The article in question has been here since June so I'm not sure whether the general decision so far is keep or go, so I'm bringing it up for discussion. Sivius ^T-C 20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Tarret 20:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarret --Mnem e son 23:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KaoBear^(talk) 20:02, 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. -Doc 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Bussert[edit]

This article is an attempt to mock a junior tennis player named Shaun Bussert. The vast majority of the information in the article is made up, and the information on his "principles" are obviously an attempt to make fun of his tennis playing ability. This article should be deleted as it serves no informational purpose and only serves to satirize somebody. Hindudot1788 20:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think he would fail Notability as a player, it's completely unreferenced, and if indeed it is an attack page as sections appear to be, it walks all over Biographies of living persons, and I'd lean for Speedy delete --Mnem e son 23:35, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traci Topps[edit]

Article about a pornographic films actress; no assertion of meeting either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Also unsourced. PJM 20:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's a well-known porn industry figure, with dozens of videos to her credit, hundreds of magazine appearances and thousands of webpages referencing her (110,000 pages referencing the term "traci topps" in Google).

Google result counts are not considered reliable in determining the notability of porn actresses, as pornographic web sites routinely use spamdexing techniques. The only reliable conclusions that can be drawn from Google hit counts on porn stars are claims of non-notability stemming from a low number of results. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page should stay, so long as any information in the entry is disambiguous, verifiable, truthful and accurate. She's as worthy of an entry in Wikipedia as Danni Ashe, SaRenna Lee or Pandora Peaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.105.155 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 22 September 2006
Delete per current article, doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. If the anonymous user above has additional information which might suggest notability under these guidelines, they should add it to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, here's some examples of where she meets the criteria for WP:PORNBIO:
  1. Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month).
    She has not been a Playboy Playmate, but has featured in Playboy magazine and starred in the top-selling Playboy soft-porn video/DVD, Playboy's Voluptuous Vixens|http://www.amazon.co.uk/Playboy-Voluptuous-Vixens/dp/B00004CYTU
  2. Performer has made unique, noteworthy contributions to his or her field.
  3. Is the performer noted for beginning a trend in pornography?
    She helped to start and formed part of a major trend in the porn industry during the late 1980s and 1990s as a breast expansion model.
  4. Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche.
    Notable and successful as a big breast model, appearing on the covers and centrefolds of hundreds of top-shelf magazines across the globe, including SCORE, Playboy and Hustler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.102.222 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 23 September 2006
Keep Relatively well-known pornstar. — Joshua Johaneman 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment How does an unidentified porn star get recognized by the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) as is claimed? This article does not contain "any information (that) is disambiguous, verifiable, truthful and accurate." This looks like it should have been an A3 (No content whatsoever) Speedy Delete. --141.156.232.179 18:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on above points. However, these points need to be copied into the article so that the assertion for notability is included there. Having the facts here is not the way this works. Vegaswikian 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agree with Vegaswikian, and besides the above 4 points, one should also mention that her stardom name and pictures are and since years have been popping up on many Internet porn sites. It should not be hard to verify that fact. — SomeHuman 3 Oct 2006 21:20 (UTC)
Comment Danni Ashe, SaRenna Lee and Pandora Peaks all have real names and birth dates ... there is no real information here except for the size of her breasts in 1999, and her talk page says that she had her implants removed. The only articles that link to it (Chloe Vevrier and SaRenna Lee) have photographs, birth dates, and real names ... if this article had as much information, it would not be a candidate for deletion. There is more information available on any of Playboy's monthly Playmates than there is in this article. Keeping this article just lowers the standards of Wikipedia and opens the door for being able to add any nude model who has ever appeared in a few dozen magazines or Web sites, which is not in itself very notable. OTOH, using articles like Malin Andersson as the standard, the admins will probably allow it to stay, even though Traci Topps has never been worthy of a single appearance in Playboy. --72.75.71.147 23:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The photographs you seem to count as a quality characteristic, are available on many more than a few dozen web sites, but there is that catch about copyright... An AfD is not about deleting incomplete articles. I hope all IP signatures count as 'vote' (especially as some are well argumented): some people might not like even their usernames to be known as well-informed on this subject. For the moment those are at +2 / -2 anyway. — SomeHuman 4 Oct 2006 00:04 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Whether this article is kept, merged, or redirected is a debate that can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Millers[edit]

