Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 8 September 10 >

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 03:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manga-gaga[edit]

This webcomic was deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manga-Gaga, I suggest you read the arguments there, as this nomination largely remains the same. Found here, the comic shares the same webhost as Cosmic hero, nominated below and their Alexa rank combined is 2.6 million. "Manga gaga" generates 80 unique hits on Google, none of them a decent professional source, why is this? Maybe cause it's entirely non notable. Hahnchen 00:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be speedily deleted as a recreation? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 00:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An admin would need to verify that it was indeed the same article, since they can access the previous versions, but assuming nothing has changed it should be. Peyna 01:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same article, the older one was in fact lengthier. - Hahnchen 01:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Hopox 11:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability. Rohirok 17:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per previous delete. Alexa rank does not matter, it does not meet the criteria in WP:WEB... off with its head. --Kunzite 19:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This article does not assert its notability Benon 22:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. G4 wouldn't apply here, as the article is not similar to the old article. Naconkantari 23:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am unable to see that an encyclopedia article may be written on this subject —Encephalon 09:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Delete per previous AfD and above. Non-notable and unfortunate that the creator was able to re-post this article by changing the title to "Manga-gaga" from "Manga-Gaga". --S0uj1r0 07:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Delete objection Mangagaga was deleted becuase it had the wrong name; and the user that created it (me) didn't knew how to move it; so he/she created the same article with the name of manga-gaga and asked wikipedia's people to delet the first one (the one with the name Mangagaga) --Lol man
  • Didn't knew comixpedia existed Sorry; i agree with you to delet this ... --Lol man
  • Delete per above, just not notable enough · XP · 02:52, 14 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 01:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic hero[edit]

Non notable webcomic, found here, on the same webhost as Manga-gaga (nominated above). An alexa rank of 2.6 million between the 2 comics. No assertion of notability and no external sources. - Hahnchen 00:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Hopox 11:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability. Rohirok 17:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank should never be considered for keeping or deleting. --Kunzite 19:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable web comic Benon 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Hahnchen. —Encephalon 05:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --S0uj1r0 07:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Anthony5429 07:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the same i said for mangaga-gaga; i think comixpedia would be a better pleace for a (NON-POPULAR) web comic like this one. --Lol man 21:09, 13 eptember 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer cartoon studio. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening logos of the MGM cartoon department[edit]

More original research featuring various opening title cards. Serves no encyclopedic purpose; better suited for a fansite. FuriousFreddy 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OR delete per FuriousFreddy and previous AfDs with similar topics at hand. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not particularly useful and really just describes the images. Formatting unappealing, and has also has some problems with the tone of writing. In addition, much of the page is slightly altered content from this page. Bob talk 08:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Leidiot 10:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Same reasons as the above, generally poorly written, even despite my contributions and doesn't really require its own page. Perhaps better to incorporate some of this in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Animation instead? MartinP1983 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commnet. There's no encyclopedic value in analyzing the opening title cards from cartoons. --FuriousFreddy 11:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into MGM cartoon department which doesn't really have any treatment on the Logo outside of two of the images. There is some encyclopedic merit to the material as a history of one of the world's most recognizable logos but like above, I don't think it needs it's own page. I agree that the format needs to be cleaned up. Ideally I would say a two boxes of 4 with smaller then thumbnail pics should be used with a paragraph to the side detailing how the logo has evolved. Agne 15:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: We've deleted similar galleries from other articles after such proposed "merges". --FuriousFreddy 11:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though it needs to cite its sources for the background information behind each image, these opening logos are and iconic part of MGM history, and thus worthy of treatment in an encyclopedia. Rohirok 17:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Agne. Not sure I follow the alleged problem with "original research" here; the released cartoons themselves are an authoritative primary source for this material. The history should be kept somewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commnet. You can't use the cartoons themselves as a reference for an article like this, because you are analyzing them yourself to create the article. Therefore, it is original research; you're not referencing an actual scholarly work. --FuriousFreddy 11:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While not titled properly, this is article is essentially a list. It is lacking reference and looking at the article the items that are normally the first line in each section ("This logo was first used in ....") is what's most pressing for a ref. The rest is just a description of what the logo looks like that correlates with the photo to the side. From WP:OR it clearly says "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments.". The description of the logos proposes nothing and you can't even stretch that to be synthesis. Overall the OR argument is weak. I think the much stronger arguement is context and the fact that an entire article on the logos is not needed. As the majority of editors here on this AfD agree, there is some merit in maintain information on one of the world's most iconic logos and it's therefore better off to be merged. Agne 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research because it is an analysis of established facts which cannot be sourced from a reliable website. Besides that, there is absolutely no merit in retain this, or anything similar, on what is (was?) supposed to be a reliable reference source, and anyone who knows anything about scholarly writing will tell you so. "One of the world's most iconic logos?" We already have a (piss-poor) article on Leo the Lion (MGM); why do we need two bad articles? --FuriousFreddy 19:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, with all original pre-1952 MGM cartoon elements no longer existing, the jumbled re-relase schedule of MGM cartoons, and their re-editing and plastering-over of opening logos of said cartoons, there is absolutely no way this article (or any merger) could be factually accurate, as the source information just doesn't exist. --FuriousFreddy 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This has some encyclopedic merit, although i agree it needs it sources cited. Benon 22:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial details do not require a whole article. Batmanand | Talk 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Animation as per Agne. --LBM | TALK TO ME 23:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial filmcruft. --S0uj1r0 07:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonencyclopedic trivial fancruft. It would be nice if the logospotters would find another site to bother. —tregoweth (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (condition) Are the old ones even under copyright legally anymore? if no: merge into gallery on MGM main; otherwise: nuke. · XP · 02:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above users. Fair use images and they would serve well in the cartoon department article. I don't know where the "Original Research" part comes from. There is no claim being made. It's just a compliation of images. 205.157.110.11 09:20, 19 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 due to unanimous consensus and single-purpose account (seemingly) nominator. Punkmorten 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!!!Fuck You!!![edit]

non notable music album --65eb 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - What's the problem? This was released on a bona fide major label, the band actually produced albums that sold and they've toured in both the US and Europe. Also, it looks like you registered an account just to make this AfD. Care to explain? My Alt Account 00:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the user above's succinct explanation --W guice 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is the title (the !!! part of the title) within appropriate naming conventions? Peyna 01:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Since it's part of the official title, than quite probably yes. -- W guice 11:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per My Alt Account --Wildnox 01:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Notable album by a very notable band. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nomination.--Húsönd 02:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crudely titled perhaps, but till a relatively notable album. (I keep hoping something with this title gets nominated for a Grammy, but alas that has yet to be.) 23skidoo 06:14, 9 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 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolftime[edit]

Contested PROD. Delete as this production company fails WP:CORP. No verifiability from third-party reliable sources; all of three Google hits (merely searching for the title gives mostly irrelevant results) that point solely to this entity's Geocities website. WP:NFT and/or WP:VANITY may also apply per the intimate knowledge that they premiered [their] latest film, Silhouettes, at a Bay Area high school on September 7, 2006. --Kinu t/c 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete The company and film are not "illegitimate", merely non-notable. Seriously, these are films that only a tiny number of people will ever see or even hear of. The fact that a web search doesn't find any of them outside wofltime's geocities page says that pretty much no one has even taken notice of them, and that they, and their awards, are unverifiable. Wikipedia does not exist to help encourage or publicize unknown entrepreneurs, teenage or otherwise. Fan-1967 01:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Respect has nothing to do with it. Verifiability is a policy on Wikipedia, and WP:WEB and WP:CORP are consensus-driven guidelines for inclusion of articles on websites and companies. You are welcome to address the points addressed therein, and then (more imporantly) provide verifiability through reliable sources indicating that the site or company meets one or more of these points, in order to persuade others to recommend keeping this article. --Kinu t/c 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Otherise, discussions are extremely hard to follow. The links that have already been posted, WP:WEB and WP:CORP, explain the standards. Your company, website and films do not meet the standards. No press coverage, no public attention, no verifiability, no notability. I'm sorry if you feel that's harsh. Fan-1967 01:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and per nom. By the way, the films have been "published in film festivals"? How does that happen? Is that an attempt to make "shown at film festivals" sound like it meets the cited criterion? Hmmm... - W guice 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cuz a free encyclopedia is a good idea, but a free encyclopedia with quality control is an even better one. - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Very much depends on the festival. Sundance, Cannes - yes. Others - assess by situation - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Claiming that an article would not harm anybody is an oft-rehashed tactic for retaining articles that do not meet the goals of the project, which is to be an encyclopedia. Verifiability is a policy. You have been provided sufficient information to indicate what these articles need for them to be kept. You have made claims to notability; so source them. I apologize if that sounds harsh, but if these articles cannot meet that core requirement, then they will most certainly be deleted. --Kinu t/c 01:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not just your company. There are thousands of aspiring filmmakers trying to gain some exposure by listing their short films here. Films which may have been screened at a festival or two, but have hardly been reviewed anywhere, written up anywhere, noticed anywhere. Most have received more notice than your films, which seem to have received none at all. Wikipedia does not exist to promote unknown people or enterprises, but to document those which have already become notable. Fan-1967 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll leave it to the other editors to determine whether it is too much of a stretch to suggest that User:Kevinw91 is the same "Kevin Walker" named in the article. --Kinu t/c 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You've spent enough time trying to do that in the article itself. By the way, someone saying the company or film fails WP:VANITY isn't an ad hominem attack. S/he's not calling you vain, s/he's referring to a policy (that s/he didn't write) which happens to bear that name. What's the argumentative ethics term for being really disingenuous again? - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment Even if we were to set notability totally aside (which we won't), the #1 ironclad rule here is Verifiability from Reliable Sources. That one's non-negotiable. We have here an article written by you, about your company, and the only source is a website created by you. No other source is available to verify that these films have been shown anywhere. Fan-1967 02:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment Taking you seriously is not the issue. Wikipedia does not exist to promote unknown ventures. Period. The result of this AfD was never in doubt from the moment it was posted. Continuing this discussion won't change it. Fan-1967 02:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • You're mistaken. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the link to our standard for companies has been repeatedly posted here. You've verified that one of your films was shown. Doesn't make it remotely notable. Nobody in the press wrote it up or commented on it. I'm sorry if our continuing this conversation gave you any impression that there was any chance for the articles. There never was. Fan-1967 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nothing further (such as a link to a encyclopedia policy or notability guideline) can be suggested that has not already been mentioned at least once herein. Whether you choose to take those suggestions or simply ignore them is up to you. I am recusing myself from the remainder of this discussion. Best of luck in the future. --Kinu t/c 02:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No we won't. I have other things to do tonight, and I'll repeat: continuing this discussion will make no difference. We have policies. You don't like them. That's it. Best of luck. Fan-1967


  • Different Tack Have you been in a newspaper or magazine article, or is your film on imdb, or something that would imply that anyone other than you knows anything about this? You don't know if you have or not? Whenever I'm in the paper, my Mom cuts out the article and sends it to me, and so do 15 other people. Lots of times, the publisher will let you know if you have a mention. If you don't know whether you've been covered, than you probably haven't. Did these festivals have materials or webpages or anything like that? The problem isn't that you're writing about yourself; the problem is that only you have been writing about yourself. If you do, then you'll probably be fine. If not, then your company probably isn't ready to be included yet. rather than talking about WP:CORP or the badly named WP:Vanity policy, we probably should be talking about the verifyability argument. How can people find the more complete resources to back up this article? If they wanted to learn more about you, where would they go, other then to your own web page? GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete both despite vigorous defense from creator; nonnotable film and production company. NawlinWiki 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making the encyclopedia a tiny bit of a better place is enough for me. But hey - just to show there's no hard feelings, get notable enough and i'll write you up myself --W guice 11:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Apparently the website only gets 60 hits from around the world a day and only a few hundred people have seen the films. (btw, when I read the high concept description of Teen Planet, I couldn't help but think of the opening movie in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri !! I hereby give you permission to use that quote in future blurbs/advertising for that film. You're welcome. ) Bwithh 12:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. No references are provided to substantiate notability. Rohirok 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Rohirok. --Guinnog 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Presently not notable. Indicators: Alexa traffic on wolftime.com has no ranking data (as of 09-Sep-2006 22:10 UTC) At the same time, Google returns about thirty links to the phrase "Wolftime Films" which appears to reduce to about four distinct sources, none which furnish independent commentary on notability. (one times out, one returns a 404 error, one is [wolftime.com] itself, one references the phrase "wolftime" in an unrelated context). Gosgood 21:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The last comment was by far the most constructive of them all. Wolftime is going through a major growth period at this time. I will currently agree with the deletion of both articles since Wolftime is presently non-notable. However, I may write up the article again about halfway through the year after film festival season has started and more material verifies the company as worthy of recognition on Wikipedia. I apologize for any trouble I may have caused, and invite you to view the newly released "Silhouettes" here so you can at least get an idea of the work my company does. My apologies, and thanks. Kevinw91
    • Kevin91, you might want to keep a backup of the work you've put in here before it is deleted. In the future, it may be a helpful reference if you're planning to put it up again. Good luck with you and your company. zephyr2k 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The awarding bodies were Danville International Children's Film Festival and Berkeley Video and Film Festival. 542 (115) ghits and 381 (172) ghits, respectively. (Cute film, thanks for the link, Kevin.) —BozoTheScary 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have posted references to the project page. It will be apparent that both films, "Teen Planet" and "The Kid Who Talked Too Much" are films of 5 minute length, submitted for competition. Can't vouch for the reknown of the festivals, but it would appear to be amateur (possibly school) projects. Ohconfucius 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This lengthy discussion established two things: The nomination is correct, and the page's creator doesn't value our time (or his) very highly. My Alt Account 09:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foul. Ad hominem and uncalled for. —BozoTheScary 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way this discussion has been conducted is a complete waste of time, I don't see a nicer way to say it. My Alt Account 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Objection That last comment, which accuses 'X' of an ad hominim (sic. hominem) attack is a clear ad hominem attack and must be struck from the record. If every user has the mentality of this individual then I'm off to make a cup of tea! Marcus22 08:27, 13 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 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sass Hour[edit]

Vanity and Patent Nonsense Goldenrowley 00:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure it qualifies as patent nonsense (which would be speedyable), but it sure deserves deleteion. Peyna 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not nonsense, but not notable either. --Wildnox 01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK struck patent nonsense. Still lacks notability. Goldenrowley 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable radio station. JIP | Talk 09:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Rohirok 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Whilst not patent nosense its not notable. Nor does the article assert notability Benon 22:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete How WP:VAIN. Anomo 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/VAIN Yeah. · XP · 02:54, 14 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 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Gospels[edit]

Cystal Ball Goldenrowley 00:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Húsönd 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination dr.alf 07:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 07:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thε Halo Θ 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rohirok 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Wikipedia is not a crytsal ballBenon 22:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Yes, it is CB. Yes, the article is beyond awful. However, there is significant buzz for this: "clive barker" "scarlet gospels" gets 2790 (342) ghits. Astonishing for a book that is merely being anticipated. This is because of speculation that it will involve the death of the very notable Pinhead (Hellraiser). If Harry Potter 7 (book) survives a CB charge, this probably should, too. —BozoTheScary 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll go one step further than BozoTheScary. This is a known and verifiable project, even if it isn't published yet, from a famous author. It's not CBism in that Barker is known to be working on it, ergo it exists in some form. But it does need clean-up! Bondegezou 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom despite BozoTheScary and Bondegezou. Wikipedia is not a hype rag, and just because the fact that he's writing it can be verified doesn't mean that anything else about it is verifiable. Once it's done and is notable in its own right, then it can be re-written, preferably citing sources when it is. --S0uj1r0 07:22, 12 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 01:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept 7[edit]

Does not meet notability criteria per WP:MUSIC

I am also nominating the following related pages (band's albums):

  • Delete - Two albums, but they're apparently self-released, so a fail of WP:MUSIC per nom. --Daniel Olsen 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No major releases. Rohirok 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Daniel Olsen. Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, along with the corollary album articles. "And your little dog, too!" --S0uj1r0 07:24, 12 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 Withdrawn, though I still think it isn't notable, this is a clear WP:SNOW, no point in prolonging it. --Rory096 03:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6Q0B44E[edit]

Yes, it's on DYK, but it's a non-notable piece of space junk. 17 Google hits (4 unique) and no Google news hits. Though it supposedly had a mention in The Guardian, it was presumably not significant if it wasn't put online. Rory096 01:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Verifiable with coverage in a major British newspaper that gives a reasonable claim of notability. Being on the Internet is not a goods measure of significance, IMHO. Gwernol 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that it's verifiable. I haven't seen the mention in the Guardian, but the Harvard page and [1] basically just track the trajectory. The main source for this article is a Yahoo group, which doesn't seem too reliable to me. Also note that all of our notability guidelines specifically say a significant mention in the news, not just a one-line comment, which is what this seems to have been. --Rory096 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above notable, sources are reliable. No hits may be becuase of odd name. Coasttocoast 01:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. --Daniel Olsen 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jack (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any particular reason? --Rory096 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is notable and verifiable. If it is one of our rockets, that far out in an enduring orbit it is notable and might one day be identified as an Apollo stage. If it from some other galactic civilization, I would argue that to be notable as well. Edison 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. --Storkk 02:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a yahoo group alone may not be trustworthy, but this post was apparently written by a person from the University of Arizona(so says the signature) not just "anybody". Plus, the article has pretty much information about the object, so I think we should keep it. By the way: sorry for my harsh words on the article discussion page, Rory96. --DocBrown 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per what was mentioned above. --Supermath 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this is this user's second edit. Gwernol 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is just number. But there is scientific information in this article which means notable. This is the poem that was written by person who graduated from University of Arizona. I think keeping this artlce would be best option. Daniel's page ☎ 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, There is credible evidence. Peter Ellis 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons above, it will soon become clear anyway if it is not reliable info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbound (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Dermatology, Robert Bibb, Botanical Solutions[edit]

Interlocking articles, from an editor with no other history. Ads for a dermatologist, his websites and his products. There are 22,700 Google hits for "Environmental Dermatology"; 28 of them mention Robert Bibb, primarily his own sites and PR releases, so his claims to being a "pioneer" in the field look pretty dubious. There may be potential for a real article on Environmental Dermatology; this isn't it. Pure Vanispamcruftisement. -- Fan-1967 01:35, 9 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 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wenqing Bao[edit]

Listed on Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English for over a month. Articles older than 2 weeks should be deleted. Also, there is no zh:鲍文清 entry, which it would be reasonable to expect there should be. Suspect vanity, or "love this girl" type page (I think it's a bio on a woman -- could be drastically wrong though). Storkk 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it has been listed since: 16:41, 7 August 2006 --Storkk 02:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its time on en:wiki is up. Punkmorten 13:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rohirok 17:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or transwiki delete unless the content is sutiable for transwiki, which without speaking the language is impossible to tell Benon 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article on retired writer who does not appear all that notable without a lot of verification (particularly on reliability of sources). Article is a copyvio of this page Ohconfucius 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is on the English WP? --S0uj1r0 07:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one still isn't done, delete. · XP · 02:55, 14 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 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pallasca District[edit]

Listed longer than 2 week maximum on Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English. Clearing backlog. Storkk 01:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It has been listed for translation since 18th August. --Storkk 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rohirok 17:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Resolute 22:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The page has now been roughly translated. Ohconfucius 04:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been basically translated, keep. · XP · 02:55, 14 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 04:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Agendas[edit]

Non-notable webzine/blog/website that fails WP:WEB. It is relatively new, I could not find external press coverage, and it has no Alexa data. Crystallina 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Hard to get meaningful Ghits given words and it does not come up in a google (UK) search in the first few pages Nigel (Talk) 09:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no assetrtion of notability, nor is it notable Benon 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just not notable yet: delete. · XP · 02:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability yet. No extensive third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 02:58, 14 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 04:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bike pod[edit]