Is being a finalist on one reality show (America's Got Talent) enough for an article? I don't think so, but listing here for further comment. NawlinWiki 21:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't think so either, which is why I tagged it for speedy deletion. Badly fails WP:BAND. Delete VoiceOfReason 21:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete. ~~No even close to meeting WP:BIO, WP:BAND, WP:ORG or any standard for notability.~~ --Satori Son ~~00:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)~~ Update comment: Even with the recent improvements, I still do not believe this subject quite meets the notability criteria of WP:BAND. More importantly, it utterly fails the third-party sources requirement of WP:V. As I stated below, I would support a Redirect to America's Got Talent (Season 1). --Satori Son 13:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They were actually runners-up on the finale of America's Got Talent. They placed 2nd or 3rd—see America's Got Talent (Season 1)#Finals for an explanation why there is an ambiguity. I admit, I don't know much about the band apart from their website (which I added to the article) and their appearance on AGT, so I can't do much expansion. But I think the band would be notable enough with at least this background. Tinlinkin 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I could support a Redirect to America's Got Talent (Season 1), but I still do not believe that notability is even remotely sufficient to support a stand alone article. --Satori Son 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have expanded the article. It's the best I can do, since I'm not too familiar with band/performer articles in geenral. I believe the Millers have much more TV exposure in the US than with many other bands on WP. And since winners on AGT were determined by audience vote, the band is relatively well-known. There is a whole category of Category:America's Got Talent contestants, and some of them are just as well-known (if not less than) as The Millers. Tinlinkin 05:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs considerable improvements (at least some of which I've agreed to undertake in the coming days) but, by my standards, WP:N is sufficiently—if barely—met within to fail WP:CSD. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this article does not fall under the speedy delete criteria of CSD, but I'm still not convinced that this AfD discussion should result in keep. My main concern still involves WP:V. I'll try to look back at the article in a day or two and revise my opinion if third-party sources are found. Thanks, Satori Son 23:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That closing note was primarily in response to VOR; yes, the article as it stands now borders on Afd-worthy, but it's certainly borderline enough to allow for work. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two things to say:
I was wrong. This article meets WP:BAND; see ninth bullet point, "Has won or placed in a major music competition". The definition of "major music competition" is open to debate, but it's certainly plausible that America's Got Talent (a show with which I am unfamiliar) qualifies. Accordingly I withdraw my vote to delete and vote to keep.

If this article didn't meet WP:BAND, I still hold that it would be a candidate for speedy deletion. The fact is that CSD A7 is a joke. I've lost count of how many newly-created articles I've seen that say something like, "Joseph Q. Wikinewbie is the GREATAST PERSON EVAR!!!!1!!", and every single one of them has been speedily deleted under A7. Why? Surely the GREATAST PERSON EVAR is notable, so the article definitely asserts the notability of the subject. But the admins (wisely, IMHO) ignore the rules and speedily delete the articles anyway. The CSD process needs reform.

Sorry for getting on a soapbox, but that's what WP:IAR is all about.
VoiceOfReason 06:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'll allow me to disagree with your second point—and herewith remove it from the purview of WP:IAR—"Joseph Q. Wikinewbie is the GREATAST PERSON EVAR!!!!1!!" does not assert notability; it's my understanding that the data required to back up the assertion is part and parcel of the assertion. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to show.--Peta 04:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the article's link to the Clayton Miller Blues Band is followed and one clicks 'Press' on the left menu, one finds amongst many mainly local press articles 'The Observer', I read this (as saved on the CMB site). Unless that 'Press' section with its links to press articles does not match actual press articles, the Wikipedia article should be safe as well – though it can be improved. — SomeHuman 3 Oct 2006 21:04 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imam Wazir Ali[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable to WP:BIO standards Islamic equivalent of a Christian pastor. Outside by comfort zone, so I got the opinion of two editors I respected (with knowledge about Islam) and they both suggested the article be AFD nominated to see if anyone can find evidence that he is worth keeping an article on. [22] [23] GRBerry 21:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable leader of congregation in Houston. May I thank GRBerry for asking a few people before bringing something outside his comfort zone to AfD. Far too few people do that.Hornplease 02:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Created by the same author as Faheem Shuaibe, also of questionable notability ... probably should be included in this AfD. --141.156.232.179 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn Imam. My local Pandit isnt notable either.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:39, 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 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milking Bank[edit]

Delete. This article is part of a tranche of articles on ordnary housing estates none of which have any notablity at all, though are doubtless loved by their residents. It fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Estates like this are ten a penny in the UK. The article is unreferenced and is not linked to. It also links nowhere. Fiddle Faddle 21:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article doesn't assert notability. Mitaphane _talk 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - there would be thousands of articles about housing estates otherwise - if notable fine but otherwise no. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:47, 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.

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mika1h 21:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddworld: Abe[edit]

The article contains tons of factual errors, all relevant information in this article is already in other Oddworld articles. Also the games described here are not two parts of the same game. Mika1h 21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've removed the prod tag since it's now been taken to AfD. The original comment was: We don't need an article that desribes only two games, we have Oddworld main article for series overview. Also all information in here is already merged in other Oddworld articles (except for story section which is just a poorly written game walkthrough). Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's nothing wrong with having an article for the duology, as far as I can see (take a look at Halo (video game series), for instance). The article needs a massive cleanup, but should have been marked as such rather than proposed for deletion. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these two games are part of a larger quintology. The Halo article covers all Halo games, and not just the Xbox versions, it also includes the upcoming Xbox 360 Halo game. TJ Spyke 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No valid reason stated for deletion. If one sees a factual error, why does one not correct it? Deletion is not cleanup. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This recently came up elsewhere, with Dragon Quest Heroes (see here). It seems to be a similar situation, but if anything, this article has too much. Either reduce and merge into the main series page, or do like DQ and have a spinoff page with nothing on the main series page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here that can't be handled in the overall Oddworld article or the articles about the individual games. Ace of Sevens 02:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CyberSkull Mitaphane _talk 04:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An AfD is not a way to clean up articles! If you want something moved to another Wiki, cleaned up or verified, please use the appropriate tags. You can use the {{Move to gaming wiki}}, {{cleanup}}, {{gameguide}} and/or {{fact}} tags to help the article, as an AfD is worthless in this case. Havok (T/C/c) 11:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Who's suggesting clean-up or moving? The problem is that this is an arbitrary grouping that only duplicates info on other pages. I haven't seen anyone argue for a merge. Ace of Sevens 00:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The two games are not two parts of the same story. Having an article that describes these two games and only these two games is equal to having an article which describes Star Wars Episode IV, and Star Wars Episode V - and nothing else. It is not logical. The two games are not a duology. The article is extremely factually inaccurate, not least in describing the two games as as a duology, when they are absolutely not, and I can't help but think that some things are there are jokes. For example, "Oddworld: Abe; or, The Destiny of the Mudokons (often referred to as Oddworld: Abe by fans or abbrieviated to OAOTDOTM, OATDOTM, OATDTM, The Mudokons or simply Abe)" - as a fan of Oddworld for nearly 10 years, I can guarantee that there is absolutely nothing even slightly factual about what I just quoted. It's all wrong-wrong-wrong. To be honest, the reasons people have put for keeping the article show a vital misunderstanding of the situation - I hope I've helped. —Abraham Lure 13:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm siding strongly here with Abraham Lure, who wrote the majority of the Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee article which is on WP:FAC right now. But there is essentially no point in this article, when the content is covered by both the seperate games, and the Oddworld article. This is such a mishmash of random information from both the articles, and absolutely useless. The only "cleanup" this needs, is deletion. - Hahnch e n 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like a rather bad merge of 5 or so existing articles. I would say split it up or just delete it. I also agree with what Abraham Lure said. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abraham Lure and others. While I might support an article about the character Abe, it seems silly to have an article about just two games in a multiple-game series, each of which already has its own article. --Alan Au 20:11, 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 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 (Chrishan album)[edit]