This is a non-notable product. It isn't in wide use as admitted by the article itself. There are a ton of Google hits, but this is because there are multiple products described as bike pods. I think most of them are bicycle electronics and bike storage from what I saw at Google. What I didn't see in my search at Google were any sources that would help this product meet WP:CORP. Erechtheus 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only 2 have been made, no claim of notability for the design or designer. Rohirok 17:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure that this isn't a hoax: designer's web site doesn't seem to exist, and a search for its name along with '"bike pod" -wikipedia' turns up nothing on google. JulesH 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not common, not notable, not keepable. Delete... · XP · 02:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JulesH. Pascal.Tesson 03:01, 14 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. Everything here (which is not WP:OR is already in Y2K. --- Deville (Talk) 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/9/99[edit]

Delete, sounds like a hoax. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a hoax. I remember plenty of mainstream media predictions that this would be a real problem, and a foreshadow of y2k chaos. Read this and the links therein, I think it sums it up pretty well. My Alt Account 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That link is just a forum posting and none of the links from it are still functional. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a forum, it's an old website by Dave Farber that tracks mailing list posts by "interesting people". With a little effort, I got this one to actually work... My Alt Account 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per wknight's first comment --Supermath 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It's not a hoax, but it doesn't warrant an article -- perhaps a few sentences in the Y2K article. Opelio 03:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with redirection The article need to be rewritten imo, but is notable enough. -- lucasbfr talk 05:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I haven't even heard of this, but even if it's real it can just be mentioned in a Y2K article. JIP | Talk 09:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Year 2000 problem. --Gray Porpoise 13:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite - This was a genuinely notable issue (totally separate from Y2K, by the way) but I don't know anything about the "9999" being used as a "stop command"--that sounds pretty platform-specific. However, I do remember some concern because a lot of programs used "9/9/99" as a sort of default "future" date. As it stands the article is pretty vague (stating that "all computers would fail") and informal ("Our power didn't go out"? Talk about original research). Side note: The reason why "nothing happened" when the date came is because, (just as with Y2K), a lot programmers spent a lot of time fixing everything so that it wouldn't happen. Just wanted to throw that out there. Wavy G 15:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probable hoax, completely unverifiable. Resolute 22:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess I should have read above. Delete as it is already covered in the Year 2000 problem article. Does not warrant its own article. Resolute 22:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is this not a hoax? If not, there are certainly no sources. And until there are, delete! Batmanand | Talk 22:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced and suitably covered elsewhere. Irongargoyle 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded. There isn't much that could be said that wouldn't duplicate Year 2000 problem, unless there are WP:V sources about specific issues that differed. As it was the date was sort of a trial run in many shops and it did influence the confidence level regarding Y2K. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no Merge per BrianG. Danny Lilithborne 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The millennium bug is notable as a cultural phenomenon. 9/9/99 is by no means a convention for data input. On systems I have used 00/00/00 or 11/11/11 have worked as a means to trick a computer. In fact most computers would require 09/09/99 to be entered, particularly older ones. Mallanox 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete hoax. Andrew Levine 05:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as hoax. --MaNeMeBasat 13:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - it's not a hoax (as I said on the talk page, I remember some discussion at the time), but I don't think it needs its own page. Mark Grant 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - It's definately not a hoax. The MITRE corporation page on possible problem dates has a couple of mentions about the problem. The relevent information is on the Y2K page here though. I don't think the fear was significant and widespread enough to merit its own page. - The Bethling(Talk) 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sentence in the y2k article is more than enough.Tony P 19:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a hoax, I remember seeing it on TV on various news programs, in 1999 and 1998. But it wasn's supposed to be a major problem, (because it's in decimal...) 132.205.44.134 02:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Year 2000 problem, this was not a hoax. RFerreira 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why redirect if they are two different and completely separate (albeit similar) issues? Just want to hear your take on this. Wavy G 05:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a real and notable event, keep it. · XP · 02:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Year 2000 problem. I remember this one (this was the first event that made me realize Y2K was much ado about nothing). See this article: [2] for more info. Stev0 06:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sega Dreamcast which, if I recall correctly, was released on 9/9/99 and used the number chain as a MAJOR advertising slogan ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A redirect to Sega Dreamcast might not be a bad idea if this gets deleted, but there isn't anything in this article that I see relevant to the Dreamcast. BryanG(talk) 20:18, 14 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 04:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Foss:82nd Airborne[edit]

Looks like vanity and couldn't find a related link on google. I guess there are too many Phillip Foss's in the world. zephyr2k 02:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:V -Nv8200p talk 14:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of millions of soldiers who fought in the war. Probably a worthy individual, but completely non-notable. -- Necrothesp 01:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above... · XP · 02:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 03:05, 14 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 04:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Crow[edit]

Importance Notability this rumor has not stood the test of time to become a real legend Goldenrowley 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Only one of the two sources cited appears reliable (the second is a blog), and it appears to be a one-off piece of news rather than a tradition. Choess 07:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seemingly random and non-notable urban legend. TheDrinkNinja 15:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. · XP · 02:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Choess said it pretty well. Some editor must be confusing "random one-day joke" with "recurrent meme". Pascal.Tesson 03:09, 14 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-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granite Run Mall[edit]

Unnoteworthy American shopping centre. Violation of WP:Corp Moland Spring 02:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator's reason. I thought this article had hope until the "infamous" incident turned out to be a baseball player swearing and not a mall shooting spree. The predicate of a sentence is often the clincher. ;) Simões (talk/contribs) 03:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lima, Pennsylvania, the local municipality. Choess 07:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Lima. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 22:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep local notable mall. HappyUser 23:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HappyUser, failing that merge. Kappa 10:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Between the Incaviglia incident and the mall's overall notoriety in the Delaware County region, it is more than noteworthy. --ECWAGuru 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge Up to closing admin, but seems to be at least stub worthy. · XP · 02:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote here just a comment. WP:CORP doesn't apply. If we apply corp to a mall then you might as well apply Corp to Stadiums (Football, Baseball, Hockey), Museums, and Performance Theaters..they are businesses as well. WP:LOCAL applies to malls as they are not only shopping centers but also Social centers. Also, before voting on a mall, we should look at the context and location. In a city with 10-50 malls, this may not be notable, but in a city where this is the only mall, or one of two/three, it may be notable...especially if the next city with a mall is +2 hours away. --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:41, 15 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, nomination withdrawn. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WhatIfSports.com[edit]

I saw the AFD banner for this page but noticed that it had no discussion page. The article would appear to fall under the notability and self-promotion criteria. I just removed a couple sentences where someone was begging people to join his league. I did not place the original banner (an anon editor added it a day or two ago), but I agree that it should be deleted. So I'm filling out the paperwork. Carl (talk|contribs) 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slight Keep What it mainly suffers from is too much WP:POV. --Supermath 03:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for WP:WEB and non-verifiability. –Outʀiggʀ 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alexa ranking of 18,271. --Xyzzyplugh 14:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's well-known in the sports world (Bill Simmons has mentioned it a few times in his columns, for one), and it's won a Webby for sports. Obviously, the article needs to be cleaned up. SliceNYC 15:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep needs a good cleanup and sources citing but asserts and is notable Benon 22:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just about scrapes through WP:WEB on the basis of the Webby. Needs a total rewrite, though. Batmanand | Talk 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well known within baseball and fantasy circles. Article requires a major clean-up, however. Resolute 22:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was almost certainly a bad faith nomination, made by an anon user and then followed up by a slew of vandalism by over a dozen other trolls. This article is being semi-protected for the remainder of this AFD debate. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: It's good and should have some of the actual users capable of giving their input. Not fair for those interested to only see one completely biased side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.222.188 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 September 2006
  • KEEP: WIS is already one of the best sim sports sites. It has partnerships with Fox Sports and has had a few projects with MLB and ESPN (I think). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.104.180 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 September 2006
  • Withdraw (if I may), as it appears that the version I saw was the post-vandalism version and may have been a bad-faith nom. It definitely needs some cleanup, but if what you all say is true (and I of course will assume good faith with regards to that), then there is no need to delete. --Carl (talk|contribs) 20:36, 12 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. JIP | Talk 09:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kigg-r[edit]

Non-notable neologism, original research, and a mere definition. Delete! Simões (talk/contribs) 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - mmorpg clan cruft. One-liner that probably wouldn't even be worth mentioning on the page of the game it's about. My Alt Account 03:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's a defention about something probably not worth mentioning anyway. --Supermath 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per nom.Bagginator 05:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have speedied the page as vanity, if that doesn't hold up I nominate to delete dr.alf 07:27, 9 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cayo Hueso[edit]

POV fork from Key West, Florida Donald Albury 03:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It only deserves a sentence or two in the Key West article. --Supermath 03:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Key West, Florida --RMHED 12:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Unlike New Amsterdam, for example, this previous name of a city isn't really significant enough for its own article. However, the creator, Averette, has eliminated the WP:POV from the article, so the nom's reason no longer fits. I fail to see how deletion is necessary. Picaroon9288•talk 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect And add details to the new parent. · XP · 02:59, 14 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 04:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Sunday Morning[edit]

No information provided

Some Sunday Morning is a solid candidate for deletion. There is no information here, no references and no links. Jagvar 22:15, 8 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, something that would only be of interest for people that go to the university. Merging to the university article isn't really that great of an option since the whole thing is cut and pasted from an alumni newsletter. - Bobet 15:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Aggie Tradition at Utah State University[edit]

Topic is not remotely encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not the place for inside jokes or things not notable outside a tiny community, nor is it a place for university propaganda. Article itself is entirely OR and POV as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not an inside joke, a tradition. Google search it to find enough coverage. --Daniel Olsen 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since it seems to be a notable tradition, rather than a newfangled one ("It is a tradition that students keep off the grass. This tradition will begin tomorrow."). A rewrite won't hurt, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 03:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant material and image into Utah State University. Daniel Case 03:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only if sourced. Arbusto 04:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only if sourced. otherwise delete Bwithh 11:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add an NPOV, sourced paragraph to Utah State University. This article is nothing but propaganda and a how-to. Better off starting fresh. Resolute 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Utah State University. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Boosterism. Reads like a brochure...completely unencyclopaedic. —ExplorerCDT 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep\Merge - I go to USU, I can fix it, or merge it, or whatever. SuperCow 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not a single source, not even a campus paper.User:Guyanakoolaid66.201.16.101 09:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was able to find a reference, however, there is a question about it that I have put on the talk page of the article. --SuperCow 04:15, 12 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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 State Street[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable building (at least not that I can tell from the article). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Do a google search on just "17 State Street", you'll get over 50,000 hits. I think that speaks for itself. --Daniel Olsen 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yeah, it's an address. I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it wasn't notable. What differentiates it from large buildings worldwide? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I think somewhere in those 50,000 ghits there are articles about the building's construction, notable tenants, etc. I think when you build a 40 story building it generally attracts a bit of media attention. Do we have a notability guideline for buildings yet? --Daniel Olsen 04:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although if the article is sufficiently expanded (showing that its construction was notable and commented upon, that it represents a milestone in architectural achievement, that it has a long and storied history), then I might change my mind. Cool building, but Manhattan is choking to death on cool buildings; to be notable, a building needs to be exceptional. Captainktainer * Talk 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I get over 1,000,000 hits in google. Leidiot 10:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did you enclose it in quotes? At which point you get less than 74,000. From there, how many of them actually refer to the building in question, and not some random "17 State Street" in Missoula? The Google Test does not establish notability! Nobody has been able to offer up any proof of notability or any reliable sources; just "I saw it on Google." You can't write an article with "I saw it on Google." You write an article using reliable sources, from a neutral point of view. So far nobody has been able to come up with any information that allows us to write a complete article that satisfies the NPOV policy; nobody has been able to come up with any reliable sources. Captainktainer * Talk 11:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Non-notable Manhattan skyscraper (245 buildings existing/planned/used to exist with 40+ storeys in NYC - see link in my comment above) Bwithh 11:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have plenty of articles on shorter skyscrapers (e.g., Chase Center (Phoenix)). The building also appears to host some sort of archaeology museum. Here are some links for consideration: [3], [4], [5], [6] [7]. (Some links are better than others, but hopefully, they'll give you a better picture of the skyscraper.) Zagalejo 19:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the archaeology exhibition/museum which is described by its creators in the NYTimes article as:"New York Unearthed will be a modest enterprise, its creators say, not a reason itself to make a trip to lower Manhattan but a worthwhile addition to a Battery-South Street itinerary." If the official blurb is that visiting the museum is not worth me taking a subway trip from Upper Manhattan to Lower Manhattan, it's probably not a notable exhibition. As for the Chase Center - why, that's the tallest building in all of Arizona, woohoo. But this is Manhattan we're talking about here. Bwithh 19:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do think the circumstances that led to the museum's inclusion are interesting. And it currently has about 2 million items in its collection, which isn't too shabby. In any case, it's something distinct about the building that can be used to expand the article. And why should the building be penalized because Manhattan is so densley packed with skyscrapers? Would you really consider this building more notable if it had been in a smaller city? Zagalejo 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a nn smallish skyscraper. Marcus22 19:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. There are many skyscrapers on Wikipedia, but in its current state, this particular one fails WP:N. If it can be proved to be notable, I would change my state. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. Google test isn't valid, because I'd bet half of the towns in America have a "State Street." I didn't even know Manhattan has one (and I live there), my first thought in looking at the article's name (before looking at the article) was that it was something in Trenton, NJ. —ExplorerCDT 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are 12,900 google hits for "17 state street" + manhattan. Zagalejo 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, New York landmark. The BBC feature it in their "aeriel shots of Manhattan". [8] Kappa 10:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I brought this to AFD mainly because there was so little info in the article. Could the folks that are voting keep here possibly put those findings in the article itself so it won't look so anemic? This AFD now has more assertion of notability than the article. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I included some info about the archaeology museum. The article is still short, but an article shouldn't be deleted just because it is a stub. Zagalejo 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not being deleted because it's a stub, but because the building, while pretty, isn't really notable. —ExplorerCDT 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was mainly addressing Wknight's comment, "I brought this to AFD mainly because there was so little info in the article." But with regards to your argument -- are there any established notability criteria for skyscrapers? I would think that all buildings that exceed a certain height threshhold are inherently notable. The World Almanac traditionally lists every building in the US over 500 ft tall, and I don't see the harm of giving each of those structures a Wikipedia article.
  • And, actually, I think the aesthetic qualities you mentioned do lend it some notability. It's an easily recognizable part of the skyline, and it has inspired a fair amount of discussion on message boards, blogs, and photo-sharing sites: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. (These aren't the kinds of things that should be cited in the article, but they do suggest that many people are interested in the building.) Zagalejo 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone who lives in New York knows this building by looks alone. Just to add its home to the museum as mentioned above and its google hits speak plenty considering the building is known by its address alone. --User:Zer0faults 23:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A greatly expanded article since the August version, the building has an unusual plan form for new york and clearly stands out from it's neighbors by it's use of colour and general grace. It's critical notability seems to be established here.

In the 1970s, some very interesting mid-size office buildings were erected by the William Kaufman Organization on the east side of Lower Manhattan - 77 Water Street and 127 John Street, and a bit later, the beautiful curved, reflective glass tower at 17 State Street, but these paled in comparison with the scale of the silvery twin towers of the World Trade Center, the strong vertical piers of One Chase Manhattan Plaza, and the ungainliness of the huge tower at 60 Wall Street for the Morgan bank.

Signed:--Mcginnly | Natter 00:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per User:Zer0faults. Travb (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The building is clearly distinctive especially when the skyline is seen from the harbor. I also read that there was an issue about the deal behind its construction. This involved the NY State Supreme Court. It also did not get a permanent occupancy certificate for years until after it was built. If we decide to keep it, I volunteer to format it, edit it, and make "a respectable article out of her".Gary Joseph 07:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Egad, of course this is notable, and extremely so. RFerreira 05:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reminder to new folks coming in: this was the article when I first came across it. I think it's notable myself now but people keep improving it as long as this open so I'm leaving it!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable New York building, many other comparable buildings have articles -- just because NYC has a lot of major building shouldn't be a reason to limit the articles. Tfine80 16:33, 12 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippy hollow[edit]

The article is a one-liner with no links or refrences. Supermath 03:19, 9 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 04:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

600 W 113th[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable building. A dorm building I guess? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An apartment building turned dorm? Non-notable, it doesn't even have a name! --Daniel Olsen 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per both of the above comments. --Supermath 03:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Daniel Case 03:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Columbia has notable dorms. This is not one of them... and as it turns out, this is on the list of articles you really shouldn't make. Captainktainer * Talk 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable building. JIP | Talk 09:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only notable thing is that it is a pre war building. Other than that, nothing else. Leidiot 10:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not notable, because New York has oodles of prewar buildings. Daniel Case 13:59, 9 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. The nomination summed up exactly what was needed to justify this article's retention; it has not been supplied here. Before I am accused of ignoring the majority among the bolded words, AfD is not a vote. Three out of four keep arguments don't even try to argue the case; the other was adequately addressed by Trevyn. The most important bolded words here are not the ones saying 'keep' or 'delete', but the quote in the nomination. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioconservatism[edit]

Delete. Neologism. References are mostly a couple of blogs, which don't even provide appropriate support for much beyond the definition, hence much of article is WP:OR. Appears to be an excuse to make a list of people (most non-notable themselves) who happen to agree with a viewpoint. Fewer than 10k GHits.

If you disagree, please read Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Reliable sources for neologisms in full before entering a recommendation.