A debut album that is yet to be released does not have any nobility, and it also fails the crystal ball test. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball and this seems nn.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article Chrishan is currently an unopposed prod that has stood for four days (it can be deleted tommorrow). Given the likelihppd that the artist will be found non-notable and his article deleted, I see no way that the album can be notable. If Chrishan is instead sent to AfD and even kept, the album remains given that a google search for "17 Chrishan" returns no meaningul results. Cool3 21:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons given at length at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Ain't Gonna, delete. Uncle G 10:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Delete possible for this and all other articles related to this pathetic hoax, as per Uncle G. wikipediatrix 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and comments at related AfDs. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:49, 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 Speedy Keep. --Nishkid64 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aoshima[edit]

This entry fails WP:CORP. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Vrrt 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-established Japanese corporation, and leader (with Tamiya) in their area. ja:青島文化教材社 with edits going back to 2004; at least one independent book devoted solely to the models by the company at Amazon.co.jp Neier 00:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neier. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1.46 million google hits for aoshima of which most are apparently relevant. As such satisfies my automatic keep criterion#3. Cool3 22:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoshima is a common Japanese name. Narrowing the search to aoshima model still gives a respectable 500k+ though. Neier 23:09, 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 keep, it's been expanded to include notability since the nomination and no objections to keeping after that. - Bobet 10:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cylinda[edit]

This entry fails WP:CORP. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Asko Cylinda, which is the actual name of the company now. (The article has been expanded since the nomination.) This is a major Swedish manufacturer of household appliances. "Cylinda" is the name under which their products are sold in Sweden, in the rest of the world they are sold under the brandname "ASKO". up+l+and 09:11, 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 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimples Karaoke Bar[edit]

This entry fails WP:CORP. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete in its current state. If someone can scare up a source which confirms that it was the first karaoke bar in the US, I'd say we have a notable place on our hands. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I googled some variations on "the first Karaoke bar in america" and found this bar's website -- and a competing claim from a bar in conn. (easier to find it from the google hits the actual webpage is difficult to navigate (first hit.)) It would be cool trivia, but as it is, I think it's on the lines of "washington slept here." I'd change my vote is someone can find a real source for the claim.Dina 16:19, 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stackell[edit]

Nomination for deletion

Vanity bio with dubious claims to "business magnate" status and political ambitions. Fails WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. Only working reference link is to a NYTimes article about this individual's glandular tumour condition when growing up (which is not a new or unique condition). This article has been contributed to by only 2 editors[24] - one a single purpose account, the other an anonymous IP belonging to Lehigh University, the same school the subject is said to have attended[25].

Also, I am nominating near-duplicate article: Zachary Alexander Stackell. Its a slightly longer article (I just noticed it, that's why its the 2nd nom), with a bit about a supposed "Stackell Foundation" and his supposed company "NuMbiZ World Enterprises". This is the website for those organizations. These fail WP:CORPand WP:V. I ran a Factiva search with his name (with and without middle name) and the only hit was the NYTimes glandular tumour article. I could not find the 9/11 article referenced in the broken link in the article[26]. I sympathize with the person for his medical problems and wish him the best of luck with his entrepreneurial and political ambitions, but this article content is not suitable for Wikipedia Bwithh 21:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Note: I made two edits to Stackell to remove a broken link and format the only valid one.) A guest article in Time magazine is this person's sole claim to notability. All the other supposed enterprises appear to be largely web-based creations, making the stuff about "heavily involved in politics and real estate tradings" sound like a future plan, not a current reality. None of this information comes from a reliable source, and much of it sounds like standard vanity material written by the subject. Like Bwithh, I wish him luck in his ventures, but Wikipedia articles about him are quite premature. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity and nn. Good luck to him becoming a notable person though. Themindset 22:13, 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 Speedy delete: A7 & Author requests deletion. —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedram Amini[edit]

Does not establish notability. (Page blanked by creator) Dystopos 21:55, 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 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kha Hoang[edit]

Notability not verifiable per WP:V. A Google search with "Kha Hoang" and "royal" find only two hits that indicate he was a doctor for the Vietnamese royal family. One of these is from the "institute" that supports his work [27] and the other is a mirror of that site [28]. -AED 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been around since May, but no one has added (a) when he was born, (b) where in the world he is today, or (c) any references to published works. --141.156.232.179 19:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if no more is added and article continues to be unsourced. A google search didn't turn up much, nor did a PubMed search. Nephron T|C 01:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has the smell of a hoax to it - BPH is not a herb, it stands for benign prostatic hyperplasia. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of maps in Battlefield 2[edit]

Inherently a game guide, providing little meaningful material but that which appears to have been copied directly from the manual. Should therefore be deleted as gamecruft. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was originally prodded by me, then deprodded before being reprodded by an anonymous editor. Therefore, I've taken this to AfD.

Second note: I feel that some precedent is set in a number of other deletions, such as List of maps in Company of Heroes, List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2 and others like them. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a game guide.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doesn't look like a game guide to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please take a look at the discussions I linked to, above. In what way is this article different from those? Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 12:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--M8v2 04:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyber. Havok (T/C/c) 11:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't understand why there is a list of maps in the Super Mario 64 FA, yet people don't want a list of maps for Battlefield 2. Whereas I'm not against the deletion of individual maps, I think that a main list should be kept. Unlike say Halo, which some may feel that the multiplayer is a peripheral part of the game (I am not one of these), these maps form the core of the Battlefield 2 gameplay. - Hahnch e n 14:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Compare the length of this article with its equivalent in the Super Mario 64 article. This article goes into overwhelmingly useless detail, and should never have been split from Battlefield 2. Thus, this article has no reason to exist, using Super Mario as an example. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree there. I wouldn't be against anything like the list of maps within the Day of Defeat: Source article, but the way they've organised it, the Battlefield 2 article also contains the Special Forces expansion and the 2 booster packs. If the expansion pack was a separate article, and the booster packs clumped together in another article, the having the maps inline like SM64 would be fine. But because it isn't, I think this is OK. - Hahnch e n 23:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. And not cruft. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? Are all game sub-articles game guides? Has the user putting this up for deletion even considered that people might come to Wikipedia to look up this information? Isnt that the whole point of Wikipedia - for people to look up factual information? Remy B 03:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've put up all of the articles having to do with each different map for deletion. I don't see why we need a article for something that is already covered on the Battlefield 2 main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M8v2 (talk • contribs)
- Comment This information could easily be merged into the Battlefield 2 main page, as it was at the Super Mario 64 page. Splits, such as this, should only be made when there is sufficient information on the subject that it warrant a unique article - but really, what information could be provided in this article that could be used at Battlefield 2? This should be merged and then, since this article provides no useful search terms and serves no real purpose, deleted. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 05:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on precedence. Those were valid Afds, and this page is of the same ilk. Garrett^Talk 06:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is a list, so its probably fine.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It appears to be copied from the in-game description of the maps (not manual), but it is highly useful information. Perhaps if the individual maps could be split into their own articles it might be better? For example, Dailan Plant/ Gulf of Oman/Great Wall? Motor.on 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only gives some background information and doesn't give any tips. Also, all of the descriptions are taken from the in-game loading screens. Unicyclopedia 05:37, 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. Fails Google test; probably a hoax. —M isza 13 18:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Stephen Edgerton III[edit]