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

Trevyn 03:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However, I have no problem with the list of people being deleted. --Loremaster 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Loremaster is the primary maintainer of this page, and has not disclosed himself as such. -- Trevyn 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Calm down, Trevyn. I simply forgot. I was about to identify myself as the primary contributor when you caused an edit conflict. --Loremaster 03:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. Here's a paper about the term: [15]. Other than that, all I really have to say is that as long as the Transhumanism article exists without question, it's hard to argue against the article for its antonym, and WP:IAR if you're otherwise going to get that hung up on WP:NEO. But I'd like to see some evidence that all those individuals listed have actually outed themselves as "bioconservatives". --Aaron 04:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) That "paper" is a blog post on a distinctly non-neutral site, and claiming it is "about" the word is tenuous. 2) The existence of one article is not justification for what may be (or may not be) its antonym. 3) Regarding WP:IAR, I believe that WP:NEO is a considered guideline whose intent is to increase clarity and prevent Wikipedia from being used as a launching pad for politically-loaded words which are not in the common vocabulary. ("bioconservatism" appears to have been coined in 2004.) -- Trevyn 04:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bioconservatism is not a coherent position or philosophy. Almost no one has identified him- or herself as a bioconservative. Rather than serving to characterize people who agree with a given viewpoint, the article provides a catch-all term for people whose only similarity is skepticism about implementing one or another technology. Its use has invariably been by a very few writers who contrast their favored position with "bioconservatism."--StN 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could debate for hours about whether or not bioconservatism is a coherent position or a vague catch-all term (a debate which could be summarized and added to the article if it survives!). However, the fact that almost no one identifies himself as a bioconservative or that the term has invariably been used by writers who contrast their favored position with bioconservatism is NOT reason enough to delete this article. Otherwise, according to this logic, since almost no one describes himself as a reactionary, we should delete the Reactionary article. --Loremaster 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the Reactionary article. But there the fact that no one describes himself as a reactionary is reflected in the statement up front that it is "a political epithet, generally used as a pejorative."--StN 20:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I have no problem with the Bioconservatism article having a similar statement as long as it acknowledges that the political epithet "bioconservative" is meant to be used as a non-pejorative alternative to "bioluddite". --Loremaster 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That "bioconservatism" is not a coherent position is, of course, not a major reason for it being inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The primary reason is that it is not in widespread use—possibly because of a lack of coherency. If, in a couple years, the term catches on, it may then be able to justify its own article. I am most concerned about the misuse of Wikipedia as the primary authoritative source for a definition of "bioconservatism". The top two Google hits, and four of the top seven, are Wikipedia and its clones. Wikipedia is intended to reflect human knowledge, not create it. -- Trevyn 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This could totally be a section of the transhumanism page, with some citations. Especially since, once you remove the list of people who may or may not follow this reasoning, most of what's left is links to that page. That pages is starting to get long, though.--GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Bioconservatism is a genuine ideology! -- Voldemort 06:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is Trevynism. That doesn't make it appropriate for Wikipedia. —Trevyn 06:53, 11 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, nonsense NawlinWiki 04:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Pavlakis[edit]

Basically, this page has been completely made up. Supermath 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A7. Daniel Case 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. In clear-cut cases like this, you usually save everybody time by just speedying it in the first place. My Alt Account 03:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. MER-C 04:34, 9 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. Option to merge still available as an editorial decision. Petros471 12:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A. N. Other[edit]

  • Delete: I may be off on this one but I can't find any verification for this and it's been marked as unreferenced for months (hence why I stumbled across it). If someone can find good refs, I'll withdraw. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only references I could find were on Wikipedia's mirrors. --Supermath 03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an easy term to search for. However, if you use this search, you get a number of hits for the phrase being used like this on the first page alone. Loganberry (Talk) 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have heard it used, and I have found non-Wikipedia references to it on the web. e.g. Microsoft Encarta [16], Cambridge Dictionary [17]. I can see a lot of use of the expression using Alta Vista with the search string "a.n.other" -wikipedia to exclude the pages which mention Wikipedia — Google doesn't seem much good for this as it removes the punctuation. Jll 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are both dictionaries. I guess move to Wiktionary is an option but the entire rest of the article is unsourced. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if sources can be found (which I'm sure they can with a little effort). This name was routinely used on pictures of credit cards and chequebooks in adverts for banking services in the UK in the 1980s and early 1990s. JulesH 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MSN Search is better for finding this than google, because it doesn't try to be as smart and consider "an other" as a match.[18] JulesH 18:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete dict def, if not neologism hoax, perhaps a move to wictionary (if verified). --Darkfred Talk to me 04:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you that "AN Other" (usually written, in the common British English way, with no punctuation or spaces between the initials) is a very common "placeholder" for sporting squads - eg "Squad additions (3): JN Smith, WT Taylor and AN Other". That sort of thing. I don't know how old the usage is, but it's certainly no neologism: I've seen it in newspapers since the 1980s at least, and it might be decades older than that. That takes care of "neologism"; whether or not "dictdef" still applies I'll leave to you. Loganberry (Talk) 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still do not believe this article will ever be more than a dict def for a slang term. --Darkfred Talk to me 16:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs a lot of cleaning up, but the phrase is not at all uncommon in the UK - perhaps it's just not used (much, if at all) in the US? You quite often see the term used in cricket (because traditionally players are listed on the scorecard as initials and surname, eg I. T. Botham). Here is a recent example from Cricinfo, a very popular cricket website; I've added that reference to the article itself. Loganberry (Talk) 15:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jll. —dustmite 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Loganberry. I have used the term myself both in the context of sporting competitions and staff planning schedules. From a UK perspective it seems as valid as say John Doe and there is an extensive Placeholder names page (I didn't know there were that many!). Nigel (Talk) 12:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Placeholder name--Peta 04:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Len Davies (media)[edit]

No assertion of notability, fails WP:BIO, largely unverifiable Sasaki 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite and Keep.I may be mistaken but I believe he is the person behind the music of the new Dr. Who Series. Whatever the case it needs to be verified..EnsRedShirt 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)(edited twice to add signature.. sorry)
  • Keep and verify. i agree the article needs verification but he is the owner of both a multimedia company and a wrestling promotion which is notable... and from the sounds of it he muust be a well established video editor --- Paulley
  • Comment I'd definitely be in favour of a re-write if the article is kept. However simply being a well established video editor isn't necessarily grounds for inclusion, WP:BIO states Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. Also being a company owner doesn't make you notable per se, is there anything about Len Davies himself that makes him notable? Sasaki 11:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. I'm fond of entrepreneurs, but owning a couple of small companies does not push him over the line for me. William Pietri 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertions of notability that would meet the requirements of WP:BIO, and even the information that is there is not properly sourced per WP:V. --Satori Son 18:20, 19 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 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TurboTools Corporation[edit]

[Check Google hits]. Most of 339 Ghits are reprints of company's own press releases, thus not meeting the only possible WP:CORP standard. Daniel Case 03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What makes it notable, then? Daniel Case 13:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turbo Delete nn corp. Marcus22 19:42, 9 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 —Xezbeth 10:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tjaco Walvis[edit]

Communications agency executive who has written a number of articles/papers. At time of nomination the claims are all unsourced. Barely any Ghits here - none of which are substantial. Fails WP:V as well as WP:BIO. I also nominate redirect page:

  • Tjaco-walvis BlueValour 03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable branding executive/wonk. possible vanity. Bwithh 18:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertions of notability that would satisfy WP:BIO, and what information is in the article is not sourced to credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. The "References" section appears to be simply a list of minor industry reports and trade pub articles authored by the subject. --Satori Son 05:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Petros471 12:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 o'clock wave[edit]

  • Delete: Appears unverifiable. Google search gives only one or two non-Wikipedia references. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The 5 o'clock wave is mentioned in Morris, Wagga Wagga: a history. I've added the reference which also appears in the Wagga Wagga, New South Wales article. - Gimboid13 05:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just another thought. I've only heard the term used in association with Wagga Wagga, but the article says it's common to "rural riverine areas located downstream from major dams, particularly those with rivers that have the Snowy Mountains as their source". I don't know how many more localities fit those two criteria but it seems to me that just merging it into the Wagga Wagga article might not do it justice. - Gimboid13 07:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Maybe mention this in the Wagga Wagga, New South Wales article and leave it at that. --GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be a Wagga phenomena. Worth mentioning in our article on the town but it might not be worth a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to me to be mostly nonsense (although it may only be the way I read it), and little verifiability. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♫-) 00:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wagga Wagga, New South Wales User:Guyanakoolaid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.201.16.101 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep DXRAW 07:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I grew up in Wagga living there for 18 years. The 5 o'clock wave is very well known local folklore. For many years there was a surf shop (i.e. it sold board shorts and tank tops, not surfboards!) in the main street call The 5 O'Clock Wave in reference to this local folklore. The text of this entry is entirely accurate in its description. Possibily this myth has been forgotten in more recent years, I havn't lived in Wagga for 8 years or so, in which case documenting a disappearing oral tradition becomes more important! This article most definately should stay.--129.78.208.4 04:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Wagga Wagga, New South Wales. Due to the low number of google hits, I'm left to believe that this is heavily localized slang. We don't really need an article for every such term, but it certainly fits into an article on the municipality where it is used. Cool3 12:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Should be left how it is however it does need more information in the article. -- Bidgee 22:28, 19 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 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOLD TEAM[edit]

When I read that members "follow a strick creed to ensure proper ethics", I think I don't need to check any of the more than half million that come up[Check Google hits] to find any relevant link to know it won't make WP:CORP. Daniel Case 03:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with nom, although nominator failed to mention that the first google hits at least have absolutely no relevance to this article. Was prodded by me, de-prodded by author. Mak (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article doesn't explain why this group is more notable than a zillion other consulting businesses. NawlinWiki 06:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 09:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not verified and cleaned up. If it is, then Keep Tango Alpha Foxtrot 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. RFerreira 05:55, 12 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 04:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Duelists[edit]

Not the Ridley Scott film, but some guys who play Renaissance fairs on the West Coast. Page looks like advertising was their goal; even so, I'm not sure what they do is sufficiently notable. Daniel Case 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ... oh good God just make it go away. --Aaron 04:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Just delete it eah... no reason there Aaron... Just because YOU dont like it... all the more reason to get rid of it. -- ph0t0bug
  • Delete. The article is just a homepage and/or advertising Leidiot 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A cynical vanity page/advertisement for NN performers. The contributors have edited only this article [19][20] and the article is copyvio from here. --IslaySolomon 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Because at the time of writing the artical that is all the information I could find. I did in fact ask the owner of the page if I could use the Bios that were on their home page and they said "Yes." I have since obtained more information via a phone interview and will be posting that information as well. -- Ph0t0bug
    • You can't use information from a phone interview in a Wikipedia article if it can't be found in a reliable source as well.

      As for the images being copyrighted, well, getting permission to use them is nice but since May 2005 we have been trying to avoid using "copyrighted, permission for use" images because the permission can only extend to Wikipedia, not later users such as our scrape sites (answers.com, reference.com and the like), and we want all pictures on Wikipedia to be as freely reproducible as the text of articles. My suggestion would be to take your own pictures if possible, and then upload and license them as {{GFDL-self}}
      And the copyright violation claim refers to the text of the articles, not just the images. Daniel Case 14:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Copyright violation and non-notable. -- Stbalbach 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment At this point I want someone to send me a link to what is defined as Notable on Wiki... and I did not violate ANY Copyrites.


  • Comment. There is a series of articles like this on Wikipedia, see Renaissance Fair#Notable entertainers for a list - I'm not sure what to do about it, they started showing up en-masse a few months ago, word must have gotten around to a mailing list or something. I keep deleting all the red-links people are adding to the list, but that seems to encourage them to create non-notable articles like this one. -- Stbalbach 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Where is a copyrite violation? I consider this group notable in the fact that they are one of only a few which goes around to festivals teaching about the history of swordfighting and with credits to them for being professionals at what they do not only at festivals around the country and the globe but also for the contrabutions to films and plays around the country. That is what makes them "Notable". I can tell you right now that the Brobdingnagian Bards or Blackmore's Night or Minstrels of Mayhem or anyone on the list that is located on the artical for Renaissance Fair have made no more notable contrabutions to Renaissance Fairs than The Duelists. Just because they do not sing you choose to delete them. Half of the people on the Renaissance Fair#Notable entertainers list I have never heard of... That makes them Non-Notable to me. I am the one who authored this artical... because I thought they were intresting enough because of the fact that they DO exactly what the first Ren Fest was created to do and that is EDUCATE! As for the Copyright... I obtained all the photographs and information from Randal Scott who I have FULL permission from to do so... so there is no violation of the copyright when the owner of the copyrite gave me the stuff to use. Do as you will but I if they are to be deleted then so must the entire list of "Notable" preformers on the "Renaissance Fair" page. If that is gonna happen then deletion of all of the fairs listed there should be deleted as they are all advertising their fairs. ph0t0bug 13:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and whilst at it, delete many of the other equally non notable 'Notable Entertainers' Marcus22 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Resolute 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Ok.. Since everyone seems to want to kill this page lets first look at the word that was used the most: Notable

Defined by the American Heritage Dict.:
no·ta·ble (nt-bl) Pronunciation Key adj. Worthy of note or notice; remarkable: notable beauty; sled dogs that are notable for their stamina. Characterized by excellence or distinction; eminent: formed a commission of notable citizens. See Synonyms at noted. n. A person of distinction or great reputation. See Synonyms at celebrity. often Notable One of a council of prominent persons in pre-Revolutionary France called into assembly to deliberate at times of emergency.
End of Definition

The people to whom this page refers to fulfill all the requirements for the first definition by right of what they do. They educate the public and are known by millions of people who have seen their "shows" and lectures. So to say that they are Non-Notable is just being un-educated in the use of the word. Because someone does not know who someone is does not mean that that person is not notable to others. Thus we must look at what Wiki defines notable as.... which at this point I cant seem to find an artical on... so.. I digress. They also have shown "Excellence" & "Distinction" in their field so this proves them VERY Notable indeed. If there are changes that need to be made please suggest them and I will be more than happy to comply with those changes but don't just assume that because someone posted an artical about a person or group means that "THAT" person or group posted it just to "advertise". The Artical was never ment as an advertisement. --Ph0t0bug

  • Delete. I can see no real notability here. And re the above comment, I very much doubt that they have been seen by anywhere near a million people, let alone millions. -- Necrothesp 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IF any source that says anything about their relative notability as you state it can be found outside their own webpage. Otherwise Delete Guyanakoolaid 09:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IslaySolomon, While that is a page on Wiki that starts to define what the guidelines are you did NOT read the whole artical. CLEARLY stated at the top of the artical next to the "?" it states the following:


This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Once adopted as policy that would be Wiki's guidline but until then it is just perposed and can not be considered as law.
I must say that I DO apreciate Guyanakoolaid is saying and I will do the research. I wish more people responding to this would be as objective. --Ph0t0bug

There are very few hard policies on Wikipedia, %90 (or more) of the "rules" are actually just "guidelines". The reason is, it's very difficult to make a hard policy that works in every case - so we have pages like this where consensus is built around the guidelines - in the end its all about consensus, because even the guidelines can (and do) change all the time with consensus. My recommendation would be to learn more about how to write Wikipedia articles so they satisfy peoples sense of notability - look at other similar articles and re-write yours to be similar. Tone down the pictures so it doesn't look like a promotional site (one or two small pictures). Tone down the amount of text so it doesn't read like a home web page. Make it encyclopedic - information that will last 100 years, as if written by an academic scholar and historian. Also don't make it look like it was written by The Duelists, that is also grounds for deletion (self promotion is considered spam on Wikipedia). -- Stbalbach 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also direct your attention to WP:BIO, which is beyond the proposal stage and is "law". Can you find (and back up with sources) any way the Duelists satisfy those criteria? Daniel Case 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I think this particular article should be deleted, I must point out that WP:BIO is a guideline only and not a policy (or "law"), as it clearly states in the first paragraph. -- Necrothesp 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I meant in the fact that it's not a proposal, as the general notability guideline is. Daniel Case 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment Understood... but there in lies the problem. Concensis. I can find thousands of people on WP who have never heard of these men and maybe even a few who are aginst the group as a whole... but... I could, and will state right now that I havent and will not, find a thousand to get on here and post "Keep". I have seen pages done by some of the people who are in this list that I have NO idea who they are... but I am not going to go to those pages and set them up for deletion. All in all it seems like a bad way of deciding what stays and what goes. It seems that some would just look at the new pages that are being added and not going out and activly finding the ones that already exist that look like advertising. I know a few of the groups that are listed on the Ren Fair artical and while I personally think that all of them should stay I also think that if this page is to go I will begin to do the same to bring any other "Advertising" page to the same demise. I have been to several of the other pages for "Notable" groups and NONE of them are up for deletion. I ask then WHY is my artical up for it. Lets be fair about it. Lets put them ALL up for deletion... of course refering to the "Notable" group on the Renaissance Fair. In fact I think that any person who would gain profits by even having a page on Wiki should be deleted. But if we did this ALL movies would have to go, Director & Actor Bios would have to go, Any living Artist would have to go. All Bands will have to go as well... See, anyone looking up something on Wikipedia may come across a link to something that points to those persons website.... which could be considered advertising and furthermore on that website could have a store, shop, t-shirts... and this is all from clicking on an external link on an Artical on Wiki. I say lets not do something half way... if your going to do it... go all the way.... but wait... that defets the reason to have a world supported encyclopedia --Ph0t0bug
  • Weak keep if and only if the article actually gets some meat added to it - right now it looks like an ad. Info on just what WMA traditions they use, what their shows have to offer besides the generic descriptions, significant performances etc. would do much to improve it. Ergative rlt 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment Thank you... That is all I ask for is a chance to improve it. I will do so before the 5 days runs out. --Ph0t0bug
    • And if you could, what might really help your case would be some media coverage, with specific citations (online would make it easy to verify, but find what you can) of the non-trivial variety (i.e., not just a passing mention), a general principle in many of our issue-specific notability guidelines. Show us that people are urged to go to Renaissance fairs to see these guys. Show us something about their movie and TV work. Show us news stories that are primarily about them, and put them in the article as references. We like that. Daniel Case 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 23:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Group is not quite notable enough. Though some of the events they appear at might be. My Alt Account 09:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moustacheville[edit]

Appears to be a hoax. Google search for moustacheville greece returns zero non--wikipedia results. Apologies to any residents of moustacheville if I'm wrong. —Nate Scheffey 04:13, 9 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, nonsense bio NawlinWiki 04:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Atkinson Manzini Valencia[edit]

unverifiable, article lists no references HResearcher 04:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speeedy delete - CSD A7. No assertion of notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 04:31, 9 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 rename per User:Uncle G below (well done Uncle G! Spelling wasn't even close). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aalakadikkumoolai[edit]

  • Delete: Perusing Category:Articles lacking sources and found this. Google search brings up zero non-Wikipedia references [21], [22], [23]. I'm happy to withdraw if someone can verify or find a correct spelling. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be nonsense; the article creator's entire edit history [24] consists of creating the article and making an edit to it less than 60 seconds later. --Aaron 04:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like nonsense to me. Leidiot 10:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The correct spelling is Aladikkumulai, it appears. Uncle G 13:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Gothic Heart[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable website (alexa ~ 280,000: [25] ). MER-C 04:29, 9 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, hoax bio NawlinWiki 04:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Maunsell[edit]

Non notable / possible hoax Brian | (Talk) 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Brian | (Talk) 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This is a hoax. The Parnell Panther, a serial rapist, did not have a victim named Nathan Maunsell. The "reference" links don't contain any of the information claimed in the article. Clearly someone's prank on this Nathan Maunsell person, whoever he is. wikipediatrix 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be unverifiable. External links don't have anything to do with this person. Zero ghits[26] — NMChico24 04:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youngtron[edit]

Corporate vanity page for non-notable corporation; no evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Valrith 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Donovan[edit]

Vanity creation of Donovan0001 (talk · contribs · count). Does not meet WP:BIO. Note that he is not the author of notable books but something closer to souvenir books. Google gets 284 unique hits for "Don donovan" + "new zealand" [27] not that bad but not a whole lot either and going through the links I could not find evidence of significant third party coverage which means that the article's content is most likely to remain unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floast[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Valrith 04:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, protologism, no sources outside the one forum. NawlinWiki 06:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom & NawlinWiki --AbsolutDan (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-admitted neologism. JIP | Talk 09:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. For this one entry, I wish you could actually copyright a term as the author suggests, because then it would be speedyable. hehe. Irongargoyle 00:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for stupid in-jokes. Danny Lilithborne 01:02, 10 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 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries[edit]

An unrecognized "accreditor", 178 yahoo hits, second hit is wikipedia article, and article asserts nothing. Arbusto 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article is useful for putting articles on the member schools of ARTS in context. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only one non-list mainspace article links to it; its usefulness in terms of promoting context is limited, at best. The article focuses mostly on what it is not, rather than what it is, which appears to be a function of the fact that we don't have enough reliable sources to write about it with strict verifiability. The fact that it is unaccredited can be very easily handled with a simple mention in whatever articles it is mentioned in. In the meantime, we have a perpetual stub on hand. Captainktainer * Talk 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the Captain explained. CaliEd 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one school connected with it, no notablity, and questionable. Nickieee 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There are nine schools connected with it. See http://www.artseminaries.org/members.htm for a list. It is entirely possible that other editors will contribute articles about the other seminaries receiving unrecognized accreditation from the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries without realizing that the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries is unrecognized. Keeping this article would help place future articles about members of ARTS in context. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment And when we have enough material that meets our policy for reliable sources for such institutions, and when we've written up stubs that meet Wikipedia policies for all of them, perhaps we can revisit this article; in general, articles are not protected against recreation when the deletion is not related to a living person or a constant troll-magnet. In the meantime, this article is a perpetual stub that focuses on what the subject is not, rather than what it is. I, for one, think it would not be wonderful to have an encyclopedia wherein most articles consist of saying "This person is not an elephant, Godzilla, Tom Cruise, Emmylou Harris, or M80", because we don't have enough material to write with strict verifiability about what it is. Captainktainer * Talk 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete for now The article should probably exist, but it's so vague and empty (and full of negatives, Cap'n) that it's not actually useful. Maybe the best course would be to delete for now, and come back with a better article. Maybe a little [WP:Vanity] would be OK, since they themselves might know what they actually do and stand for. Some of those seminaries have articles (like Geneva_Reformed_Seminary, but they don't mention it. Are they just conservative Presbyterians? I'm not sure from the article or the webpage. --GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:28, 9 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 Nomination withdrawn.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Clements University and St Clements University[edit]

Non-notable diploma mill. This school is NOT accredited and cannot be verified per WP:V and WP:RS. Website claims that are "accredited" by members of unrecognized "International Council for Open and Distance Education," but this an accreditation mill and the website displays false information regarding its recognition.