This has been prodded and tagged as a hoax - both removed by the starting editor. No Ghits, so I have it down as a hoax, but even then being the grandson of somebody famous doesn't warrant inclusion anyway. So fails WP:HOAX, WP:BIO, Firm delete from me.--Richhoncho 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been deleted two weeks ago, there should be a better wasy of dealing with nonsense articles. If he's a model, how does he get work with a photo like that. The sergio rossi on the photo - I doubt it. --ArmadilloFromHell 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Also, zero google hits. The Filmaker 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 00:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my eyes, the Google does nothing! Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 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 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of short actors[edit]

Already have Lists of famous short men and women. Alleged shortness of Tom Cruise, Dustin Hoffman etc. can be mentioned in their respective articles, if necessary. JScott06 22:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: body measurements for celebrities are notoriously unreliable and unverifiable. --Dystopos 02:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedical listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 15:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cruft Alert!!!Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:40, 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 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. Volkan Yucel[edit]

This sub-stub (current entire content: "B. Volkan Yucel (18 January 1978) Turkish writer.") does not identify who this person is or provide any evidence of notability even within the Turkish-speaking world, let alone the English one. Google has only about 50 distinct hits for this name, the top ones of which don't look like potential reliable sources. Not speaking Turkish, I can't tell if any of these sites make a notability case, but the fact that (A) tr:Wikipedia apparently has no article for this person, although it lists 8 other names with "Yücel" in them); (B) the U.S. Library of Congress lists no such person, although it has 33 Yücels or Yucels; and (C) Amazon.com knows nothing of this person, make it look very much like a vanity article. en:Wikiquote also has the corresponding q:B. Volkan Yucel up for deletion. Since the creator (same ID on both en:WP and en:WQ) recreated the article several times after it was deleted on WQ, I didn't bother to {{prod}} it here for failure to assert notability. I recommend deletion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No hits on Factiva or Google Books or Google Scholar either. And a shout-out to another verbose nominator... Bwithh 00:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Bwith. Jumbo Snails 01:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't assert notability. JASpencer 07:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single useful fact is the date of birth. David | Talk 23:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Wikiquote page appears to cite one of the quotes to a book titled "Pop License: Jargons of Turkish Universities", but the book (with the cited ISBN) doesn't show up in Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or any of the other booksources at WQ. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:25, 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. Note that schools at this moment appears to be a rather contentious issue, please consider discussing at relevant pages (e.g. WP:SCHOOL) before considering future school-related deletion. - Mailer Diablo 13:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria Primary School[edit]

Delete not notable and SOMEBODY had to get alex to read his messages! Charlesknight 23:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Joshua Johaneman 01:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete Elementary/primary schools are not notable except in very rare circumstances, and this article makes no effort to show otherwise. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to the appropriate school district, local authority, or town unless article is expanded. Yamaguchi先生 04:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, version being revised currently meets the WP:SCHOOLS guideline as proposed. Yamaguchi先生 18:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary school with NN. Not even a source or school district listed. Arbusto 05:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it were the oldest building "in use" in Sedgely it would not be notable. No other assertion of notability. JASpencer 07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons explained at User:Silensor/Schools. This article now meets the proposed WP:SCHOOL guideline as well as I am in the process of rewriting it, please feel free to assist me in the process should you be interested. Silensor 07:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete primary school with NN, and none asserted. I do not agree with User:Silensor/Schools. Ohconfucius 13:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor. Also, verifiability (rather than notability) is the standard. --Myles Long 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Ohconfucius (Pally01 19:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
'keep please it is notable to the surrounding community and meets proposed guidelines too Yuckfoo 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep going to agree with SilensorTrey 21:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a 109 year old building used continuously as a village schoolhouse is certainly notable enough for our purposes. --Dystopos 04:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bog-standard Brummie primary school. Catchpole 07:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Per nom. All schools have OFSTED reports. That is not in any way shape or form a non-trivial 3rd party source. So even by WP:SCHOOLS this would fail. JoshuaZ 22:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Note that if it were better sourced, I would favor merging or maybe even keeping (due to age of the school). JoshuaZ 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more non notable primary schools than you can shake a stick at. Please, someone, show me a notable one. Dont wave proposed guidelines at me, nor Ofsted reports. Just show me a real notable one. Which this just is not. What it is is indiscriminate information and fails WP:NOT Fiddle Faddle 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Once again, notability is subjective and is not a primary criterion for Wikipedia articles. Ignoring that for a moment, it would also be astonishing to argue that a century-old school and village landmark is less notable than, say, a single episode of Will & Grace. But here we are again taking up arms against the real world just because its underrepresented on Google. Let me repeat the very first heading under the official policy WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Is there any doubt that a great deal could be written from verifiable sources on a primary school in operation since 1897? Certainly more than could ever be said about Ellen Feiss or Loituma Girl. The consensus relative to "Wikipedia is not an Indiscriminate collection of information" refers to TYPES of articles (FAQs, Travel Guides, Memorials, Instructions, Plot summaries) and does not address notability, for which there exists ONLY the proposed guideline for use as reference. --Dystopos 22:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, independently sourced and NPOV. Meets content policies. I'll check back to see if anyone brings up a good reason to delete, although based on past experience that's pretty unlikely. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school; the mere fact that it's sourced and NPOV would allow inclusion of the telephone directory. Carlossuarez46 20:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth, age of school suggests notability per proposed WP:SCHOOL guidelines. Bahn Mi 22:16, 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. Note that schools at this moment appears to be a rather contentious issue, please consider discussing at relevant pages (e.g. WP:SCHOOL) before considering future school-related deletion. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milking Bank Primary School[edit]

Delete not notable Charlesknight 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Joshua Johaneman 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Colleges are generally notable. High schools and middle schools are an open question. Primary schools and preschools, though, generally must demonstrate some seriously unique characteristics to be considered notable. This one doesn't - the only information I see in the article is demographics, the logo, and a reference to an OfSTED report describing the school as "above average", which doesn't strike me as unusual praise. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a verifiable and well written article, no reason under policy has been presented for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary school with NN. Arbusto 05:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless you plan on deleting EVERY "non notable" school entry, which would mean, what, leave Eton College only.