  1. The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization lists St. Clements University as unaccredited.[29]
  2. St. Clements is called a "degree mill" by List of non-accredited colleges/ universities by State of Maine (see listing 564)
  3. A "who is" check shows this Carribean school's address is a PO Box in AUSTRALIA with an IP in that country (prices in US dollars).
  4. Delete per the St. Clements University's description, "As a commercial university, St Clements role in education is to assist candidates obtain the qualifications they need."[30] This ad fails notablity per WP:CORP and WP:V.
  5. "St Clements University" gets 340 yahoo hits with the majority of hits being promotion in online forums. Arbusto 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also delete similiar article St Clements University. Arbusto 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and withdrawal nomination with the good work of TheronJ. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions moved to talk page. Arbusto 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not an editor's responsibility to go out of their way to verify an article, notability needs to be provided by the author Guyanakoolaid 09:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What does notability have to do with this discussion? Also, we should make it our responsibility.Bagginator 09:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply What does notability have to do with this discussion? Everything! And I have better things to do with my time than check accreditation for diploma mills trying to prove legitimacy through wikipedia. From WP:V: 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.Guyanakoolaid 09:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Final comment for now I contacted IFA and asked them to provide verifiable evidence of accreditation for St. Clements University. Hopefully I will receive a response before this AfD is finalized and we can know for a certainty one way or the other.Bagginator 10:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: 1) No legitmate (Cambridge, Oxford, UL, UK, IE) accredited British institution appears on the lists. 2) Three state agencies note they are unaccredited. 3) We have NO WP:V on what this is. 4) No notablity is offer with WP:RS. 5) One US state government called this a diploma mill. Arbusto 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is one good reason for keeping these sham institutions: since Wikipedia has such a high google ranking, anyone looking for information can see the WP page and learnt that it is, indeed, an unaccredited diploma mill since it's page will appear as # 2 or 3 probably. They can then further find out what a Diploma mill is by following the links and, if truly ambitious, discover the entire shady world of such "institutions." That said, Wikipedia is not here to provide caveat emptor services and this place should be expunged. I should know: I have a Master's degree in "Life Experience." Eusebeus 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even weirder, it appears that last year they were based in Namibia. Currently I'm on the fence, but if we can produce a good article with verifiable information, I think it should be kept. If somebody cleans this up so the article is an accurate portrayal of their dubiousness, I'm all for a keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane for the kind of turnaround I'm thinking of. William Pietri 02:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - 1,830 google hits. Educational institutions are notable. --Ineffable3000 03:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment: What WP:V source do you have that it is an educational institution? Arbusto 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Look here. It is an educational institution. Even though it is not accredited, it is still an educational institution. --Ineffable3000 21:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
      • How is that a source to prove it is an educational institution? That's a bio of a person who claims a degree. Someone from Africa in a position of power with a fake degree isn't new. For example, Riek Machar (VP of Southern Sudan) in this Dec 2005 Sudan Tribune article states Machar "Received Doctorate from University of Bedford, England in 1984." The problem is no such school exists called University of Bedford, which was a diploma mill operation that would predate the degrees it sold. Arbusto 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Diploma mills are notable too. Leave the page and state that it might be a potential diploma mill. --Ineffable3000 03:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
          • Comment: It is notable? Does it meet WP:V? Those are reasons for keep, and no sources have been convincing of that. Arbusto 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. Doesn't meet WP:V. --Ineffable3000 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-researched nom. Note that 1150 general Ghits for "st. clements university" boils down to 213 distinct hits, including some odd ones for "Superior Moulding". Fails WP:CORP for lacking the usual third-party non-trivial articles, no awards, no... oh never mind. Tychocat 12:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep St. Clements University and delete and redirect St Clements University. First, as a general matter, the university is notable to anyone who's considering getting a degree from them, or to anyone who sees a St. Clements degree on a resume, and we should keep the page as a resource for them. Second, under WP:CORP, it's notable because it's been discussed by John Bear in his book and by at least three US states, which should qualify as "consumer watchdog organizations" in this context. It's true that it's a scam, but that's all the more reason to preserve the information. TheronJ 14:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I should have pointed that I've added some sources to St. Clements University. I encourage people to take another look at the page. TheronJ 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some more links to the St. Clements University page. It still needs some polishing, but I think it's a notable non-accredited university. (For example, it turns out to be Senator Kim Carr's favorite example of a degree mill during Australian Senate hearings). TheronJ 15:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with TheronJ. If we are going to do lists such as List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning that include this school, then I would think we would need articles on the components of said lists - in fact it is a quasi-requirement of wikipedia list guidelines[31]. This nom is a frequent contributor to various diploma mill lists [32] , but wants this deleted because it is a "non-notable diploma mill" and "can not be verified". If that is true, what is the point of listing it? Why are we doing lists of diploma mills (all of which are by definition more or less "non-notable" and unverifiable) in the first place? --JJay 19:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually TheronJ did major cleaning it up and kindly contacted me my talk about the changes. Don't personalize matters with vague inferences based on false assumptions. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure what you mean by "false assumptions" or "personalize matters" since I merely quoted from your deletion nomination. Please review the list guideline page linked above. --JJay 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheronJ, thanks for doing the hard work. Wikipedia could use more editors like you. Bagginator 01:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a gold star for TheronJ and his fantastic cleanup. This is the best possible outcome of an AfD. William Pietri 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 12:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Lung Wai Man[edit]

Appears to be insufficiently notable, and edit history suggests vanity. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Quoted as a spokesperson on a Korean news site, but that's all I see. Doesn't nearly meet WP:BIO and a definite WP:AUTO violation. Irongargoyle 23:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure how to handle this. Claims to be a chairman of the Southern Democratic Alliance, but that's not even a party, just a minor political org. Other than that he hasn't ran for anything so he's not notable in any other regard. ColourBurst 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've seen individuals of similar notability from the US and Europe pass AfDs with flying colors. I'd like to see some additional information about this guy to determine if he's really notable or not.--Cúchullain t/c 04:27, 11 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 07:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disc Jockey News[edit]

Contested PROD. Delete as blatant WP:SPAM for a non-notable Internet newsletter that probably fails WP:WEB. Appears to be vanity from User:Dude Walker, who keeps inserting this into Newspaper and related articles, and added his own bio information to Dude Walker (not the same guy). --Kinu t/c 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. Disc Jockey News is a hardcopy newspaper that is has been in operation since 2004. The reasons for insertion in the newspaper category is it's related category listing. It is/was my understanding that reference contributions were a matter of being thorough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude Walker (talk • contribs)

  • Comment: My apologies. I've corrected the nomination above. --Kinu t/c 06:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinu, as for the deletion of bio information? How shall that be addressed. Since both have achievments within the broadcast and media fields, how do you suggest this be addressed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Walker (talk • contribs) 06:23, 9 Sep 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. As it stands it reads as an advert only with far too many links Nigel (Talk) 09:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Kinu, Nigel, more or less puzzled.. This Mobile Disc Jockey industry is a growing industry. Currently there are only 3 specifc pubs that relate directly to the industry. Disc Jockey News, DJ Times & Mobile Beat. What changes would you suggest to reference content? Cross-references were an attempt to be thorough. Please advise. (unsure how to sign Dude Walker) Dude Walker 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Ahhh! Found it![reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very closely resembles spam. Couldn't find evidence of notability. Author's strident defense of the article completely fails to address wikipedia policy, so I'm not convinced. My Alt Account 19:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless you can provide any reputable source for notability besides own sites Guyanakoolaid 09:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To All Concerned I've read the article(s) relating to WikiSpam. I can see how my contributions/inclusions have been misinterpreted. I was following help suggestions from Wikipedia that created this dialogue. Items shown in red indicate a term or article not yet present within Wikipedia. That prompted me to be more thorough and supply cross reference material that it appeared that Wikipedia needed. I find it ironic that assertions of SPAM or AD campaigns were created in part, by Wikipedia's "help" suggestions. I'm unsure what could be more credible/notable than a physical copy of the industry specific newspaper which anyone may freely obtain in a US mailbox or online.Dude Walker 18:09, 10 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 per A7.. Shell babelfish 11:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goredeath[edit]

A band that has released one album that sold 970 copies doesn't seem to me to meet WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 05:57, 9 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 05:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Auschwitz wasn't bombed[edit]

This is not a topic for an encyclopedia article, phrased as a question. consider incorporating in auschwitz article or elsewhere Fourdee 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move/Merge: this is a well written, sourced article. The title is glaringly bad, but the content is good. --Daniel Olsen 06:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written, notable work in progress. Guy Montag 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's going to be written up properly, which it isn't at the moment, and it'll be too long to merge anywhere by the time it's finished, because it's a big topic. As for the topic, it's encyclopedic enough for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which has an article called "Why wasn't Auschwitz bombed?" by Michael Berenbaum. [33] If the nominator had read our article before nominating it, he'd have seen we use that as a source. And ours isn't phrased as a question. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This link is not a proper Britannica article, it's a "sidebar". I have no idea where it would appear in a print version of the Britannica, under W for Why? The title sets a very bad precedent for wikipedia. The topic itself is dubious; the title is atrocious. Are we to entertain an article for every hypothetical what-if out there? This merits a paragraph in the Auschwitz or Holocaust articles, or rolling it into a more encyclopedic topic like Allied Response to the Holocaust. If we have this article, why not "Why Dachau Wasn't Bombed" etc. etc. etc. - "Why snoopy isn't drawn like Mickey Mouse" or how about "Why the sky is blue". No article should start with "why". Fourdee 01:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know where you get the idea it's a "what if" article. It doesn't ask "what would have happened if Auschwitz had been bombed?". It's an article that will summarize the literature on why the Auschwitz wasn't bombed, and it wasn't, so there's nothing hypothetical about it. It's a big topic in Holocaust history, and therefore encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why is Auschwitz significant and not the other camps? Shouldn't the topic of this be why no camps were bombed? This topic appearing in a *sidebar* of the Britannica does not lend credibility to it appearing as a main article here. We don't have the equivalent of a sidebar or sub-article, but I am positive this would never appear as a main article in the Britannica - again it would fall under W alphabetically which is ludicrous. Fourdee 03:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're here to reflect reliable published sources, and historians discuss why Auschwitz wasn't bombed for a number of reasons: (1) the Allies were asked to bomb it or the railway lines leading to it; (2) the numbers being killed there were known about — in May–July 1944, when the bombing discussions were at a height, 12,000 Jews a day were being taken to Auschwitz from Hungary alone; (3) the railway lines would have been easy to bomb, according to some historians; (4) there were a number of Allied sorties in that immediate area during that period. I don't know what you mean by a "sidebar." It's a full article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica by Michael Berenbaum. How can you be "positive it would never appear as a main article," when in fact it does? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Check the Britannica link again. It is clearly described as a "sidebar". If you've ever seen a print version of the EB, it is listed in alphabetical order. I don't believe you will find anything listed under "Why". In a similar vein, "Why did Germany Start World War II", "Why did Hitler invade Russia", "Why did the US delay entering the War" - these are a "big topics" - bigger topics than why Auschwitz wasn't bombed, yet they are included in appropriately titled articles. Why does Auschwitz get an article about why it wasn't bombed and not Dachau? I repeat, no article should start with "why" and no article should include a contraction like "wasn't" - articles titles should reflect a succinct topic, not a sentence.Fourdee 03:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of the point of this; if you have a complaint about Britannica, you'll need to write to them. Their article is part of a series of articles called "Reflections on the Holocaust." It's listed under Auschwitz, question of bombing; and in the Reflections series, it's in part III, one of the articles in the Allied response to the Holocaust section. But as I said, I'm unclear about the difference that makes. You seem to be objecting to the title; I hope you didn't bring an AfD just because you didn't like a title. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Still seems to be incomplete/a work in progress. Worth leaving it to see how it expands Bwithh 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment per those above. I'm not quite sure what it should be changed to, but the title should probably get changed somewhere along the line (I, for one, was expecting an essay rather than the article which is currently there). BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Why wasn't Auschwitz bombed?" is a big question in Holocaust history, which is why the EB has that article. I wanted to name it using the question, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica was able to do, but didn't because I anticipated precisely this problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider renaming. Perhaps Theories on why Auschwitz wasn't bombed. VegaDark 07:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also keep the article's name per comment above concerning Encyclopaedia Britannica. This is how it is most known and is per wikipedia policy. Amoruso 09:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a significant historical controversy, with plenty of potential sources. I am surprised that it does not have an article yet. One thing though: as I say on the talk page, I would suggest a move to Auschwitz bombing controversy; or, at the very least, to Why Auschwitz was not bombed. The "wasn't" in the title is, in the words of Hannibal Lecter, unspeakably ugly to me. Batmanand | Talk 09:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unspeakably ugly... Well said. Irongargoyle 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well writen. its just the title which lets it down. Leidiot 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - soundly produced and presented article. BTLizard 11:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is encyclopedic material on this topic. --Ian Pitchford 12:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Encyclopaedia Britannica. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very encycloedic, will be helpful to researchers, and per others above. Thε Halo Θ 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and VegaDark's suggestion. --Húsönd 18:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep....no question to that, for all above reasons, but I also agree (in fact, urge) that the title should be changed to something a little more "encyclopedic". TJ0513 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Auschwitz bombing debate. There are other acceptable alternatives suggested by other editors as well, but this is the version that I would prefer. Auschwitz bombing controversy for a second choice per Batmanand. Irongargoyle 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is question for military historians, specialists on logistics and What If fans. Encyclopedias do not contain What if Turks won battle of Lepanto stuff. This topic has been discussed several times on soc.history.what-if newsgroups on much higher quality that the text here. It is also not controversy, unless "controversy" became generic word for just anything. Pavel Vozenilek 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I do agree that the word conflict is a bit harsh. This is why I prefer the alternate title of Auschwitz bombing debate. I still think we should keep though. Questions for military historians seem like the peak of encyclopedic matierial. I can't speak concerning your example of What if Turks won battle of Lepanto because I don't know the topic, but I think the question aspect of that hypothetical article is what would get it in trouble. Irongargoyle 04:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't see what this has to do with a "what if" by the way. Amoruso 04:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What-if speculations are the primary inspiration for such question. Political charges are secondary. Pavel Vozenilek 11:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had read through several discussions about this topic on soc.history.what-if and the question has been researched in deep there, including technical details on logistics, decision processes of militaries and statistics. These discussions are huge, last for weeks and (mostly) based on qualified sources. Current article would be torn apart very quickly. If kept the article should be renamed to remove the question, to include the whole machinery of concentration camps and their infrastructure (to bomb railways has been considered and rejected) and "expert attention needed" label put on it. Pavel Vozenilek 11:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as per Irongarogyle and others. The article is sound, but the title is unencyclopedic. Lazybum 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject is most certainly notable enough for its own encyclopedia article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the others that the title is inappropriate and, at the least, the article should be renamed. Raul654 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - work in progress, but should be retitled per Batmanand. Ergative rlt 22:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move Tell me to get back to work! 04:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Whitehead[edit]

Article about alleged cult leader. Google search didn't yeild anything (that wasn't wiki derived). Even if the story were true, notability still questionable. Is this article a prank? In any case only cited defunct pub Silent News. Clearly afoul of WP:LIVING. Dr U 06:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I find no information about the subject. Possibly unverifiable. Shimeru 08:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, even if verified. --Ed (Edgar181) 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, tagged as such, article's creator insists on using it as an attack page. Of course, the subject is clearly NN as well. My Alt Account 09:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul archibald[edit]

Vanity (article was created by the article's subject), promotional and, despite the breathless prose, non-notable. The guy is a trumpet player in an orchestra. Good on 'im, but it's not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 06:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity. -- RHaworth 07:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. MER-C 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as passes WP:MUSIC, in that he's won major competitions. Article is, admittedly, a vanity piece however and needs attention. Also, it's a copyright violation of [34], so needs rewrite. --Oscarthecat 09:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Something very odd about that major competition he won, the "Toulon Prix de Concours". Based on google search for the competition, it seems only one person has ever won it, Paul Archibald, and all the search results look pretty much word-for-word like this article. Hmmmm. Fan-1967 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ale Jrb.—dustmite 15:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Error.com Advertising for nonnotable website which was started 8/29/06 per article; no Alexa ranking; author removed prod and prod2 tags w/o improving article. NawlinWiki 06:21, 9 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, paleoneologism. --- Deville (Talk) 03:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinergy[edit]

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic Dicklyon 06:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This one's hard. Weak keep for now, because of the sources and number of Ghits (3,750 [35]). Perhaps this could be merged somewhere?--Cúchullain t/c 04:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero hits on JSROR, one hit on ScienceDirect: the original article by György Doczi from 1986. That article gets all of 1 citation on ISI citation search, and Doczi overall gets about 30. Paleoneologism that never took off. After delete redirect to Dynegy, which is what most of the Google hits bring up. ~ trialsanderrors 03:05, 16 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, since all information has already been merged. --- Deville (Talk) 02:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rockhurst University Undergraduate Programs[edit]

If people want a list of the undergraduate courses offered by a university, they should probably contact that university, rather than looking here. Wikipedia is not a university admissions office. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 06:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above argument could be used on practically any topic covered on Wikipedia. For example, if people want a list of products made by a company, they should contact that company. Wikipedia is not an advertisement for companies. Wikipedia is a place to let the public know about useful information. There is no reason a list of undergraduate degrees at Rockhurst University cannot be featured on this website, as similar lists are for other universities. If you would rather I placed the list in the article for Rockhurst, I would be willing to do that. Shaverc 06:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Rockhurst University as prose (i.e. in paragraph format) rather than as a list, so that it will take up less space. --Metropolitan90 16:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary list. Look at the university website if you want to know things like this. -- Necrothesp 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Bekoe[edit]

An anonymous editor at WP:AFC noted as follows: These articels seem to be part of a concerted hoax. Cursory Googling of all of them turns up no supporting evidence despite several superlative ("First", "best", "most") claims and one extremely precise statistic. All articels are totally unsourced. 68.39.174.238 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I would describe these articles as a walled garden of articles which attempt to support each other, but which find no verification elsewhere on the Internet. Substantially all Google hits for this person and the related subjects to be nominated below come from Wikipedia and its mirrors. --Metropolitan90 06:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Metropolitan90 06:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: seems like almost a textbook definition of a walled garden. The entire thing reeks of hoaxosity, possibly vanity as well. Somewhere in Mali, Kenneth is going to be pissed. --Daniel Olsen 07:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-researched nom, and special thanks to Metropolitan90 for wading through all this crud. My Alt Account 07:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to give credit where it's due, the research for this AfD was done by User:68.39.174.238, who I have since learned is an experienced editor who has declined to register despite having over 10,000 edits. --Metropolitan90 07:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, User:Stuartyeates was the one who started this train: He whacked all 4 of these articels with {{hoax}}. I listed them on AfC and Met took it from there. 68.39.174.238 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thanks for catching it.--Bookandcoffee 09:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unverifiable. Don't think the creator of said articles has made a serious edit yet, which would tend to suggest this is a hoax too. Ohconfucius 07:14, 11 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. It is verifiably a town in AP. --- Deville (Talk) 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tulluru[edit]

Unsourced possible vanity. Contested prod, removed without explanation. MER-C 06:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article is about a town or borough in India. Needs cleanup, but we have articles on smaller ones (eg. Duryea, Pennsylvania). Plenty of room for expansion, but then, it was just created. Give it some time. Shimeru 08:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I tried to expand the article. Could someone add the latitude and longitude? Named places are usually notable, even if they are small, and this has 8000 people. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite Article subject ok, but needs rewrite. The first (and defining) sentence is incomprehensible to someone who doesn't know Indian phrases - inappropriate for English language wikipedia Bwithh 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's about a town. How can it be vanity? Towns don't usually write articles! -- Necrothesp 01:22, 10 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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majur Bludd[edit]

Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC: only released an EP, planning a first album and a world tour... Fram 06:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Can't verify the band's claim that their EP has been "on the radio regularly for almost a solid year" because I find zero ghits attempting to verify this. None of the rest establishes notability, so isn't worth me verifying... My Alt Account 07:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Major Bludd as a probable misspelling. JIP | Talk 09:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that a redirect wouldn't work, as Major Bludd is a fictional character, and Majur Bludd is a non notable band, failing WP:MUSIC.
    • The redirect would work, because anyone who types "Majur Bludd" is probably going to search for the GI Joe character, not the band. JIP | Talk 15:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrites with many children[edit]

The major problem I can see with this list is that (as in the one listed a few days ago about "celebrity parents of twins") this is an indiscriminate collection of information. Granted all of these people are famous, but they're famous for directing movies, playing professional sport or being the dictatorial ruler of Uganda. Additionally, we may be dealing with a shaky definition of "celebrity", given some of the names included here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Strange listcruft - not to mention with a glaring spelling mistake in the title and a clearly too low "highest" entry (see Mohammed bin Laden as one example). I'm not sure what the point of this list is, since its comparing between people in different professions, cultures, religions, socio-economic status and not to mention era (e.g. avg. number of children much higher in Europe before full industrialization/introduction of contraception - this makes the Bach entry look odd (the only pre-20th century one on the list, I think)) - and childbearing isn't some kind of race. Bwithh 11:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - listcruft. And much of it, of course, unverifible without DNA testing. BTLizard 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply because there's no reason not to. My dad has five, maybe he can get on the list...  Daniel_123  ► ► 13:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Listcruft. Thε Halo Θ 14:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons listed above. However, I will also say (and yes this probably sounds sexist) but the notion of men fathering alot of children is not really notable or of encyclopedic merit. (And BTW, where's Shawn Kemp?) They can father children with many women and not miss a beat. Now for a woman to be on this list (especially the ones that had over 5), that is a bit more impressive since the physical demand of having a child and carrying for 9 months is more of an ordeal. But this is just a footnote in their main article page. Also, I will say that the "honorable mention" at the very bottom of the page is rather perverse. I don't anyone woman would feel having miscarriages is an "honorable mention". Agne 15:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, so what if celebs have many kids? --Terence Ong (T | C) 16:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 18:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all deletes above. Listcruft, and terribly defined. --Targetter (Lock On) 23:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nintendude-esque list. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft that falls into "who cares?" territory as well. 23skidoo 13:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, someone may care, but this list in unmaintainable and how many is "many" and how do we know how many children some people really have? some DNA testing to come? Carlossuarez46 20:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalnasrbija[edit]

No evidence that the website meets WP:WEB criteria is presented. Choess 08:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as prodder. MER-C 08:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable for EN-WP. --MaNeMeBasat 13:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SirDoom[edit]

1500 google hits but not many of them appear to actually be from this program. Nearly no information gleaned and uses several things very close to WP:Vanity. Was thinking about speedying but couldn't find any criteria this falls under. –– Lid(Talk) 08:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable, clearly written by the original poster ("Ron Strump, a TCP latency expert and overall programming genius"). Could probably be speedy-deleted as offering no context (CSD A1)Bob talk 08:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: I was the one who submitted this and it is a fact that Ron Strumpf is genius. I was a customer of his when running the The Gaming Center BBS. I apologize for the vain remark, but I can not say enough about his skills in regards to latency. He did things over a dialup network in regards to multiplayer gaming, that is only (recently) now being matched.

Be that as it may, SirDoom can be verified by checking with anyone who used the SirDoom software back in the late 90's. This would be any Worldgroup BBS that supported multiplayer doom. It would not be correct to delete this as it is very relative and pertainent to the online gaming community, more specifically, multiplayer Doom, Heretic, Dukenukem and other such innovative first person shooter games. I will try to find more content. Please do not delete. Here is a link I found on the internet to the original Client used by gamers to connect to a BBS and play.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCdoom (talk • contribs) TCdoom is also the creator of the article in question.

SirDoom not "non-notable"? I am not going to say anything other than I disagree quite strongly and I think deletion would be a disservice to the many gamers who served as a catalyst for online gaming as it is today, more specifically, first person shooters like Doom and Dukenukem. Deletion is not the appropriate response for this post and should be further reviewed. Thank you for your consideration regardless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCdoom (talk • contribs) TCdoom is also the creator of the article in question.

  • Delete - NN, unverifiable claims, apparent hoax. My Alt Account 09:47, 11 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 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phile Knowledge[edit]

Delete per the original prod which stated "Notability per WP:SOFTWARE not established; only 18 unique Google hits." Khatru2 08:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as prod'der. ... discospinster talk 00:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With such a low Ghit count for a new, computer-related topic, it can't be notable. Delete. Punkmorten 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rainstars[edit]

Hoax, this band does not exist. Catchpole 08:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video game character stereotypes[edit]

Completely unsalvageable original research. JimmyBlackwing 08:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite good. We should keep it. UnDeRsCoRe 12:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Misleading list. Most of these "stereotypes" are either cliches that can be found in any narrative media (I think the ideas of the lone hero / damsel in distress / villain seeking world domination / nameless soldiers / treacherous supporting character / dual identity / lack of discussion about characters' "bodily functions" & body odour (how often did Odysseus bathe?) etc. are quite a bit older (centuries or millennia) than the invention of the video game) or they are actually deficiences in artificial intelligence or limited programming resources (I don't think programmers would generally prefer to have mindless enemies/"ADD-afflicted" enemies/repetitive NPCs in their latest game if they had the choice). Strip these out and you're left with a few cliches regarding game design features, not character stereotypes (end of level bosses, stamina bars, hidden characters) Bwithh 13:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like all OR lists of cliches. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was up for AfD before as part of the mass nom here, which closed as no consensus. BryanG(talk) 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft, listcruft, fancruft, crufty cruft, not to mention blatant original research. Danny Lilithborne 01:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:OR and WP:V (note that I was the one who nominated the previous AfD)--TBCTaLk?!? 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, shouldn't Computer and video game plot and universe clichés, Computer and video game item clichés, Computer and video game events and occurrences, Computer and video game settings, and Role-playing game clichés be nominated too?--TBCTaLk?!? 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about waiting for this afd to close - if its successful, you can cite it as precedence when nominating the others (which should be afd nom'd separately rather than a group) Bwithh 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Valley Media[edit]

Advert for publishing house started in June 2006. -- RHaworth 08:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam. MER-C 08:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 09:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article has encyclopedic value and involes a major art exhibit which makes it notable. Dawn Horse Warrior 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant vanity/spam. Would still be NN if the (annoying) crystal-ballism were all completely true. My Alt Account 09:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely non-notable. Ben W Bell talk 13:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sellout (album)[edit]

Hoax album by non-existent band. See The Rainstars Catchpole 08:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guesswork[edit]

Hoax album, see The Rainstars. Catchpole 08:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Ground[edit]

Hoax album. See The Rainstars. Note that Nick Kent did not write for the NME in the period claimed in this article. Catchpole 08:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Himself (album)[edit]

Hoax album, see The Rainstars. Catchpole 08:59, 9 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 11:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Academy[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable charity. MER-C 09:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, if it were to be expanded then it could be of some merit 27pence 09:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry Magicbymccauley, the sources are not reliable have changed from weak keep to delete.27pence 13:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so now it's not "spammy" it's a "Non-notable Charity" .First of all, it is not listed in the article as a "charity" and it is not a "charity" it's a "not-for-profit" which is substantially different. Secondly it is a unique organization, the only kind of its type in the field of magic, and if you can find another one, show it to me. Third, it has a membership of over 500. Isn't that enough to make it "significant"? Okay, I expanded it. Is that enough for it to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. If not, what would be? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magicbymccauley (talk • contribs) .
  • As has been discussed by Gwernol, the article needs to have third party sources, and would be notable if a significant media outlet has covered the academy, or been covered in published work. Provide these then it will be a firm Keep, from me, however at the moment it is a Week Keep. I do think we should give Magicbymccauley time to provide this information. 27pence 10:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References Added. Baltimore Sun and City Paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbymccauley (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Non-notable organization. Notability would be established if the academy had been covered in a significant media outlet or published work. Currently the article has no third party sources so is unverifiable. Gwernol 10:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely verifiable by U.S. government websites as to its existence in multiple institutions. References added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbymccauley (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Gwernol. Not many Ghits for "Mystery Academy", and most of them aren't even about this organization.wikipediatrix 17:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hits on site aren't relevant to actual interest in subject. Since Mystery Academy is listed under multiple government and school sites, you'd have to add up all the hits under all those sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbymccauley (talk • contribs)
  • Delete nn organisation as per Gwernol Marcus22 20:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Third Party publication and notability in Baltimore Sun and City Paper established. Third Party Viability and size of organization established through multiple .gov sites as well as independent private schools.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbymccauley (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - Original research,unverified and vanity. The references also don't establish notability, since they either make trival mentions or don't mention Mystery Academy at all. To meet the notability guidelines you need to cite multiple non-trivial published works where the article topic is the subject of the work and not merely mentioned in passing. Self-published sources are not normally acceptable. Please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end, and please do not separate the signatures of others from their comments. Yomanganitalk 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no original research on this article whatsoever. If you think there is, please tell me where it is and I'll delete it. Does this mean that you can't have a wikipedia article UNLESS there are published articles about an organization? There is NOTHING unverified in the article. What is unverified? Is it better if the entry is much shorter? The only "self published" sources are the mystery academy website and Eric Henning's website! I'll try to make the article more consice and smaller. Didn't mean to seperate signatures or anything. Am new to wikipedia.
Your criteria is subjective and difficult to fulfil. What kind of articles do you need and how many? Local papers? City Papers? National Distribution? What is it specifically that you want to establish notability? "I don't think it's notable" doesn't provide me with any useful information on how to bring it into compliance.
"Lastly, I challenge you to produce another organization of any kind that teaches magic to children on this scale. -Magicbymccauley
The criteria are not subjective. We have given you links to the specific policies and guidelines. Here they are again: verifiability notability; original research; reliable sources. Please read these as they all give speicifc, objective criteria. I've looked through the references you added to the article. First, thanks for doing so. The problem is they don't help with notability. The Baltimore Sun and City Paper articles only establish the notability of the "Kids in College" program, not the "Mystery Academy", because that's all they mention. The City Paper "article" is only a local listing, not an editorial article. The Baltimore Sun article would be a good reliable source if it actually mentioned your academy, sadly it doesn't. One brief mention of the program your academy is part of doesn't count.
The rest of the references you've gave either simply establish that the Mystery Academy exists (which isn't in dispute) or are pages from people directly involved in the program, such as Eric Henning's page. You need to find an article like the Baltimore Sun one but about the Mystery Academy itself, which describes why it is important.
Finally to deal with the original research aspect. Here are some really probelmatic quotes from the article: "Mystery Academy is a unique project in human history..."; "Mystery Academy involves a rigorus (and sometimes contraversial method) involves teaching tricks which are the highest possible caliber"; "Mystery Academy is also unique in that it is the only Magic organization in the world to award rank (achievement levels based on skill)". None of these have sources, they are all unverifiable. They are all the opinion of the writer of the article, not independent, sourced assessments of others. These are clear original research by the writer. Gwernol 13:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwernol: Edited the article to take out the statements you objected to, plus similar statements. The pages I gave establish enrollment and curriculum, not Merely Mystery Academy's existence. (Which was actually in dispute when this article began). Sorry that you think this process is objective, because it isn't. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it, there'd simply be a bot that established whether the article was acceptable or not. Even the requirements that you have cited are highly subjective, from a philosophical standpoint. They do not give "specific" or "objective" criteria but mainly interpretable guidelines. I ask again, for the third time: is the only way to establish notability a published article about an organization? If so, what kind of a publication is required, what does it's syndication numbers have to be, and how many articles are required? If your notability requirements are "objective" then this should be an easy question to answer. As of yet, no one has answered it. -Magicbymccauley

  • Comment You cite the Baltimore Sun as one of your sources. I can find no mention of Mystery Academy in that source. Have you given the correct source? Please check and repost the correct source. If you are mentioned in that source I would find it of interest. Marcus22 09:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus: You should check ALL of my sources in order to understand what's going on. Mystery Academy is part of "Kids in College" which was prominently mentioned in the article. -Magicbymccauley

    • Sorry, but if that is the case your source is no good. It is an article about a college and it simply does not mention the Mystery Academy. As to 'ALL' your other sources - why are you assuming I have not checked them? FYI I have and I find that there is nothing in any of them to suggest that the Academy is of note. (And your own web page is hardly a reliable source to suggest such is it?) I can only say that if or when the Academy is truly noteworthy - a thing verified by independent and reliable sources (which actually mention the academy) - then the article will stand on it's own merits. Until then, it is still Delete. Sorry. Marcus22 18:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, continues to be NN in spite of the great volume of rather pointless text above. Of course, WP:OR and WP:RS problems exist, too. My Alt Account 09:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research in the article anymore. Nothing in the article is there that can't be found in one of the sources. If so, then tell me what is original reasearch. And how is it not from reliable sources. Do you mean to say that accounts from publications put out by the U.S. government are unreliable? Because if that's what you mean, then I disagree with you. As far as notability goes, people still refuse to tell me what constitutes it, if it is so "objective". Seems like wiki people are more used to raising objections rather than defending their own arguments. -magicbymccauley

Marcus: The article about the college mentions (through half of it), the "Kids in College" program. Mystery Academy was part of the "Kids in College" program, as was backed up by the other sources that I cited. You say: "I have and I find that there is nothing in any of them to suggest that the Academy is of note." This clearly violates the NPOV. There couldn't be a more opinionated statement you could have written. You then say: "I can only say that if or when the Academy is truly noteworthy - a thing verified by independent and reliable sources (which actually mention the academy) - then the article will stand on it's own merits." Mystery Academy doesn't need to be written up in a Nationwide newspaper for it to be noteworthy. Check the series of articles on porn stars on wikipedia. None of them are mentioned as "noteworthy" by any independent newspaper or publication. Yet they aren't on the slate for deletion. If a porn star that's starred in two movies that no one's ever seen is noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia, then Mystery Academy is. If you want to vote to delete it, go ahead. I certainly can't stop you. I've eliminated all POV, and OR issues from the article, but that's just not good enough, so you resort to the most subjective criteria in wikidom, the NN opinion. Whatever. If you don't want the article then fine. It'll all be gone and no one will be the wiser. Luckily though, we'll all be able to see the credentials of every porn actress that's ever been in a movie, which really makes me feel better about the whole thing. -magicbymccauley

  • Comment Please feel free to nominate, as an AfD, any article on Wikipedia which you feel does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Good luck with the academy. Marcus22 10:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that those articles don't get nominated, marcus, but mine does. Why is that? Could it be that notability is a completely subjective concept? If those articles have 0 references and there are no publications which mention them, doesn't that mean that standards are being selectively applied? Once again, if those articles are "notable" then Mystery Academy meets that standard of notability. If they aren't up to that standard why have they been up for years but no one nominates them for deletion? You can't claim that my article needs to meet the standard of publication while other articles don't. That's my point. -magicbymccauley

Wikipedia has (at this second) 1,382,051 articles. Thousands of them require deletion by Wikipedia standards and may go months, even years, before someone notices. I know it seems unfair that this one got caught when others haven't, but life isn't fair. Pointing to other flawed articles in defense of another flawed article is no defense. (I still do it myself sometimes even though I know better.) wikipediatrix 14:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But are these articles truly "bad" articles, or are they accepted by wikipedia? Are you claiming that all articles that exist without published sources are "bad" articles? That's quite a claim! Are you saying then that ALL wikipedia articles require a citation with a published source with a national distribution to establish "notability"? So NOTHING can be on wikipedia that hasn't been in a published source? I find that hard to believe. Searching through the notability pages, it seems there is quite a lot of disagreement about what notability is. There are certainly people who will argue that every single porn star is notable, while others disagree. I submit that if these articles ARE notable, then so is Mystery Academy. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an official policy on notability at all. Assuming then that the article is free from Vanity, has a NPOV, is verifiable, and contains no original research, then we are finally left with the issue of notability, which is a completely subjective issue. I asked repeatedly (four times now), and have yet to be answered: what kind of article in what kind of publication establishes notability. I expect that no one has answered this question because they don't have an answer. If the only issue we have yet to face with this article is its notability, then it seems I am answering to subjective claims, rather than objective ones. -magicbymccauley

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus[edit]

The article includes information already included in the Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses and Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses pages. BenC7 10:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having merged any new information; and provide a redirect to prevent the article cropping up again? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merge to Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses --Richard 07:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Quest 1 Monsters[edit]

Gameguide/fancruft, no encyclopedic content. Combination 10:33, 9 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. --- Deville (Talk) 03:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sadoway[edit]

What is notable about this professor that warrants inclusion? --HResearcher 10:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom Leidiot 11:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, I gave no reason for deletion. I know nothing about Donald Sadoway and was wondering about his notibility. In further research I found his resume which is now linked on the article. He seems to be somewhat notable and has made numerous patents. I am going to nominate it for WEAK KEEP. --HResearcher 11:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep --HResearcher 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence showing this person rises signficantly above average professor (WP:PROF} or patent owner, unless someone verify the special importance of the patents (there are plenty of patent owners who own patents on variations on bits and pieces of industrial processes not encyclopedically notable enough for an article about that person). If they do, I'll change my vote. Oh, and a note to the presumably MITer article authors - this article's writing style & perspective is in pretty poor shape, guys (leaving the notability of the subject aside)... so don't treat that HASS requirement as filler courses... Bwithh 14:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Weak Keep based on Bethlings rewriting, though I stand by my comments about news sources. Bwithh 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep If you follow the link from the resume you go to the MIT site which has links to the Professor's interviews with such notable and mainstream press as Forbes, Boston Globe, Business Weekly, and Computer World. And these are only the recent interviews with Sadoway. I'm sure an industrious soul could probably mine quite a few more. Agne 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm changing my vote to a "Strong Keep" following the Bethling's rewrite. I think the new research section establishes substantial notability not only for his overall work with batteries but also from an enviromentalist view. As the New Scientist article notes of his recent work "Producing iron by electrolysis rather than conventional smelting could prevent the emission of a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year." Agne 02:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a lot of people attribute too much credibility to news coverage. If you look at the articles and the sources on his webpage, the only mainstream source giving substantial coverage (i.e. not just a brief description and quote) is the Boston Globe. But looking at the Boston Globe's "Meeting the Minds" series (which that article belongs to) shows that it is part of that paper's local/regional news science coverage (which includes similar profiles of students)[37]. I don't see sufficient evidence in the news articles on his website for encyclopedic notability. Being described as a "guru" is also not solid, since its a journalese cliche. Bwithh 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google News Archive comes up with a number of articles on this professor's work see [38] He does well on Google Scholar as well. [39] Capitalistroadster 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how well Google Scholar does as a measure of academic impact (I know there are more verifiable ways of measuring this, but don't have access to the tools. As for the news article, I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer Bwithh 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I tried to cleanup the article by removing the beavercruft and expanding the information on his notablity. As an Alum who didn't really take her HASS classes too seriously, I'd encourage anyone to improve the writing style :) --- The Bethling(Talk) 02:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC
  • Weak Keep. -- Aiditor 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His resume lists over a hundred papers, which together with the full professorship, seem enough to retain the article. Espresso Addict 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbé Adam[edit]