Comment Behind every notable person, there is a [potentially] notable school. Ohconfucius 13:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.GeorgeLouis 06:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reaons explained at User:Silensor/Schools, this is a perfectly good article and no valid reason for deletion has been provided (as already noted). Silensor 07:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And referring as usual to my rebuttal essay User:JoshuaZ/Schools. JoshuaZ 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. No valid reason for deletion has been provided. bbx 08:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with some regret, because the article itself is a decent article, but the school is non notable (per Zetawoof). There are are enormous numbers of primary schools. My wife teaches at the second largest one in the UK, but it has no article - deservedly so (not?), because its only claim to notability would be size. We seem to have to have the "It's a school keep it at any cost" lobby here. That lobby needs to get a grip on reality. WP:NOT a directory or an indiscriminate load of general stuff. It's an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Show me notability, not existence. Fiddle Faddle 08:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fiddle Faddle. Yawn! Or delete all the content and link to OFSTED report. Ohconfucius 13:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yamaguchi; verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 18:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is verifiable and meets guideline proposal too Yuckfoo 21:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest - what does it matter that it meets proposed guidelines? Doesn't Wikipedia is not a crystalball apply to wikipedia as much as anything we add to it? --Charlesknight 21:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it matters very much we are trying to hash out guidelines for schools if you disagree join that discussion crystal ball does not apply to proposed guidelines only articles with speculations Yuckfoo 04:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But by saying "it meets proposed guidelines", you are effectively saying that the guidelines are fixed and settled - so how could a) you be hashing them out or b) I join in the discussion? If you are still discussing them, you are actually saying that they match THIS version of the proposed guidelines. Unless you have a crystal ball how do you know they know the FINAL version that will go forward? --Charlesknight 06:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The subject of the article meets existing criteria for Wikipedia content. The substance of the article could be cleaned up. Merging with either the school district or the housing estate would be an acceptable alternative to deletion. --Dystopos 05:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per other Brummie schools. Article reads like Ofstedcruft. Catchpole 07:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this school, like ALL schools is notable. Allow for organic growth and expansion, and stop wasting everyone's time with AFDs on schools, some of Wikipedia's most precious articles. --ForbiddenWord 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Most precious articles"? Are you seriously claiming that this article is somehow more important than a typical FA, for example? Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I'm saying is that school articles are basically the most valuable kind of articles on the project. --ForbiddenWord 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - an ex-teacher asks - why? --Charlesknight 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC) --Charlesknight 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The husband of a primary school teacher asks why, too. Every school is not sacred. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - And someone considering becoming a school teacher also asks why and notes that the claim that "all schools are notable" is a premise which no one but die hard school inclusionists favor and that not even WP:SCHOOL agrees there. (Oh and standard note that allowing for organic growth is simply a set of buzzwords not an argument) JoshuaZ 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Catchpole, Zetawoof and others. OFSTED does not constitute non-trivial coverage by a 3rd party (since all schools have it. It isn't any different than keeping a corporation because the corporation filed a tax-return) so it fails even the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. JoshuaZ 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you accept as non-trivial coverage? A couple of articles in the local newspaper... a picture/feature from the Times Educational Supplement...? Would that meet the arbitrary criterion you just set for notability? Yes. Would this fundamentally change the "notability" of the school? No. But then I'm sure you would find some other "reason" to justify the instinctive delete reaction. In addition to the other, stronger arguments, deleting school pages is likely to disillusion those (new) editors who contribute to them -- editors who may have been inclined to contribute badly needed brain power to substantive Wikipedia articles, rather than procedural squabbles and the laying down of un(der)defined rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.212.155 (talk • contribs)
  - If any editor is discouraged from creating articles which do not meet Wikipedia guidelines that is an excellent thing. A page on a school is no different from a page on any other topic. It must meet and demonstrate that it meets established guidelines. Please be aware that the phrasing in your message is highly personalised with italics and quotation marks. Such pointed messages have in the past been judged to cross the threshold of civility. Fiddle Faddle 07:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I refer you to the previous comment: "...procedural squabbles and the laying down of un(der)defined rules." If such time and passion were put into writing good quality articles on core subjects, rather than debating school pages that are at worst harmless, Wikipedia would be a hell of a lot better, I'm sure we can agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.212.155 (talk • contribs)
      - Please sign your entries using ~~~~, which translates automatically. Wikipedia improves because people create and edit good articles and because people nominate non compliant articles for deletion. Each of those is positive editing. This article, though well enough written, is about an entirely non notable primary school. Thus it is nominated for deletion. It is now subject to formal community review and a consensus will be reached. An article that is trivial is not harmless. By existing it causes the harm of dilution of articles that qualify to be here by pap. WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. If you want to change that there are other places to debate it. This place is the discussion over this article and its deletion. Fiddle Faddle 07:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, an article should meet all WP guidelines for content. The way a wiki works is that people can come along and make improvements over time. When you're talking about deletion, you're proposing to curtail that process. The issue for AfD is not the content, but the justifiability of having an article on the given topic at all. In an encyclopedia where consensus has established the value of articles on individual video-game characters, single episodes of TV sitcoms, and various internet memes that have achieved note through a month or two of blogging, I find it difficult to imagine that an actual real verifiable school with decades of history would ever be considered to be below that threshold. WP is NOT a paper encyclopedia and there is no question that articles on schools can meet every official policy. --Dystopos 12:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth, this is a well written article which meets the proposed WP:SCHOOL guidelines. Bahn Mi 22:17, 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.