  • Delete: Appears unverifiable. My best attempt at Googling, [40], returned nothing related. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any reliable sources. The story appears in a French blog (brace yourself before viewing). %22Vaux de Cernay%22 abbe diable&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1. The Abbé is mentioned at [41].
    • Weak Keep Story derives from a 19th century book - I'll add the ref to the article. Dlyons493 Talk 11:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have access to the book, can you also add some context? Is it a fictional story or what? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the moment, and based solely on the French blog, although I think one need not doubt the authenticity of the Abbé Adam, it is certainly questionable as to whether or not this chap is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Needs looking into a little more. Marcus22 20:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete The Abbé is a genuine historical persona but he looks to have become mixed up with fiction. References are few. Not sufficiently notable. Marcus22 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article derives from Lewis Spence's Encyclopedia of the Occult, one of the standard reference works on the subject. I have added the reference. Not appearing on Google is not a criterion for deletion. As to being fictional or not, the article says "according to legend". In the Middle Ages, and particularly relating to religious "events", fact and fiction could easily become confused, and this story was apparently well-known at the time. -- Necrothesp 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Spence is just quoting the much earlier French sources which I added to the article. (but he's probably more accessible to an English-speaking readership than they are). The article is really about a legend which is one of very many similar ones, rather than about the genuine historical person about whom we have virtually no other information. There's an argument for a merge into some sort of Medieval Legends article but I don't know of any suitable one offhand. Dlyons493 Talk
      • Comment: I'd request that someone give some context and explain this mix of fact and fiction in the article. I am still confused about what this article is really about. This and a total lack of sources at the time are what led me to AFD in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Sorry to be obtuse, but I'm unsure what you're confused about. The first paragraph says he lived. The second paragraph begins according to legend. Where's the confusion? He was a really person who became well-known due to a story about him. This was not at all uncommon, particularly in the Middle Ages, and I would have thought it was fairly obvious that a story about driving off the Devil was not hard and fast fact! -- Necrothesp 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That last edit was perfect clarification, thanks. More details about dates and places of birth and death would be nice but I figure they're not available. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not verifiable. -- Marwatt 18:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How can it possibly be "not verifiable" when it's referenced? -- Necrothesp 21:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Amos[edit]

Non notable person. Semi professional footballer and teacher. That sounds like half my friends Pally01 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is also unverifyable. Tarret 11:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he never played for Tottenham and the other clubs are not professional. Punkmorten 13:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. Oldelpaso 13:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Tarret. Also non-notable, in addition to few relevant Google hits.
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 13:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:BIO, not at all notable, probable vanity. Qwghlm 17:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. VegaDark 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A complete joke.UberCryxic 21:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO and is non-notable. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified, uncited, fails WP:BIO. -- danntm T C 00:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, this individual fails to mention anything notable. TGreenburg
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 12:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSUWIRE[edit]

Non-notable collaboration amongst college newspapers. It is probably significant within their campus newsrooms, but probably not beyond that. 247 Google hits but I was expecting this as this seems like an internal thing rather than an external thing. Metros232 11:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, student newspapers and associated things are usually not notable. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep seems a rather unique idea. Is there anything like this out there? then its somewhat notable. --MarsRover 01:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 04:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howden.net.nz[edit]

Article is about non-notable site that fails WP:WEB. Tarret 12:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton's Best Pubs[edit]

This is an article about a book which appears to be not particularly notable, and is potentially full of point-of-view rather than reference material. The article is linked from only one other article (which is itself not the main article for the Brighton topic.) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 12:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article author obviusly does not apply/know WP:WP wikipedia policies. Edits do not appear malicious. User:Yy-bo 20:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely non-notable book. -- Necrothesp 01:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Necrothesp Gsd2000 18:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the book isn't notable and the page appears to be an advertisement (although I wouldn't mind having a flick-through of it..) -- Joolz 12:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't for advertising. --Eileen R 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Variate labs[edit]

Corporate vanity page of corporation that shows no evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Valrith 12:30, 9 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 sadly delete. Requiescat in pace, Lisa. DS 13:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Kleman[edit]

No indication of notability, appears to be vanity HResearcher 12:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not vanity, but a well-intentioned memorial which fails WP:NOT: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.". Bwithh 12:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, just exaggerations of her good traits. --Gray Porpoise 13:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trident Leasing[edit]

Non-notable corporation, going by what's in the article and what I found - or didn't find - on Google. J Ditalk 12:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A search on google for "Trident Leasing" returns about 700 results. Most of these are directory entries, the company's website (and sub-sites on that website), and two recommendations that Trident Leasing should not be used under any circumstance. Srose (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per Srose. --KPWM_Spotter 15:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 13:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fußball-Bundesliga - August 2006[edit]

Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006 was recently deleted for being excessive/unencyclopedic, and this should follow. Punkmorten 13:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006 AfD Oldelpaso 13:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 13:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other AfD. – Elisson • Talk 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree --shanda 13:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The other AfD was about an empty article with no fixtures (as those are copyrighted). This is about an article with some information and potential, which is verifiable and useful, and should stay. Sam Vimes | Address me 20:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. Nobody mentioned anything about copyright. On the other hand, comments included WP:NOT repository of information (from the nominator), It seems unnecessary to create archives for months in one particular sports league, Monthly season pages are excessive. This level of detail is unencylopedic, month-by-month listings of every league result ever played is too detailed to be considered encyclopaedic. Punkmorten 21:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but the fact that the article did not have any content, as opposed to this one, could have influenced the decision. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll agree with Sam Vimes, however, references to support notability appears to be lacking in the article as it stands. If there was some external references it would have me put a vote in. Until then, I'm staying Neutral on this one. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep So, maybe an improvement is needed. But that doesn't mean we should delete it just because it doesn't meet someone's standards. How about actually trying to improve articles before the afd thing comes. Kingjeff 01:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No improvement is needed. It just needs to go. Punkmorten 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything in this article is already contained in Fußball-Bundesliga 2006/07. Lazybum 03:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as repetitive article, per Lazybum. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If I find that the page becomes to big, I will not hesitate to reintroduce this page. Kingjeff 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you want an edit war. Kingjeff 02:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any threat. You did. Kingjeff 02:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • And please behave like an adult. Your comment is more appropriate of feuding schoolchildren. Lazybum 03:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and now you know how old I am? Kingjeff 18:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Miles Kemp[edit]

A google search for "Robert Miles Kemp" returns 10 unique results; 28 overall. All of the results are theses. Per the precedents, "students generally are not notable". Kemp fails WP:BIO. Srose (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above JulesH 18:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Miles Kemp is not a student now but instead practicing in LA and NYC. The featured project has been published in two newspapers and 10-15 webblogs. It is currently being added in a book on the history of interctive architecture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.210.223 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was merge and redirect. --- Deville (Talk) 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maitree[edit]

Doe not meet WP:ORG or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 13:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG due to no evidence of 3rd party published materials or significant media coverage. No matches on Lexis. By contrast, searching for "Tata Consultancy" (the company Maitree is a part of) gets 1500 matches in major newspapers and magazines on Lexis. And by the way, Alexa's ranking of Maitree's website is 2,774,013. I would say merge into Tata Consultancy Services Limited, but I'm not even sure that would be any more suitable than including in, say, the article on Ford, a discussion of free child care at its corporate headquarters. Pan Dan 13:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Information belongs into the main article if applyable. User:Yy-bo 20:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunner Galactico[edit]

Neologism. Originally prodded by Qwghlm with the reason: Uncited POV/Original Research. No such term is in use in common parlance - only 24 google hits., prod removed by article creator. Oldelpaso 13:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Punkmorten 13:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 13:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original prod. Citation given is a YouTube video, for crying out loud. Qwghlm 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Neologism. BlueValour 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: for above reasons. --Bhadani 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: its most likely OR.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWC-charging regulator[edit]

Non-notable. Fails WP:V. -Nv8200p talk 13:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America Destroyed By Design[edit]

Another non notable conspiracy video. Almost no content, except for links to other articles. Peephole 13:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Err, has anyone actually tried improving the article?--Pussy Galore 02:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indefintely banned for trolling[reply]

To improve the article, one would actually have to watch the video. (My rate for watching conspiracy videos is $100/hour.) If you think you can improve it, go ahead and try. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how would I do if that if the article were to be deleted?--Pussy Galore 22:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the odds aren't good, but that's primarily because (IMHO) there's nothing that belongs there that isn't in the Jones article. But you won't know unless you try.
  • Delete. I feel bad because Striver has spent so much time and effort on this conspiracy stuff, but at this point I think it's just POV pushing and effectively free advertizing for non-notable works and people.--Cúchullain t/c 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--MONGO 09:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nearly speedy, as there's no assertion of notability backed by a source other than the author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--Mmx1 01:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. RFerreira 07:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only reason Alex Jones is notable enough to have a page at Wiki because he is a crackpot. I cannot believe people fall for this "stuff" (feel free to substitute a more choice word). Wikipedia is not a platform for this "stuff". Burn it. (and protect from re-creation) JungleCat talk/contrib 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable GabrielF 16:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The non-notable 9/11 conspiracy-cruft is getting tiresome. JoshuaZ 23:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge... at least until someone can summarize the video. Alex Jones is a notable conspiracy theorist with famous supporters, and as such a series on Jones's works is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. Calwatch 04:07, 14 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. This would be CSD A7able if A7 spoke of free online services, but in any case doesn't come close to WP:WEB. --- Deville (Talk) 03:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OttoBib[edit]

Non-notable website, alexa ranking of 4,000,000+, no reliable sources on this, doesn't meet WP:WEB or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xyzzyplugh 14:04, 9 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. --- Deville (Talk) 03:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHNews[edit]

Non-notable website which is "currently in development", no alexa ranking, no reliable sources, doesn't meet WP:WEB or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xyzzyplugh 14:07, 9 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 11:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sri Lanka Muslim Directory[edit]

Non-notable portion of a website, doesn't meet WP:WEB, main website has an alexa ranking of 2,000,000 and this is just a piece of it, no reliable sources so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xyzzyplugh 14:09, 9 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 and redirect. --- Deville (Talk) 03:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toyooka cho Jidou Yuuen[edit]

Non-notable neighborhood park --Nv8200p talk 14:15, 9 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. Petros471 13:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


List of fictional self-harmers[edit]

This has no rigorous criteria, lacks references and gives no indication of the type and severity of self-harm. It is classic listcruft: a mish-mash of fictional characters united by some ill-defined trait. It includes magical creatures such as Dobby the House Elf and Spike from Buffy, who presumably have nothing to do with the medical definition of self-harm. See the discussion on the talk page. Nydas 14:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Criteria: it is outlined in the parent article, self-harm. References: aren't the films, plays, books, etc. themselves references?; Severity and type of self-harm: that can be added yourself if you want, but some characters practice several kinds of self-harm simultaneously, which bloats the list. If you think it's ill-defined, then fix the parent article (self-harm) instead. Dobby and Spike are there because they fit the self-loathing part of the self-harm article (which deals with medical definitions of self-harm). So if they don't fit the definition, I don't know who does. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual figures in fiction and myth for other examples of "lists of fictional characters meeting certain classification". There seems to be consensus that being fictional is not a reason to delete (much of Wikipedia covers fictional subjects). I don't know what you mean by "mish-mash". Self-harm is in most cases well-defined, at least as much as sexuality. There are borderline cases, but similarly we could quibble about male characters who once kissed a guy, and ask if that makes them gay? Such borderline cases do not detract from characters which clearly are portrayed as gay, or self-harmers. I'm also not sure why a non-human character means the concept of self-harm can't apply? The list could certainly do with references/explanations, similar to List of self-harmers - we should make an effort to add these, rather than simply deleting (I note that many of those under List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual figures in fiction and myth are also guilty of this). By the way, I would actively argue against trying to classify by people "type and severity of self-harm" - that's where things would start to become very ill-defined. How do you define severity? Should we list how "gay" people are in those other artices? Mdwh 17:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is utterly useless and needlessly controversial. The fact that the self-harmaers are fictional makes me want to forget about them as soon as the TV broadcast is over. This is nothing but "self-harmer" boosterism. Sorry, screw your affliction. Go listen to [Nine Inch Nails] and [My Chemical Romance] until you feel like living again, or go ahead and kill yourself. Really we'd be better off without these fucking flakes. They take valuable time from interns and residents who have to sew up their stupid wounds. I myself am sick to death of stitching shut these dumbassses' abdominal cuts. Self-harm is a subject. Fictional self harm is a bunch of bullshit. Billy Blythe
    Sorry, but that comment really crossed the line big-time. There is no excuse for telling people to kill him- or herself. Just because you don't care about this doesn't mean everyone else should die. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just because you don't like a paticular group, does not mean it should not be included in Wikipedia. I don't like Nazis, but I'm not opposed to there being articles about them. --OGoncho 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we have List of self-harmers we should defintely keep this one. The only distinction is that List of self-harmers could run afoul of WP:LIVING. This list won't. The fictional work itself stands as the reference per Buchanan-Hermit. Is self-harm a recognized and diagnosable condition? Yes. Then we can include it. Controversy is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not censored. Irongargoyle 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also see Category:Lists of fictional characters by medical condition for other examples of this type. Mdwh 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:How about List of fictional wig wearers or List of fictional drug users? Non-humans are not covered in the self-harm article which is being touted as the 'definition'. The list currently contains characters like Agatha Ripp, a one episode character from Nip/Tuck, or 'Person praying to God in first chapter' from Hey Nostradamus!. As well as Dobby (twice), it also includes 'Non-fictional characters from books, television shows and films'. --Nydas 06:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the "Hey Nostradamus!" addition: Not all characters are named, even the main ones. For example, I think the main character from "Fight Club" was never named directly, and was referred to as "The Narrator"? Besides, the entire Nostradamus book had 3 chapters in total, making the chapters quite long; I don't think there's a better way to explain who the character is without naming him like that. And also, why wouldn't Dobby be named twice? He's in both the book and the film; we can't just simply list one of them, for example, because that'd be regarding the film or the novel superior to the other. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We do have List of fictional alcoholics. I could see why the non-fictional list should be removed, but that does not need to affect the whole page. --OGoncho 07:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Or maybe List of fictional characters missing an appendage - but wait, we do have that. The human issue is irrelevant, since this is not List of fictional non-human self-harmers. If you feel we shouldn't cover non-human characters, then take this up in the Talk. There are still plenty of human fictional characters who self-harm, so that's clearly not a reason to delete the article. (One might also ask how Doop (comics) can be considered bisexual! But again, the action there should be to remove him from the list, not delete the entire article.) Mdwh 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While elves and vampires are fictional creatures, they are metaphors for human beings. As sentient creatures they could be considered fictional people, and therefore under the list's definition. And to clear up what they do: Dobby beats himself, and Spike claws at his chest in an attempt to remove his soul (leaving bloody gashes). --OGoncho 07:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do alchoholics go on this list? What if someone pushes away loved ones? Are they self-destructing? Self-harming? What about chronic over-eaters? Seriously, much too broad. Wikipedia is not a collection of every type of list imagineable. Guyanakoolaid 09:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Self-harm, according its article, "is deliberate injury inflicted by a person upon his or her own body". This list has been written with that definition in mind. --OGoncho 09:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much too broad, also borderline WP:NPOV or even WP:NOR violation as comments above suggest the list was created based upon the creator's interpretations of whether a fictional characters' actions constitute self-harm ... and anyone who has studied literature will tell you characters' motives are not always cut-and-dried. This is beside the point, but the term "self-harm" sounds a bit too much like "self-abuse" and might be misinterpreted. 23skidoo 13:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How it is POV? I do somewhat agree that the biggest problem with this is knowing whether the motivations would be what is usually considered self-harm (there is a similar issue with List of self-harmers, but there we can go by what the person themselves have said); having said that, this is also an issue with many of the others in Category:Lists of fictional characters by medical condition and elsewhere (e.g., List of fictional characters with phobias). Also it could be said that there's less reason to worry about borderline cases on a fictional list - the problem with labelling someone as bi/gay/a self-harmer when they don't consider themselves that is that it's bad for that person, and potentially libellous, but obviously this doesn't apply to fictional characters!
    • By the way, I would be happy to trim down the list to get rid of any borderline cases; there are still plenty of cases where there has been a clear intent to portray a self-harmer (the book Drawing Blood, or the film Secretary).
    • Self-harm is defined and explained in its article, so I don't see why that should be a problem. Mdwh 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Doby and the like are considered to be self harmers on self harm support forums so I do not see the problem with including mythical characters. Perhapse asking one of the charities surrounding self harm and the associated mental illnesses would be a good idea if you want more structure to this list with 'types' of self harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.18.243.162 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete the scope of this list is far too broad to be maintainable. -- Samir धर्म 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. - CNichols 21:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 04:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Irongargoyle and others. The term "self-harm" can be very narrow and focused, which is simply a case of good editing--not reason for deletion. This article can be very maintable and as mention it is a compliment to List of self-harmers. 205.157.110.11 09:25, 19 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. alphaChimp(talk) 03:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sena Cases[edit]

Contested prod - No evidence that this company or its products meet WP:CORP

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 10:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult - it gets a quarter of a million google hits, has a decent alexa rating, and has quite a few reviews of its products on palm-related sites [43] [44][45][46] RN 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seem to be 267 distinct Ghits, many from blogs etc. The links above are interesting reviews of the product, but I don't see that they make the company itself meet WP:CORP. Dlyons493 Talk 10:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yeah, you are right - it does look like it fails WP:CORP and has to go. I tried to find if it was used to calculate stock indexes but came up empty... RN 09:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I saw that you did not like my post :) This is a real nice company with lots of cool pda and smartphone cases. It is one of the elading companies in the PDA case market and is appreciated by many users. A simple Google search for "sena cases" returns about 261,000 results in my computer which I believe is a sufficient indicator of the size and penetration of teh company. Here are a few further pointers for you if you want to see more:

The WP:Corp says the following: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Furthermore, it says any of the rules and I strongly believe that it satisfies this criteria if not the others. I believe about.com, pc magazine and gizmodo among many others are sufficiently independent and well established publishers.

There are many more articles from many different publishers in addition to lots of interviews with the founders. I will leave the Google work to you.

By the way, I am not affiliated with the company in any way. I am just a PDA Geek who thinks Sena Rocks! :)

    • Comment Hi, it looks like a nice PDA case and your posts were fine. I merged the info about the cases themselves into the article on Personal digital assistant. What we're discussing here is the importance of the company which makes them. The above reviews are of the cases rather than the company. If there are Web articles about the company itself I've missed them - post them here or on my talk page and I'll take a look. PS I have followed the links from the article itself - one of my motivations for nominating the article was that as of 2003 it looked like there was a handful of people in an online store and that manufacturing was probably outsourced. So any company statistics would be very relevant. Dlyons493 Talk 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always about expanding , perhaps there is something unbelieveable about this company that we don't know, at least let the page develop it needs some work so i vote, Keep or Merge if it doesn't expand.

Hi Dlyson,

I have not really had much time to check if there is any media coverage about the company. However, I think you can not expect each company to get as much media coverage as Google or IBM. This is not a billion dollar worth multinational giant. This is probably a small/miod size private company which is not required to publish any data about itself until it goes public. I really don't think that they are just an online store operated by a couple of people. You can hardly find any small online store that has quarter million Google entries and that has real good reviews from well extablished publishers. As far as I could see, Amazon.com sells its products from its own inventory, Palm.com sells them, Dell.com sells them, I am sure many others sell them. All in all, I think it is a farily large and established company that is worth at least a brief mentioning in Wikipedia.

Also the fact that most coverage is about the products does not mean that the company is bad or worthless. Those products are what the company makes and in a sense the products are the company.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, alphaChimp(talk) 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep company with independent media coverage, per list given by poster above. JulesH 18:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above reviews are of the cases rather than the company. The company appears to be a handful of people with an online shop. The anon poster above has not referenced independent media coverage of the company. I don't see the multiple non-trivial published works which is the only part of WP:CORP that might apply. Dlyons493 Talk
      • Comment There is enough coverage of the products to verify them as notable. We could, instead, have article(s) on the products rather than the company, but I think it's best to keep it all. JulesH 13:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, independent coverage of a company's products is equivalent to coverage of the company itself. Kappa 09:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have used their cases for my Palm T3 and Treo 650. I am not sure how big the company is but one thing for sure is that they have their own unique designs for these cases. Therefore, I do not think the cases are outsourced. The fact that Palm sells Sena's cases shows that they have unique features: Palm Accessory Store. This is where I purchased it. JoeMona 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the only info I could find on the company suggested they had 5-10 employees. I'm pretty impressed that a company this small has a slick website and this much coverage of their product. It's close, but I agree with Kappa and JulesH that the independent media coverage of the product makes the company notable. I don't want to stray into WP:OR, but the amount of penetration they have achieved with a company so small also makes me believe the company is notable. Kubigula 03:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Bunt[edit]

This article is completely unverifiable. A google search for the title of the alleged movie returns 3 results, all of which are Wikipedia. IMDB has nothing relevant to Jean Bunt or either of the movie titles. Srose (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this looks like it's an elaborate hoax. NawlinWiki 15:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It definitely could be. I won't say that hasn't crossed my mind. Srose (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm kind of sad to see this one go, as the author did a decent job writing it up. My Alt Account 17:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything that exists only in Wikipedia is unverfiable at best, likely total hoax. Fan-1967 22:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. -- Necrothesp 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This product is legitamate project, it is a small scale project and in all fairness, a small scale project would not be in the mainstream on the internet. Regards, The Jean Bunt Production Team
    Great, make sure to send me a copy when it's done. My Alt Account 10:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willard preacher[edit]

The article on Willard preacher is about a person who is not known outside of Penn State or even State College, PA. This article should be deleted mainly because:

  • It does not meet Wikipedia standards, per the comments made.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hateu (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, 1800 Ghits--Jusjih 16:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... when I click on the Willard Preacher link in the newspaper article, it takes me to a brief history of "Coaly the Mule". Bwithh 06:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure what's up with that. Anyway, I'm changing my vote to redirect/delete—this content can be incorporated into Willard Building, and if that isn't considered notable enough, then it can go in something like List of classroom buildings at Penn State. --Spangineeres (háblame) 12:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Spangineer to redirect to another article, such as a to-be-created Campus life at Penn State University. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely localised recognition. Dlyons493 Talk 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local characters are not notable. -- Necrothesp 01:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither encyclopedically notable nor news story notable outside of Penn State Uni/State College, PA Bwithh 06:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beccah Rose Beushausen[edit]

Lengthy article written by the subject of the article. Does not appear to be a notable artist. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not the artist but her sister and she is a very notable artist in Illinois and is getting her start now in the city of pittsburgh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.34.155 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as nn. May be borderline CSD as does not seem to assert any real notability. Molerat 15:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I think this is one of the first times I've ever found zero Google Hits on a person's name. Possible hoax. ju66l3r 15:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also to add, I searched for the "Brandenburg Gallery of Art" and received only 2 meaningful locations (both in MN not IL and both only showcasing National Geographic photographer Jim Brandenburg's works). There is nothing online matching any of the "press release" quotes or the first exhibition name. It's either a hoax or extremely non-notable. ju66l3r 15:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability needs to be established via reliable external sources like newspaper reviews, etc. FreplySpang 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Ghits found.--Jusjih 16:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Brandenburg Galley of Art is also called Larsen Brandenburg Galley and is in Illinois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.34.155 (talk • contribs)
    • Ok, the only think I found in IL matching your description is the "Brandenburg Art Gallery in the Larsen Fine Arts Center at Olivet Nazarene University" here. If that's the case, then I'll admit that it may not be so much of a hoax, but considering all of the difficulty I had in just finding the art gallery her sole exhibition might have been in...non-notability is pretty much established. ju66l3r 21:13, 10 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, certainly doesn't meet WP:V at this point. --- Deville (Talk) 03:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Disc Jockey Advocate[edit]

[Check Google hits] Neologism. From the Google hits, it might even be a protologism, but as the creator removed a prod with the explanation "Industry Specific Summary Term", it might just be a plain old neo. Either way, it fails WP:V, and could be part of a promotional campaign of some sort. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disc Jockey News and Special:Contributions/Dude Walker. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, nn--Jusjih 16:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP AbsolutDan, Jusjih, An earlier attempt to respond disappeared?? There is no intended advert campaign. Merely supporting terms that are widely used within the industry. If Wikipedia is to be viewed as a reference repository, defining related terms seems to make sense. The Mobile Disc Jockey industry, by minimal equations, exceeds 1+ billion in annual sales. Clarification of misconceptions seems only prudent. Please advise.Dude Walker 17:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see an earlier comment from you here, perhaps you're referring to your comment at this other AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disc Jockey News? Anyhow, Wikipedia has various standards for article inclusion. One is WP:NEO (neologisms), an indication that terminology that isn't widely used shouldn't have articles for them. Another is WP:V (verifiability), which indicates that articles must have sources to back their content. Content that is unsourced is subject to removal. If you can provide citations from reliable sources proving that this term is widely used in the industry, the article would then meet inclusion criteria and thus would be kept. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And agree that Dude Walker appears to be running an ad campaign here; whether or not this article is a part of it, he should bone up on his etiquitte. My Alt Account 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this term is widely used within the industry, why are there no google hits for it outside of wikipedia? JulesH 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Alt Account: Being fairly new to Wikipedia, I'm unsure what etiguitte you speak of, please advise. JulesH: The term is widely used within the industry within association meetings, at conferences and within chat forums. You make a valid point and observation. There is a limited supply of credible information that relates to the Mobile Disc Jockey industry. Mostly individual websites that promote services, not the industry itself. AbsolutDan to address my earlier "comment". I was responding to this specific discussion. My original comment disappeared when I pressed "save page". It was, as if, someone had deleted my response immediately. With respects to neologisms, by wiki standards, you are correct. There is very little in writing currently. Perhaps in time the term may be reintroduced.
    To All Concerned I've read the article(s) relating to WikiSpam. I can see how my contributions/inclusions have been misinterpreted. I was following help suggestions from Wikipedia that created this dialogue. Items shown in red indicate a term or article not yet present within Wikipedia. That prompted me to be more thorough and supply cross reference material that it appeared that Wikipedia needed. Two things I find ironic: 1) I find it ironic that assertions of SPAM or AD campaigns were created in part, by Wikipedia's "help" suggestions. 2) I find it ironic that an article currently within Wikipedia created confusion about me. That article drew me here & clarification was offered, which has since been deleted.Dude Walker 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will post a response to this on your talk page as it's somewhat off-topic. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DerEngel[edit]

I don't think this article about a hacker, written by the subject, shows sufficient notability or verifiability. NawlinWiki 15:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Some P. Erson 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 16:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with possible merger of relevant details into the article about the comapny this person now purports to be CEO of (might be of interest, for instance, that the CEO is a former hacker; but of course this needs to be cited). Batmanand | Talk 22:30, 9 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 RexNL with summary "blanked by first author".

Andre Kenyatta Wilkins[edit]

Vanity page for a 13 year old photographer. Claims of notability are claimed in that the pictures were published but not in what context. No sources and while the claims may all be true still probably fails WP:BIO. –– Lid(Talk) 15:52, 9 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 - The keeps are based on the state of the article, and do not counter the notability concerns raised.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Pillars[edit]

Advertising, fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Peephole 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Haakon 16:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Húsönd 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but vastly revise - I don't see why it needs to be deleted when editing and fixing the poor article will suffice. - mixvio 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Olav Bringedal This article is now reverted to an old more objective one. 11 September 2006
  • Delete asserts no notablity. Arbusto 17:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School of Screenprinting[edit]

Seems non-notable, Google hits are to other schools of the same name. Haakon 16:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, nn.--Jusjih 16:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A Google search for "School of Screenprinting" "Bill Hood" brings up a a bunch of blogspot hits and wikis. Not notable. --Daniel Olsen 17:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Derby Girls[edit]

Non-notable roller derby league (or at least has yet to assert notability). These things are a dime a dozen across the nation. I would have put it up for speedy deletion, but I wanted to give the author an opportunity to establish notability. Simões (talk/contribs) 17:24, 9 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. -- RHaworth 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binlid Conflict[edit]

De-prodded. The article is actually sort of funny, but unfortunately, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -IceCreamAntisocial 17:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • BJAODN, hilarious! Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 17:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN only if the images can be kept. Otherwise, delete in a leisurely fashion to give more people a chance to view it. My Alt Account 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article won't be nearly as funny without the images, which I would assume would be deleted. VegaDark 19:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images say no copyright in the summary, so I assume they can be tagged as Public Domain. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aren't trash bin lids, by their very nature, part of the public domain? hehe. Irongargoyle 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about Oz but in the UK trash bins are most definitely not public domain. Councils are soon going to charge people for the amount of rubbish they produce so people will get very possessive of their trash bins! -- RHaworth 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should stay. This is a growing phenomonen in Australia. If I provide citation will you please allow it to stay? User:Waffenkartoffel 16:04 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh, probably not, but go ahead and try. Your best bet would be to get some major media coverage. An international tournament league would also help. My Alt Account 08:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Town[edit]

Has no significance on its own, only created to make one episode of the show. WP:NOT Serebii or Bulbapedia. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 17:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hewson[edit]

Young footballer who has never played professional football, thus failing WP:BIO criteria for sportspeople. Punkmorten 22:33, 2 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) 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I thought it would be good to obtain more feedback on this, as I'm not entirely clear myself on where exactly WP:BIO should draw the line here. My feeling is that the fifth condition in WP:BIO would qualify this player, after looking at Manchester United F.C. Academy. Please comment further on this. --- Deville (Talk) 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My initial response still stands. He is only a reserve listee. He has not yet been a member of the first team, not even as a sub, as far as I can see. (I'm not in the least interested in football. I'm basing this only on the content of the article as presented.) I'm guessing there are very few people who feel moved to comment on a minor participant in a quirky game in this tiny unregarded island. Cain Mosni 01:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has never played football at the highest level. Many players will attend the Man U academy and make no impact on the professional game. If he gets to play in whatever the League Cup is called this year I may change my mind. Catchpole 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep professional soccer player. Kappa 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has not yet played in a fully professional league as per WP:BIO. When (if) he does, then the article can be re-created - fchd 11:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being a 'professional soccer player' doesn't cut it to meet WP:BIO; you also need to have played in a 'fully professional league' (or at least be in the squad for such a league). He hasn't. BlueValour 16:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation if he becomes a full-fledged professional player. Qwghlm 17:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't care, just delete David 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boey Equation[edit]

No references, no Google hits, some parts seem trivial and others nonsense. Definitely original research. —Keenan Pepper 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted, slightly expanded version of previously deleted article. GarrettTalk 10:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fighting game character stereotypes[edit]

Listcruft, full of original research and like Computer and video game character stereotypes lists archetypes that can be found in any narrative media. Additionally, this article has been deleted before, but I don't have access to the previous version to judge if it's similar enough to qualify for a speedy delete. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Xfx55 23:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's interesting original research, but original research all the same. On a side note, Japan related deletions seems like an odd place to put this. Wouldn't computer and video games be more appropriate? Irongargoyle 00:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment editors reflexively put CVG/anime type articles into the Japan related category. ColourBurst 04:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft, OR. Danny Lilithborne 01:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per first nom, and reasons per above. --Kunzite 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, though the game nerd in me hopes someone hosts this elsewhere. El Cid 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I just fixed a bunch of links on it and then saw this at the top. I think it's worth keeping.Gregory j 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 07:24, 13 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. There are claims made below that the site is notable because it will be featured by a show on ABC, etc. The article even purports to have links which show this. Thus it would seem that the site qualifies under WP:WEB; if these links delivered as promised, this would be a "keep". However, when one follows these links, they do not back up the claims. For example, there is a link to abc.net.au which looks promising. But if one follows that link, one finds no mention of Gamestah. Moreover, there is no page on the ABC site which mentions Gamestah, yet several hundred which mention this upcoming show "Good Game". It strikes me as unlikely than no page on this show mentions its debut topic. Long story short, although there is a veneer of notability, the links do not show what they claim to, and there is yet to be a single link in the article or in this debate which mentions Gamestah (aside, of course, from the links to the site itself). This veneer of notability is quite thin, it seems. --- Deville (Talk) 03:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamestah[edit]

This article fails WP:WEB based on the research I have done. The Alexa result is 2,196,569, and the first several pages of Google hits reveal no promising sources. Erechtheus 19:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed the website details, it's now just a standard Wiki entry. In regards to Erechtheus' research, I can only speculate about Alexa's stats, because Google paints a much brighter picture. And I don't know how you could miss the top two links when search for 'gamestah' in Google, they clearly point to Gamestah. --Alfreido 16:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're looking for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself," per WP:WEB. That's what might make this site notable. Nobody is disputing that the site exists. The issue is whether it is notable enough for inclusion in this project. Erechtheus 18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I realize we're badly in need of more articles about gaming websites, but unfortunately Wikipedia's unfair WP:WEB criteria continue to stand in the way of justice. My Alt Account 09:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, would the fact that we are going to be mentioned on a new gaming-related TV show, Good Game on ABC2 (Australia), and the fact we have been mentioned in PC Powerplay, a gaming magazine in Australia be able to prove our notability? --Alfreido 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds like you're a source short to me, but if you already had been covered on TV, that would be multiple independent coverage assuming the two bits were about different things. The question would then be whether the coverage was trivial. Somehing along the lines of saying that the website exists would be trivial. A more in depth coverage would likely not be trivial. Erechtheus 17:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have edited the Gamestah entry, and believe it is now notable. While the WP:WEB criteria state multiple sources, it does mention it is a rough outline. Coverage on a mainstream national television network is about as notable as you can get for an organisation of this type! Add to that one of Australia's best-selling PC gaming print-media magazines and I think that should satisfy the WP:WEB crteria. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though, as I've never looked into the WikiPedia project before - just browsed articles. Anyhow, the Gamestah entry certainly seems more notable than Gay Nigger Association of America for example ;) Keep up the good work with the Wikipedia project, and I look forward to hearing your opinions! 59.167.95.27 03:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I want to second User:59.167.95.27's views that the Gamestah article should be kept. The fact that Gamestah is going to be mentioned on ABC2's new show, Good Game, is definately a point of notability. Note: I, User:Rowan Moore, am the creator of the article and therefore this should be taken into account. --cheese-cube 02:50, 14 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 with cleanup reccommended. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape gods[edit]

A page about RuneScape's gods? Pluh-ease! All this gets is stupid anons putting in their stupid stuff. I see not how this serves any purpose other than a vandal pool. Not necessarily a game guide, just useless info. Why would anyone care about RS' gods? Delete.--Richard 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Useless rune-cruft. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fairly extreme fancruft. My Alt Account 19:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these characters seem really non-notable in the big scheme of things. Andrew Levine 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nomination is useless and doesn't give any valid reasons for deleting this article, but on the other hand I doubt anyone here really needs a list of them ;).*Keep per below comments. After a few days of thinking about this, I have reconsidered. Needs cleanup, but the backstory of a popular MMORPG is a notable subject. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 20:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - true, it could do with a cleanup, but this article provides an insight into the rich background story of the game, something which every other fictional franchise on Wikipedia is entitled to. The background story of RuneScape is often manipulated by its gods, hence the title. Maybe rename it to 'History of RuneScape', or similar? Furthermore, if being a target for vandals and crufters is a criterion for deletion, you'd better put the main article up for deletion right now. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Poor nom, articles about rpg and fantasy gods exist (like tiamat from d&d)-User:Merlin Storm
  • Keep, seems like Runescape players would be interested in Runescape gods, and also those wishing to compare them with other ficitional deities such as the D&D ones mentioned above. Kappa 09:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the 3 above, The gods are significant background characters within a fantasy genre, so what if it's a game rather than a book? Ace of Risk 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First the statement, All this gets is stupid anons putting in their stupid stuff, is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and could be construed as a violation of WP:CIV. Please, do not bite the newbies. Second, the statement, Not necessarily a game guide, is nonsensical. A "game guide" would be a violation of WP:NOT. Now, I would potentially agree that RuneScape gods could be merged into a larger article on the basis that RuneScape is a relatively minor game, and any attempt to treat its gods authoritatively would potentially result in simple duplication of what minimal documentation exists. However, I'll leave that to others to determine, and above suggestions indicate that I'm not the first to have thought this way (per CaptainVindaloo). -Harmil 13:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - and while we're thinking about the relative mertis of "fancruft" leave us recall that Bulbasaur was a front-page featured article. -Harmil 13:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per kappa and capatain vindallo with possible renaming Yuckfoo 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If one wanted to learn about RS Gods, they could look around in theh RuneScape Knowledge Base, not the wiki. Makoto 00:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article is as close as RS will ever get to a 'plot', has not had a great deal of attention regarding NN and cruft because contributors have been busy repairing the other daughter articles. Removing this article from the WP right now before it has received enough attention results in a loss of info and nothing else. In the fullness of time this article could perhaps be merged into the main article or be made stronger and resist crufty additions, but to throw it away now is to punish contributors for not having eight pairs of hands. QuagmireDog 02:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This brings up a really good point, which is that RS has no plot. Which is why any article based solely on RS plot elements is inevitably going to be a bunch of really fancrufty inane minor details. ;-) My Alt Account 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RS doesn't have a plot in the typical sense, but the gods are often the only link between quests and various aspects of the game. Yes, it's fancrufty, of course it's fancrufty - attention has been elsewhere. In the past month the focus of the RS series has been wrenched back on course by a combined effort, many articles have been removed or merged. As part of that process, the mini-games article has had a drastic revamp, some of the remaining articles are still in the process of being merged and rewritten. Once combat, weapons/armour and mini-games are taken care of, the RS gods article would be a good follow-up. To remove it now before that process has even begun is to ignore completely what has been achieved recently and what will continue to be achieved. The statement of intent is there, if flinging another article on the fire is more important than adding a clean-up notice and allowing contributors a chance, then there's nothing pleasant that can be said. QuagmireDog 03:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: we need this—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.11.191.254 (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario World: Dark Horizon[edit]

Non-notable fan-produced game that has yet to be released and fails WP:N. Jeff Silvers 20:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable, contains no links to anything regarding the game, full of grand claims made by the author about its size and controversy that can't be confirmed. ShadowMan1od 20:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a pre-emptive measure, I'd like to point out that I'm not suggesting the article be deleted solely due to the fact that its subject is a fangame; there are numerous other fangame articles on Wikipedia which are in line with official policy and would withstand an AfD nom; this particular game, however, is unnotable. It has been featured on as few as two websites, and there is not even any concrete evidence that it actually exists beyond an old demo. Jeff Silvers 20:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability guidelines, allegations of "controversy" are either non-notable or unverifiable. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - non-notable. Only one reference found to the exact title, besides Wikipedia. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Xfx55 23:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only are references and /true/ descriptions of notibility lacking, but Google seems to strike out with reference to it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Full of bold and unverifiable claims, besides the fact the unreleased fan games aren't notable by any reasonable measure. Ace of Sevens 08:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 08:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stax (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

Specific Magic deck types, even successful and popular ones, are not notable. See precedents:

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ryan[edit]

*Keep per everyone Non-notable 9/11 conspiracy theorist, fails WP:BIO Violates WP:VAIN. Morton devonshire 20:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Peephole 20:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I managed to find two articles by major news organizations, each of which devotes two sentences to him: this reuters article and this nytimes article (which may be reprinted elsewhere). Also, even this highly sympathetic village voice treatment only gives him one sentence. All other ghits appear to be blogs and fringe conspiracy sites. I have to conclude that this guy doesn't rate an encyclopedic entry. A cumulative five sentences of major news org coverage doesn't cut it. My Alt Account 21:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN you could even toss WP:NOT into it. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crockspot 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TGreenburg
  • Delete per nom - but lets try to add some balance to the mentions of him in other 9/11 conspiracy articles. GabrielF 00:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article says "He was included in a article by the International Herald Tribune". That's not sufficient notability. People get quoted all the time in newspapers. I've even been on the news a few times, but I'm not notable. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I checked that IHT article (you have to look at the page source since the link was formatted improperly and clicking it won't do anything) - there's no mention of Kevin Ryan. GabrielF 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 01:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cruft.--Tbeatty 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep passes WP:BIO in my opinion--Pussy Galore 04:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indefinitely banned for trolling[reply]

Probably sockpuppet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^^^Definitely nonsense. I got so fed up with this nonsense I requested a check user be done on myself. "No malicous activity from this IP". Kindly try to assume good faith in future. --Pussy Galore 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these conspiracy theorists are not notable until they get significant media coverage. WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 06:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--MONGO 09:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN person. Arbusto 17:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep belongs to "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" --Mikaelbook — Possible single purpose account: Mikaelbook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete NN person (disagree with probably sock puppet above). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events."

Additionally, I'd remind that he is cited and/or discussed in a number of different places, including Democracy Now, Loose Change, and the other places mentioned on this page. If he is not dealt with here, he should have a dedicated section in another relevant article. But I think he is slightly too big to be a section within another article.--Antelope In Search Of Truth 04:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the South Bend Tribune item says he's giving a talk at South Bend, the other 3 mention him as just one example of the conspiracy believers. CWC(talk) 22:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability guidelines specifically exclude passing mentions as counting as independent coverage. Even if we did make an article the only thing it could say that would fir WP:RS would be "Kevin Ryan is a guy with non-standard ideas about 9/11". JoshuaZ 23:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, despite passing mentions here and there. Most importantly, if this ever were to be kept, and as pointed out by JoshuaZ, let's remember the only reliable info we have on this man is that he has zero credibility outside the small circle of conspiracy theorists. The article would need to be entirely rewritten with that perspective in mind. Pascal.Tesson 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Pascal.Tesson. --Aaron 05:32, 14 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 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It Started with a Kiss[edit]

Hopelessly POV CovenantD 20:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think I've cleaned up the POV, now it's just a stub. - Walkiped 21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per clean up by Walkiped. Agne 23:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleaned up and meets inclusion guidelines. Crystallina 23:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, AfD is not cleanup. ColourBurst 04:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cashmire Records[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page. It was created by JetPhynx, who, according to his user page, is the co-owner of the company. Outside the Wikipedia article and JetPhynx's myspace page, there appears to be no verifiable information on this company. Walkiped 20:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as duplication of previously deleted content. The original author, Doughamp (talk · contribs), in fact created this and Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew or Aramaic (AfD discussion) on the same day, the one 21 minutes after the other. The personal book review content that remained in that article was removed from this one, but otherwise the content is the same. Uncle G 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discovering the Language of Jesus[edit]

Vanity presentation of non-notable book of fringe scholarship. Article apparently written by the book's author. Previous (apparently more blatantly POV-pushing) version was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew or Aramaic. See article talk page for older discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 9 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 A7-ed. - Mailer Diablo 00:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Täks[edit]

Non Notability of subject --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not useful and close to A7. Punkmorten 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7. Fan-1967 22:45, 9 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, there's really nothing to merge here. --- Deville (Talk) 03:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varbind[edit]

Seems to be a technical detail of SNMP not worth of an encyclopedic article; even the SNMP article does not mention it. Schutz 22:00, 9 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 05:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NoHomers.net[edit]

This Internet forum does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. It has only 1,023 active members and an Alexa ranking of 205,358. The only references are forum threads, and the forum does not seem to be subject of any non-trivial documentation. It survived a debate with no consensus in February 2006. One claim to fame seems to be a reference in a Simpsons episode (see [48]), but Wikipedia does not have separate articles for every reference in Simpsons episodes. And oh, the founder of the site was in a brief interview with Blender Magazine, but this can hardly be called non-trivial. Punkmorten 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:WEB (whoever disagrees needs to show how it doesn't. The onus has to be on the defenders now). Batmanand | Talk 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Fails WP:WEB. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After reading the article (specifically the Show Involvement section) and the previous AfD, I'm convinced that this is deserving of an article. Looking strictly at WP:WEB (which is only a guideline, not absolute law) would indicate that we should delete this, but if all else fails, ignore all rules and do what's best. --Daniel Olsen 22:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Daniel Olsen. There are a number of little things working in this article's favor, none of which would be good enough on their own, but the sum total makes me conclude that bypassing the letter of the WP:WEB guidelines would be advisable in this case. In internet forum terms this site is ancient (2001), it has some press coverage from a major outlet, it was mentioned multiple times by the series creator, and there have been other verifiable claims about staff involvement. Irongargoyle 23:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the two above. Also, it was mentioned on the commentary for three (I think) episodes of The Simpsons (two were on the season that just came out), and Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein answered questions from the websites members a while back, so it has obviously been recognized several times by the Simpsons staff, not just the time mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpenoctem (talk • contribs)

Another is mentions by Show Creators in the dvd commentaries for seasons 6 and 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshy0 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep, per above. If we aren't going to keep it as an individual article, then we should at least merge it with alt.tv.simpsons and The Simpsons Archive to make a single article on Simpsons internet fandom. Zagalejo 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable per creator's recognition of the website. On several dvd commentaries. --WillMak050389 03:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For those that have already mentioned the season 8 DVD commentaries mentioning No Homers, and for those willing to hear it, I shall share them both here: "Citizen Kang" DVD commentary and "Homer's Enemy" DVD commentary. With acknowledgment from the show producers themselves (on several occasions, including on the board itself), I'd say it's more than just a message board and certainly more than worthy of keeping its article on Wikipedia regardless of Alexa rankings and such. Ericbighead
  • Keep Per above commentary references. Clearly, the recognition by the shows creators on the DVDs themselves (and these are mass-market DVDs, not a niche-product aimed only at fans) seperates this site from others, and adheres to WP:WEB guidelines. Second Zagalejo's suggestion that if nothing else, this article should be merged with other well-known Simpsons sites covered by Wiki into an article on Simpsons fandom. Filmmakker 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above --Rubber cat 05:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Out of curiosity, which topic has more articles, Pokemon or The Simpsons? RFerreira 07:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The site may not have many members but it has been referenced by the show numerous times. Just the fact that a website could get that much attention fromt he show developers makes it a very notable website. It is been in various DVD commentaries and has been referenced in episodes. The staff of the show has posted on the site as well. --Looking Glass 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Article was nominated in bad faith, with no new arguments since the last AfD. -Kaizersoze 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not seeing any particular indication of bad faith here (even though I disagree with the nom). Irongargoyle 04:03, 14 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. Punkmorten 07:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tahkodah[edit]

Nothing particularly notable to justify an encyclopaedic article. Plenty of Ghits but they are mostly blogs and the like and I have been unable to source any serious media feature. Delete. BlueValour 22:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence or even assertion of meeting WP:ORG or WP:CORP. GRBerry 01:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG although, in all fairness, there is quite a bit of (unfortunate) precedent in favor of summer camps. Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 11:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Ledger[edit]

Fixing incomplete nom, no disposition. Luna Santin 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep and expand 828,000 GHits, common use - Richfife 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be well known [49]. RN 06:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WesH Its good to have this in Wikipedia - its doesn't seem to have any license issues
  • Keep and expand As a user of SQL Ledger this entry appears factual and useful. If anything expand the entry.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Workers Party[edit]

This article that is called Australian Workers Party has no proof that the party is real and there is already another article about the same party.

  • DELET I vote to delet this article --PETER THE GREAT 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-Notable Neo Nazi swagger from the parent's basement - Richfife 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've just finished the incomplete nomination for Peterwats. --Zoz (t) 22:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An EBBSCO Australia and New Zealand database came up with nothing on these guys. Google News Archive came up empty as well see [50].

There was a notable Workers Party founded by John Singleton in the seventies but these guys lack independent third party coverage. Capitalistroadster 01:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delet It is clear that the party is not real so delet it. I also think that Peterwats must have some thinks with New Communist who was band some time ago --59.100.80.47 02:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we should only delete the Australian Workers Party article not the Australian Worker's Party one --PETER THE GREAT 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn party, albeit with some humourous sockpuppetry going on. Lankiveil 23:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, nn for now, but I have every intention of getting all my friends to join, and we will then be able to put this party on the map. My Alt Account 10:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Elvis Effect[edit]

The subject seems to be unverifible, or at least not notable enough to have its own article. -- tariqabjotu 22:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable. Page is informally written, and appears to be a violation of WP:NEO. Elvis Effect also has only 343 Google hits (from which I couldn't find anything relating to the article). --Ineffable3000 03:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a curious neologism but not encyclopaedic. BlueValour 02:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is pure original research. Pascal.Tesson 03:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhem pong[edit]

A game created a few days ago by some students. Was speedied, but with invalid criteria. Was PRODded, but dePROD by author without comment. So now it comes here. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:49, 9 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 GigaMedia Limited. - Bobet 11:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FunTown[edit]

A game portal does not seem notable to me, but I may be biased and not understand its importance because it is mainly targetted at Asian countries. I am happy to be proved wrong, and if not deleted, would suggest merging with GigaMedia Limited, the company which owns the portal. Schutz 23:04, 9 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) 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Bollyn[edit]

Non notable fringe neo-nazi/conspiracy "journalist". Peephole 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable HOW???--Edtalk c E 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's the article that has to assert how he is notable. All it says now is that he invented a couple of conspiracy theories and that he got himself arrested. Plus there isn't a single reliable source present either. --Peephole 23:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Although I can be mistaken, I sense that Peephole has some bitterness towards this guy. It even says in the article that he writes for the American Free Press, which is a legitimate and popular weekly newspaper. This guy also generates over 381,000 hits on Google. Besides this, he also passes WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 23:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Legitimate? American Free Press was founded by Willis Carto. A notorious neo-nazi and holocaust denier. Can you explain why you think he passes WP:BIO? --Peephole 23:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. He meets Verifiability, but regarding WP:BIO, he satisfies the following criterion: 1) The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field, 2) Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers, 3) Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, 4) A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following (though this applies explicitly to television personalities, I would consider it applicable given the circumstances, 5) Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, 6)The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.). 6 criterion satisfied by my count isn't half-bad. Since most people barely pull one satisfactorily. Just because you nor I agree with him, support his claims, or want to see his views disseminated, such dislike does not make grounds for non-notability or exclusion when he satisfies an objective criterion. —ExplorerCDT 00:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Could you please elaborate on these points and point out how exactly you think he meets them?--Peephole 11:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though the guy's a hard-to-swallow nutjob, he meets the notability tests (if only because of the notoriety of his nutjobness). —ExplorerCDT 23:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep He passes WP:BIO, but a weirdo nonetheless. TGreenburg
  • Keep I don't know about this...you need to give a better reason to delete this article.--Edtalk c E 01:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete ExplorerCDT listed 6 points of notability he thinks the subject passes, but without ANY supporting references. The American Free Press is a collection of like-minded individuals with similar pusuits, and since subject is a member, #6 is out, and NONE of the others are proven. #1 "Enduring Historical Record"? In what field, conspiracyism? #2-#5 Obviously by virtue of being here in articles for deletion, he is not that well-known. It is author's responsibilty to prove otherwise.Guyanakoolaid 10:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT: You didn't obviously read no. 6...key word "independent." This has nothing to do with his publishing on American Free Press, but the fact that other people, independent of Bollyn, write about him...google should indicate that aside from the usual "we hate him just because he's a nazi" there is some serious (yes, even scholarly) coverage/review of his work. As for nos. 2-5, by virtue of this article being here at AfD, it appears the nominator isn't exposed to a lot of things in the world outside his own petty interests. In the neo-nazi fringe, he's a cult figure, people concerned about the rise of neo-nazism etc. know about him, people who know anything about the subject know about him. The nominator isn't well-versed in the subject, I assume, and I'll forgive him for that one. Most people didn't know who Amafanius was either, before the AFD last week (he was kept, by the way). Ergo, it's pretty obvious why I think Bollyn meets nos. 2-5. As for condition no. 1. You might think him a quack but then again, today we think Eugenics, Hollow Earth theory and other subjects are the making of quackery, but we still have articles on Francis Galton and John Cleves Symmes, Jr.. I'm not an inclusionist, but Wikipedia, if it is to be somewhat credible, should cover things that are beyond the pale of current popular culture and Star Wars/Star Trek/Pokemon characters...yes even those who have a minority opinion and operate on society's fringes...provided they meet the notability guidelines (which this guy DOES). I'd for one rather have a neutral article here for someone to learn about this guy if they happen to come across his name, than as a result of ignorance and lack of information get sucked in by his racist bullshit. I'm afraid you're more concerned about deleting another Nazi scumbag (as Bollyn is) than seeing the bigger, more important picture. —ExplorerCDT 10:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Can you please tell us who has written about him? The current references in the article are CT sites, blogs, "the republican broadcasting network" and his own articles. --Peephole 11:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for edification - User:Guyanakoolaid is a recently new user whose contributions largely centers around voting on AfD (which he/she must have discovered only minutes ago), and editing two articles Startime International and The Joggers. —ExplorerCDT 10:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Guyanakoolaid.Bagginator 11:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Pipes comments do not rise above the trivial (it's just another excuse for Pipes to write about his favourite subject, Daniel Pipes) and none of the other "sources" come close to being reliable (neither is Pipes in my view, but some may disagree). Not verifiable, no independent reporting worthy of the name, so in addition to failing the WP:BIO hurdles, it cannot meet two of the three WP:BLP requirements and should be stubbed if it is somehow kept. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft per nom. delete so our children don't have to. Won't somebody please think of the children? Tbeatty 22:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A nutjob, yes, but his nutjobbery concerning Chertoff and 9/11 seismograph data shows up in a lot of conspiracy theories, and seems to be creeping into the mainstream. The article could have more information though. Ergative rlt 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - passes WP:BIO. My Alt Account 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Finally some of Striver's conspiracy cruft I can vote to keep . He easily passes WP:BIO.--Cúchullain t/c 05:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notablity not obvious.--MONGO 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep WP:BIO --Pussy Galore 11:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned for trolling[reply]

  • Weak Comment - vague glorification. i'm not keen. HawkerTyphoon 12:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather see you clean up the glorification, then change your vote to keep :-) My Alt Account 13:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted. I'm an easy man to sway. HawkerTyphoon 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Crockspot 17:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN conspiracy-cruft. Arbusto 17:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mmx1 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ExplorerCDT. In what way is this person not notable? RFerreira 07:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is he notable, that's the question. --Peephole 11:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tbeatty (that's a classic!) --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 15:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Has made huge and obvious errors in reporting, promotes radiation / nukes at the crash sites, no planes, etc. Associated with antisemitic AFP/Barnes Review.
"American Free Press writer Christopher Bollyn published an article on 9/17/04 suggesting that no remains of Flight 93 were recovered from the crater. Others followed suit, with Morgan Reynolds denying the reported crashes of all four jetliners. Both Loose Change and 9/11 Revealed theorize that Flight 93's crash had been faked . . ."
http://911review.com/errors/phantom/flight93.html

Locewtus 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh? What does any of that have to do with whether he passes the criteria for inclusion? This isn't a vote to decide whether the subject's ideas are right or wrong. If you don't like the way the subject's opinions are covered in the article, feel free to fix it. But that's not a reason for deletion. My Alt Account 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Angus McLellan, Tbeatty. Jayjg (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Angus McLellan and Tbeatty. None of explorer's claims are at all persuasive. He might become notable at some point but he isn't right now. JoshuaZ 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - plainly controversial in his own sphere but he does not seem to have been picked up by the mainstream media. Does not meet WP:BIO yet. BlueValour 02:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this series of AfDs is driving me nuts. No report by a conspiracy-theory website on a conspiracy-theorist should ever be considered as an independent reliable source. Yet look at the references in the article! Even the Daniel Pipes reference cites him as a "fringe antisemitic writer". I happen to have Google set so that French-language hits appear higher up and all the french references are from places like the Voltaire Network which however cool its name may sound is clearly viewed by every reasonnable french-speaker as an utter joke ready to jump on alternative theories of anything no matter how ludicrous. I'm not convinced by the "he's the king of nutjobs" argument. If the article is kept (which it might on no consensus) the article needs to be entirely re-written. The only fair way to describe him is "this guy is in the view of an immense majority a complete wacko. However a few scattered people take him seriously." Anything less would be giving undue weight to his supporters. Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changing my vote) - yikes, I don't know what happened. I probably had a bunch tabs open and got confused about which article corresponded to which AfD. This guy is nowhere close to touching WP:BIO. Yes, this makes me look dumb. Now I wonder if I voted to delete someone else in a different AfD without meaning to. My Alt Account 04:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Angus McLellan. --Aaron 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Angus McLellan. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:37, 14 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 already merged and redirected. --ais523 09:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape dungeons[edit]

I don't know how this can be merged into ANY of the RuneScape series. Full of gameguide info. Edtalk c E 23:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NOW can we delete?--Edtalk c E 15:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Delete if my vote still counts.--Edtalk c E 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for that, just redirect it to RuneScape locations, by replacing all the text with #REDIRECT [[RuneScape locations]]. Remember to remove it from the template and series list in the portal. You'll need to withdraw this AfD though, otherwise you might be reverted by accident. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to redirect, thank you very much.=)--Edtalk c E 22:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You never get anywhere by making assumptions. No offense intended. :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to withdraw as nominator.--Edtalk c E 22:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 23rd Demonstration[edit]

This is a completely unreferenced article about a future event. Caffeinepuppy 23:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V and crystal ball.--Edtalk c E 23:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. When it happens (which it sounds like it will), it might then become notable, but not before. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 23:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is the question here, rather than the crystal ball policy. (This event is definitely scheduled to occur.) The only people writing about this, that I've been able to discover, are the organizations that are promoting it. No (impartial) news organization has reported it. Uncle G 11:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G's comment above: no third-party reporting means we don't report it either because it isn't verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but maybe leave unprotected so to have the door open if this does turn out to be big. Pascal.Tesson 03:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Anarchy Theory[edit]

Delete. No references or sources. Nothing can be found on Google for the phrase [Check Google hits], and nothing relevant for any permutation of ("Michael McConnell" anarchy physics). Prod tag removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 00:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "Original Research" is the polite term for all this :-) Completely fails WP:V. My Alt Account 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent nonsense. Gazpacho 22:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote the article "Universal Anachy Theory (...) is a speudo-scientific theory'. Well then please Speudo-Delete as nonsense. Pascal.Tesson 03:13, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_9&oldid=1081098136"